Sarah Silverman: hot?

[kolya23]

Inspired by the thread in NAT

[kolya23]

3 AM girl = girl that you** would go home with at 3 AM as the options are dwindling
grenade = as a good wingman, you fall on the grenade so that your buddy's mission can succeed
land monster = not in any circumstances (it's pretty self-explanatory...)

**you being a younger single guy... not necessarily the actual you

[The Spocker]

3 AM girl = girl you (the younger, single version of you for the married folk) would go home with at 3 AM as the options are dwindling
grenade = as a good wingman, you fall on the grenade so that your buddy's mission can succeed
land monster = not in any circumstances (it's pretty self-explanatory...)

umm, land monsters are fat. if anyone thinks she's fat, they need their eyes checked.

[The Spocker]

I'm personally not a fan of the chimpanzee face look. But that's just me.

[Happy Slap]

ttiwwp

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

she's cute for a jewish girl, so somewhere between pretty good and 3am

http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sarah-silverman.jpg

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

From that and other pics, you can tell she has flapjacks. :shake:

[notmyfriends]

For her age, she's amazing.


*I appologize to any geezers I may have just offended

[Jasper07734]

Meh. Blasphemy <> comedy (IMO). I give her an automatic "land monster." :shrug:

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

If it makes you feel better, I share her feelings about religion and find her act terribly unfunny.

[Jasper07734]

If it makes you feel better, I share her feelings about religion and find her act terribly unfunny.

Well, sort of, in a way. I think in general that if being deliberately offensive is the only way that a comic can generate attention, then it might be time for a new line of work.

[sb_jim]

For my age, she's amazing.

[Darth Chef]

Well, sort of, in a way. I think in general that if being deliberately offensive is the only way that a comic can generate attention, then it might be time for a new line of work.

:iatp:


Being offensive for the sake of being offensive is a strong sign of no talent.

[Mystical Bunny of Destiny]

http://yeeeah.com//wp-content/uploads/2007/05/sarah-silverman-maxim.jpg

[Keep It Real, Yo]

She has f***ed Matt Damon in quite a few ways and in quite a few places... and Matt never has to wait until 3 am

[kolya23]

:iatp:


Being offensive for the sake of being offensive is a strong sign of no talent.

Now come on, don't be so hard on yourself.

[Darth Chef]

Now come on, don't be so hard on yourself.

Thank you for proving my point. :toth:

[Abstract Actuary]

Now come on, don't be so hard on yourself.

:lol: Well done!

[Uncle Ted]

I would vote land monster but agree with The Spocker, land monster's are fat. She's not fat, she's just repulsive as a human being. I'd rather go swimming in a porta-potty than be anywhere near her. Not sure why I've always been so disgusted by her, but I have been.

[3LittlePiggies]

If I just saw those pics without knowing anything about her personality, then "she's pretty good" ie. above average but not anywhere close to a perfect 10.

When factoring in her obnoxious and annoying personality, she gets bumped down to a 3AM girl as when I've been drinking for 5-6 hours, trivial matters like personality become irrelevant (not that I have much experience with that kind of thing though).

[The Spocker]

am I the only one who thinks her face looks like a chimpanzee?

[Dahlia]

From that and other pics, you can tell she has flapjacks. :shake:

What is a flapjack?

[The Spocker]

What is a flapjack?

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flapjacks

[kolya23]

I would vote land monster but agree with The Spocker, land monster's are fat. She's not fat, she's just repulsive as a human being. I'd rather go swimming in a porta-potty than be anywhere near her. Not sure why I've always been so disgusted by her, but I have been.

I think "land monster" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Allacalander]

I can't decide. Physically, I'd qualify her as attractive. But I think that being around here for any period of time longer than 10 minutes would be unbearable no matter what hour it is or how much drinking has gone on. Have you seen her show? She licked the backside of a dog!

That being said, there are two other possibilities. 1. That her schtick is really just an act and the real Sarah is someone quite different. It does happen occassionally that someone does that successfully. Look at Stephen Colbert, for example. 2. That her b***hy front is just that she's frustrated with the world and has a lot to vent about. I've met girls before who always seem to be in a permanent bad mood, but once you know them better, you realize they aren't that horrible, just always frustrated. As long as they aren't frustrated at you, they turn out to be decent people and sometimes great friends.

All that being said, I guess my answer is I'd have to meet her to know for sure, but seeing as I probably won't ever meet her, I guess I'll vote on looks alone, and say "pretty good."

[Jack]

Physically okay but utterly disgusting as a person.

[Mystical Bunny of Destiny]

I would vote land monster but agree with The Spocker, land monster's are fat. She's not fat, she's just repulsive as a human being. I'd rather go swimming in a porta-potty than be anywhere near her. Not sure why I've always been so disgusted by her, but I have been.

:iatp:

She has lots of decent parts but add them up and she is just not an attractive person.

[notmyfriends]

I would wreck her.

[keyser soze]

Doesn't she have the jimmy legs??

[E. Blackadder]

If I just saw those pics without knowing anything about her personality, then "she's pretty good" ie. above average but not anywhere close to a perfect 10.

When factoring in her obnoxious and annoying personality, she gets bumped down to a 3AM girl as when I've been drinking for 5-6 hours, trivial matters like personality become irrelevant (not that I have much experience with that kind of thing though).

:iatp:

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I have a private joke among friends that determined relative "put-up-with-ness" of a person's presence, based on the amount of time you could stand to be in a conversation with a particular acquaintance for which the scale was named. Now, it helps that the person I use was tolerable to everyone for some positive amount of time, AND that eventually there was a point where he was intolerable to everyone.

(No, the person was not myself.)

If we could find such a person in the AO to be our scale-maker, we could then describe our tolerance of Sarah Silverman. For some people, Silverman will rate a 0 regardless of the scale, meaning that they find her intolerable after a microsecond (scale rounded).

[Atropellador]

Let me see if I understand correctly. So there's a statistic that exists for each AO responder, for any given test subject. And there's also a baseline person. Does that mean the responder divides his/her tolerance interval for the test subject by his/her tolerance interval for the baseline person? For example, if I could put up with Silverman for 10 minutes and the baseline person for 20 minutes, then my tolerance factor for Silverman would be 0.5. Is that right?

[Heathen]

She'd be hot if I could shove something in her mouth to make her shut the f*** up.

Wait a minute...

Yeah, she'd move from a 5 to an 8.5.

Make that an 8. She got big teeth.

[Saint Kepler]

She's pretty good looking, but I have never seen her act so that wouldn't spoil anything for me.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Let me see if I understand correctly. So there's a statistic that exists for each AO responder, for any given test subject. And there's also a baseline person. Does that mean the responder divides his/her tolerance interval for the test subject by his/her tolerance interval for the baseline person? For example, if I could put up with Silverman for 10 minutes and the baseline person for 20 minutes, then my tolerance factor for Silverman would be 0.5. Is that right?
Yes. It's all relative.

[TwistedMentat]

Yes. It's all relative.I can't stand my relatives.