If You Have A Teenaged Daughter, BEWARE!!!

 

1. Wizbangblog has an update on this item: the NYP article had the dress on backwards. The photo from the designer’s marketing info shows a dress-front that covers a good bit more than the Post’s photo (not hard, by any stretch).

   Posted by Red Five       01/25/2005  at  02:32 PM  



2. http://wizbangblog.com/

   Here’s the link to the revised story and photo Red Five referred to (above).
   The first, incorrect, photo shocked the shit out of even me.  The second one at least covers her boobs—somewhat. 
   That first dress was more suitable for a young lady’s wedding night than her prom night.

   Posted by Oink       01/25/2005  at  03:03 PM  



3. I looked at both photos and it doesn’t look like she had it on backwards.  I think it’s the strait on shot so you don’t see the cloth on the side.

   Either way, over my dead body before I’d let my girls wear that, and the guy that said “If my daughter had the body to wear it, I’d let her” needs to be taken out back.

   Posted by mt       01/25/2005  at  04:25 PM  



4. My daughter had the body to wear that dress—when she was two years old and wore a diaper.

   

   Posted by Oink       01/25/2005  at  04:55 PM  



5. Michelle Malkin has just been put on my short list of “Must Read” sites (after BMEWS, of course!) - thanks for the link Vilmar. As for the dress, my daughter has enough sense never to have worn such a thing, and after delivering my grandson, and another on the way, I doubt she would want to now! (grin) Nor would we have ever let her out of the basement wearing it.

   Off topic a bit, Oink’s link to http://wizbangblog.com/ also turned up this little gem at:http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050125/D87R5NS01.html which has as its most salient feature this:

   “Michael Moore’s gamble to hold his hit film “Fahrenheit 9/11” out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.”

   ROFLOLPMP!

   -Dan D,
   Canuckistan

   Posted by Dan D       01/25/2005  at  05:02 PM  



6. Vilmar, I can’t help but think that yesterday’s endorsement of Michelle’s site as first runner-up to BMEWS had something to do with your decision…

   Seriously, I started reading her weekly column at TownHall.com about 2 years ago.  I discovered sometime later that her site had gone to a blog format, and it has been on my daily read list for quite a few months now.  She is also a Fox News contributor and analyst from time to time.

   Posted by Illegitimi Non Carborundum       01/25/2005  at  05:39 PM  



7. INC, nope, you are mistaken.  I really have not been paying attention to the contest results.

   I read much of Michelle’s stuff on Townhall.com and only recently started going to her site because of a pissing contest between her and Vox Day (vox populi blog)

   Plus, she’s a little fox!  OINK!! OINK!!

   Posted by Vilmar       01/25/2005  at  05:49 PM  



8. Yes Vilmar, you called my name?  Twice.  I didn’t hear you the first time because I was staring at Michelle.
   She breaks the rule:

   Beauty times brains equals a constant

   (If any of you younger members who attended public school need help with that equasion, let me know)

   Posted by Oink       01/25/2005  at  05:55 PM  



9. Oh well....part of my nomination for Michelle as first runner-up for best blog mentioned the fact that she is “...way better looking than you two (Allan and Vilmar).”

   Posted by Illegitimi Non Carborundum       01/25/2005  at  06:18 PM  



10. Sorry, I must use my twisted lyrics for The Who’s “Athena” here:

    She’s not a girl...She’s a WHORE!

    Posted by Macker       01/26/2005  at  01:44 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.