posted
MC, BB isn't using arbitrary standards of clothing, I don't think. It just sounds like that to us because he is using modesty in a way that I don't think any of us understood.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I agree with Tom then. I think you are defining modesty as what is more commonly known as self-control. I don't believe that linking the common definitions of modesty (i.e. in dress and as a srt of opposite of arrogance) with controlling oneself is useful or warranted.
Well restricting modesty to mere fashion tastes is not very useful either. If modesty is only related to clothing then its certainly not a virtue, as nobody can say what clothin is universally correct or incorrect.
I think you will find the dictionary finds much that connects modesty with how we behave.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are really interesting in that their sexual interest level is maybe as much affected by psychology as by physiology. So while there is certainly a base level of interest (hetero men will lust for boobs), the actual application of that lust is variable.
For instance, back in the day, seeing a woman's ankle was absurdly sensuous. Nowadays, of course, no one cares. Can't the same thing happen with a greater degree of flesh? People accomodate themselves to new situations quite quickly.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: MC, BB isn't using arbitrary standards of clothing, I don't think. It just sounds like that to us because he is using modesty in a way that I don't think any of us understood.
You are correct sir.
But it also sounds like you and I disagree that modesty can be used to describe the decency of somebody's behavior.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it does. There are two main usages of modesty, as I noted in what you quoted.
First, there is the idea of conservative dress.
The second connects it with how you behave (i.e. in a way mostly opposite to arrogance).
---
There are two issues with this. First, there isn't a good correspondence between the two definitions. A person who dresses conservatively is not necessarily modest in behavior and vice versa.
Second, neither one of these things is, by itself, a virtue (as self-control or Tom's suggestion of persepective are).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree that modesty can be used to describe the decency of somebody's behavior.
It depends entirely on what you mean by decency. What you were describing, to me, is neither modesty nor decency but rather self-control.
Self-control exists largely independent of how one dresses and whether they are willing to regard themselves as the best or better than others at something.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about it, I do think people use immodest behavior as meaning sexually loose. So, I think you are right about that.
Basic hedonism though, no, I don't think modesty has anything to do with that based on accepted definitions of the term.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, your idea of modesty crosses into so many different ideas, that it's very difficult for me to get a hold of. It seems to me that you're using the word "modesty" to encompass all good and right behavior.
I tend to use different words for various aspects, so I see where some of the confusion lies. From my perspective, based on the few posts, it seems like being "modest" to you is acting how you believe people should, and when someone does something which you do not believe is correct, they are being "immodest". Am I understanding correctly?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: I think I can agree with you on hedonism.
I think the problem is that modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category. So all excessive social behaviors "feel" imodest to me. The dicationary saying that modesty is the absence of vanity further inclines me to use it that way.
Mighty Cow: I understand your confusion, I must confess that I am trying to reevaluate how I use the word in light of what others in this thread are saying.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category.
For me, this shows that words can have multiple meanings, but all of those meanings don't have to be part of the same thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category.
For me, this shows that words can have multiple meanings, but all of those meanings don't have to be part of the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The idea that modesty is virtuous is one that I think is highly corrosive, especially when "modesty" is extended to include concepts like "appropriately dressed" and "inconspicuous." I don't think it's healthy to conflate the very real value of perspective -- something that is a virtue -- with an ideal that includes a default assumption of submissiveness, especially given the uneven way it's generally applied to the sexes.
I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness. Ask the folk I work with -- they'll tell you that I always show up to work wearing long skirts and long-sleeved blouses, but that I am no one's idea of submissive. No one makes me dress the way I do. It is my choice. And if I chose tomorrow to abandon my habitual dress and go out in shorts, tank top and uncovered hair, I wouldn't be pilloried, tarred, feathered, or stoned to death.
I also understand that my choices are my own, and I certainly don't expect anyone else to live by them. So, how does dressing the way I want to yield the default assumption of submissiveness?
And, I might add, if the way I dress offends you, you are always free to avert YOUR eyes.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you do put up a barrier, consider something that doesn't block all the light. That could make your workspace a lot less pleasant. When my mom was in a similar situation, she bought a sheet of plexiglas and some translucent paints to transform the window to the hallway into faux stained glass. Also, it is good to have a window or open space behind your computer monitor. This makes it less likely that you will spend all day with your eyes focused at the same distance. If you have enough flexibility, you may want to try rearranging things with that principle in mind. Good luck.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that we should never assume we know someone else's motive in dressing the way they do.
Also, people aren't responsible for what happens in other people's minds. I reject the notion that women are responsible for the things men think about them.
Let me explain why. To men in the Taliban, in Afghanistan, the sight of a female wrist or chin is alluring and distracting and attractive and shocking in exactly, precisely, the same manner as something like rear cleavage might be to someone here. It's physiologically the same thing that is happening. So the real truth is, modesty just means less skin than you're used to seeing in public, and immodesty means more. What constitutes the right amount varies hugely from pacific islanders to Canada to Mexico, southern French beaches, to Afghanistan, where they murder girls for going to school. So I reject the entire premise that women (and of course we always seem to be talking 95% about women and only 5% or less about men) are responsible for what men think about their clothes. That premise is simply false. No amount of modesty is enough. No matter what is typical locally, there will be some people who think more modesty would be better.
I'll give a few examples. Joseph F. Smith, (one of my favorite presidents of the church) gave an impassioned plea to women not to cut their garments to wear the latest fashions. This was in about 1905, I think. The women then were being so immodest as to show their wrists and ankles. That was not modest enough. I say thank goodness for the women back then who were willing to shock everyone by showing their wrists and ankles. Were it not for them I couldn't do my job, for I need to wear pants and short sleeves to be able to function on a jobsite.
Another example, on BYU campus today where it's considered wrong for girls to show knees and shoulders, someone wrote a letter to the paper asking that girls not wear their book bags across one shoulder, because the straps cut across the front of their chests and emphasized the shape of their breasts. It started a controversy and many people weighed in on either side. It's not enough for women to cover knees and shoulders. If we do that, someone will decide that we shouldn't wear our book bags the most comfortable way, because then we are obviously being deliberately tantalizing to men by emphasizing our breasts.
There's no degree of modesty that would be enough to prevent men from finding women attractive, and vice versa. The whole idea is a mistake. I think people should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing, and nobody should try to impose their standard on someone else.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, [url= http://"http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/columnists/advice/chi-0516askamymay16,1,6203241.column?coll=chi-leisureadvice-col"]today's "Ask Amy" column[/url] has a letter asking about a very similar situation. When the writer asked a couple coworkers for their opinions, he was told that *he* was at fault for noticing. Amy simply points the writer to the HR department.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still convinced that the best course of action is the tummy-tickle. As soon as she moves to stretch those arms, just run over and tickle like she's a 2-year old.
Oooo--even better--you could blow a strawberry on her tummy. That would be HILARIOUS.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm still convinced that the best course of action is the tummy-tickle. As soon as she moves to stretch those arms, just run over and tickle like she's a 2-year old.
Oooo--even better--you could blow a strawberry on her tummy. That would be HILARIOUS.
Ill let you know how that goes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: ... So I reject the entire premise that women (and of course we always seem to be talking 95% about women and only 5% or less about men) are responsible for what men think about their clothes. That premise is simply false. No amount of modesty is enough. No matter what is typical locally, there will be some people who think more modesty would be better. ... There's no degree of modesty that would be enough to prevent men from finding women attractive, and vice versa. The whole idea is a mistake. I think people should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing, and nobody should try to impose their standard on someone else.
I'm not sure if you're responding in general to BB's dilemma or the side discussion. However, I may quickly point out that the issue at hand is not that BB finds the woman distractingly attractive, but quite the reverse, distractingly corpulent.
Thus, the issue is whether any degree of modesty could prevent another person from noticing another person's corpulence.
I may further note that while your logic should apply to casual everyday living, it should not necessarily apply to a business/corporate environment where everyone is working as a team and should be somewhat considerate of the ability of others to work. I somewhat doubt that the corpulent female would be severely discomforted by wearing a shirt that could be tucked in.
Indeed, if she is in fact showing 10 to 11 inches of stomach, I question if she is wearing much of a shirt at all (11 inches is like 80% of the way from my waist to my armpit?)
In general though, your logic seems to be if you cannot please everyone, only please yourself. That seems to be a tad selfish, especially when you're working with others. Why not simply find a good compromise that pleases the majority of the people you work with?
More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Indeed, if she is in fact showing 10 to 11 inches of stomach, I question if she is wearing much of a shirt at all (11 inches is like 80% of the way from my waist to my armpit?)
10 inches on a [generously curved] belly is a much, much smaller % [of the waist-to-neck total distance along the skin] than on a flat belly. It is measuring on a (perhaps quite overhanging) curve.
[Edited to add: For example, in a patternbook I have, there is a 12 inch difference in the front top-to-bottom measurement between a small T-shirt and an XL t-shirt of the same style. This is not because slim people are taller (i.e., total neck-to-waist distance "as the crow flies" ), but because of the extended length to allow for girth outward.]
quote:More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
This might be a particularly gender-informed issue. I can't imagine myself having the reaction you suggest above (i.e., having my feelings hurt because someone didn't approach me directly, rather than use this solution), and I can't imagine really any of the women I know preferring it to be as you suggest.
It might make an interesting poll of Hatrack women. On quick skim, I see 13 women (that I know of as women -- I could be missing a gender neutral name, though), and none suggest that he speak to her directly. Some specifically say this would be a bad idea, even using the words "mortifying to her."
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
I did say in my first reply that any conversation with the woman in question would be a rather sensitive discussion.
Because of the degree of tact and sensitivity required, I feel that it really needs to come either from a friend of the woman in question (who hopefully knows how to talk to her without coming across as insulting, uncaring, etc.) or from management as a strictly work-policy issue. I am not in any way implying that BlackBlade is incapable of being sufficiently tactful to have the conversation, though I do note that he seems reluctant to do so and that *will* project if he were to try. I merely trust that a human resources manager type person will have developed the ability to handle the situation skillfully and with a minimum of damage.
Personally, if I were the woman in question, I would *not* want the guy across the walkway telling me that he could see my belly when I stretch, no matter how tactful and gentle he is in telling me. I would be upset enough hearing it from HR, but to hear it from the guy who I'm personally grossing out? I'd shut down so hard I wouldn't be able to work at my desk again for fear of what else I did that offended him.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness.
I did not say that "modesty" in dress was an indication of submissiveness. Rather, I said I disliked two specific things about the usage of "modesty" that we see here:
1) The association of conservative dress with a form of virtue. 2) That the only distinction between the recognition of "perspective" as an inherent virtue and "modesty" (in its "not-vain" sense) as an inherent virtue is the expectation of submissiveness built into the latter.
I don't think "modesty" needs to be promoted as a virtue, largely thanks to #2. However, since modesty IS promoted as a virtue (albeit in a largely sexually uneven way), I think it is unhealthy to link conservative dress to a form of virtuousness -- especially when another virtue, "self-control," has already been identified and is clearly distinct from either concept.
The use of "modest" as meaning "inexcessive" is, I think, very telling, and goes a long way towards explaining why I think it's such a corrosive concept.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: 10 inches on a [generously curved] belly is a much, much smaller % [of the waist-to-neck total distance along the skin] than on a flat belly.It is measuring on a (perhaps quite overhanging) curve.
[Edited to add: For example, in a patternbook I have, there is a 12 inch difference in the front top-to-bottom measurement between a small T-shirt and an XL t-shirt of the same style. This is not because slim people are taller (i.e., total neck-to-waist distance "as the crow flies" ), but because of the extended length to allow for girth outward.]
I find this interesting from a scientific perspective (measurement on curves and planes) but difficult to visualize clearly myself. To address this, I freehanded a drawing in Paint which compared a slim person's washboard measurement of 10 units to the 10 unit measurement of a very round-bellied stretching person of the same height.
A couple things were immediately apparent: 1) I draw very freakish-looking people in Paint, regardless of whether slim or not.
2) Nobody I know, slim or not, would want to be my friend after seeing these pictures. I think it is the bulbous, mostly bald heads and the elfin-style shoes.
Regardless, if it would be helpful, I would send the pictures to individuals who request, for scientific purposes. But you'd have to sign a waiver. (Seriously.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This, of course, explains why my favorite dress is just fine when I am slim, but a little too short when I'm not. It looks fine both ways, but when I'm not slim the J.Lo rear end does unfortunate things to the length of the dress.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I'm not making this readily accessible. Seriously, I will not have something I made being used in a way that would be harmful to others.
I can't draw well enough in Paint to not make people look horrendous.
BlackBlade, I'll email you a link, but I want your promise (here on the forum) that you will not make a copy of this picture, keep a screenshot, or in any way retain the image yourself. I'll send you a link to an online picture outline and you can look at it, but that's it. I'll take it off afterwards, and so there should be no record of that image anywhere thereafter.
And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that. ( )
For the former, I can kind of see your point. I still find it hard to understand though. How much belly does someone expose when stretching? 20% 30%
If we have 10.5 inches exposed, thats like a total belly of 52.5 inches to 35 inches. I admit, I'm having a bit of difficulty visualizing that at work. Imagine me putting pieces of 8x11 paper end to end. Three to five pieces of paper even curved?
I think I do have to see those pictures. *signs waiver too*
Perhaps my university and work environment dominated by Asian colleagues has somewhat warped my perception of the human body, but still...
As for the latter point, I freely admit that I've been thinking about this whole thread in a pretty gender neutral fashion. For me a corpulent female is just as bad as a corpulent male as a problem, I kind of equated the both in terms of a solution.
GS: Really? You're implying that hearing from HR would be better than the guy in question?
I'd have assumed the reverse. I'd be more embarrassed that a third-party (and potentially more people) have heard about the problem rather than it just to be dealt with by the person in question (and keeping the problem under the lid, so to speak).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think I do have to see those pictures. *signs waiver too*
You have to specifically say that you won't keep a copy of the image in any form, and that you understand this means that when I take it off the web, there will be no record left anywhere.
And the bit about the arms and hands, too.
quote:GS: Really? You're implying that hearing from HR would be better than the guy in question?
*nods vigourously
Oh, yes. Definitely, for me.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Agreed. Same thing as BB, I will not comment on the aesthetics of the picture, simply on the mathematics (proportions) involved.
2. Really? (Let that be a lesson in gender differences?) I'm assuming all things being equal, that both the HR person and the co-worker are equally polite and diplomatic, why would this be the case?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because if it is your co-worker, you have to remember that conversation every time you interact again. If it is an HR person, you at least don't have to see them again every day and don't have to be reminded.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness.
I did not say that "modesty" in dress was an indication of submissiveness. Rather, I said I disliked two specific things about the usage of "modesty" that we see here:
1) The association of conservative dress with a form of virtue. 2) That the only distinction between the recognition of "perspective" as an inherent virtue and "modesty" (in its "not-vain" sense) as an inherent virtue is the expectation of submissiveness built into the latter.
I don't think "modesty" needs to be promoted as a virtue, largely thanks to #2. However, since modesty IS promoted as a virtue (albeit in a largely sexually uneven way), I think it is unhealthy to link conservative dress to a form of virtuousness -- especially when another virtue, "self-control," has already been identified and is clearly distinct from either concept.
The use of "modest" as meaning "inexcessive" is, I think, very telling, and goes a long way towards explaining why I think it's such a corrosive concept.
I see. I am using the word "modest" here in a much more narrow sense than you are, and this is what is causing our difference in opinion. In the sense that I am thinking about it, "modest" means specifically a dress code that includes a certain amount of body coverage. The "not vain" and "not excessive" meanings weren't figuring into my usage. I agree with you that it is suffocating to insist that women be kept quiet and invisible. I certainly wouldn't want that for myself. And you may have noticed, I don't really present myself as quiet and invisible here. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The choice of dress is my own, and I also think that makes all the difference. There are women in my community who wear pants, short sleeves, uncovered hair, and nobody blinks. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of the women who identify as Orthodox Jews in my circle of friends dress that way. I choose different for myself, but don't attach a value judgment to the choices. I certainly don't hold myself to be more virtuous than other women. I just do what feels right for me.
For Orthodox Jews, there are gender differences in the dress code, but I don't equate differences with inequalities in this instance.
Tom, I think we are seeing this issue from different cultural perspectives, and I suspect that if we took these into account, we'd find that our positions aren't that far removed. I'm not as inscrutably foreign and backwards as I may seem at first glance. I grew up in a very secular environment, and just because I've taken on the trappings of Orthodox Judaism doesn't change the stuff that I'm made of.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina : However, even if the HR kept the name of the coworker confidential, would you not be able to deduce it eventually? There can only be so many people with a clear view and the person right across from you would be an obvious candidate.
Even if you didn't figure out, you'd probably get paranoid and suspect many more people.
Or are we talking about a "out of sight, out of mind" thing here?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It entirely depends on how the HR person words the complaint. If they cite specific instances, then absolutely I'd figure it out. If I was told that "comments have been made" about my clothes being ill-fitting enough that large movements exposed quantities of skin, maybe not.
I don't know how exactly to word this so it makes sense, but I'm much more able to process and accept criticism delivered at a distance from the source than I am from the source itself. The source in this case being BlackBlade (or the analogous coworker if I were the stretcher).
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grew up in a very secular environment, and just because I've taken on the trappings of Orthodox Judaism doesn't change the stuff that I'm made of.
You mean converting to Judaism doesn't change your body composition?!
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
Sure.
quote:
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images
Fair enough. I am, however, a student of human anatomy, despite what you will see on your screen.
---
Urls sent to both email accounts.
---
Updated at 4:46 Pacific Time to add:
And now pulled back off the 'net. (I am assuming you guys had a chance to see them -- if not, just let me know.)
posted
Obviously I was talking about the secondary discussion of modesty in my previous post, not the primary question which I covered earlier.
It's not a matter of thinking "I'm selfish so I'm going to wear what I want to wear and I don't care how horrified or offended anyone else is made by it". That is entirely not the question before us. The question is "Shall I give other people the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't dress themselves thinking either to please or annoy me, in fact, I have no stewardship over their clothing in any way, and it's strictly their decision, which I have no polite or reasonable grounds to question?" I think the latter is clearly the most civilized choice.
That is, I'm not suggesting to anyone what they should wear or not wear themselves. I'm suggesting, instead, that the most felicitous manner in which to regard someone else's clothing choices is as something not within our own purview, and not a matter upon which we should feel free to voice our opinions unasked.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
Sure.
quote:
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images
Fair enough. I am, however, a student of human anatomy, despite what you will see on your screen.
---
Urls sent to both email accounts.
---
Updated at 4:46 Pacific Time to add:
And now pulled back off the 'net. (I am assuming you guys had a chance to see them -- if not, just let me know.)
afraid not I checked my email all the way until 4:30pm EST, send it again!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also I did not receive the email with the link in the first place, Ill have to check my spam.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Try making sure the account you have registered here is correct, too. Maybe the board system is not working.
Are you here now?
I am here now, your message showed up in my spam filter. Ill be around for the next oh....5 hours.
"Your message" being the one you sent yesterday.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I have to go to conference, but I'll check back in in about 2 hrs, then tell you I'm sending it again. (Will take me a bit to put it back up, and the address may be different.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note, I did manage to take a look at the picture, but got caught up in some IRL stuff. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit. However, I did want to note that here so you did not have to wodner what became of it.
PS: The picture is not nearly as bad as you made it out to be. Certainly better than I could do in Paint Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but because of the extended length to allow for girth outward.]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I checked my email all the way until 4:30pm EST, send it again!
