On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:51:23 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:25:07 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:24 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>>>
>>>> If someone goes out in public dressed as they are on that "People of
>>>> Walmart" website, they're open game in my opinion. They have no
>>>> problem being observed by the public in person so these photos are
>>>> just more observers.
>>>
>>> Picture this:
>>>
>>> Goomba pops into <fill in the supermarket of choice here> in her RN's
>>> uniform on her way home from a very stressful and busy shift at the
>>> ER/hospital/clinic. She is too exhausted/stressed to change into her
>>> 'civvies' before heading home - but, hey, her spouse/children/grand
>>> children at home need some <whatever>! Anyway, some 'observer' takes a
>>> picture of her and puts it up on a website for all to gawp at and
>>> ridicule...
>>>
>>> Guess that's just the way it is, eh?
>>>
>> <shrug> Yeah..works for me.
>
> So it's OK for you to go shopping in your working attire but not for
> anyone else? How... um, broad-minded.
>
>> Of course I don't go out in the same freakazoid clothes (or lack
>> thereof) that the people on the FOWM website seem to favor.
>
> Freakazoid clothes? Is that how your Mom described your jeans and/or
> platform shoes when you where a teenager? OMG, please don't tell me what
> she said about your 'big hair' <snork>

c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*? that ain't 'working
attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.

your pal,
blake