|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > February 2005 > New VA law? Oh boy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New VA law? Oh boy
|
|
| RaeMorrill@aol.com 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| I just saw a news item here in Maine about a new law being proposed in
VA. I gotta say, this is over the top. If your underwear is showing
over pants (think hip huggers, etc) it would be a misdemeanor with 50
dollar fine. OK, so what's lewd? I can see this is a nightmare waiting
to happen. I'm sure what they have in mind is hot young chicks/studs
deliberately wearing low-cut pants with thongs, boxers or whatever
showing. Enter the gung-ho cop with a hair across his butt. So now the
elderly plumber with his crack hanging out because he's too fat could
be targeted. GIMME a break. All this is going to do is clog the courts
with people fighting it, probably usually because they bent over and
someone saw their drawers. Certain sexual behaviors in privacy of home
between married couples is a felony in VA (if someone is snooping).
Good grief.
| |
| VickieHerndonCMT 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| Yep, saw it on the news tonight. It has to do with those baggy pants that
both the blacks and the whites wear, the kids. My grandson has been wearing
them for years. Anyway, it is ridiculous. That's Virginia though.
V.
<RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107923899.726988.206080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just saw a news item here in Maine about a new law being proposed in
> VA. I gotta say, this is over the top. If your underwear is showing
> over pants (think hip huggers, etc) it would be a misdemeanor with 50
> dollar fine. OK, so what's lewd? I can see this is a nightmare waiting
> to happen. I'm sure what they have in mind is hot young chicks/studs
> deliberately wearing low-cut pants with thongs, boxers or whatever
> showing. Enter the gung-ho cop with a hair across his butt. So now the
> elderly plumber with his crack hanging out because he's too fat could
> be targeted. GIMME a break. All this is going to do is clog the courts
> with people fighting it, probably usually because they bent over and
> someone saw their drawers. Certain sexual behaviors in privacy of home
> between married couples is a felony in VA (if someone is snooping).
> Good grief.
>
| |
|
| > I just saw a news item here in Maine about a new law being proposed in
> VA. I gotta say, this is over the top. If your underwear is showing
> over pants (think hip huggers, etc) it would be a misdemeanor with 50
> dollar fine. OK, so what's lewd? I can see this is a nightmare waiting
> to happen. I'm sure what they have in mind is hot young chicks/studs
> deliberately wearing low-cut pants with thongs, boxers or whatever
> showing. Enter the gung-ho cop with a hair across his butt. So now the
> elderly plumber with his crack hanging out because he's too fat could
> be targeted. GIMME a break. All this is going to do is clog the courts
> with people fighting it, probably usually because they bent over and
> someone saw their drawers. Certain sexual behaviors in privacy of home
> between married couples is a felony in VA (if someone is snooping).
> Good grief.
>
Remember, "proposed" does not mean passed. Any legislator can propose
anything. The mayor here in Salem wanted the General Assembly to change the
driving age to over 18 because kids like to congregate in the Sheetz parking
lot. That's not going to get passed either.
Sandi
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote here for all to
seenews:1107923899.726988.206080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I just saw a news item here in Maine about a new law being proposed in
> VA. I gotta say, this is over the top.
While it may sound idiotic, just as anyone can sue someone else for
something stupid, "lawmakers" can propose laws. That doesn't mean they are
going to be passed and actually be a law.
| |
|
| I'm so annoyed by this law and I don't live in VA.
Hopefully, the higher courts will put it where it belongs.
<RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107923899.726988.206080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I just saw a news item here in Maine about a new law being proposed in
> VA. I gotta say, this is over the top. If your underwear is showing
> over pants (think hip huggers, etc) it would be a misdemeanor with 50
> dollar fine. OK, so what's lewd? I can see this is a nightmare waiting
> to happen. I'm sure what they have in mind is hot young chicks/studs
> deliberately wearing low-cut pants with thongs, boxers or whatever
> showing. Enter the gung-ho cop with a hair across his butt. So now the
> elderly plumber with his crack hanging out because he's too fat could
> be targeted. GIMME a break. All this is going to do is clog the courts
> with people fighting it, probably usually because they bent over and
> someone saw their drawers. Certain sexual behaviors in privacy of home
> between married couples is a felony in VA (if someone is snooping).
> Good grief.
>
| |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| While it may sound idiotic, just as anyone can sue someone else for
something stupid, "lawmakers" can propose laws. That doesn't mean they
are
going to be passed and actually be a law.
Reply[vbcol=seagreen]
LOL. Good thing you saw Sandi's post huh? Good grief, I'm commenting on
how ridiculous it is something like this would even be considered. They
did say it was getting positive response. That will be till the old fat
guy who thinks it won't apply to him gets hauled in for "crack."
| |
|
| > While it may sound idiotic, just as anyone can sue someone else for
> something stupid, "lawmakers" can propose laws. That doesn't mean they
> are
> going to be passed and actually be a law.
>
> Reply
>
> LOL. Good thing you saw Sandi's post huh? Good grief, I'm commenting on
> how ridiculous it is something like this would even be considered. They
> did say it was getting positive response. That will be till the old fat
> guy who thinks it won't apply to him gets hauled in for "crack."
>
At the risk of stepping in the middle of the schoolyard, that guy wouldn't
get hauled in anyway. You would get ticketed if your underwear shows. The
crack of your a$$ apparently is okay. Go figger.
Crack kills!
Sandi
| |
|
| It appears that the bill did pass the House of Delegates, but odds are it's
going to die in the Senate after all the publicity. I'm just about to email
our local fellow and harass him - surely they can find some other tool for
picking on the young people. What's next, fat girls can't wear low riders
at all? Doesn't everybody have the right to humiliate themselves?
Sandi (a fat girl)
| |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| It appears that the bill did pass the House of Delegates, but odds are
it's
going to die in the Senate after all the publicity. I'm just about to
email
our local fellow and harass him - surely they can find some other tool
for
picking on the young people. What's next, fat girls can't wear low
riders
at all? Doesn't everybody have the right to humiliate themselves>>
It seems like a gross waste of taxpayer's money (and I pay property tax
in VA so I figure I have as much right as anyone to comment) to even
spend the time considering laws like this. Showing underwear that is
covering your XXX would now be a misdemeanor (good grief), but on the
beach you could still wear a thong that lets your entire butt hang out.
It's embarrassing that lawmakers would even deliberate on something
like this. Do they not think of the possible issues. Say you lost a few
pounds (the generic you of course LOL) and your pants were hanging a
bit. Then you annoy a cop, who uses that as an excuse to make your life
miserable.
| |
|
| When the girls were pretty small, we rode the Cumbres, Toltec and Ashes
in Your Eye Railroad in northern New Mexico and southern Colorada. I
had a pair of Levi's on that hadn't been washed yet (remember shrink to
fit Levi's?) and also forgot a belt. Every time I bent over, stood up,
did just about anything I was showing butt cleavage. I had a video
camera in my hands - a big video camera back then - and there wasn't
much I could do about it. The train ride was a kick, but I worried more
about offending people than anything else.
Neal
RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote:
> It appears that the bill did pass the House of Delegates, but odds are
> it's
> going to die in the Senate after all the publicity. I'm just about to
> email
> our local fellow and harass him - surely they can find some other tool
> for
> picking on the young people. What's next, fat girls can't wear low
> riders
> at all? Doesn't everybody have the right to humiliate themselves>>
>
> It seems like a gross waste of taxpayer's money (and I pay property tax
> in VA so I figure I have as much right as anyone to comment) to even
> spend the time considering laws like this. Showing underwear that is
> covering your XXX would now be a misdemeanor (good grief), but on the
> beach you could still wear a thong that lets your entire butt hang out.
> It's embarrassing that lawmakers would even deliberate on something
> like this. Do they not think of the possible issues. Say you lost a few
> pounds (the generic you of course LOL) and your pants were hanging a
> bit. Then you annoy a cop, who uses that as an excuse to make your life
> miserable.
>
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote here for all to
seenews:1107961927.787761.261070@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> LOL. Good thing you saw Sandi's post huh?
Uhhhmm..yes, I saw it...after I posted my comment. I read the posts in the
order they come up according to Xnews. I don't read every single post and
then decide to respond.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36uottF55oploU1@individual.net:
> It appears that the bill did pass the House of Delegates, but odds are
> it's going to die in the Senate after all the publicity. I'm just
> about to email our local fellow and harass him - surely they can find
> some other tool for picking on the young people. What's next, fat
> girls can't wear low riders at all? Doesn't everybody have the right
> to humiliate themselves?
You would think they would let them humiliate themselves, but I guess they
want to put a law against that too. I mean, while I think it is quite
disgusting and inappropriate to see young girls wearing low-rider jeans
with high-cut strappy thongs that they have apparently bought thong jewelry
for (who would've thought thong jewelry would've been so popular??) I think
it is equally ridiculous to make some sort of law against it. I mean,
that's what parents are for, IMO. My mother never would've let me wear
such clothes and I know of a few who won't let their children dress like
that now but know many who will and do let their 3rd and 4th graders were
midriff bearing shirts to show off their belly button jewelry and the low-
rise jeans with the thong straps, complete with thong jewelry, showing. It
disgusts me to no end and makes me glad I have a boy! Maybe the schools
should enforce a dress code during school time but I think making it
illegal is a bit of a stretch.
I just thought of something - what is worse is the moms that let their
young girls wear the low rise jeans but they still have on the full-cut
Barbie panties that show about two inches above the top of the jeans.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote here for all to
seenews:1107965704.823657.167930@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> howing underwear that is
> covering your XXX would now be a misdemeanor (good grief), but on the
> beach you could still wear a thong that lets your entire butt hang out.
They let them do that in Virginia? I know of some places where even that
is banned. Guess I need to look it up and see if they allow them here now.
| |
| kathycarp 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| I'd rather see the boxer shorts than the crack. I wonder just how well this
proposal was thought out.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36uof0F557bk7U1@individual.net...
> At the risk of stepping in the middle of the schoolyard, that guy wouldn't
> get hauled in anyway. You would get ticketed if your underwear shows.
> The
> crack of your a$$ apparently is okay. Go figger.
>
> Crack kills!
>
> Sandi
>
>
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:sKGdnaLq3PAs35ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
> I'd rather see the boxer shorts than the crack. I wonder just how well
> this proposal was thought out.
>
I am wondering if it truly has anything to do with adults but rather with
the style of dress of so many young kids.
| |
|
| I'm distressed that we are going to legislate style.....
and I don't care if it's kids OR adults.
We wore mini skirts......
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F87D1144074jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote here for all to
> seenews:sKGdnaLq3PAs35ffRVn-iQ@comcast.com:
>
>
> I am wondering if it truly has anything to do with adults but rather with
> the style of dress of so many young kids.
| |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| They let them do that in Virginia? I know of some places where even
that
is banned. Guess I need to look it up and see if they allow them here
now.
>
I have no idea what they wear on beaches in VA, but I'd be willing to
bet pretty skimpy suits are worn there, just as they are in most
places. Even if the WHOLE XXX isn't exposed, you know good and well
plenty of it is - which was the point.
| |
|
| > > I'd rather see the boxer shorts than the crack. I wonder just how well
>
> I am wondering if it truly has anything to do with adults but rather with
> the style of dress of so many young kids.
Well of course it does! Although around here it seems to be a trend in
overweight females of all ages. Who cares about the underwear - I don't
want to see that gut hanging out for all the world to see!
Sandi (who has a gut and keeps it covered)
| |
|
| > Wow, remind me not to use XNews if they bring them up out of order that
> badly.
>
> Rae's post 10:38 p.m. last night
> Vickie's post 1:37 a.m. this morning
> Sandi's post 6:11 a.m. this morning
> Your post 8:18 a.m. this morning
>
> Dani
>
Not that Jeannie needs me to defend her against practically being outright
called a liar, but just for the sake of correction: The posts are threaded,
at least in my Outlook, by who's answering whom, not by time of posts.
Multiple posts even under the same original post will show up in a
conversational order. If I post under the main post, and then Eli posts
under the main post, and then Rae answers me later, Rae's answer to me is
listed before Eli's post.
Time is relatively irrelevant.
Sandi
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "Bambi" <DearCounselor@comcast.netnet> wrote here for all to
seenews:36uvu8F536iteU1@individual.net:
> I'm distressed that we are going to legislate style.....
> and I don't care if it's kids OR adults.
>
> We wore mini skirts......
Well, mini skirts are different, IMO.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36v4j3F54b9dlU1@individual.net:
> Well of course it does! Although around here it seems to be a trend in
> overweight females of all ages. Who cares about the underwear - I don't
> want to see that gut hanging out for all the world to see!
>
> Sandi (who has a gut and keeps it covered)
A friend of mine's sister got her belly button pierced. She said - when
you gotta separate the fat to see the belly button ring, you have no
business getting it pierced! LOL
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote here for all to
seenews:1107971003.975349.168740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> I have no idea what they wear on beaches in VA, but I'd be willing to
> bet pretty skimpy suits are worn there, just as they are in most
> places. Even if the WHOLE XXX isn't exposed, you know good and well
> plenty of it is - which was the point.
Skimpy suits and thongs are two separate things. You were the one who said
they wore them, thongs, there, which is why I asked.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:kKsOd.131$i02.56@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> Wow, remind me not to use XNews if they bring them up out of order that
> badly.
Actually, she posted it under someone else's reponse, so it put it directly
under the one she responded to.
blah blah blah OP
blah blah blah response to direct post above
blah blah blah response to direct post above
blah blah blah response
blah blah blah and so on.
You can set different ways of threading but when there are so many who
don't copy what they respond to, it is easier to see it directly in
response - that way, like on the AOL boards, so many don't have to ask
people to please copy or quote what they are responding to so they can keep
up.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36v4raF576218U1@individual.net:
> Not that Jeannie needs me to defend her against practically being
> outright called a liar, but just for the sake of correction: The
> posts are threaded, at least in my Outlook, by who's answering whom,
> not by time of posts.
That's okay, Sandi, I figured the post would come from Dani correcting me
in a passive aggressive way. I'm used to it.
I explained the way my Xnews threads, but I am sure I will be accused of
just copying you on that too. ROFL.
| |
| kathycarp 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| In my ignorance of different newsreaders, I always assumed that people saw
exactly what I was seeing. (not true).
I never understood the request to copy/paste what someone was responding to
since in Outlook it includes the content of what you are responding to. So,
all you have to do was scroll down a bit (if you top post) and there it is.
If bottom posting, your response is right under what you are responding to.
I guess AOL, and others, post ONLY the response. Odd, but I'm starting to
get it.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F88F22B4D5Bjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote here for all to
> seenews:kKsOd.131$i02.56@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
>
> Actually, she posted it under someone else's reponse, so it put it
> directly
> under the one she responded to.
>
> blah blah blah OP
> blah blah blah response to direct post above
> blah blah blah response to direct post above
>
> blah blah blah response
> blah blah blah and so on.
>
> You can set different ways of threading but when there are so many who
> don't copy what they respond to, it is easier to see it directly in
> response - that way, like on the AOL boards, so many don't have to ask
> people to please copy or quote what they are responding to so they can
> keep
> up.
| |
|
| > > Not that Jeannie needs me to defend her against practically being
>
> That's okay, Sandi, I figured the post would come from Dani correcting me
> in a passive aggressive way. I'm used to it.
>
> I explained the way my Xnews threads, but I am sure I will be accused of
> just copying you on that too. ROFL.
You'll be the first person in my life who considered me worthy of imitation.
LOL
Sandi
| |
| djgordon 2005-02-09, 3:10 pm |
| If you were expecting to be corrected in some way (which I didn't correct
you at all) then were you lying? Mind you, I'm not calling you anything, but
if one is expecting to be corrected, then one usually knows they are wrong
about something. And why would you expect me to post any response at all,
I've been posting very little here lately, or were you just trying to get a
rise out of someone? Nah, not you.
dani
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F88F4C6AA37jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:36v4raF576218U1@individual.net:
>
>
> That's okay, Sandi, I figured the post would come from Dani correcting me
> in a passive aggressive way. I'm used to it.
>
> I explained the way my Xnews threads, but I am sure I will be accused of
> just copying you on that too. ROFL.
| |
|
|
were you just trying to get a
> rise out of someone? Nah, not you.
>
Pot?
Kettle?
| |
| 14tonks 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F88E83E8E6Cjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Bambi" <DearCounselor@comcast.netnet> wrote here for all to
> seenews:36uvu8F536iteU1@individual.net:
>
>
> Well, mini skirts are different, IMO.
Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under. You're showing
your comparative youth again, LOL.
--
Sheila
To reply to me, add the prefix real. to my address.
| |
|
| , so is that your rise-getter? <g>
>
> Dani
Nope, just trying to establish which color you wuz on the checkerboard!!
LOL!
| |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Although not a registered vote in VA, I do pay taxes there, so figure
my voice has a right to be heard. I emailed the State Senator for my
county and received this reply from his office quite promtly:
Ms. Morrill,
Thanks for the email. I will certainly pass your concerns on to the
Senator. I think the bill will fail here on the Senate side. There is
a fairly strong consensus among the Senators that the bill, in its
enforcement, is open to questions of constitutionality. I doubt very
seriously that it will make it through the Senate.
Thanks again, and please fell free to contact us should you have any
further concerns or questions.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:uJadnYqp9qwP-ZffRVn-hA@comcast.com:
> In my ignorance of different newsreaders, I always assumed that people
> saw exactly what I was seeing. (not true).
That's okay! At least you admit your ignorance instead of making an
ASSumption! LOL! VBG
| |
| kathycarp 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under.
That SHOULD have had a spew warning, Sheila.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"14tonks" <mail.2.14tonks@recursor.net> wrote in message
news:36vebmF4t3a2tU1@individual.net...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95F88E83E8E6Cjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
>
>
> Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under. You're
> showing
> your comparative youth again, LOL.
> --
>
> Sheila
> To reply to me, add the prefix real. to my address.
>
>
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:8StOd.185$SF2.1@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
> If you were expecting to be corrected in some way (which I didn't
> correct you at all) then were you lying? Mind you, I'm not calling you
> anything, but if one is expecting to be corrected, then one usually
> knows they are wrong about something. And why would you expect me to
> post any response at all, I've been posting very little here lately,
> or were you just trying to get a rise out of someone? Nah, not you.
Why are you behaving like you are in the 7th grade again? Been too boring
here for you? You are predictable. That's all.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "14tonks" <mail.2.14tonks@recursor.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:36vebmF4t3a2tU1@individual.net:
> Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under. You're
> showing your comparative youth again, LOL.
I guess so!! I have seen really short skirts but obviously not as short as
the ones you are talking about. I just detest those low-rise pants/jeans
with the undergarments hanging out of the top like an advertisement - it
just screams of tacky, trashy and tasteless, but that is only my opinion.
Even if I were skinny enough to dress like that, I wouldn't.
| |
|
| > > Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under. You're
>
> I guess so!! I have seen really short skirts but obviously not as short
as
> the ones you are talking about. I just detest those low-rise pants/jeans
> with the undergarments hanging out of the top like an advertisement - it
> just screams of tacky, trashy and tasteless, but that is only my opinion.
> Even if I were skinny enough to dress like that, I wouldn't.
Maybe not, but unless an orifice is showing, it's your right to do so.
Sandi
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| RaeMorrill@aol.com wrote here for all to
seenews:1107987539.729864.12550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Although not a registered vote in VA, I do pay taxes there, so figure
> my voice has a right to be heard. I emailed the State Senator for my
> county and received this reply from his office quite promtly:
>
> Ms. Morrill,
>
> Thanks for the email. I will certainly pass your concerns on to the
> Senator. I think the bill will fail here on the Senate side. There is
> a fairly strong consensus among the Senators that the bill, in its
> enforcement, is open to questions of constitutionality. I doubt very
> seriously that it will make it through the Senate.
>
> Thanks again, and please fell free to contact us should you have any
> further concerns or questions.
>
Wow - that's pretty cool that you got an email response that quickly AND
addressing your actual content rather than the canned text emails that you
sometimes get when you write complaining of something. Of course, that one
could be canned text too, but it _appears_ that your voice was heard and
that they are making an effort.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36vgugF5851b9U1@individual.net:
> Maybe not, but unless an orifice is showing, it's your right to do so.
>
Yep, just as it's okay for morbidly obese women to wear spandex to the
grocery store.
| |
| 14tonks 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| I've decided to buy stock in a monitor company. No more spew warnings for my
posts <ggggggggggggg>.
--
Sheila
To reply to me, add the prefix real. to my address.
"kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote in message
news:ecydnc7fyswGEZffRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under.
>
> That SHOULD have had a spew warning, Sheila.
>
> --
> Kathy
> www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
> "14tonks" <mail.2.14tonks@recursor.net> wrote in message
> news:36vebmF4t3a2tU1@individual.net...
>
>
| |
| kathycarp 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| ....or old men to wear speedos, which I've seen my share of in Belize when
the cruise ships come in. gag.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8B02BCE6Fjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:36vgugF5851b9U1@individual.net:
>
>
> Yep, just as it's okay for morbidly obese women to wear spandex to the
> grocery store.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "kathycarp" <kathycarp@comcastprivacy.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:85Kdnc4FWqjgDZffRVn-1Q@comcast.com:
> ...or old men to wear speedos, which I've seen my share of in Belize
> when the cruise ships come in. gag.
I don't even like young, muscular, FINE men in speedos, much less old
wrinkly and flabby men. Just the thought makes me shudder.
| |
| Judity 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| ((Yep, just as it's okay for morbidly obese women to wear spandex to the
grocery store ))
Hey, Jeannie, I only did that ONCE, and how did you know? LOL
Judity
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8AEC5D95B1jwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
| "14tonks" <mail.2.14tonks@recursor.net> wrote here for all to
| seenews:36vebmF4t3a2tU1@individual.net:
|
| > Not those 60's microminis you needed to wear a hairnet under.
You're
| > showing your comparative youth again, LOL.
|
| I guess so!! I have seen really short skirts but obviously not as
short as
| the ones you are talking about. I just detest those low-rise
pants/jeans
| with the undergarments hanging out of the top like an
advertisement - it
| just screams of tacky, trashy and tasteless, but that is only my
opinion.
| Even if I were skinny enough to dress like that, I wouldn't.
Of course it's tacky, but why should that equal illegal? If tacky
were against the law, everyone who redecorated their home during the
70's would be in jail. See,
http://www.lileks.com/institute/interiors/index.html for examples...
Eliyahu
| |
| Susan Mitchell 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Yes, just because it's made in your size doesn't mean you should wear it!!!
--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8B02BCE6Fjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Sandi" <sanditypes@yahoo.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:36vgugF5851b9U1@individual.net:
>
>
> Yep, just as it's okay for morbidly obese women to wear spandex to the
> grocery store.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "Judity" <Judity01@aol.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36vmevF58bma2U1@individual.net:
> Hey, Jeannie, I only did that ONCE, and how did you know? LOL
>
> Judity
A little birdie told me. LOL
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:36vnl6F5926b6U1@individual.net:
> Of course it's tacky, but why should that equal illegal?
Where, in any of my posts, did I say that it should be illegal??
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| "Susan Mitchell" <medlawtrans@comcast.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:J92dnR-vPeK8VJffRVn-rQ@comcast.com:
> Yes, just because it's made in your size doesn't mean you should wear
> it!!!
>
You got it.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:33 pm |
| "djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote here for all to
seenews:L5AOd.2780$mu6.842@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> You're
> right, though, this is too boring, plus getting tedious with you being so
> defensive over something you apparently didn't even understand.
See what I mean by predictable?? I guess some people find it comforting.
I personally think your doe-eyed response right now is just that but that
is my opinion. You cannot help it that you are predictable, so why even
worry about it?
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2005-02-12, 1:34 pm |
|
"Jeannie Wilson" <jwilson421@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8DCDF2F8FFjwilson421comcastnet@216.196.97.136...
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote here for all to
> seenews:36vnl6F5926b6U1@individual.net:
>
>
> Where, in any of my posts, did I say that it should be illegal??
You didn't. I was referring to the legislators who thought it should be.
Sorry 'bout that.
Eliyahu
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2005-02-12, 1:34 pm |
| Does this mean they also will be excluding the Sears, KMart and WalMart
ads from the newspaper, since they all seem to feature folks displaying
undies that are on sale? Or is it just the real thing that's a danger
to public morality and safety?
Eliyahu
"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7DWOd.14984$mu6.5063@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> From what I just heard on Jay Leno, I'm assuming this has now passed ?
> and
> it's a $50 fine for showing your underwear. Of course he made a couple
> jokes
> that were covered on here. The new law is called, Say No to
> Crack--which my
> daughter says all the time to people who won't pull their pants up. He
> also
> said that the Plumbers' Union was up in arms over it. <g>
>
> Dani
>
> <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107923899.726988.206080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-02-12, 1:34 pm |
| "Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff1@hotmail.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:POYOd.6132$961.360@fe06.lga:
>
> You didn't. I was referring to the legislators who thought it should be.
> Sorry 'bout that.
>
> Eliyahu
That's okay - just wanted to make sure you didn't think I had said it
should be illegal! Sometimes things and posts get criss-crossed when
copied and pasted and just wanted to clarify my POV.
| |
|
| > From what I just heard on Jay Leno, I'm assuming this has now passed ? and
> it's a $50 fine for showing your underwear. Of course he made a couple
jokes
> that were covered on here. The new law is called, Say No to Crack--which
my
> daughter says all the time to people who won't pull their pants up. He
also
> said that the Plumbers' Union was up in arms over it. <g>
>
> Dani
>
It didn't pass. It passed the House of Delegates, and the Senate killed it.
Jay was obviously joking about what it was called. It was referred to in
Virginia as the "pull up your pants" law, but once word got out about it,
there was no way it was passing.
It is not, repeat NOT, the law in Virginia. We have some stupid ones; that
isn't one of them.
Sandi
|
| |
|
|