The super "OFFICIAL" Offdee Scale with Photos (1 Viewer)

[Major]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

8.5 verified

you just made my day

 

[Clinton]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Killer body!!! Just added that to my spank bank. Thanks.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

How about a ranking on this?

Leatitia Casta was, at one point, the hottest woman on the planet.

 

[Slider6]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

 

[Ray Karpis]

What say ye on these two?

8 on the left, 4.5 on the right?

 

[AcerFC]

How about a ranking on this?

Leatitia Casta was, at one point, the hottest woman on the planet.

never heard of her

 

[Clinton]

What say ye on these two?

8 on the left, 4.5 on the right?

The unattractive one looks ecstatic to even be in the hot one's presence.

 

[zed2283]

How about a ranking on this?

Leatitia Casta was, at one point, the hottest woman on the planet.

 

[zed2283]

How about a ranking on this?

Leatitia Casta was, at one point, the hottest woman on the planet.

never heard of her

Do yourself a favor and look her up.

 

[offdee]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

 

[Ray Karpis]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

I agree with 7.5. Her forehead looks like it has acne, she has a little Chris Kattan resemblance going on in the face.

 

[zed2283]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

I agree with 7.5. Her forehead looks like it has acne, she has a little Chris Kattan resemblance going on in the face.

Yeah, she's really not all that.

 

[Slider6]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

Yeah, I realize it wasn't a good face pic. I was showing body. I did a little digging and found a better face for a more accurate rating.My link

 

[zed2283]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

Yeah, I realize it wasn't a good face pic. I was showing body. I did a little digging and found a better face for a more accurate rating.My link

Not bad for 40.

 

[General Malaise]

Not to backtrack greatly, but I really think my "9" is more of a 9.5, but couldn't find a better 9 representative.

Is this a better real-life option for our 9?

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk161/offdee/offdee%20Scale/TOS85b.jpg

I've made the call. This is our new 9. (and it's a real-life untouched pic GM!!1!)

Yeah, but the picture is miniscule. When I zoom in, it gets all blurry and distorted. I hate that. Let me zoom in.Here, take a look at this. Note how when you enlarge the photo it looks crisp and you can actually see this gal up close and personal? Find more pictures like this one. Ones that don't look like crap when you zoom in.

And your 1,2 and 3 are all equally gross. There is no way you can tell me your 3 is better looking than your 1. I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to consider making this scale a 1-5 instead of a 1-10. There just isn't that much variety at your bottom and you need to consider it just as much as you need to consider the top line.

 

[General Malaise]

And by the way, that LSU Cheerleader is a 4.5 on GM's Scale of 1-5. Shuke, your opinion?

 

[Ray Karpis]

And by the way, that LSU Cheerleader is a 4.5 on GM's Scale of 1-5. Shuke, your opinion?

I want to lick her svelte little armpits.

 

[offdee]

And your 1,2 and 3 are all equally gross. There is no way you can tell me your 3 is better looking than your 1. I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to consider making this scale a 1-5 instead of a 1-10. There just isn't that much variety at your bottom and you need to consider it just as much as you need to consider the top line.

I'm putting a gun to your head and saying "GM, you have to have the secks with either the 1 or 3 right now, or I pull this trigger". Choose now.I'd imagine MOST would start undressing the 3. That's the difference here GB. Not saying the 3 is a pretty sight, but it's a step or two closer in the right direction than the 1.

 

[offdee]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

Yeah, I realize it wasn't a good face pic. I was showing body. I did a little digging and found a better face for a more accurate rating.My link

Not bad for 40.

I am curious...do you know the age of this chick Slider? I'm guessing she's younger than she looks, and all the tanning has taken it's toll.

 

[General Malaise]

How about a ranking on this?

On the GM Scale of 1-5 she is a 4.5. Killer body, lovely skin (actually enjoy that she's not fake tan) but her facial expressions give me a Sandra Bernhard feel and that's not a great thing. Still, she deserves a near flawless ranking.

 

[General Malaise]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Another GM 4.5. Very hot. I'd love to see more.

 

[Major]

The chick on the left has got to be a solid 8 or 8.5

My link

Great body, but the face looks a little ragged. 7.5 IMO (8 max) Just can't have someone whose face is basically covered by Urkel glasses be part of the OFFICIAL visuals.

Yeah, I realize it wasn't a good face pic. I was showing body. I did a little digging and found a better face for a more accurate rating.My link

Not bad for 40.

I am curious...do you know the age of this chick Slider? I'm guessing she's younger than she looks, and all the tanning has taken it's toll.

these girls are a dime a dozen in Texas....hate that look

 

[offdee]

How about a ranking on this?

On the GM Scale of 1-5 she is a 4.5. Killer body, lovely skin (actually enjoy that she's not fake tan) but her facial expressions give me a Sandra Bernhard feel and that's not a great thing. Still, she deserves a near flawless ranking.

The original offdee scale was basically a 1-5....I went from 10 down to 5 (and 4.5 description was: no need to rank any lower than this as all are ugly and we wouldn't want to evaluate)offdee received many a request to fully flesh out the scale from 10 down to 1 so that's what I did and where we are today. If all you're going to rank is above average chicks than your 1-5 is basically the same as my 6-10.

 

[Major]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Another GM 4.5. Very hot. I'd love to see more.

Yes, I would to. Got the number and plan to take her out at some point. How long should I wait? 3 months or so to call her back?

 

[General Malaise]

And your 1,2 and 3 are all equally gross. There is no way you can tell me your 3 is better looking than your 1. I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to consider making this scale a 1-5 instead of a 1-10. There just isn't that much variety at your bottom and you need to consider it just as much as you need to consider the top line.

I'm putting a gun to your head and saying "GM, you have to have the secks with either the 1 or 3 right now, or I pull this trigger". Choose now.I'd imagine MOST would start undressing the 3. That's the difference here GB. Not saying the 3 is a pretty sight, but it's a step or two closer in the right direction than the 1.

I'm saying we need to put more thought in the bottom of the scale if we are, indeed, emarking on science. IMO, the 1-3 are all insidious. Sure, 1's fat. But really, the face of 2 and 3 are beastly. And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

 

[General Malaise]

And by the way, that LSU Cheerleader is a 4.5 on GM's Scale of 1-5. Shuke, your opinion?

I want to lick her svelte little armpits.

I might have a small, tiny, non-threatening female armpit fetish.

 

[General Malaise]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Another GM 4.5. Very hot. I'd love to see more.

Yes, I would to. Got the number and plan to take her out at some point. How long should I wait? 3 months or so to call her back?

YESTERDAY DOWN?

 

[offdee]

And your 1,2 and 3 are all equally gross. There is no way you can tell me your 3 is better looking than your 1. I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to consider making this scale a 1-5 instead of a 1-10. There just isn't that much variety at your bottom and you need to consider it just as much as you need to consider the top line.

I'm putting a gun to your head and saying "GM, you have to have the secks with either the 1 or 3 right now, or I pull this trigger". Choose now.I'd imagine MOST would start undressing the 3. That's the difference here GB. Not saying the 3 is a pretty sight, but it's a step or two closer in the right direction than the 1.

I'm saying we need to put more thought in the bottom of the scale if we are, indeed, emarking on science. IMO, the 1-3 are all insidious. Sure, 1's fat. But really, the face of 2 and 3 are beastly. And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

Isn't that what I'm trying to do here? I'm not posting pics saying here it is guys, deal with it. I'm posting my best option at this time and asking everyone to help give me a better representation to consider. Nobody seems to be scouring the net for pics of 2's and 3's though.

 

[Major]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Another GM 4.5. Very hot. I'd love to see more.

Yes, I would to. Got the number and plan to take her out at some point. How long should I wait? 3 months or so to call her back?

YESTERDAY DOWN?

 

[General Malaise]

How about a ranking on this?

On the GM Scale of 1-5 she is a 4.5. Killer body, lovely skin (actually enjoy that she's not fake tan) but her facial expressions give me a Sandra Bernhard feel and that's not a great thing. Still, she deserves a near flawless ranking.

The original offdee scale was basically a 1-5....I went from 10 down to 5 (and 4.5 description was: no need to rank any lower than this as all are ugly and we wouldn't want to evaluate)offdee received many a request to fully flesh out the scale from 10 down to 1 so that's what I did and where we are today. If all you're going to rank is above average chicks than your 1-5 is basically the same as my 6-10.

You just make it simpler by assigning all your sub-threes a one on the GM Scale of 1-5. I think a 2 on a 1-5 might be easier to identify than a 3 or 4 on a 1-10. IMO.

 

[General Malaise]

And your 1,2 and 3 are all equally gross. There is no way you can tell me your 3 is better looking than your 1. I know you don't want to hear this, but you need to consider making this scale a 1-5 instead of a 1-10. There just isn't that much variety at your bottom and you need to consider it just as much as you need to consider the top line.

I'm putting a gun to your head and saying "GM, you have to have the secks with either the 1 or 3 right now, or I pull this trigger". Choose now.I'd imagine MOST would start undressing the 3. That's the difference here GB. Not saying the 3 is a pretty sight, but it's a step or two closer in the right direction than the 1.

I'm saying we need to put more thought in the bottom of the scale if we are, indeed, emarking on science. IMO, the 1-3 are all insidious. Sure, 1's fat. But really, the face of 2 and 3 are beastly. And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

Isn't that what I'm trying to do here? I'm not posting pics saying here it is guys, deal with it. I'm posting my best option at this time and asking everyone to help give me a better representation to consider. Nobody seems to be scouring the net for pics of 2's and 3's though.

I'm on it.

 

[offdee]

And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

I think we may disagree that a 3 has to have something redeeming about her. 4 and 5 is where there starts to be some inkling of hope for mankind. Maybe all these years you were actually banging 5's and you didn't even know it! 5: Starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common4: Not attractive. Major flaws start piling up (overweight, blemishes, etc.)3: One of the uglier girls in school, one of the uglier girls at work (lower class of ugly women)2: The ugliest girl in school, the ugliest girl at work (couldn't even get into a club)1: Absolutely disgusting and hard to look at. Young children point and adults look away upon seeing (not one single redeeming quality)

 

[derek245583]

I think the 3 is significantly better looking than the 1 and 2....

I think there is no discernible difference between 1 and 2, but if forced to pick one of the 3 its not close.

Gonna disagree with you here GM

 

[Clinton]

It's just a face shot, but how would you rank her?

 

[derek245583]

3

 

[Christo]

Not to backtrack greatly, but I really think my "9" is more of a 9.5, but couldn't find a better 9 representative.

Is this a better real-life option for our 9?

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk161/offdee/offdee%20Scale/TOS85b.jpg

LOCKED IN!

 

[General Malaise]

I think the 3 is significantly better looking than the 1 and 2....

I think there is no discernible difference between 1 and 2, but if forced to pick one of the 3 its not close.

Gonna disagree with you here GM

I looked again. http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk161/offdee/offdee%20Scale/TOS3.jpgIt doesn't even look like a real picture. It looks like somebody photoshopped the head of a nerdy, dorky boy and pasted it on top of this female's body/hair. Am I right?

Also, you don't get the 'mentally challenged' vibe here? I do.

 

[General Malaise]

3

She looks like somebody beat her with a baseball bat. Her cheeks are all caved in like a survivor of a car wreck. Are we now using deformity to affect our rankings?

 

[Christo]

this thread way better before

We're working on science here GB.

 

[offdee]

I think there is no discernible difference between 1 and 2

The definition of a 1 is they have absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities. I think that jives with the 1 pic (only positive comment was that she had a full mouth of teeth)The 2 is for sure disgusting, but it is at least somewhat thin and has some butter covered breasts. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

 

[ForteWillLeadTheWay]

It's just a face shot, but how would you rank her?

I'd give her a 9 on the HMT scale.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

It's just a face shot, but how would you rank her?

7: Tops among boygirls locally.

 

[Christo]

And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

I think we may disagree that a 3 has to have something redeeming about her. 4 and 5 is where there starts to be some inkling of hope for mankind. Maybe all these years you were actually banging 5's and you didn't even know it! 5: Starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common

4: Not attractive. Major flaws start piling up (overweight, blemishes, etc.)

3: One of the uglier girls in school, one of the uglier girls at work (lower class of ugly women)

2: The ugliest girl in school, the ugliest girl at work (couldn't even get into a club)

1: Absolutely disgusting and hard to look at. Young children point and adults look away upon seeing (not one single redeeming quality)

And that's exactly why this is not a science and therefore a fruitless exercise.

 

[General Malaise]

It's just a face shot, but how would you rank her?

I'd give her a 9 on the HMT scale.

 

[offdee]

And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

I think we may disagree that a 3 has to have something redeeming about her. 4 and 5 is where there starts to be some inkling of hope for mankind. Maybe all these years you were actually banging 5's and you didn't even know it! 5: Starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common

4: Not attractive. Major flaws start piling up (overweight, blemishes, etc.)

3: One of the uglier girls in school, one of the uglier girls at work (lower class of ugly women)

2: The ugliest girl in school, the ugliest girl at work (couldn't even get into a club)

1: Absolutely disgusting and hard to look at. Young children point and adults look away upon seeing (not one single redeeming quality)

And that's exactly why this is not a science and therefore a fruitless exercise.

One ranking cannot be done in a vaccum. Once we finish this exercise and you flip through 1 through 10 in succession like a flip book, it will all come together. The skies will part and the heavens will sing.

 

[Clinton]

It's just a face shot, but how would you rank her?

7: Tops among boygirls locally.

Actually, tops among boygirls internationally.I was hoping someone would say how hot "she" is.

 

[Christo]

And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

I think we may disagree that a 3 has to have something redeeming about her. 4 and 5 is where there starts to be some inkling of hope for mankind. Maybe all these years you were actually banging 5's and you didn't even know it! 5: Starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common

4: Not attractive. Major flaws start piling up (overweight, blemishes, etc.)

3: One of the uglier girls in school, one of the uglier girls at work (lower class of ugly women)

2: The ugliest girl in school, the ugliest girl at work (couldn't even get into a club)

1: Absolutely disgusting and hard to look at. Young children point and adults look away upon seeing (not one single redeeming quality)

And that's exactly why this is not a science and therefore a fruitless exercise.

One ranking cannot be done in a vaccum. Once we finish this exercise and you flip through 1 through 10 in succession like a flip book, it will all come together. The skies will part and the heavens will sing.

And my farts will smell like peppermint.

 

[offdee]

And man, I've slept with some 3's. I know what a 3 is. A 3, imo, has at least SOMETHING redeeming about her. I don't care if it's enormous jugs or a decent enough mug...your 3 looks like a mutant.

I think we may disagree that a 3 has to have something redeeming about her. 4 and 5 is where there starts to be some inkling of hope for mankind. Maybe all these years you were actually banging 5's and you didn't even know it! 5: Starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common

4: Not attractive. Major flaws start piling up (overweight, blemishes, etc.)

3: One of the uglier girls in school, one of the uglier girls at work (lower class of ugly women)

2: The ugliest girl in school, the ugliest girl at work (couldn't even get into a club)

1: Absolutely disgusting and hard to look at. Young children point and adults look away upon seeing (not one single redeeming quality)

And that's exactly why this is not a science and therefore a fruitless exercise.

One ranking cannot be done in a vaccum. Once we finish this exercise and you flip through 1 through 10 in succession like a flip book, it will all come together. The skies will part and the heavens will sing.

And my farts will smell like peppermint.

That's the spirit!

 

[derek245583]

I think the 3 is significantly better looking than the 1 and 2....

I think there is no discernible difference between 1 and 2, but if forced to pick one of the 3 its not close.

Gonna disagree with you here GM

I looked again. http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk161/offdee/offdee%20Scale/TOS3.jpgIt doesn't even look like a real picture. It looks like somebody photoshopped the head of a nerdy, dorky boy and pasted it on top of this female's body/hair. Am I right?

Also, you don't get the 'mentally challenged' vibe here? I do.

I googled "ugly chicks"The pic in question was on the second page I think. I giggled

 

[shuke]

Here's a solid real life 8.5 I met at a party last week. Body was

Another GM 4.5. Very hot. I'd love to see more.

I love the shtick where you want to change to a 1-5 scale and then start throwing out a bunch of half point ratings.