May 2nd Mark Your Calendars
Dan Rondello
May 2nd at 9:30 a.m. EDT,
Terri Sue Webb will have her next trial.
Ms. Webb is from Bend,OR where she was charged with indecent exposure
for riding her bike in the nude. At her last trial she went to court
wearing only cowgirl boots.
Dan
Cheri Alexander
news:5464-3CC...@storefull-2192.public.lawson.webtv.net...
anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
respect for the court
IMNSHO.
Cheri
--
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
Co-owner/moderator listserv jewish...@yahoogroups.com
http://www.Travelites.info
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/cheristravelites
Travelites, Inc. Nudist Club
PO Box 90836, Columbia, SC 29290
803/695-1937
Next events:
5/4 - Cinco de Mayo (yes, it is a day early)
Annual Auction begins
5/18 - Adopt A Highway Cleanup
- Kids' Games for Adults
5/25-27 Carolina Foothills
6/1 - Club birthday party & membership meeting
Jenny6833A
>anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
>respect for the court
>IMNSHO.
Whose business attire?
What is *your* idea of business attire?
Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of showing
respect?
Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
You come across as stodgy and prudish.
>Cheri
>--
>Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
Based on your remarks above, I strongly doubt that.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, Remove Clothes
Suntanner
Let us hope she isn't disrespectful this time.
--
Do you know why cowgirls have bow legs? So cowboys can eat w/their hats
on.
Kathleen
>respect for the court
>IMNSHO.
>
>Cheri
huh? why should wearing a certain type of clothing be more respectful than no
clothing at all?
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
t892t
"Jenny6833A" <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20020428220831...@mb-de.aol.com...
Cheri Alexander
> "Cheri Alexander" cheri...@prodigy.net says
>
> >anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
> >respect for the court
> >IMNSHO.
>
> Whose business attire?
>
> What is *your* idea of business attire?
>
> Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of showing
> respect?
> Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
> You come across as stodgy and prudish.
Jenny, Generally, in a court of law IF the person(s) appearing
in front of a judge wears something that is more generally acceptable than
beachwear (or nothing) in the general public that person(s) is more likely
to win a favorable opinion.
There was once a South Carolina judge who sent lawyers out to get haircuts.
Bubba was definitely one judge who commanded respect.
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
Co-owner/moderator listserv jewish...@yahoogroups.com
http://www.Travelites.info
Dan Rondello
anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
respect for the court
IMNSHO.
Cheri
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII<><><>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII<><><>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Kathleen chimes in with:
huh? why should wearing a certain type of clothing be more respectful
than no clothing at all?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII<><><>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII<><><>IIIII
Jenny hits her buzzer and says:
Whose business attire?
What is *your* idea of business attire?
Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of
showing respect?
Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
You come across as stodgy and prudish.
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
<><><> <><><>
High 5's and naked hugs for Jenny and Kathleen
Dan
(who hopes she goes to court naked again.)
CO British Columbia
jenny...@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
> "Cheri Alexander" cheri...@prodigy.net says
>
> >anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
> >respect for the court
> >IMNSHO.
>
> Whose business attire?
>
> What is *your* idea of business attire?
>
> Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of showing
> respect?
It's not *her* version. It's the *court's* version. Courts are steeped
in formality.
> Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
When you want to win your case.
> You come across as stodgy and prudish.
Which is a perfect way to present yourself to a stodgy, prudish court.
If you want to make a point or cause a stir, then wear whatever you
want. But if you want to go in and win your case, play by the rules
while you are in the court room.
Bill.
--
Clothing-Optional British Columbia
http://members.shaw.ca/co-bc <<<<<<<<<< new URL <<<<<<<
============== "The future is not what it used to be" ===============
William Balmer
"Kathleen" <okeef...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020429120215...@mb-bd.aol.com...
You used the word "should", and you're right - it shouldn't. But most of us
live in the real world and are forced to live with the differences between
"should" and "is", as much as we'd like to change them. My first grader is
learning the difference between fantasy and reality in school. I think some
of us need to go back and repeat that lesson. We do what we can to make
reality more like what we envision, but we all know it's not there yet!
Gus Altobello Jr
> "Cheri Alexander" cheri...@prodigy.net says
>
> >anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
> >respect for the court
> >IMNSHO.
>
> Whose business attire?
>
> What is *your* idea of business attire?
>
> Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of showing
> respect?
>
> Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
>
> You come across as stodgy and prudish.
>
Jenny, your argument is valid for most any situation except this one.
Appearing in court nude is a statement that you do not respect the
court, nor its jurisdiction. That may indeed be true. But if your
effort is to change the laws, then telling the lawmakers to "f*ck off"
is not likely to produce positive results.
Congratulations to her for showing up nude and making the statement
that she's inclined to do as she pleases, regardless who cares.
Too bad that her behavior is most likely to be interpreted the same as
that of an accused murderer who says "they deserved to die". Or a sex
offender who argues that "children really like it". Or an thief who
takes a fancy to some item in the court, and takes it. By her
actions, she is clearly not fighting to promote the legalization of
nudity; she is merely making the statement that she does not believe
the laws apply to her.
Hopefully the judge will not confuse the claim of nudists that the
laws should be changed, with her statement that the laws should be
flaunted and ignored. This is not civil disobedience, this is
contempt, and as much as a court may be worthy of it, it seldom
produces positive change that I've ever seen.
-gus
allnude
Destruct wins NOTHING...
Kathleen's and Jenny's statements (and your concurrence wanting to see
breasts) are way off base from the ability to win a court case.
Dan, GROW UP.
"Dan Rondello" <nake...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14484-3CC...@storefull-2191.public.lawson.webtv.net...
cyndiann
>From: Gus Altobello Jr alt...@optonline.net
>Date: 4/30/02 12:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v2htcu0eb4ahsjmr2...@4ax.com>
>. By her
>actions, she is clearly not fighting to promote the legalization of
>nudity; she is merely making the statement that she does not believe
>the laws apply to her.
>
Merely? I think that is a great statement to make!
cyndiann
Gus Altobello Jr
Not in a Court of Law, IMHO.
Perhaps not anywhere.
IMHO, it's a different statement than "I think the laws are wrong".
The act of civil disobedience is to break a "bad" law, often in a way
that virutally guarantees arrest, then argue *within the system* the
merits of the law in an effort to prove the law is wrong. Such a
tactic would be for a group to go nude on a beach, get arrested, then
appear in court and argue that the law either doesn't apply or is
otherwise invalid.
Getting arrested for mere nudity, then flipping off the court (which
might otherwise be inclined towards a sympathetic view of the
situation, who knows?) and stating by your actions that you're above
or beyond the law, will not get the laws changed. On the contrary, it
says that she is the sort of person who might not believe in traffic
signals, or in dog-leash laws, or in parking fines -- and if so,
she'll just do what she wants.
Very different statements, but again, only IMHO. One could conclude
that she's an Anarchist and hell-bent on destroying society, rather
than that she's a citizen who is asserting rights unfairly denied her.
However, from a point of view that the laws are so unjust and so
unlikely to change, then I suppose futile resistance looks good and
perhaps even brave. I don't share that point of view, but it really
is a subjective call. I'd think that antagonizing the court, and
possibly causing the judge to conclude that "people who go around
nekkid advocate lawlessness and are a threat to society" would be a
Bad Thing. But one must do what one believes in.
I wish her the best of luck in her endeavors, whatever her ultimate
aim in behaving the way she has chosen.
-gus
Dan Rondello
anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
respect for the court
IMNSHO.
Cheri
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Cheri,
I'm going to assume that the "NS" in your IMNSHO stands for Naturist
Society, but you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In any event,
many prominent members of TNS support Ms.Webb, in fact much of the info
I got about this case came from a NAC alert.
You say that appearing in court in less than business attire is
disrespectful. To that I say, if it's "disrespectful" it's because
people have been socially conditioned to think that way. Why can't we
try to change that social conditioning?
Ms.Webb's court house nudity was a statement that nudity should be
accepted anywhere and everywhere. How many other people would be brave
enough to take such a stand? Terri Sue Webb is a true freedom fighter in
my book.
Dan
Dan Rondello
Dan Rondello
allnude gives another typical response with:
That figures..........quick way to lose and be a "martyr"?????.....Self
Destruct wins NOTHING...
Kathleen's and Jenny's statements (and your concurrence wanting to see
breasts) are way off base from the ability to win a court case.
Dan, GROW UP.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Growing up leads to growing old/ and then to dying/ and dying to
me/..... don't sound like all that much fun !
- From "The Authority Song" by John Mellencamp
Dan
Dan Rondello
If Ms.Webb appears nude in court again on May 2nd, and should she use
the arguement that she has the right to do so, here is some ammo that
she may want to use.
"The enumeration in the constitution , of certain rights , shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-The 9th Amendment
Also, there is an organization called BeachFront U.S.A., which believes
that the rights to be nude already exist. Lee Baxandall of TNS is a
member of BeachFront U.S.A.
Dan
Cheri Alexander
>
> anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
> respect for the court
> IMNSHO.
> Cheri
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Cheri,
>
> I'm going to assume that the "NS" in your IMNSHO stands for Naturist
> Society, but you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In any event,
VERY wrong. It stands for NOT SO
Jenny6833A
>Jenny, your argument is valid for most any situation except this one.
What argument? All I did was ask questions. <G>
>Appearing in court nude is a statement that you do not respect the
>court, nor its jurisdiction.
Gus, you need to justify that assertion of yours. You have not done so in
either of your posts. Until you have done so persuasively, all else you say is
irrelevant because your premise has failed.
> That may indeed be true.
There is absolutely no evidence whatever that the lady in question *intended*
to show disrespect.
Nor did she break any law by appearing nude in court.
> But if your
>effort is to change the laws, then telling the lawmakers to "f*ck off"
>is not likely to produce positive results.
Gus, Gus, a judge is not a lawmaker.
You still have not justified your assertion that the lady did (or intended to)
tell anyone to "f*ck off."
>Congratulations to her for showing up nude and making the statement
>that she's inclined to do as she pleases, regardless who cares.
According to the law, and the federal and state constitutions, she is entitled
to do anything she pleases that isn't against the law.
There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
>Too bad that her behavior is most likely to be interpreted the same as
>that of an accused murderer who says "they deserved to die". Or a sex
>offender who argues that "children really like it". Or an thief who
>takes a fancy to some item in the court, and takes it.
You are inventing wild examples -- all of which are against the law.
There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
> By her
>actions, she is clearly not fighting to promote the legalization of
>nudity;
She is not promoting, and doesn't need to promote, the legalization of mere
nudity. There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in
Deschutes County.
> she is merely making the statement that she does not believe
>the laws apply to her.
She has not made any such statement. There is no law against mere nudity in
the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
>Hopefully the judge will not confuse the claim of nudists that the
>laws should be changed ...
Nudists don't seek a change in the law. There is no law against mere nudity in
the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
>... with her statement that the laws should be flaunted and ignored.
She has made no such statement. There is no law against mere nudity in the
city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
> This is not civil disobedience, this is
>contempt ....
Gus, I really need to explain something to you.
THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST MERE NUDITY IN THE CITY OF BEND OR IN DESCHUTES COUNTY.
> ... and as much as a court may be worthy of it, it seldom
>produces positive change that I've ever seen.
She acted legally in every way while riding her bicycle nude. She violated no
laws: no traffic laws and no other laws.
There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
She is being prosecuted on what amounts to the charge that mere, LEGAL nudity
is so distracting that it constitutes a traffic hazard -- even though there is
no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
That's an attempt by a prissy prosecutor to get around two facts:
1) There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
2) The Oregon legislature refuses to allow the city of Bend or Deschutes County
to make any law against mere nudity.
It's worth noting, however, that neither the prosecutor nor the judge have
claimed that appearing nude in a courtroom constitutes a traffic hazzard.
She was held in contempt by a judge who had a hysterical hissy fit over the
perfectly legal courtroom demeanor of the defendant.
Gus, it's now time to summarize:
a) There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
b) The lady in question broke no state, county, or city law by riding her
bicycle nude in the city of Bend.
c) The lady in question broke no state, county, or city law by being nude in
court.
Gus, have you got that?
Jenny6833A
>Getting arrested for mere nudity, then flipping off the court (which
>might otherwise be inclined towards a sympathetic view of the
>situation, who knows?) and stating by your actions that you're above
>or beyond the law, will not get the laws changed.
Gus, there is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
> On the contrary, it
>says that she is the sort of person who might not believe in traffic
>signals, or in dog-leash laws, or in parking fines -- and if so,
>she'll just do what she wants.
Gus, there is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
>Very different statements, but again, only IMHO. One could conclude
>that she's an Anarchist and hell-bent on destroying society, rather
>than that she's a citizen who is asserting rights unfairly denied her.
Gus, there is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
>However, from a point of view that the laws are so unjust and so
>unlikely to change, then I suppose futile resistance looks good and
>perhaps even brave.
Gus, there is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
> I'd think that antagonizing the court, and
>possibly causing the judge to conclude that "people who go around
>nekkid advocate lawlessness and are a threat to society" would be a
>Bad Thing.
Gus, there is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
County.
>I wish her the best of luck in her endeavors, whatever her ultimate
>aim in behaving the way she has chosen.
As far as I can tell, her ultimate aim is to behave legally in places where a
few assholes want to impose phony non-laws of their own invention.
She is obeying the law. They are trying to subvert the law.
They, not she, are the outlaws.
Gus, I think you're on the wrong side here.
Dan Rondello
Cheri says:
VERY wrong. It stands for NOT SO
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
O.k., I stand corrected sorry!
Dan
johnz simmons
system.......i think.. and now you are aware that we are dealing with
militant nudist here in rec nude.........they want it black and
white........but as you know the legal system is shades of
grey.......first of all jenny fails to recognize that the county court
is a biased court......meant to be just that.....to be representative of
the contiguency in order to sustain a level of community standards that
is expected by the majority..........and the community realizes that the
fed courts can and will overturn some judges decisions........and there
is back up to shore up and protect the community standards....ie.
disorderly conduct...indecent exposure......nuisance behavior and an
outrage to public decency..these are meant to harass and challenge the
person or persons acting as an affront to the community standards.....of
which you eloquently addressed.........the ignorance of the nude female
is evident only to be equal to the militant ones in rec nude........a
gracious and respectful humble attitude always gets the maximum of
respect in those courts......to do otherwise is immature.......i
appreciate you being here with your sound ethical and professional
opinions........johnz
Gus Altobello Jr
[...snip...]
> She acted legally in every way while riding her bicycle nude. She violated no
> laws: no traffic laws and no other laws.
>
> There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
>
> She is being prosecuted on what amounts to the charge that mere, LEGAL nudity
> is so distracting that it constitutes a traffic hazard -- even though there is
> no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes County.
>
> That's an attempt by a prissy prosecutor to get around two facts:
>
> 1) There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
> County.
>
> 2) The Oregon legislature refuses to allow the city of Bend or Deschutes County
> to make any law against mere nudity.
>
> It's worth noting, however, that neither the prosecutor nor the judge have
> claimed that appearing nude in a courtroom constitutes a traffic hazzard.
>
> She was held in contempt by a judge who had a hysterical hissy fit over the
> perfectly legal courtroom demeanor of the defendant.
>
>
> Gus, it's now time to summarize:
>
> a) There is no law against mere nudity in the city of Bend or in Deschutes
> County.
>
> b) The lady in question broke no state, county, or city law by riding her
> bicycle nude in the city of Bend.
>
> c) The lady in question broke no state, county, or city law by being nude in
> court.
>
> Gus, have you got that?
>
[...]
Got it.
Showing up nude in court, whether lawful or not, is WITHOUT QUESTION
flipping off the judge. You may not get that, she may not get that,
there may be no objective manner in which to prove that to your
satisfaction, but the fact that the judge had "a hissy fit" is,
IMNSHO, a situation that any reasonable observer could have predicted.
In a game of Judge versus Defendant, I know where the smart money's
bet. That doesn't make it right or wrong, just "so". You're free to
dispute that, it's merely my opinion.
Such behavior in a situation where no law exists to the contrary may
indeed further her aims. In that case, she's chosen a wise strategy
to flush out those who would enforce their own version of the law.
Granted the prosecutor is reaching in this case. Granted I was not
aware of the laws in effect (or rather not in effect). Granted, even,
that appearing nude in that court may be perfectly legal. I doubt it
happens much more than showing up in a bikini. It was still a stunt
intended to inflame, and the results were, in that environment,
predictable.
I hope the continuing overreaction by the State's agents turns to her
advantage soon. The simple fact is that many have been incarcerated
for things that are arguably not illegal. The trick is generally to
lock 'em up for some other minor infraction. And gee, isn't that what
happened here to begin with? So if being nude in court is defendably
legal, I'm sure there's another charge that can be trumped up that
sticks.
There is at best a fine line between heroism and recklessness.
Whether one is remembered a hero or a fool is often based more on how
things happened to work out, rather than on one's actions.
You say I'm on the wrong side. No, I'm not. My observation is that
showing contempt of court, even when it's well-deserved, is a
dangerous game. Whether there is or is not a law banning simple
nudity, the fact is she's in court for simply being nude. This is, to
my thinking, simply wrong. But to ridicule the court in her manner of
dress is simply stupid. Unless she's stupid like a fox, and has a
plan to upset all their applecarts by drawing them into overreacting
far beyond excusable limits.
My observation is that, for prosecutors and judges and other State's
agents, the excusable limits are typically quite broad. And for
defendants, quite narrow.
One can be Right and still lose. She's playing a serious game of
hardball, and I wish her well.
You can read into this whatever you wish. The fact is that in most of
the USA, one can be arrested at any time for just about any reason.
Much has been said in recent decades about such behavior, yet it
persists. If you're on the outside, you are at a disadvantage. Argue
this all you want, declare it Wrong and Evil, mount a demonstration
and protest till you drop. It's all been done before. There have
been some changes, but I wouldn't stake my freedom on it had I other
choices.
But rooting for the underdog, especially when they are in the right,
is a great American pastime. So is defiance of authority.
The cat-and-mouse game is likely to continue until one side or the
other is worn down and gives in. Please let us know how things turn
out. I wish her the best in her proceedings, and hope even that's
good enough.
-gus
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Everyone,
We don't understand this thread = in all the time we've known here, Cheri
has ALWAYS been properly attired in her natural best.
In Hot Water,
Camilla Van Sickle & Bill Pennington
El Dorado Hot Spring, A Million Miles From Monday...
POB 10
Tonopah, Arizona 85354
www.el-dorado.com
hots...@el-dorado.com
623-386-5412
Gus Altobello Jr
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 04:33:33 GMT, Gus Altobello Jr
> <alt...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
> >One can be Right and still lose. She's playing a serious game of
> >hardball, and I wish her well.
>
> If you are right, you need to go for what you want... If you play to
> lose, you will lose more often...
[...]
I agree entirely with your first statement. As for the second,
there's a time for diplomacy and a time for war, and only history can
judge whether one made the correct decision...
-gus
Gus Altobello Jr
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:27:54 GMT, Gus Altobello Jr
> <alt...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
> >Too bad that her behavior is most likely to be interpreted the same as
> >that of an accused murderer who says "they deserved to die". Or a sex
> >offender who argues that "children really like it". Or an thief who
> >takes a fancy to some item in the court, and takes it. By her
> >actions, she is clearly not fighting to promote the legalization of
> >nudity; she is merely making the statement that she does not believe
> >the laws apply to her.
>
> Are you accusing me of being a sex offender? There are those who
> speak objectively you know... Not just in accordance with what you
> would like to hear.., *if* that was your meaning.
Odd that you would read it that way, as I wasn't addressing you. Your
reason for taking this comment personally is a matter between you and
your conscience. Note also in my paragraph that I don't assert that
"they DIDN'T deserve to die" or that "children really DON'T like it",
only that such an argument, however true it objectively seems (from
your subjective point of view) is an extraordinarily tough sell in
court. But the landmark cases are won on tough sells.
And the forgotten cases are lost the same way.
Offhand, I can think of no time when one speaks truly objectively.
Even a scientist presenting the dryest of facts has a point of view,
and humans have a hard time getting past that.
> >Hopefully the judge will not confuse the claim of nudists that the
> >laws should be changed, with her statement that the laws should be
> >flaunted and ignored. This is not civil disobedience, this is
> >contempt, and as much as a court may be worthy of it, it seldom
> >produces positive change that I've ever seen.
> >
> > -gus
>
> The idea that the d.a.'s and courts of this country can run all over
> people and scare them into confessing something they didn't do, by
> coping a plea to something less that the original charge, smells like
> the same thing we are talking about here. In those cases *they* are
> laying their disrespect on the individual and *they* are getting away
> with it. The everyday citizen has to fess up or pay up under the
> threat of unreasonable conviction. I see Terry as their antithesis...
> She will cause *them* to cop a plea because she is obviously not
> afraid of them. They won't dare to convict her of anything major
> because that will bring an escalation to her cause. And they don't
> want that because they will loose in the end.... When people start
> pushing back, maybe *we* will finally get some justice.
>
> Floyd
I fully agree wth your comment on rogue prosecutors and courts. An
earlier point that "judges are not lawmakers" is technically true, but
as the intrepreters of the law they do have that power. It is indeed
criminal.
Whatever you've heard me say in the matter, I do hope she has the
fortitude and resources to see this through. My opinion is that it's
a dangerous path she's set upon, one where "being right" or being
within the law won't, by itself, bring success. But in some
situations, neither will "not pushing back", so here's hoping she
prevails...
-gus
Cheri Alexander
news:aao1lp$j8l$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
C&B,
Come to think of it, I've always seen you au naturale only as well. It's
about 9 yrs.
now...how time flies.
Hugs, Cheri
--
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
Co-owner/moderator listserv jewish...@yahoogroups.com
http://www.Travelites.info
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cheristravelites
Cheri Alexander
Dan, You're forgiven. That's what happens when you ASSume (wasn't that
the Bad News Bears - ?)
:) Cheri
cyndiann
>From: "Cheri Alexander" cheri...@prodigy.net
>Date: 5/1/02 10:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <l0Tz8.4366$dl3.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
>
>Dan Rondello <nake...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:7449-3CC...@storefull-2198.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>>
>> Cheri says:
>> VERY wrong. It stands for NOT SO
>>
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>> O.k., I stand corrected sorry!
>>
>> Dan
> ==
>
>Dan, You're forgiven. That's what happens when you ASSume (wasn't that
>the Bad News Bears - ?)
>
Kathleen
>breasts) are way off base from the ability to win a court case.
>
now if Cheri would have said that not wearing the expected attire was no way to
a win a court case I would have agreed. But that is not what she said. She said
it was not showing respect for the court. It could very well be showing respect
for the court to be nude but you are right it might not be the way to win the
case.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
Jenny6833A
>now if Cheri would have said that not wearing the expected attire was no way
>to
>a win a court case I would have agreed. But that is not what she said. She
>said
>it was not showing respect for the court. It could very well be showing
>respect
>for the court to be nude but you are right it might not be the way to win the
>case.
Thank you, Kathleen.
Cheri, and some others here, refuse to admit the basic premise behind their
opinions.
What they're really saying is, "Nudity equates to disrespect."
That's as silly as saying, "Nudity equates to sex."
Respect is about how one behaves, not about how one does or doesn't cover
oneself with cloth.
Nudity does not equate to disrespect.
johnz simmons
What they're really saying is, "Nudity equates to disrespect."
happens after birth of a boy or girl that has the result of twisting
their mind so out of line with the majority and i mean large
majority.... about the issue of clothing ones body to appear acceptable
to that majority when in their presence.........i love to travel through
out this country and meet all the people ....attend church of others
faith.....converse with people of other ethnic backgrounds and when in
their presence trying to be respectful of their particular ideas of
behavior.......in other words blend in to make them feel comfortable
with me.........but since the sixties.....nudist ....and pagans....and
others. that have totally rebelled against those norms have created a
social enviro of hatred.....skepticism.....doubt and non trust of
others.......dysfunctional children killing parents teachers and other
children.......a real chaotic hell on earth.......while fussing and
pointing out that they dont like the world as it has
become.either......and these same folks cannot see that they are the
ones that have contributed to that world that now
exist........BUT...there are those like jenny that are so hard and full
of hate for the norms that the killings the hatred and chaos is norm for
them and have convinced themselves that it is a beautiful world.......i
am so thankful that God has blessed the ones that have prayed for the
majority to stick together and reject the social misfits
ie...nudist...pagans...some atheist....hate freaks......and
others......to state that people that are offended by nudity and nudity
equals sex is silly is the ultimate example of this hate freak
mentality....who are you people and how did you get to be this
way......you have the right to do things in private but that is not
enough for your kind.......you want to confront the ones that do not
agree and try and convince and force them to accept you........are there
some like floyd that is not as hard and full of hate that could maybe
change their mind.....to blend in with the majority and respect the
majority wish that you would do your thing in private.....the social
misfits that attend your world is making you feel how the majority feels
about you...johnz
Kenneth R. Dyson
"Jenny6833A" <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20020501202124...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Jenny... What may be permissible in a courtroom is entirely up to the
judge. I have seen courtrooms where it was hard to tell if a trial was
actually going on or not. I have seen others where even near inaudible
whispering was frowned upon from the bench. I have seen courtrooms where
it was the judicial prerogative for all attorneys to be in three piece suits
or the equivalent in women's wear.
In all of these cases it was the "Judge" that stipulates what is or isn't
permissible in "their" courtroom. You can claim all you want that it is
the public's courtroom or the people's courtroom. Technically you are
correct. BUT... as soon as court is called to order, it is the judge that
sets the rules for what goes on while the court is in session. It is in
the judge's discretion as to what may be allowed during the time the court
is in session. You don't have to like it, but you do have to follow the
rules the judge dictates. Failure to do so could make you guilty of
contempt of court and off to jail you would go. Now you can argue the
reasons for the contempt all you want. The bottom line would be on whether
or not you obeyed the judge when they asked you to do something. If you
refused, then you would be found guilty.
As one California Superior Court Judge told me... (and this is a near a
quote as I can remember) "I am a nudist for 15 hours a day when I have Court
in session The other nine hours I demand that proper decorum and respect
be shown to the court no matter what else is happening." Now here is a
judge that is a nudist himself and has been known to look favorable on some
nudist issues. I also know he has issued orders that shut down several
"adult" businesses because they ignored local zoning requirements. Bottom
line? he nude all you want every else where it is legal... or at least not
illegal... but in court... it is best to dress to impress. (even though it
is against many of our basic natures)
Jenny also said "a judge is not a lawmaker." On this point, she is right.
A Judge while not being a law maker is in some ways even more important. A
Law interpreter. I think simply put... ALL judges interpret the law by
several criteria... among them is past court cases with similar
circumstances... how the law is written... and what parts of the law may be
applicable... It is up to the judge to decide on what is applicable and
permissible in each circumstance... so.. they do interpret the law... Even
in the cases of jury trials, the judge decides how the case is run... what
may be permissible and what isn't... and at the end still charges the
jury...
The point of all this??? Just pointing out that the judge is the one that
you would want on your side if possible at all.
Cheri Alexander
Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20020501202124...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Jenny, Dirty jeans in a court of law shows disrespect. If all a person owns
is a pair of jeans,
they should at least be clean. Some judges over the years have asked
lawyers to leave
and get a hair cut
Jenny6833A
>> Cheri, and some others here, refuse to admit the basic premise behind
>their
>> opinions.
>>
>> What they're really saying is, "Nudity equates to disrespect."
>>
>> That's as silly as saying, "Nudity equates to sex."
>>
>> Respect is about how one behaves, not about how one does or doesn't cover
>> oneself with cloth.
>>
>> Nudity does not equate to disrespect.
>> :-)
>>
>> Jenny
>
>Jenny, Dirty jeans in a court of law shows disrespect. If all a person owns
>is a pair of jeans,
>they should at least be clean.
Cheri, quit changing the subject.
You are the one who said that anything less than "business atire" was less than
respectful.
Defend that opinion, if you can, but don't try to weasel out of it by changing
the subject to dirty versus clean.
The subject is whether nudity is, by itself, disrespectful.
>Some judges over the years have asked
>lawyers to leave
>and get a hair cut
Some have, and were wrong to do so.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Once again, you're trying to avoid having to defend your opinion by changing
the subject.
gbrannan
Kathleen <okeef...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020501192454...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> now if Cheri would have said that not wearing the expected attire was no
way to
> a win a court case I would have agreed. But that is not what she said. She
said
> it was not showing respect for the court. It could very well be showing
respect
> for the court to be nude but you are right it might not be the way to win
the
> case.
> Kathleen
> "Counting My Blessings!"
Sheesh! Talk about splitting hairs.
In canada, not only do you have to be dressed, but you have to wear the
right garb which is reminiscent of the garb worn by magistrates in the
sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. In fact, I think they even still wear
powdered wigs.
gbrannan
Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20020501202124...@mb-mm.aol.com...
>
> What they're really saying is, "Nudity equates to disrespect."
>
> That's as silly as saying, "Nudity equates to sex."
>
> Respect is about how one behaves, not about how one does or doesn't cover
> oneself with cloth.
>
> Nudity does not equate to disrespect.
What happened to "Nude when possible, CLOTHED WHEN PRACTICAL."? (emphasis
added)
gbrannan
force their views on others are called the Radical Religious Right, the KKK,
et al.
Can't we all just try to get along? (Within the system.)
Jenny6833A
>In canada, not only do you have to be dressed, but you have to wear the
>right garb which is reminiscent of the garb worn by magistrates in the
>sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
And you support that? If so, why?
What would happen if someone didn't?
Would you support jail time and a psychiatric examination?
>In fact, I think they even still wear
>powdered wigs.
Sounds unsanitary to me.
:-)
Jenny
(who wonders what alleged Canadian practices have to do with a US court in
Bend, Oregon)
Before emailing, Remove Clothes
Jenny6833A
>What happened to "Nude when possible, CLOTHED WHEN PRACTICAL."? (emphasis
>added)
That's the motto of the trade association for the pay-to-be-nude places.
That trade association, and the pay-to-be-nude places it represents, have every
incentive to oppose public nudity.
They fear, with good reason, that they'll become irrelevant if alternatives
develop to their walled enclaves.
That slogan is carefully worded to protect and enhance their investments and
their cash flow.
gbrannan
Jenny6833A who probably isn't nude 100% of the time said...
[snippity snippity]
> The subject is whether nudity is, by itself, disrespectful.
No, the subject is proper attire in the courtroom. Get a traffic ticket and
show up for court wearing cutoffs and a t-shirt and try to contest the
ticket. You will have a harder time of it than someone who is smartly
dressed. You are looking to impress the judge. Right or wrong it doesn't
matter.
Why don't you take up others on their suggestion to appear in court nude.
Go to court and support Sue Webb in Bend, OR on the second of May. (I know,
short notice) Put your money where your mouth is.
> >Some judges over the years have asked
> >lawyers to leave
> >and get a hair cut
>
> Some have, and were wrong to do so.
Are you the judge patrol now?
By the way,. have you started to see my name and think, "what has this
<insert choice name for me here> got to say today?" Would you maybe have
listened to me sooner if I hadn't made a jerk of myself for the past couple
of days? Maybe you still wouldn't agree with me, but you'd at least
considered what I had said. You're lying if you say my attitude doesn't
affect your analysis of my position.
If Sue Webb is trying this tactic with the court, I really REALLY hope it
doesn't come back to bite her. I truly hope she wins, but I am concerned
that she's going about it the wrong way, just as I have been going about my
posts the wrong way for the past couple of days. She appeared nude in court
to prove a point, and I have made a jerk of myself the last few days to
prove a point. (Okay, I had a lot of fun doing it, though :) The
difference is, she can get lots of jail time and lots of fines for contempt
of court and all I can do is make an enemy of someone whom I will never meet
in real life and I can ignore if I want to.
Obnude. Nudity is respectful in nudist and CO venues. Nudity is not
respectful in Courts, Businesses, Churches and other social institutions
except if those institutions are somhow CO. "Nude when possible, clothed
when practical." (or neccesary) Oh, show up at my Church nude and I'd do
all I could to get the Elders to let you stay, but I can't guarantee
anything. :D
Isn't it disrespectful to wear clothing while in a place that has mandatory
nudity? Isn't being nude in court the same thing only opposite?
Suntanner
That's the rules of society, you don't like it; pay the fine or go to jail.
--
It's okay to spank your monkey while others watch, hell you can even kick a dog
Jenny6833A
is responding to
>Good point.
What point? Made by whom?
>I want to add that people who are in the minority and want to
>force their views on others are called the Radical Religious Right, the KKK,
>et al.
They aren't the only ones, but what does that have to do with anything in the
thread?
Nudists don't try to force their point of view on others: I know of no nudist
who would force others to be nude.
It's textiles who force their point of view on others: they force others to be
clothed.
>Can't we all just try to get along? (Within the system.)
My sentiments exactly. Let's all accept the *harmless* actions of others
without complaint -- whether we personally like them or not.
There's an expression that captures that: "Live and let live."
And here's another: "Do as ye will, yet harm ye none."
And a third: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Suntanner
> "gbrannan" gbra...@mchsi.com says
>
> >In canada, not only do you have to be dressed, but you have to wear the
> >right garb which is reminiscent of the garb worn by magistrates in the
> >sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
>
> And you support that? If so, why?
>
> What would happen if someone didn't?
>
> Would you support jail time and a psychiatric examination?
>
> >In fact, I think they even still wear
> >powdered wigs.
>
> Sounds unsanitary to me.
WHAT?
where do you come up with this stuff?
It's your wig and you put the powder on.
>
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
> (who wonders what alleged Canadian practices have to do with a US court in
> Bend, Oregon)
> Before emailing, Remove Clothes
Don't elect a judge if you don't like the way they run the court.
--
Take a bath or shower to get sanitized
gbrannan
Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
> "gbrannan" gbra...@mchsi.com says
>
> >In canada, not only do you have to be dressed, but you have to wear the
> >right garb which is reminiscent of the garb worn by magistrates in the
> >sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
>
> And you support that? If so, why?
I wasn't making a value judgement at all. Actually I think it's kind of
neat, but I'm a history buff.
> What would happen if someone didn't?
An American lawyer might not be required to wear that garb, if for some
reason they needed to appear in a Canadian court, but again, I'm not 100%.
> Would you support jail time and a psychiatric examination?
No, and you either didn't understand or didn't read where I have supported
Sue Webb, but have been giving strong caution to those who read this board
that it might not be the best thing for her to do. If I were her lawyer, I
would have counseled against it. Then again, I don't work for the Cage and
Fish law firm. (The firm Ally McBeal works for. I suspect some have been
watching too much Ally! :)
> >In fact, I think they even still wear
> >powdered wigs.
>
> Sounds unsanitary to me.
Why?
> :-)
>
> Jenny
> (who wonders what alleged Canadian practices have to do with a US court in
> Bend, Oregon)
Nothing, it was just a neat tidbit. British courts definately require
lawyers and judges to dress the same way they've dressed for centuries and
since Canada has just recently become a sovereign state, they still hold to
the same tradition. That's what this whole shooting match is actually
about: tradition.
> Before emailing, Remove Clothes
gbrannan
Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
> "gbrannan" gbra...@mchsi.com says, mysteriously, without quoting whomever
he
> is responding to
>
> >Good point.
>
> What point? Made by whom?
The point made in johnz post that I replied to. I didn't want to quote the
whole thing, so I left it all out not realizing that would be confusing. I
apologize.
> >I want to add that people who are in the minority and want to
> >force their views on others are called the Radical Religious Right, the
KKK,
> >et al.
>
> They aren't the only ones, but what does that have to do with anything in
the
> thread?
No, but some people in here have been trying to force their opinions on
others while at the same time complaining about them doing the same. That's
why I've been a jerk for the last couple of days (as I'm inclined to do once
in a while ;) to show how annoying it is to be that aggressive. By the way,
"et al" means "and others" and I knew that the RRR and the KKK (interesting)
aren't the only militant groups in the world, but I didn't want to make a
huge list. Maybe I should have used etc. instead, even though etc. actually
isn't appropriate, but that's off topic.
> Nudists don't try to force their point of view on others: I know of no
nudist
> who would force others to be nude.
I'm sure there's someone out there.
> It's textiles who force their point of view on others: they force others
to be
> clothed.
Ooh! a stereotype!
> >Can't we all just try to get along? (Within the system.)
>
> My sentiments exactly. Let's all accept the *harmless* actions of others
> without complaint -- whether we personally like them or not.
>
> There's an expression that captures that: "Live and let live."
>
> And here's another: "Do as ye will, yet harm ye none."
>
> And a third: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
> Before emailing, Remove Clothes
You can give lipservice all you want to those maxims, but you have to
actually *do* them for them to mean anything.
Kathleen
>is a pair of jeans,
>they should at least be clean. Some judges over the years have asked
>lawyers to leave
>and get a hair cut
>
>
>
is actions that show disrespect not the cover of the book. BUT there are some
judges and lawyers etc that judge a book by its cover and therefore they
misjudge and use clothes or a lack their of to interpret across the board
disrespect.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
Kathleen
ticket and
>show up for court wearing cutoffs and a t-shirt and try to contest the
>ticket. You will have a harder time of it than someone who is smartly
>dressed. You are looking to impress the judge. Right or wrong it doesn't
>matter.
Correct but you are not necessarily showing disrespect to not be dressed
accordingly. That is just then outside appearace that some want people to have
to show them they will be respectful but I have seen many a person in what you
and the some courts deem as proper attire act totally disrepectful (their
actions) in court and vice versa. The court should not judge a book by its
cover.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
Kathleen
jail.
>
No way! I have a friend--Judge Richard Ryan--that became a judge--elected and
changed things in his courtroom. He could not care less what you have on but
how you act.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
gbrannan
> Correct but you are not necessarily showing disrespect to not be dressed
> accordingly. That is just then outside appearace that some want people to
have
> to show them they will be respectful but I have seen many a person in what
you
> and the some courts deem as proper attire act totally disrepectful (their
> actions) in court and vice versa. The court should not judge a book by its
> cover.
>
> Kathleen
> "Counting My Blessings!"
Good point Kathleen. "Respect" is a message we deliver with our words,
actions, and dress. Sue Webb may not have intended to communicate
disrespect with her dress (we all agree there is nothing wrong with nudity.)
but the judge percieved her to be disrespectful. The judge recieved a
message that wasn't intentionally sent.
I never meant for anyone to think that I felt nudity inherently
disrespectful, but I did mean for people to realize that in different social
contexts there are certain mores that should be followed, especially if you
aim to convince someone you are right about something.
Of course, we don't mean nudity to be disrespectful, but it is often taken
that way.
gbrannan
Dan Rondello <nake...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5464-3CC...@storefull-2192.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> May 2nd at 9:30 a.m. EDT,
>
> Terri Sue Webb will have her next trial.
>
> Ms. Webb is from Bend,OR where she was charged with indecent exposure
> for riding her bike in the nude. At her last trial she went to court
> wearing only cowgirl boots.
>
> Dan
>
Suntanner
> "gbrannan" gbra...@mchsi.com says, mysteriously, without quoting whomever he
> is responding to
>
> >Good point.
>
> What point? Made by whom?
>
> >I want to add that people who are in the minority and want to
> >force their views on others are called the Radical Religious Right, the KKK,
> >et al.
>
> They aren't the only ones, but what does that have to do with anything in the
> thread?
>
> Nudists don't try to force their point of view on others: I know of no nudist
> who would force others to be nude.
>
> It's textiles who force their point of view on others: they force others to be
> clothed.
Some clubs will not allow users in the pool if they are wearing swimming suit; club
own and operated by nudist therefore forcing nudist point of view that if you wish
to swim, remove suit.
Jenny, why are you making up false statements?
--
You are what you eat and I brush my teeth with vagasil
Kathleen
>Date: 5/2/02 7:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BOmA8.37088$D%5.6352@sccrnsc01>
Terri Webb, firmly and honestly believing that her nudity was neither
disorderly nor disrespectful, chose to appear nude at her court date on
November 7, 2001.
Judge Barbara Haslinger commanded Webb to dress, and when she did not comply,
the judge ordered her immediate arrest, sentencing her to a year of supervised
probation for contempt and ordering that she undergo a psychiatric examination.
Terri Webb was initially scheduled to court in Deschutes County on Wednesday,
January 23, 2002.
The original trial date was scrubbed in mid December. The new date and time
are May 2, 2002 at 9:30 a.m."
I could not find on the net what happened on May 2nd. Anyone else?
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
Dan Rondello
E-mail message
From: Stor...@aol.com Date: Fri, May 3, 2002, 12:20am (CDT+1) To:
nake...@webtv.net Subject: Re: Terri Sue Webb Trial
Dan:
Webb's trial was postponed until later this week due to her getting
arrested for being nude in Bend the morning before the trial. Check out
www.bend.com for a story. The writer made two mistakes, though: he got
TNS web site address wrong, and Webb did not "rebuff" any offers from
NAC.
Mark Storey
NAC
Ben Thornton
>
>>>anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
>>>respect for the court
>>>IMNSHO.
>>>
>>>Cheri
>>
>>huh? why should wearing a certain type of clothing be more respectful than
>
> no
>
>>clothing at all?
>>Kathleen
>>"Counting My Blessings!"
>
>
> You used the word "should", and you're right - it shouldn't. But most of us
> live in the real world and are forced to live with the differences between
> "should" and "is", as much as we'd like to change them. My first grader is
> learning the difference between fantasy and reality in school. I think some
> of us need to go back and repeat that lesson. We do what we can to make
> reality more like what we envision, but we all know it's not there yet!
>
If you don't try to effect change, change will never occur.
If nothing else, calling attention to the judge's agenda of
considering a person's attire in their courtroom to be more important
than simply doing their job (which is to judge whether or not someone
actually broke a law or not) might be part of Terri Sue Webb's own
agenda :).
--ben
>
>
--
Ben Thornton Amateur call: NI5B
Internet: bth...@nospam-sss.org, http://www.sss.org/texnude
CAUTION: Clothing has been shown to cause extreme psychological
dependence upon textiles. Wear them at your own risk.
Ben Thornton
> In article <20020428220831...@mb-de.aol.com>,
> jenny...@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
>
>
>>"Cheri Alexander" cheri...@prodigy.net says
>>
>>
>>>anyone appearing in court in less than business attire is showing little
>>>respect for the court
>>>IMNSHO.
>>
>>
>>What is *your* idea of business attire?
>>
>>Since when is *your* version of business attire the only means of showing
>>respect?
>
>
> It's not *her* version. It's the *court's* version. Courts are steeped
> in formality.
>
>
>>Since when is a show of respect due before it is earned?
>
>
> When you want to win your case.
>
>
>>You come across as stodgy and prudish.
>
>
> Which is a perfect way to present yourself to a stodgy, prudish court.
>
> If you want to make a point or cause a stir, then wear whatever you
> want. But if you want to go in and win your case, play by the rules
> while you are in the court room.
>
OTOH, if you don't believe you have a snowball's chance in h*ll of
winning your case, perhaps it's better to take the opportunity to
make a point.
--ben
> Bill.
Targo Rotgut
news:3CD43D55...@spam-me-not.sss.org:
> OTOH, if you don't believe you have a snowball's chance in
> h*ll of winning your case, perhaps it's better to take the
> opportunity to make a point.
>
> --ben
Hi Ben, de K3JSZ, must be something about being a ham op and
nudism, I note that there seem to be a lot of us going about in
a gay and happy way, without clothing. Er... perhaps in some
circles, gay is not the word to use. Do you play any
instruments? Like a guitar or something? I've noted that a lot
of us do, or have in the past.
--
Targo Rotgut 8-5-...@8-1-26-12-5-20-15-14.14-5-20
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as
a bad example.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Suntanner
> No one forced them to come to the nudist club... Grow up.
>
> * * www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/ * *
Why is it clothing optional, except in the pool. THINK before you reply.
--
I have not now nor ever worn panties
Kenneth R. Dyson
"Suntanner" <sun...@NOSPAMk2services.com> wrote in message
news:3CD50BA1...@NOSPAMk2services.com...
Suntanner.... Now wouldn't it be the option of the club management on
whether or not they wanted to put up with any of that darn swimsuit lint
clogging up the swimming pool or spa filters?
Actually a club can be clothing optional as far as walking and relaxing on
the grounds. They also have to right to specify on whether or not anyone
wears anything in the pools or spas. After all... no one is forcing anyone
to get in the pool or spa.
Suntanner
Ken, Ken, Ken. that's still a nudist forcing a point of view. Heck the sign in
CC for example requires no swimsuit in the lake. Now whether it's still posted
I'm not sure. I don't go by the lake and could tell you.
That's just an example of vice a versa towards the original poster.
--
Having an orgy? Nudist dress correctly.
Kathleen
gunpoint to
>visit a resort where such rules are, than how can it be said they were
>forced to undress completely before entering a pool or spa? If someone
>doesn't want to follow the rules of the club... than I would guess that they
>really didn't want to be there in the first place. If someone wanted to be
>there with the intention of not following the rules of the club.... then
>that would be I think a viable reason to remove them from the club grounds.
>
>
>
>
Then saying someone has to be nude to come into one's business or participate
in some activity on a private person's business --is not better than textile
businesses who force one to be clothed.
The only true kind caring business is one that allows people to chose and do
what makes them feel comfortable at the moment regarding dress or undress.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"