« Wolf Gnards is Pro Corey HaimAn Open Apology to Robert Picardo »


  1. § Patrick Email said on :
    I find this stuff fascinating. Seriously awesome article.
  2. § Homer Simpson Email said on :
    mmmm … dessert island ….
  3. § Supervisor Jim Lahey said on :
    A few quibbles with your findings there, doc:

    > “Physical attractiveness is based on comparison, this is exactly why cute girls have ugly friends.” Umm, no, virtually every peer-reviewed study concludes exactly the opposite. Read some if you feel like it.

    > “A hierarchy would go beautiful person > average person > ugly person > beautiful animal > ugly animal > beautiful object > ugly object” Umm… HAW!

    Ya kill me, doc — why no love for average animals & average objects, you some hater?

    And is your conversation with the world’s bestlooking earthworm there next to you really gonna be more satisfying than mine with my seatmate who happens to be an inanimate filthy old wrinkled $100 bill?

    And Ms. Alba’s lovely face & lactating form & screaming baby do add appeal to that empty seat beside her, but you go on grab it, bro — folks in the back all look old & ugly but I can handle ugly for a minute, shit, maybe even listen in & find out why the hell Chris Rock & Martha Stewart & Tom Waits & Mike Tyson riding together on the G.D. A.C. in the first place, feel? Maybe next time you let me sit next to Miz Babymama & you sit back in boresville heheheheheheh

    Okay, easy, doc, just playing… Sorry for those little cheap shots there, but we both know a few nitpicky minor logic errors can’t knock the broader overall reasoning behind your thesis.

    Nope, what does that for you is your goddam hilarious total failure to work up a theory that even holds true for your own Exhibit A: THE GODDAM EPIC BEARD MAN VIDEO!

    Because if you were right, doc, every single person on the bus should be crowding to get closer to Amber Lamps, due to the crowd’s collective subconscious acknowledgment of her status as the most compelling attractor on the bus.

    However, because you are totally TALKING OUT YOUR ASS, the actual video reveals NOT ONE PERSON SAYS ONE WORD TO HER OR APPROACHES HER IN ANY WAY EVER!


    In fact, your own analysis reveals Amber gained WORLDWIDE attention for her indisputable cuteness promptly upon being exposed to a WORLDWIDE audience, solely by virtue of her appearance in that video.

    She wasn’t a web superstar until after the video hit — nor was she the slightest bit “bushot” before the video hit, because dig: if you watch the video again, you might notice that NEITHER THE FOLKS FIGHTING NOR FOLKS FILMING HAVE A CLUE SHE IS NEXT TO THEM BEING CAPTURED ON THE VIDEO!

    Surely at least THEY should be noticing her, right? If your thinking wasn’t weak ballsweat, right?

    again: doh!

    HAHAHAAHAW ya kill me, Dr. Slapnuts PhD, ya crack my ass up! HAH-HHAHAW! I mean, yer friggin title even! Q. “What is BusHot?” A.”Dunno — something like BuShit?” HAW!!! HOHAHAHA! HOHOHAA!

    great laughs bro can’t wait to read your next socioanthropological epiphany
  4. § homer simpson said on :
    waaaahhhh where my yummy dessert island go?
  5. § Julian said on :
    Jesus, Lahey, calm the fuck down!
  6. § Boden Email said on :
    Experienced this same phenomenon in college. Student body was 80% male, 20% female, at a primarily engineering and science school without any large cities nearby.

    If you could rank people on a percentile of attractiveness chart in both the local population (within college) and the broader population, similar to what this article proposes, you would see that most of the girls could take advantage of at least a 25% curve in their favor when chosing a boyfriend from within the school population. No, I don’t have a formal study, but it was extremely obvious to my friends (both male and female) and I.
  7. § Supervisor Jim Lahey said on :
    I am the liquor, Julian.
  8. § J.M.S. Esq. Email said on :

    Let me first say that Mssr. Lahey makes some excellent points — e.g., that a filthy hundred-dollar bill is more sexually attractive than an earthworm. (Although really, is it even necessary to state such a self-evidently truth? Why not hit W. Gnards with the old A = A while we’re at it?) And I have nothing but respect for his measured tone and judicious use of capital letters. Yet, I cannot help but notice a few niggling errors in his rebuttal that I can’t help but pick at. To whit:

    1) That peer-reviewed studies of “exactly why cute girls have ugly friends” disproves the theory that attrative people are rendered relatively more attractive by being placed in an unattractive surrounding. First, of COURSE these peer-reviewed studies of cute girls (from such well-known and totally-not-made-up journals as “International Review of Cute Girls” and “Jugs”) suggest that cute girls do not surround themselves with unattractive girls to heighten their cuteness; these peers are unattractive girls. Cute girls rarely publish, as they are employed generally at teaching universities, where tenure is less slavishly tied to publication.

    2) That W. Gnards’ theory is disproven by his own example “[b]ecause if you were right, doc, every single person on the bus should be crowding to get closer to Amber Lamps, due to the crowd’s collective subconscious acknowledgment of her status as the most compelling attractor on the bus.” Although Mr. Lahey accurately observes that a crowd will always immediately and irrestibly sexually harrass the most attractive person in that crowd, he forgets that the sensual experience we enjoy watching the video is not the same as that experienced by those on the actual bus — i.e., she may have smelled like salty garbage. This could prevent the otherwise unavoidable crush of humanity that would otherwise mob a relatively cute girl on a bus, pressing in around her until she eventually asphyxiated. Because this is how people act when they notice that an attractive stranger in a public place.

    3) That everything between (1) and (2) is incoherent.
  9. § Supervisor Jim Lahey said on :
    Okay, the term “incoherent” in item 3 strikes me as a bit harsh. But if that’s how you feel, J-Roc, my man, more power to you. Too bad all lawyers aren’t as honest as yourself.

    I mean, you had the option of simply deleting items 1 & 2 before you hit send, which would would have obviated the need for item 3 once nothing was left to beat yourself up over.

    Of course, “everything between (1) and (2)” equals the net content of item 1 alone, so item 2 escapes being branded with the I-word. But it’s still gracious of you to alert us to the shortcomings of its predecessor by adding item 3.

    And so what if deleting all 3 items would’ve still been the stronger option? Either way, I admire a man who owns up to his mistakes, and I thank you for the kind intelligent words that preceded your numerary debacle… and good buddy, this next drink is for you.

    down tha hatch fellers hoooooooo
  10. § AfroDytee4151 Email said on :
    @J.M.S. — Mr. Lahey did not say “Amber” would be sexually harassed, he is saying that’s what would be happening in the video if Wolf G. Nard’s Bus-hot-Theory was correct. Becase that theory says tom Hanks will talk to a ball if there’s nobody else but he’d forget the ball if somebody more interesting was there to talk to, and then gives a hierarchy to predict who people will chose to talk to depending who else is around.And the hierarchy goes only on looks and no other factor so means it whoever is most “beautiful” on the bus is the one everybody else will most want for talking. .And everybody will agree on who else is how “beautiful” or “ugly” which is totally not true. This theory doesnt’ make any sense at all.. Lahey sounds lik a wing nutt but also SUPERVISOR JIM LAHEY IS RIGHT. lolz. Because teh theory really is hella silly and WGNard really is taking out his ass lolz! i-heart-lahey lmaoo :)))
  11. § J.M.S. Esq. Email said on :
    Sounds like people are fixating on the Tom Hanks example (and who can blame us; Tom Hanks is a riveting subject, as evidenced best by his electric presence in the hit movie, Splash). I took the point of this post to be the fourth paragraph (“The bus works the same way . . . ), which stands for the admittedly rather “duh” proposition that a moderately attractive person in the Jessica-Alba-inhabited world, is boosted up the relative sexy food chain (SFC) when everyone higher than her on that chain is removed from the equation. Whether people will respond to the new queen of the SFC by chatting her up, sneaking furtive glances at her, or masturbating feverishly under their tattered overcoats probably depends on the individual bus-goer’s levels of confidence/horniness/mental illness. Surely we aren’t disputing that attractiveness is relative? Or that Splash was Tom Hanks’ greatest turn on the boards?
  12. § Free Radical Email said on :
    She found a way to move through the urban jungle without being disturbed. Everything else is male fantasy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
Contact. ©2010 by Wolfie G. Nards. blog tool / dedicated server / evoTeam.
Design & icons by the nerds at N.Design Studio. Skin by the nerds at Tender Feelings / SkinFaktory.