Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Marduk edit: this is question 61716, for reference
I'm just confused about one thing: why did Rating Pending tell Hypatia "Why don't you lay off"? The Board has always gotten after people who use their "question" just to rant about some issue instead of actually asking a question. This is important, or else the Board will disintegrate into comments beneath YouTube videos. And while RP was right - there was a question hidden in there, disguised as a sentence - Hypatia's point that actual answerable questions are preferred is still valid. Telling her to lay off seemed harsh to me. Or am I missing something?

I thought Hypatia's answer was pretty fair, actually, so I'm with you 42 - RP's response seemed a bit harsh.

On second thought, I struggle to maintain my objectivity when it comes to honor code "infractions," so perhaps I am not the best judge of what a fair answer is.

I also don't really think it was fair to tell Hypatia to lay off, but it smacks of something going on of which we are not aware, so I'll refrain from judgement.

Aye, I think Marduk has it spot on; and if my reading is correct, there has been some editing to prevent any more confusion.

Yeah, looks like Rating Pending (or the editors) pulled the question and re-posted it with a more family friendly reply.

Aaaaaw! You guys! I thought all the readers hated me!

Okay, maybe I need to be a bit more sensitive...I really wasn't offended by RP's first response. Turns out he was making a little jokey joke (did anyone notice that while "Why don't you lay off." was a question, it was both rhetorical and ended in a period? Just like the question asker's quesion? GET IT?!)

Anyway, don't worry, there is LOADS of drama between RP and myself. We are declared Board Enemies (Boardamies for those in the know). I'm sorry our continued hatred of each other spilled over to an answer.

Also, if I die in the near future, EVEN IF THERE IS A SUICIDE NOTE, it was murder. By Rating Pending.

- H

lol

I've never understood why leggings are more offensive to the eyes (and soul, apparently) than skinny jeans. Anyone care to explain?

UnluckyStuntman wrote:I've never understood why leggings are more offensive to the eyes (and soul, apparently) than skinny jeans. Anyone care to explain?

I can't explain all leggings, but the ones with big stripes of bright colors are just awful. They make the wearer look like something out of Dr. Seuss.

UnluckyStuntman wrote:I've never understood why leggings are more offensive to the eyes (and soul, apparently) than skinny jeans. Anyone care to explain?

I can't explain it. And while I definitely agree that tights are not pants, I think if someone is so sexually frustrated that they get excited and can't deal with it when they see a girl wearing leggings with parts above their knee showing, then maybe they just need to join a monastery. Seriously, most people who try to rock the leggings-as-pants look are fat enough (as a fat person I hearby decree that it's acceptable to say the word fat) that their legs look like sausages and there's usually some jiggling going on. I don't understand how that's hot. Nobody looks good like that. It either makes them look fat, or if they're skinny enough that it doesn't, it makes them look bad-skinny.

By the way, tirades about modesty at BYU make me really ranty. Were any of you around for the single-strap backpack fiasco of '01? (or maybe '00 or '02 - but it was sometime back then.) That was the best ever. And one time I wrote a letter to the editor after someone wrote a tirade about tankinis being a way for girls to sneakily break the swimsuit rules. I pointed out that the reason we wear tankinis is because you can get them with shorts and they come up high in the back, and some of us care more about not having side boobs popping out than accidentally showing our belly buttons if the top floats up a bit while swimming.

NerdGirl wrote:By the way, tirades about modesty at BYU make me really ranty. Were any of you around for the single-strap backpack fiasco of '01? (or maybe '00 or '02 - but it was sometime back then.) That was the best ever.

I do remember that! Ah, uptight little BYU students.

Katya took the words out of my mouth. Ahh, the memories of judgemental idiots. The single strap backpack episode was especially pathetic.

And really, there isn't any difference (to me) between super skinny jeans and leggings. Unless you have the mildly see-through variety of leggings.

I think if someone is so sexually frustrated that they get excited and can't deal with it when they see a girl wearing leggings with parts above their knee showing, then maybe they just need to join a monastery.

Amen, sista. I mean, obviously BYU is a sexually frustrated land - much more so than other colleges that lack actual virgins - but . . . some people need to just take some deep breaths sometimes.

I just want to second (or third or whatever) everything that has already been said here.
:)

Laser Jock wrote:

UnluckyStuntman wrote:I've never understood why leggings are more offensive to the eyes (and soul, apparently) than skinny jeans. Anyone care to explain?

I can't explain all leggings, but the ones with big stripes of bright colors are just awful. They make the wearer look like something out of Dr. Seuss.

Ah, man, this just made my day. I will be thinking about Dr. Seuss tomorrow during sacrament meeting, so thanks for that.

This is why BYU should return to its policy of only allowing girls to wear skirts or dresses.

Marduk wrote:This is why BYU should return to its policy of only allowing girls to wear skirts or dresses.

And why BYU should never change its policy on facial hair. Beards are just too distractingly manly.

Since short skirts with leggings are so detestable...if I just wore the short skirt with nothing else, I should be fine, right? Right?


Right?


Oh, and by "nothing else" I meant "nothing else ON MY LEGS." I do not condone toplessness on campus.

I condone it.

I condone the heck out of it.

For me.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/24027/

Bahaha.