The "S-factor" is either a stupid arbitrary pile of nonsense, or a measure of one's worth.
OK then, it's a new discussion, for no other reason than to get my personal S-factor up ...
After consultation, the formula now stands as:
[10 times (double the number of tunes submitted + the number of sessions submitted + the number of discussions submitted) + The number of comments submitted. All divided by your membership number.
Yes, your score diminishes exponentially the newer you are. Tough.
Yes, it skews the score of the best posters exponentially. What's wrong with that?
By pure luck, it seems to hover around 1 as a good score. I like that.
me:
{10[(2x0)+1+36]+6153} / 3217 = 2.028 (to 3 dec places)
Jeremy:
{10[(2x143)+6+26]+936} / 1 = 4,116 that will obviously never be beaten
ceolachan has the S-factor:
{10[2x519+4+100]+17918} / 11705 = 2.506
I understand that introducing squares or log scales would even it up. But I don't think the added complexity is worth it. And I like the idea that submitting a self penned tune should count you down, it's just that it can't be measured.
I vote for added complexity - otherwise I'm at .121
maybe you could add a usefulness index in there somewhere - I try to balance my ridiculous posts with some that are actually helpful...
clogstepping has a point there. The higher your S-factor, the lower your musical abilities are from their potential because of all the time wasted here....
Then again, I've never been "bloody brilliant" at anything, so I'm going off now to get my S-factor tatooed to my forehead.
I hated and feared maths at school, and I hoped that it was pointless, in the pathetic feeling that if it turned out to be so, my deficiency would thereby be cancelled.
With much respect to llig (and I mean this), the S-factor material has provided me with a much-needed ego-boost in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that those who have power over those intimidating and hostile things called figures are sometimes capable of frivolity in their use of them, and are therefore not unconditionally to be believed and looked up to.
And numbers themselves? Perhaps, under the laser of whatever comes after post-modernist thought, they stand to be vaporised and made not to exist. After all, we're seeing off the atom, not to mention the world economy. But I dare say freedom from numerical bondage is for boffs who've earned it, not for peasants like me.
Here's a true story. I was at school in the Sixties with Tony Blair, age 10 - 13. As a Labour shadow minister, he came to town to open, I believe, a new department at that prep school. A friend of my father's heard him speak, and afterwards bearded him: "Where do you get those figures from?"
TB flashed him a dazzling grin: "I make them up!", he said.
He was a nice enough lad, so I've tended to stick up for him personally, though not necessarily for everything he and his government did.
Wouldn't hurt to factor in points for humor too. Some of you folks have submitted hilarious stuff. As it defies objective measurement, it could be put to a popular vote at year's end.... or maybe not. My point is that the humor of the membership here is a huge part of this site's appeal, and should count for something.
I'm finding the formula is holding up pretty well.
The person with "2" as their membership number, Fbbndiddlr, has submitted nothing. And so has an s-factor of zero.
You have to get to number 25 to get anyone with a history. That's a bloke called rob, with 2 discussions, and 25 comments. So he gets 1.800. (though it's peculiar that all his activity is in 2008. I wonder what he did in the time between registering and posting?)
Member 26, chrisfiddle has only 1 comment. So he is 0.038
Calculated with yesterday's figures and the original formula.
FYI, 83.1% of the user have never submitted a single session, tune, discussion or comment.
Was "xyz" known as "kml" in a previous existence by any chance? I'm afraid I find it hard to get my head around all this stats stuff (finding out the positions of tunes in the ratings, etc) but there must be some validity in Llig's formula as instinctively I would have put Zina and WillCPT somewhere near the top.
As an engineer, I am familiar with alot of number crunching exercises. This one is a real stretch since the outcome does not really reflect the individuals reason for gracing the Mustard Board with their presence.
to add some relevance to this discussion, I think that a constant needs to be added to the formula.... take the outcome, divide by the square root of pi, multiply by the height of Sears Tower in Chicago in terms of ASTM Oscar Meyer weiner lengths, and subtract each posters age.
Hey Ramiro, is your list a comprehensive list of everybody between Jeremy and Tmack? And is that right that out of 50,000 members, 41,550 (83.1%) have a s-factor of zero?
How many of the 8,450 have an f-factor of zero at three decimal places?
"Ragaman - your calculation has wrongly included your number of Comments INSIDE the bracket in the numerator. Even so you're a respectable 24.6"
Dang! Well, I managed to pull the wool over *my* eyes, anyway.
Isn't this an accurate reflection of the hierarchy of a real session, though? The ones who have been attending the longest and start the most tunes are the ones with the highest status, regardless of the quality of their playing or how much sense they talk. The polite newcomer who sits on the outside of the circle and plays quietly and note-perfectly along to every tune is nobody.
How about dividing by the square of your membership number? That would still weigh it in favour of those being around the longest. Jeremy would still be top, but the late comers won't be so far behind?
4553.767 is the total S-factor of the top 100. With a small error, because the individual factors were already rounded to 3 decimal places.
For the total factor of the entire membership you'll have to wait a moment.
"How about dividing by the square of your membership number? " (MG)
I don't think so, Michael - that would really hit the newbies even harder. Dividing by the square (or even cube) root would narrow the gap.
I think maybe dividing by the natural log of the membership number would make it fairer, seeing as, like you said, your S-factor increases exponentially the longer you've been on the site. So, I haven't actually tried it out, but wouldn't this make it more linear?
The only problem is that this would make Jeremy's S-factor infinity (which perhaps is right and just), so maybe divide it by (1+ln(member #)), so that Jez stays the same
4611.651 for the entire membership.
I like the idea of dividing by the natural log of the membership number, and find that is right that Jeremy had a S-factor of infinity.
So, according to the original formula devised by Llig (and inclusive of this comment), I am a measly 0.1369.
If we use Karate's suggestion (square root the whole thing), that makes me a slightly better 0.37.
HOWEVER, using me natural log idea, that puts me at 164.5196!
""How about dividing by the square of your membership number? " (MG)
I don't think so, Michael - that would really hit the newbies even harder. Dividing by the square (or even cube) root would narrow the gap."
Jeremy 4116
Ceolachan 2829.924
Will CPT 2795.803
Dow 1860.564
Zina Lee 1752.005
Gian Marco 1539.963
Ragaman 849.127
Llig Leahcim 721.116
SWFL Fiddler 219.075
Reverend 207.662
This changes things! With this formula, Ceolachan probably has the second-highest rating on the whole site! This seems to put more of an emphasis on tunes and comments than your "old boy"-ness, although your membership number does count for something.
But it'd be nice to tweak it still further to shrink the scores and lessen the range a bit. I like that 1 is a good, respectable score that shows you've been around.
There once was a crass old guy Newty
Whose unwelcome input was rude-y
So we said, don't be jig, take a lesson from Llig
He at least tones it down for the youth-ies
who's got the "S-factor"?
who's got the "S-factor"?
The "S-factor" is either a stupid arbitrary pile of nonsense, or a measure of one's worth.
OK then, it's a new discussion, for no other reason than to get my personal S-factor up ...
After consultation, the formula now stands as:
[10 times (double the number of tunes submitted + the number of sessions submitted + the number of discussions submitted) + The number of comments submitted. All divided by your membership number.
Yes, your score diminishes exponentially the newer you are. Tough.
Yes, it skews the score of the best posters exponentially. What's wrong with that?
By pure luck, it seems to hover around 1 as a good score. I like that.
me:
{10[(2x0)+1+36]+6153} / 3217 = 2.028 (to 3 dec places)
Will:
{10[(2x216)+1+47]+9331} / 58 = 243.638 Bloody brilliant.
Jeremy:
{10[(2x143)+6+26]+936} / 1 = 4,116 that will obviously never be beaten
ceolachan has the S-factor:
{10[2x519+4+100]+17918} / 11705 = 2.506
I understand that introducing squares or log scales would even it up. But I don't think the added complexity is worth it. And I like the idea that submitting a self penned tune should count you down, it's just that it can't be measured.
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
no you are wrong. S-factor should be very difficult to calculate and have a large margin of error. Kind of like taxes.
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by polkageist
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I vote for added complexity - otherwise I'm at .121
maybe you could add a usefulness index in there somewhere - I try to balance my ridiculous posts with some that are actually helpful...
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by airport
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
{10[(2x0)+0+35]+1789}/11048=.194 Your new formula has diminished me significantly
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by Reverend
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Recordings, events, and links don't count?
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by GaryAMartin
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
0.00409657 here. Five more years devoted to the mustard board might bring it up a tad but I fear there'll be no progress on the whistle...
# Posted on September 18th 2008 by zepherin
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Ceolachan surely wins the prize for the highest number of successive posts.
Is this a meta-thread?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by TomB-R
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
clogstepping has a point there. The higher your S-factor, the lower your musical abilities are from their potential because of all the time wasted here....
Then again, I've never been "bloody brilliant" at anything, so I'm going off now to get my S-factor tatooed to my forehead.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
This is clearly some kind of psychological test to see who falls for it and how seriously they take it.
I don't care.
10 x (2 x 63 + 5 + 21 + 3901) / 220 = 184.227
"The "S-factor" is either a stupid arbitrary pile of nonsense, or a measure of one's worth."
I suspect my score probably indicates the former. But I choose to believe the latter. What does that say about me?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I considered forging my membership number in order to beat Jeremy, but I figured I'd find myself out sooner or later.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
By the way, Michael, what does 'S' stand for?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I hated and feared maths at school, and I hoped that it was pointless, in the pathetic feeling that if it turned out to be so, my deficiency would thereby be cancelled.
With much respect to llig (and I mean this), the S-factor material has provided me with a much-needed ego-boost in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that those who have power over those intimidating and hostile things called figures are sometimes capable of frivolity in their use of them, and are therefore not unconditionally to be believed and looked up to.
And numbers themselves? Perhaps, under the laser of whatever comes after post-modernist thought, they stand to be vaporised and made not to exist. After all, we're seeing off the atom, not to mention the world economy. But I dare say freedom from numerical bondage is for boffs who've earned it, not for peasants like me.
Here's a true story. I was at school in the Sixties with Tony Blair, age 10 - 13. As a Labour shadow minister, he came to town to open, I believe, a new department at that prep school. A friend of my father's heard him speak, and afterwards bearded him: "Where do you get those figures from?"
TB flashed him a dazzling grin: "I make them up!", he said.
He was a nice enough lad, so I've tended to stick up for him personally, though not necessarily for everything he and his government did.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by nicholas
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I like coming here when I'm bored. It reminds me that other people are far more bored than I.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Marklar
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I vote for added complexity as well; even insidious touches such as an automatic penalty for American members. It'd serve us right.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Wouldn't hurt to factor in points for humor too. Some of you folks have submitted hilarious stuff. As it defies objective measurement, it could be put to a popular vote at year's end.... or maybe not. My point is that the humor of the membership here is a huge part of this site's appeal, and should count for something.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Atahualpa Quigley
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
0.293 - I'm an insignificant dust mote.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
flippin heck
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by John Galt
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Christ on a bike
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I'm an accountant. And even *I* find *this* one boring.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by ethical blend
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
At our session tonight, we decided that a high S-factor corresponded to an even high L-factor, and L stands for loser (in every social sense).
So apparently I'm right up there with Pewee Herman and Andy Dick....
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Will Harmon
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Ah I've heard of them - the London Irish bodhran & bones duo right?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by airport
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Round up the numbers, and then you could proudly boast your S-Whole Factor.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Janek
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I'd like to send a shout out to my buddy Quigs for calling attention to the mention of the redemption - humor that is. I agree hole-hearted-ally
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by airport
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
"I'm an accountant. And even *I* find *this* one boring." (BenH1)
I'm an actuary and I think it's brilliant
Ragaman - your calculation has wrongly included your number of Comments INSIDE the bracket in the numerator. Even so you're a respectable 24.6
Bob- "0.293 - I'm an insignificant dust mote.".........then my own 0.144 puts me in the "pond-life" category!
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by domnull
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Zina:
{10[(2x37)+7+121]+10665} / 513 = 24.727 (still a long way from Will)
Dow:
{10[(2x314)+1+97]+10357} / 4763 = 2.327 (beats me because he posts tunes)
Me (up to date):
{10[(2x0)+1+37]+6157} / 3217 = 2.032 (up a measly 0.004 from yesterday)
I did post a tune once, but Jeremy deleted it. That would have put me up to 2.038. But I'd have to post 48 tunes to get me to 2.330 to beat Dow.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Doh, I fecked up the calculation. Dow is actually 3.699. Even if I posted 268 tunes I'd still only be 3.698
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I'm finding the formula is holding up pretty well.
The person with "2" as their membership number, Fbbndiddlr, has submitted nothing. And so has an s-factor of zero.
You have to get to number 25 to get anyone with a history. That's a bloke called rob, with 2 discussions, and 25 comments. So he gets 1.800. (though it's peculiar that all his activity is in 2008. I wonder what he did in the time between registering and posting?)
Member 26, chrisfiddle has only 1 comment. So he is 0.038
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I like it. So simply the square root of the previous figure? Yep, Much easier to handle. But how about a convention of just to three decimal places?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
we need to make a decision on significant digits. i say 2 for the original formula. if that knocks a lot of people down to zero, fine.
for wocky tocky's latest, i say you multiply by 100 and use two sig. digits.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by a sheamuis
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
read my mind llig
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by a sheamuis
Top 100
Calculated with yesterday's figures and the original formula.
FYI, 83.1% of the user have never submitted a single session, tune, discussion or comment.
4116.000 Jeremy
243.517 Will CPT
24.727 Zina Lee
24.622 ragaman
15.566 Antikhntr
12.476 Kenny
7.056 Johannes J
6.797 mtodd
5.482 Kerri Brown
5.028 Dont
4.516 gian marco
3.848 Martin Donohoe
3.698 Dow
3.585 Mad Baloney
3.354 Donough
3.105 Conán McDonnell
2.898 Jdharv
2.895 Ptarmigan
2.841 lazyhound
2.782 slainte
2.653 Brendan
2.506 ceolachan
2.085 xyz
2.028 llig leahcim
1.880 glauber
1.800 Rob
1.785 Bannerman
1.758 dafydd
1.640 Backer
1.511 jimmydearing
1.496 martin t
1.347 Batlady
1.310 Ted.hall
1.182 bb
1.168 geoffwright
1.075 swisspiper
.988 aoife
.983 emily_bmore
.962 Josh Kane
.909 Phantom Button
.888 I_Fel
.868 Kurt Franke
.788 JMH
.780 Ottery
.745 grego
.678 crannog
.662 biggus dave
.644 Plunkett.mi
.635 Aidan Crossey
.607 LoWhistle
.595 Henk Bos
.595 Bonxie
.592 jdicarlo
.576 Bren
.542 Guernsey Pete
.540 Mark Harmer
.526 breandan
.513 Jon Kiparsky
.509 Whamlyn
.505 Enob
.504 ceoltoirbeth
.493 Susie
.490 Sturob
.468 Mariajef
.464 Alanmmcgregor
.457 Caoimghgin
.449 GaryAMartin
.433 JeffK627
.422 showaddydadito
.409 Alancorsini
.394 Jeeves Tones
.393 aliceflynn
.392 MrGanAinm
.389 Q
.389 GoldenKeyboard
.389 Andee
.387 Mark Cordova
.385 *weescottishfiddler*
.385 JACKB
.385 Atk
.375 murfbox
.369 Eliot
.367 lars
.366 MarcoTam
.363 AlBrown
.361 Toni Ribas
.349 Carrmuse
.340 Johnnypither
.334 LongNote
.329 kardshark87
.325 vonnieestes
.316 errik
.314 Nell
.313 Joerg Froese
.311 cuchulain54
.310 sts
.303 Dexy
.303 coyotebanjo
.299 fiddlinviolinin
.296 Tmack
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Was "xyz" known as "kml" in a previous existence by any chance? I'm afraid I find it hard to get my head around all this stats stuff (finding out the positions of tunes in the ratings, etc) but there must be some validity in Llig's formula as instinctively I would have put Zina and WillCPT somewhere near the top.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Bannerman
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
You're right about xyz:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/14167#comment292176
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
"Fun"?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by banjoburger
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
As an engineer, I am familiar with alot of number crunching exercises. This one is a real stretch since the outcome does not really reflect the individuals reason for gracing the Mustard Board with their presence.
to add some relevance to this discussion, I think that a constant needs to be added to the formula.... take the outcome, divide by the square root of pi, multiply by the height of Sears Tower in Chicago in terms of ASTM Oscar Meyer weiner lengths, and subtract each posters age.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by zippydw
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I presume "S" stands for sad!
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by banjoburger
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Hey Ramiro, is your list a comprehensive list of everybody between Jeremy and Tmack? And is that right that out of 50,000 members, 41,550 (83.1%) have a s-factor of zero?
How many of the 8,450 have an f-factor of zero at three decimal places?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
"Ragaman - your calculation has wrongly included your number of Comments INSIDE the bracket in the numerator. Even so you're a respectable 24.6"
Dang! Well, I managed to pull the wool over *my* eyes, anyway.
Isn't this an accurate reflection of the hierarchy of a real session, though? The ones who have been attending the longest and start the most tunes are the ones with the highest status, regardless of the quality of their playing or how much sense they talk. The polite newcomer who sits on the outside of the circle and plays quietly and note-perfectly along to every tune is nobody.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
How about dividing by the square of your membership number? That would still weigh it in favour of those being around the longest. Jeremy would still be top, but the late comers won't be so far behind?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Just out of interest, what's the total S-factor for the entire membership?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Yes and almost yes. Mi list ends on tpmchugh, #50060.
45938 (93%) users have an s-factor of 0.000
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
That's very perceptive ragaman. I agree
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
the whole problem with this idea is that you're just encouraging ceolachan to post even *more* prolifically!
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Reverend
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
4553.767 is the total S-factor of the top 100. With a small error, because the individual factors were already rounded to 3 decimal places.
For the total factor of the entire membership you'll have to wait a moment.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
And out of 50,000, only 36 have an f-factor greater than 1?
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Mathematicians always crack me up. Don't understand them at all, but I do appreciate them.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
"How about dividing by the square of your membership number? " (MG)
I don't think so, Michael - that would really hit the newbies even harder. Dividing by the square (or even cube) root would narrow the gap.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by domnull
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I think maybe dividing by the natural log of the membership number would make it fairer, seeing as, like you said, your S-factor increases exponentially the longer you've been on the site. So, I haven't actually tried it out, but wouldn't this make it more linear?
The only problem is that this would make Jeremy's S-factor infinity (which perhaps is right and just), so maybe divide it by (1+ln(member #)), so that Jez stays the same
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
4611.651 for the entire membership.
I like the idea of dividing by the natural log of the membership number, and find that is right that Jeremy had a S-factor of infinity.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
So, according to the original formula devised by Llig (and inclusive of this comment), I am a measly 0.1369.
If we use Karate's suggestion (square root the whole thing), that makes me a slightly better 0.37.
HOWEVER, using me natural log idea, that puts me at 164.5196!
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Sorry, I forgot to add the 1 to the nat log. So that puts me at 148.584
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
""How about dividing by the square of your membership number? " (MG)
I don't think so, Michael - that would really hit the newbies even harder. Dividing by the square (or even cube) root would narrow the gap."
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
All these bleeding figures are doing me head in....It dont mean a thing if you ain't got that swing.........
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Free Reed
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Using the 1+Nat-log formula:
Jeremy 4116
Ceolachan 2829.924
Will CPT 2795.803
Dow 1860.564
Zina Lee 1752.005
Gian Marco 1539.963
Ragaman 849.127
Llig Leahcim 721.116
SWFL Fiddler 219.075
Reverend 207.662
This changes things! With this formula, Ceolachan probably has the second-highest rating on the whole site! This seems to put more of an emphasis on tunes and comments than your "old boy"-ness, although your membership number does count for something.
But it'd be nice to tweak it still further to shrink the scores and lessen the range a bit. I like that 1 is a good, respectable score that shows you've been around.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Aha, Karate - I didn't realise that was where this discussion started....
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
But with this formula some members can get a higher score than Jeremy. That's why I like it better without adding the '1' to the log.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Who gets a higher score than Jeremy?!? Surely not, even with the +1!
OK, maybe it is better off without...
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
If 'c' submits 500 more tunes and 500 more discussions (which could happen in a week or so) he would get a factor of 4859.28, if I'm not wrong.
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Ramiro
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Hey SWFL, try not to look behind you!
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Reverend
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
what a pile of sh*t you sad bastardos
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by Newty
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
There once was a crass old guy Newty
Whose unwelcome input was rude-y
So we said, don't be jig, take a lesson from Llig
He at least tones it down for the youth-ies
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by airport
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
tee he
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Airport
In the spirit of today's "International 'Talk-like-a-pirate' day", I like the cut of yer jib
D
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by domnull
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Thanks Matey - that's one of the three sheets I'll be aiming to the wind soon...
# Posted on September 19th 2008 by airport
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
Too much math! Arrrghhhh!!!! *runs away screaming*
# Posted on September 20th 2008 by DrSilverSpear
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I think you mean "mathS", maybe?
# Posted on September 20th 2008 by Joe CSS
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
"I think you mean "mathS", maybe?"
They don't do multiplication in the US
# Posted on September 20th 2008 by CreadurMawnOrganig
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
I'm like 0.09 which is better than all of you
# Posted on September 21st 2008 by D.J.F.
Re: who's got the "S-factor"?
i think an element of the calculation should be how many tunebooks your contributed tunes have been added to.
this horse might be dead.
# Posted on October 3rd 2008 by a sheamuis