Ahem
you folk still haven't figured out the algo have you?
Think slappy!
Cool! I found the first 0%!
I found some 0s but they are people we know so I kept quiet.
I found one name that I can't come up with a non zero for.
well, s seems to be very important
dammit
I am a beastly thread stretcher
I have a 4% chance with myself (good, as I can no longer bend that way), a 40% chance with my husband, but an 80% chance with slappy.
This, it seems so, so wrong.
I'm tellin' you. Slappy's like a TV. Anyone can turn him on.
Hmm, seems slappy and slappy are still only 96%
Hey gang.
It's me. Slappy Doo Hoo. I know, that you know, that I know that you know that I know you want me.
But you can't have me. I'm saving myself for marriage.
I mean, there's still that slim 99% chance I'd have sex with anything warm, or my hand, or...you know.
jes,
You are getting there. That's not what's behind the algorithym (the absolute best results are with two7 letter queries) but they do make a difference.
Slappy,
how do you explain this?
jespah, it's more simple than you think.
Craven, does the bagel not have a hole?
Hey man, it's not the size, it's how you use it.
Like for picking locks and such? :-)
) later in the alphabet can skew results higher. Hubby and I have better chances if I use our full names. Duplications tend to skew results lower. See: http://www.able2know.com/waggery/sexcalculator.php?name1=pebbles&name2=bam-bam&calculate=Make+Love
