If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 4:06 pm, Mike wrote:
On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

Its roots have sexual connotations that some consider offensive; but
like "sucks", I'd have expected the ubiquitous use of the phrase had
rendered it generic without the sexual offensiveness.

I suspect that most Americans living today have never given any
consideration to the etymology of "sucks"......a suspicion bolstered
substantially by personal experience which suggests that the majority don't
often give any thought to etymology at all......or even know what the word
means.

Nonetheless,
what's commonplace on the coasts can still earn you some trouble in
the heartland.

True. Still, I think that even in the most brain-dead reactionary regions
of America today, the vast majority of residents would not likely find the
expression "bite me" in a context like Frank's t-shirt particularly
offensive. Um.....assuming they recognize an arcane icon like a fish hook
and have at least a fuzzy notion of what it's for. :)

Wolfgang

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:04:22 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Perhaps I should, but I've no interest whatsoever in doing so.

TC,
R

Best,

Bone

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...


Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

....and, above all else...tell them the "bone" sent you. g

jeff

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:32:47 -0500, jeff
wrote:

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...


Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

...and, above all else...tell them the "bone" sent you. g

Hmmm....

"dear website owner,

after having been informed of your libelous charges against walmart, i
have personally investigated the situation, accompanied by the young
lady i'm currently seeing. she, like any real woman, is quite familiar
with sexy underthings. based on my own observation and her expertise, i
am convinced you gals are humorless feminazi loons and in all
probability, fat-assed butt-ugly yankee dykes with too damned many cats.

yr ob svt and nyfitons,
wayno harrison, esq.
PJ's home address
PJ's cell #
wayno's office #

PS: if any of you broads are actually easy on the eyes, are you
interested in dressing up as an amish cheerleader, getting me a see-thru
and being....changed? if so, meet me at mercedes of greensboro...

CC: 'the bone' "


jeff

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...

...uh...the "pj cell #" will be patent proof of fraud. may as well use
some nigerian prince's e-mail. pj doesn't know how to turn on or dial a
cell phone. if you put one in his hand, he's apt to throw it at some
pecan tree in the hope it would serve a useful purpose by rendering a few
nuts worthy of his attention.

In France they beat the walnut trees with sticks. Not as viscerally
satisfying, perhaps, as whanging them with cell phones but almost certainly
a more economical approach to harvesting.

Wolfgang
who, having gleaned this morsel from a written text, lo these many years
ago, is probably not a real frenchman.

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

On Dec 13, 7:20 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:32:47 -0500, jeff
wrote:



Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:44 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:35:45 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:18:54 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

I saw nothing on the underwear or the label thereon that indicated size
or for whom it was intended. The _website_ brought "adolescent girls"
into things, saying it was in the "junior" department." As anyone who
has ever shopped for a (adult) female can attest, "junior" has nothing
to do with age and moreover, looking at the hanger as well as making a
fair guess that the price tag and hang tag aren't the size of a postage
stamp, I'd say that they would be a bit large the average 10-12 y.o.
girl and appear more the size appropriate for a female of adult size.

And moreover, while the "2.96" pricing is "Walmart-ish," there's no
_proof_ that they are actually being hawked there to _anyone_ - again,
one must take the website at it's word. Admittedly, I find it much
easier to believe that Walmart would (knowingly) have such and market it
to college-aged and twenty-something girls then I would they would
attempt to (again, knowingly) sell them to "adolescent girls."

And finally, I'd offer that if they are intended for over-18 gals,
whoever came up with the logo obviously doesn't know much about
women...if they did, the panties would say "Who needs THEIR OWN credit
card..."

A little follow-up: My SO and I were in a Walmart this evening (Ocean
Springs, MS) to pick up a few groceries and I had mentioned this to her
over dinner, so we went looking for them. Yep, Walmart sells 'em and
they say "If you have a Santa Claus" on the ass. And if they are
intended for "adolescent girls," someone is doing a _really_ bad job in
both placement and sizing. They were in the "sexy lingerie" (lace
thongs, push-up bras, etc.) section - there was no "junior" department
for such, just all (adult) sizes, from about Angelina Jolie to about
shudder Rosie O'Donnell. Moreover, my SO, thankfully familiar with
sexy skivvies, informs me that there is no such thing as "juniors" in
underwear because "junior" refers to a cut of clothes (ala "misses,"
"petites," etc.), not an intended age of the wearer - that much I sorta
knew from shopping for her. And she informs me that "juniors" or
whatever name underwear makes no sense. She further informs me that my
78 YO, 5' 10" 125 lb. stepmother probably wears "junior" in a lot of her
casual clothes. OK, I'll take her word on those details.

As an aside, about the most "risque" thing that we saw being hawked to
"adolescent girls" (in a totally separate "Girls" department) was a tank
top with a (fully-dressed, but dolled-up) cartoon girl with the logo
"Bratz" on it, mixed in with the "Hello, Kitty" pyjamas and various
other decidedly unrisque stuff. While the "Bratz" thing is probably not
the best image for any child, male or female, anyone who would find it
"sexy," even on an adult, has some REAL issues.

R
...and BTW, the Walton family has, for all intents and practical
purposes, nothing whatsoever to do with what is or isn't on the shelves
at Walmart, good, bad, or otherwise...

Great report, good to know. You should follow this comment up on that
site.

Best,

Bone

...and, above all else...tell them the "bone" sent you. g

Hmmm....

"dear website owner,

after having been informed of your libelous charges against walmart, i
have personally investigated the situation, accompanied by the young
lady i'm currently seeing. she, like any real woman, is quite familiar
with sexy underthings. based on my own observation and her expertise, i
am convinced you gals are humorless feminazi loons and in all
probability, fat-assed butt-ugly yankee dykes with too damned many cats.

yr ob svt and nyfitons,
wayno harrison, esq.
PJ's home address
PJ's cell #
wayno's office #

PS: if any of you broads are actually easy on the eyes, are you
interested in dressing up as an amish cheerleader, getting me a see-thru
and being....changed? if so, meet me at mercedes of greensboro...

CC: 'the bone' "



jeff

It's interesting to me to consider the offensiveness of this Bite Me
Tshirt rests *entirely* in the observer. If you are a puritan without
bad thoughts the 'literal' meaning of "Bite this fly and hook yourself
little fish" can't be offensive in the least. The other shirt, for
example "The way to an anglers heart os through his fly", likewise is
innocent, EXCEPT when perverted by profane thought. Therefore I have
concluded that the Walmart employee that through Frank out from this
TShirt was a deeply troubled pervert.

Your pal,

TBone

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:



It's interesting to me to consider the offensiveness of this Bite Me
Tshirt rests *entirely* in the observer. If you are a puritan without
bad thoughts the 'literal' meaning of "Bite this fly and hook yourself
little fish" can't be offensive in the least. The other shirt, for
example "The way to an anglers heart os through his fly", likewise is
innocent, EXCEPT when perverted by profane thought. Therefore I have
concluded that the Walmart employee that through Frank out from this
TShirt was a deeply troubled pervert.

Your pal,

TBone

but then ...aren't we all?

jeff (perfectly, pervicaciously, piscatorial-ly perverse)

If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...
 

On Dec 15, 11:46 am, jeff wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

It's interesting to me to consider the offensiveness of this Bite Me
Tshirt rests *entirely* in the observer. If you are a puritan without
bad thoughts the 'literal' meaning of "Bite this fly and hook yourself
little fish" can't be offensive in the least. The other shirt, for
example "The way to an anglers heart os through his fly", likewise is
innocent, EXCEPT when perverted by profane thought. Therefore I have
concluded that the Walmart employee that through Frank out from this
TShirt was a deeply troubled pervert.

Your pal,

TBone

but then ...aren't we all?

jeff (perfectly, pervicaciously, piscatorial-ly perverse)

precisely.