h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I have always been amazed at how the social context makes things acceptable or unacceptable. The beach or pool is a good example; women intentionally dress at these places in ways that would mortify them elsewhere. Probably men viewing them on the beach would be (to a lesser extent) mortified to view them similarly clad in a different context. |
|
| |
This is obvious but still strange. |
|
| |
I think that is a great idea. I have walked around in my undies since the dawn of time. People need to be more openminded. Live a little before you die a lot. |
|
| |
One suggestion: a selective application and acceptance process through which ugly people are weeded out. |
|
| |
No. I (a male) would wear a comfortable slip. Or something. |
|
| |
If you aren't wearing anything over it, is it still underwear? |
|
| |
I love this idea so much. I think its realistic for some folk,
heck for a lot of folk. |
|
| |
Could you wear it on your head? |
|
| |
We will award a cautious croissant, with the proviso that participants are "screened" before being permitted to join; many human beings are much better viewed when efficiently covered with clothing - indeed, for some, a burka should be compulsory. |
|
| |
Sign outside clinic treatment room: "Please remove outer clothing before entering". |
|
| |
Person in T-shirt & trousers approaches reception desk: |
|
| |
"Can you clear something up please ? Do I remove my own outer clothing, or is it OK to remove someone else's ? If it's mine, should I take my T-shirt off ?" |
|
| |
Receptionist: "No, it means take your coat off". |
|
| |
"But I haven't got a coat, I didn't know I had to wear one. Should I take someone else's coat off, or do you have a coat I can borrow ?" |
|
| |
<2nd receptionist starts to giggle> |
|
| |
"No, you don't have to wear a coat." |
|
| |
"But your sign says 'Remove outer clothing' ... all I have is my T-shirt and trousers ..." |
|
| |
<2nd & 3rd receptionist giggling, 1st receptionist struggling to stay calm & keep a straight face> |
|
| |
Five minutes of conversation later, all 3 receptionists reduced to hysterics. |
|
| |
Person then requests sheet of paper. |
|
| |
On leaving, person hands in carefully written screed detailing what's wrong with the sign. Receptionists read document. Hysterics resumed. |
|
| |
On next visit, sign has been changed to read "Please remove your outdoor coat and/or pullover/cardigan before entering the treatment room." (Nearly word for word what was on screed) |
|
| |
By such small victories are advances achieved. |
|
| |
True story (photos of old and new signs on file). |
|
| |
NB: For some reason, this sort of behaviour can get you labelled as a "troublemaker" ... |
|
| |
Not that sort of a clinic; they let you have sharp objects, and you can leave any time you like ... |
|
| |
Ca we define mumus as underwear for anyone with more than 23% body fat? |
|
| |
Baked, any warm climate beach. |
|
| |
people don’t wear their undies at the beaches I go
to, except sometimes children |
|
| |
There was an advert here down under with a male that walks from the beach to the shopping centre. The joke being, that at some point along the walk the budgie smugglers change from swim wear to a man in just underwear. |
|
| |
[wjt]; yeah, "Togs; undies" was very clever. Something about
proximity or visibility of water... |
|
| |
Isn't there a whole country where they do this? It's
called Nicaragua. (it should of course be spelled
Knickeragua, but the pronunciation is the same. |
|
| |
Yes, it's just north of the Panama Carnal, isn't it ? |
|
| |
// Oof, that was terrible and I almost missed it. // |
|
| |
// I figured you'd were goring to digress // |
|
| |
(And no retrospective editing, either). |
|
| |
// on why they didn't build the canal in Nicaragua. Some of the terrain even for longer routes may have been easier than cutting through Panama. // |
|
| |
It's been considered many times. Further, but - as you point out - easier terrain. |
|
| |
Once the Panama canal was built it's been easier to expand the locks rather than build another new one. Politics is probably more important than geology. |
|
| |
// Those volcanos though ... one of your favorites subjects. // |
|
| |
Big, big fireworks ... ohhhhhhhhhh .... |
|
| |
Let the punishment fit the crime: |
|
| |
Herewith, we present the full, unedited text of you previous annotation (now deleted). |
|
| |
"Oof, that was terrible and I almost missed it. I figured you'd were goring to digress on why they didn't build the canal in Nicaragua. Some of the terrain even for longer routes may have been easier than cutting through Panama. |
|
| |
Those volcanos though ... one of your favorites subjects." |
|
| |
Excuse us, we're just going to take a moment to indulge in some more smug, misanthropic gloating, while you ponder the fact that our servers automatically capture and archive every HB edit ... |
|
| |
// I don't really know if volcanos were really that much of an concern though. // |
|
| |
Volcanos - no. Earthquakes ? Definitely. Managua was flattened by one fifty years ago, and the plate boundaries are still there; investing in a gigantic civil engineering project that might need frequent, expensive repair (not to mention the commercial disruption when it breaks) doesn't make much sense, and it's all about the money. |
|
| |
Not our bandwidth; hb site bandwidth. |
|
| |
And it doesn't make sense to look for Adolf more than once a day, because of granularity and timestamping. |
|
| |
On that basis, you don't even need shipping; just put the cargo on the right bit of shoreline, and wait. Eventually, the continent you want will come creeping over the horizon. |
|
| |
Not exactly Amazon same-day delivery, but cheap. |
|
| |