"Life is a waste of time. Time is a waste of life. Get wasted all the time, and you'll have the time of your life!"
brellow
Joined: Mar 08 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 131
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 12:10 pm
24 !
justdrop
Title: Supreme Overlord
Joined: Jan 11 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 558
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 12:16 pm
28, but my numbers are probably skewed because I'd feel no remorse. It's not a baby-saving contest, it's a fight to the finish. Hold onto your diapers children, daddy's home.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."- Winston Churchill
Thunderhorse
Title: This is DELICIOUS!
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1923
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 12:48 pm
23! Also, I can take on 31 90 year olds in a fight.
ThisIsTunaWithBacon
Klimbatize
2010 NES Champ
Title: 2011 Picnic/Death Champ
Joined: Mar 15 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 4996
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 02:40 pm
Says I could take on 31. That number seems low, actually. So does everybody's. A five year old would go down after one punch.
I, like justdrop, have no morals when it comes to fighting. I've been gang-beaten too many times to feel bad for whoever I'm fighting.
Says I could take on 31. That number seems low, actually. So does everybody's. A five year old would go down after one punch.
I, like justdrop, have no morals when it comes to fighting. I've been gang-beaten too many times to feel bad for whoever I'm fighting.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."- Winston Churchill
Beach Bum
Joined: Dec 08 2010
Location: At the pants party.
Posts: 1777
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 02:49 pm
Says I could take on 28. I figure if it was a swarm of kids hellbent on attacking me like a pack of zombies I'd not feel very bad about fighting them. It does seem low though because a 5 year old isn't exactly going to have that great of endurance against a full grown adult. Unless it actually was a zombie child then it might actually be able to take more than one hit and keep coming.
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 03:28 pm
30 for me... if only I were taller.
Preng
Title: All right, that's cool!
Joined: Jan 11 2010
Location: Accounting Dept.
Posts: 1690
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 03:41 pm
26. I have reservations about beating up on tykes, and I'm pretty slender, but my reach is ridiculous.
At any rate, all I can think about is that dodgeball scene in Billy Madison.
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 04:56 pm
Wow. Looks like when the toddlers take over, I'm fucked.
Well. I guess I'm the ultimate loser in that I'd only be able to take on 12 kids.
On the plus side, I'd take 15 90 year olds. That's slight better, right?
@om*d
Title: Dorakyura
Joined: Jul 10 2010
Location: Castlevania
Posts: 4226
Posted:
Feb 01 2012 11:04 pm
Apparently I would take 43 90 year olds in a fight.
Beach Bum
Joined: Dec 08 2010
Location: At the pants party.
Posts: 1777
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 12:22 am
I can take 29 90 year olds apparently. Only one more than if I was battling a horde of 5 year olds. Really though old people would seem to be a lot less dangerous than a group of five year olds because a 90 year old generally isn't going to be anywhere near as fast as a small child. Plus the exertion of fighting might thin the group with heart attacks, saving you some effort. I'd certainly feel less bad about beating up an old person too, because they are old enough to understand the consequences of attacking someone.
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3112
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 01:11 am
30. The last question had me laughing pretty good.
So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
Bob Dylan`s Blues
Title: Worlds Strongest Man
Joined: Jun 08 2011
Location: Your nightmares
Posts: 520
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 02:14 am
Apparently I can take out 23 five year olds but only 18 90 year olds.
Beach Bum wrote:
I can take 29 90 year olds apparently. Only one more than if I was battling a horde of 5 year olds. Really though old people would seem to be a lot less dangerous than a group of five year olds because a 90 year old generally isn't going to be anywhere near as fast as a small child. Plus the exertion of fighting might thin the group with heart attacks, saving you some effort. I'd certainly feel less bad about beating up an old person too, because they are old enough to understand the consequences of attacking someone.
This. A swarm of five year olds would overtake you much faster, giving you less time to think and react. It would be much easier to set up a good kick to the face against 90 year olds. That's why I thought I would get a higher score against 90 year olds.
Klimbatize
2010 NES Champ
Title: 2011 Picnic/Death Champ
Joined: Mar 15 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 4996
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 03:02 am
Yeah, wtf? Says I could only take 23 90 year-olds.
I did a few other surveys and I'm apparently not very good at them. I have only a 39% chance of surviving a zombie apocalypse, same number as my overall nerdiness. On the plus side my dead body is worth almost five grand.
Sarge
Title: The Self-Titler
Joined: Aug 14 2010
Posts: 598
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 10:56 am
28. To hell with those little bastards.
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
Posted:
Feb 02 2012 11:18 am
90 year-olds may be physically less resilient, but damn, if you get that single war vet, they are going to bite, tear, stab and claw your face off.
I feel like little kids will bite and hit, but their lack of intent is what makes them less threatening.