Monstaland posted:

sup boys and girls

kntfkr posted:

valko was it you that said you met/knew girl band, now gilla band?

Valko posted:

It's always great to see new faces even if the thread appears to be dying.

https://i.imgur.com/IprDvWb.mp4

e: can't seem to get mp4 embed to work.

Valko posted:

I've never heard of either, sorry. Biggest celebrity I've ever met was Jon Kenny, who nobody outside Ireland is familiar with.

TITTIEKISSER69 posted:

Normally just using Ctrl+V to paste the .mp4 link is all you need, the forums takes care of the embed codes. In this case it looks like the video was deleted from imgur.

kntfkr posted:

must have been another irish guy. anyway, you should look up Gilla Band. they have a song called eight-fivers and it is about buying clothes in ireland

Chernobyl Princess posted:

I tried on some dresses


I like wearing dresses sometimes.

bee posted:

Are those earrings little jellyfish? Those are really cool!



Got to go out and be fancy. I love this dress!

Chernobyl Princess posted:

I tried on some dresses


I like wearing dresses sometimes.

Chernobyl Princess posted:

I'm sorry you got scammed, but you do have a nice smile and you got that distinguished greying pattern, so at least you got some nice pictures out of it?

fcc compliant bob posted:

fcc compliant bob posted:

Na dog. 130 pictures all formulaic. 10 weren't unusable. 1 passed the Photofeeler test. I could have bought a $400 camera and handed it to a grade schooler and achieved better results with trial and error.
Snappr asks for examples of the style you want before the shoot. She didn't look at them and didn't care. I wanted something complimentary to my looks. More like a model shoot that these OnlyFans and Instagram models get.
She was having none of that. Always insisting I demonstrate straight posture. Suck up my gut. "Chin up." "Shoulders up". "Back". "Now smile". I'm naturally tall and lanky so it was a forced look for me.
Short of recruiting and paying single women to voluntarily go online and participate in some no-incentive photo experiment, they're not sampling from girls who actually swipe on guys.
All the Photofeeler judged criteria operate under an inauthentically framed presumption of mistrust, poor character, low social emotional or social IQ. No 2 people judge the same photo or beauty with the same criteria.
So setting the conditions to judge them is creating a problems to sell the cure. They should literally just be "Would you swipe left or right on this person?"
Pretty much like a casino. The more hoodwinked the customer and off the radar the numbers are, the better they do.
The fact that it's likely as infested with bots is somewhere between Twitter and Ashley Madison.

It's 15% of the people that are absolute smokeshows. AND that those are the ones who end up with 90% of the dates. So what they don't continue to tell you is that the odds of a date, with those numbers is maybe something closer to a fraction of a percentile.
Or the odds over time when played out, might lead to a few dates, but all the planets have to be aligned correctly. And in the meantime. Here. Pay us $30 to increase those supposed odds.
The deceptive perpetuation of the illusion of a level clean playing field and charging people wasted time money and in-app engagement to fix a problem that shouldn't have ever been there in the first place.

Spinz posted:

I think the "OBEY" might be kind of intimidating

fcc compliant bob posted:

Na dog. 130 pictures all formulaic. 10 weren't unusable. 1 passed the Photofeeler test. I could have bought a $400 camera and handed it to a grade schooler and achieved better results with trial and error.
Snappr asks for examples of the style you want before the shoot. She didn't look at them and didn't care. I wanted something complimentary to my looks. More like a model shoot that these OnlyFans and Instagram models get.
She was having none of that. Always insisting I demonstrate straight posture. Suck up my gut. "Chin up." "Shoulders up". "Back". "Now smile". I'm naturally tall and lanky so it was a forced look for me.
Short of recruiting and paying single women to voluntarily go online and participate in some no-incentive photo experiment, they're not sampling from girls who actually swipe on guys.
All the Photofeeler judged criteria operate under an inauthentically framed presumption of mistrust, poor character, low social emotional or social IQ. No 2 people judge the same photo or beauty with the same criteria.
So setting the conditions to judge them is creating a problems to sell the cure. They should literally just be "Would you swipe left or right on this person?"
Pretty much like a casino. The more hoodwinked the customer and off the radar the numbers are, the better they do.
The fact that it's likely as infested with bots is somewhere between Twitter and Ashley Madison.

It's 15% of the people that are absolute smokeshows. AND that those are the ones who end up with 90% of the dates. So what they don't continue to tell you is that the odds of a date, with those numbers is maybe something closer to a fraction of a percentile.
Or the odds over time when played out, might lead to a few dates, but all the planets have to be aligned correctly. And in the meantime. Here. Pay us $30 to increase those supposed odds.
The deceptive perpetuation of the illusion of a level clean playing field and charging people wasted time money and in-app engagement to fix a problem that shouldn't have ever been there in the first place.

fcc compliant bob posted:

Right. I just added that before I posted here to keep some anonymity and some attempt at self-deprecating commentary.

kntfkr posted:

chubby buddies

The Voice of Labor posted:

does the kid have a dorner shirt too?

fcc compliant bob posted:

100% Unused $400 photo shoot to "improve" Tinder pics.
As if tinkering and shaving marginal differences to dating profiles isn't degrading enough, I lowered myself to print media prescribed advice posing for stock mf photography.
I think it's a racket between the company they link to in their articles Photofeeler and this company they recommend Snappr.
According to this bias-confirmed Google result from the fully qualified internet experts at Reddit Quora, It assumes assumes objective attractiveness.
Runs off assumptions that a LinkedIn photoshoot should be treated the same a hookup dating app.
If any of this is any indication, I'm 100% undatable and repulse women with my selfies.
Anyway yep I'm bitter and truly ashamed I let a the dating equivalent of a casino hide statistics and half-baked data to gaslight me into believing any of that poo poo.

fcc compliant bob posted:

100% Unused $400 photo shoot to "improve" Tinder pics.
As if tinkering and shaving marginal differences to dating profiles isn't degrading enough, I lowered myself to print media prescribed advice posing for stock mf photography.
I think it's a racket between the company they link to in their articles Photofeeler and this company they recommend Snappr.
According to this bias-confirmed Google result from the fully qualified internet experts at Reddit Quora, It assumes assumes objective attractiveness.
Runs off assumptions that a LinkedIn photoshoot should be treated the same a hookup dating app.
If any of this is any indication, I'm 100% undatable and repulse women with my selfies.
Anyway yep I'm bitter and truly ashamed I let a the dating equivalent of a casino hide statistics and half-baked data to gaslight me into believing any of that poo poo.

fcc compliant bob posted:

kntfkr posted:

he burgin'

kntfkr posted:

he burgin'

Valko posted:

You know something, you actually inspired me to create a tinder profile out of curiosity. I uploaded what I thought was my best looking picture. I've got five likes in 20 minutes but I'll be damned if I'm paying $7.99 to see them. I haven't been dating in a long time but I forgot that it could be expensive.