Author Topic: The underwear police??? (Read 849 times)

Nifty · « **on:** May 01, 2002, 12:06:24 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51636,00.html

This is just... different.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2002, 12:09:39 PM »

Well, can you blame them?

I mean imagine the audicity and indecency of young girls wearing thongs! Especially when they are covered by skirts or jeans?!?!

They should be forced to wear no jeans or skirts when they got thongs on!
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2002, 12:17:11 PM »

So, I guess going without underwear was right out...

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2002, 12:25:18 PM »

Couldn't they just take the girl's and the girl's date's word for it?

CavemanJ · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2002, 12:31:32 PM »

HOLY toejam!

Is that squeak wacked or what?

While reading that I did laugh at the audacity of that vice principal, though had it been my daughter embarrased like that I'd have been in that school the next day dragging someone across thier desk, followed by a trip to the superintendant's office with more desktop crossings.

The parents of the girls so checked oughta get together and file a class action against the school system. That'll get the witch tossed right out on her ear

LePaul · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2002, 01:47:15 PM »

Silly...absolutely silly....

StSanta · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2002, 02:55:50 AM »

Oooh saayy cann you....

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK

easymo · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2002, 03:18:19 AM »

How the hell did Greta Van Susteren wind up on Fox News. I saw here declaring her devotion to unbiased reporting. All the while, spinning her left wing bias, like a deranged black widow spider.

Gunthr · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2002, 10:35:06 AM »

She's there for balance, Easymo, just like Giraldo. She comes up with some good insights on litigation. She's a pretty tough cookie. How'd you like to be married to her and have a domestic argument with her? I hate to even think about it. I like her though.

SirLoin · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2002, 11:18:48 AM »

Bet ya the ones turned away had no problem getting rides back home...

Eaglecz · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2002, 11:49:36 AM »

yeah nothing new less age more sexie for US lames

midnight Target · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2002, 12:23:21 PM »

Ya know, sometimes I just find it entertaining to try and figure out what the heck EagleCZ is trying to say. No offense please, I'm sure I would butcher your language much worse.

OTOH...

I heard an interview with one of the offended girls mothers yesterday. She was saying that it is "the style" to wear thongs, and the girls wouldn't be caught dead in the locker room in those old panties.
I say BS! Girls do not buy underwear like that for the benefit of the girls in the locker room. Where are these parents from? California? wait...doh!

Elfenwolf · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2002, 01:15:52 PM »

I heard they suspended the "underwear cop." Hmmm...I wonder if there's a vacancy open for a Dress Code Enforcer there...

Sikboy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2002, 01:42:30 PM »

Anyone ever read The Crucible?

-Sikboy

capt. apathy · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2002, 02:49:35 PM »

first of all it's none of the schools business what kind of underware kids are wearing, if you can tell the type of underwear then IMO the kid should already be in violation of any reasonable dress code.

second-the reason stated on the news for the 'inspections' was that at previouse dances girls where flashing other students and shoing them their underwear. it seems more likely that more people got a look at underwear(thong, none, or regular) during the inspections than in the whole history of that school.

third-since the inspector was a woman than i would suspect that my wife would be the one to go kick her bellybutton had this happened to my daughter