[Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing

[David M. Budge]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Joan.  Now, however, after a 
lifetime of being comfortable in my own skin you've rattled the pillars 
of my manhood.  Being a balding, pudgy, middle-aged fashion cretin has 
been a full time job up until now (although I never have been accused of 
cracking wise with my posterior physiography (sic).)  Between the nose 
hair, ear hair and eyebrows that compete with Andy Rooney's (all of 
which increase at an increasing rate in a compounding logarithmic scale 
directly proportional to my age) I'll now be forced to purchase cheesy 
hair trimming devices only found on QTV or late night commercials to 
protect the sensibilities of your ilk as well as my new found vanity.

Life is so complicated some times.

Dave budge

Joan Opyr wrote:

> As is well-known from Auntie Establishment's biography (as posted on 
> my website), I find the public display of butt-cracks an egregious 
> offense to good taste, good looks, and good social order.  I'm not 
> bothered, however, by the display of underwear.  Show your boxer 
> shorts all you like!  Let's get a glimpse of that Victoria's Secret 
> brassiere!  Underwear is great!  Underwear is good!  Even when it's 
> displayed as outerwear.  To this, I say, so what?  No doubt when that 
> Republican coot in Virginia sits down, the tops of his cheap, black 
> nylon socks are on full display to all and sundry, as is a two-inch 
> stretch of the blinding white leg above.  I know these sanctimonious 
> Southern gent-types and their proclivity for wearing ill-fitting 
> polyester trousers; I grew up with them, and I blame them in part for 
> my poor eyesight.  I was blinded at an early age by the gratuitous 
> summertime display of their lily-white legs in paisley Bermuda shorts.
>  
> No, I don't mind underwear.  What I don't want to see are:
>  
> 1) Your butt-crack.
> 2) Your pot-belly.
> 3) Your long nasal hairs.
> 4) Any long hairs that might be protruding from your ears.  And,
> 5) You balding men out there who are unable to love yourselves as you 
> are.  Get thee to a therapist and then to a good hairdresser.  Why?  
> Because I don't want to see your long, fooling-no-one, thick-tendril 
> comb-overs anymore.  Just stop it.  Do what the smart gay men do -- 
> get all of your remaining hair cut very, very short.  This has 
> the queer (if you'll excuse the expression) effect of making you look 
> like you have more hair, not less.  No kidding.
>  
> So, no, Dave, I won't be generating a petition in Idaho re: 
> underwear.  Unfortunately, I despair of ever being able to enact any 
> of my various prejudices into law.  Butt-cracks will continue to smile 
> at me vertically from low-cut jeans; pot-bellied men will take off 
> their shirts in the summer heat.  Nose hairs will sprout from nostrils 
> like kudzu from a Southern ditch.  And bald men will continue to let 
> the hair grow over (and out of) their ears until it turns into 
> squid-like tentacles that they can pull over their naked scalps and 
> plaster into place with God-knows-what kind of terrifying hair paste.
>  
> Why, why, why?!  Only God and Vitalis know the answer.
>  
> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> www.auntie-establishment.com <http://www.auntie-establishment.com>
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: David M. Budge
>     Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:05 PM
>     To: Vision2020 Moscow; Joan Opyr
>     Subject: Well, It ain't plumbing
>      
>     ...but it's a start. 
>
>     Joan,
>
>     Time to start a petition?
>
>     Dave Budge
>
>
>       Underwear Police? Virginians May Be Fined For Low-Cut Pants
>
>
>         People Would Face $50 Fine
>
>     POSTED: 7:14 am EST February 8, 2005
>     RICHMOND, Va. -- A Norfolk, Va., legislator says the
>     droopy-drawers bill may be his legacy.
>       SURVEY
>     Should a state have the right to fine people whose underwear show
>     above their pants?
>     Yes, it's indecent.
>     No, that would be a violation of Americans' freedoms.
>     No, it would be too difficult to enforce. Who decides what's indecent?
>     Results <http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#> |
>     Disclaimer <http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#>
>
>     The Virginia House of Delegates has tentatively approved a bill to
>     crack down on people who wear low-riding pants.
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>           Discussion:Fined For Low-Cut Pants?
>           <http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=ny&Forum=79&Topic=11533>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Freshman Norfolk Delegate Algie Howell Jr. introduced the bill at
>     the urging of constituents who are offended by the exposed underwear.
>
>     Howell said, "That's why they're called undergarments. They're
>     supposed to be worn under something else." Delegates approved a
>     measure that would allow police to assess a $50 fine on anyone who
>     exposes their below-waist underpants in a "lewd or indecent
>     manner." Howell said that since he introduced it last month, he's
>     been deluged with calls and e-mails about the issue, mostly
>     positive. Howell told The Virginian-Pilot that he kept hearing
>     from customers in his barber shop that something needed to be done
>     about young people who wear their pants around their knees,
>     exposing their underwear. When a House subcommittee took up the
>     matter, the response was sympathetic yet skeptical because of
>     legal issues. It's going to the House floor for a vote.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : 
> http://explorer.msn.com
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050209/d53103d6/attachment.htm