I don't know where this is legal, I know, there is not a store anywhere I have seen that would let you return either underwear or bathing suits. You are usually warned when purchasing the items and flat refused when you try to return them. There are signs that state this fact right in the department.

There are health-code restrictions and violation penalties in Canada for resale of undergarments.

My wife & I bought a swim suit for my 8 year old son when he wasn't with us and they kept asking us, "are you sure this is the right size, You cannot return this if it is the wrong size." Surprisingly, that was at WalMart!

I find this quite strange when he says there are no laws to prevent this. What State is this?

Pasted below are Roman's responses to our Roast Quiz. The RoastMASTER's commentary appears in parentheses.

My real name is Roman Novak. I'm from Europe, Slovenia (we don't know what cheetos are), but I'll try to answer your stupid questions as best as I can.

1.What do you, do most of the day when you are not lounging, but not on the computer?
Roman: Mostly I do nothing or as little as possible. I watch tv shows, movies, read books and smoke weed. When I become bored of that I go outside and get drunk at a pub. In the summertime I ride mountain bikes. I don't like winter or winter sports much

2.Who are you more fond of?
A..Mother
B.McDonalds
C.Beer
D.Technical Assistance
E. Dairy Products
F.All of the above
G.None (kill them all)
Roman: Kill'em all, leave the beer.

3. How many pairs of shoes as opposed to matching undergarments.... boxers or briefs
Roman: weird question. (editor: no shit, what were you thinking Choggie?) I'd say 1 shoe for 10 underpants. there

4.mac or pc?
Roman: pc. or at least hackintosh

5. Who’s your guru?
Roman: I don't have guru's, but there are a few people I love and would buy beer for them. mostly writers I like, movie directors, scientists and people who make me laugh.

6.Bush or No Bush?
Roman: I don't care

7.sprinkles, gravy, or cherry on top?
Roman: gravy ( Ass gravy, of course)

8.tits, ass, or legs.
Roman: face first, gotta be cute. tits are not a priority, but a fine ass is a must. also, i hate fankles

9.supine or prostrate?
Roman: i sleep on my back if that's what u mean (It’s not, but whatever. You have to cut the guy a little slack for his ESL handicap)

10. cat, dog or other
Roman: dog, i guess. not really a pet person

11. Car, bike, public transit, walking or motorcycle?
Roman: bike first, then car (I don't own one for past 3-4 years now)

12.time, newsweek or USNews and World Report?
Roman: i get my news from Stephen Colbert (like every good Videosifter)

13.beer preference?
Roman: Laško (slovenian), Heineken

14.Religion: Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist,Agnostic,Jedi?
Roman: no religion (Again, like everybody here at Videosift)

15.Ever arrested?
Roman: not actually arrested, I was charged a couple of times, most were drug related, couple of fights, and theft once - which I was innocent of and proved it in court, too. (I guess the definition of “arrested” is different in Slovenia than in North America)

16.cheetos: crunchy or puffs?
Roman: crunchy

17.dog or cat person?
Roman: look at 10 (holy double post, batman!)

18.bangs, balding or rug?
Roman: bangs

19.five most cherished possessions
Roman: possesions ... my bike, i guess. my computer. I'm not really attached to material things (+ I don't have many so it's kinda meaningless question for me) and mementos don't do much for me either. every few years I throw ever4ything away and start over

20.clean shaven, beard, goatee or moustache
Roman: beard (it only tickles for a little while)

21. Desert Island albums?
Roman: hard to decide. something jazzy, definetly (sic)

22. Pro gay marriage, or agin?
Roman: do whatever the fuck you want, is my motto. just don't piss on other people

23. Communicable diseases... be honest
Roman: never ever. besides, I hardly have sex any more except with myself (no wonder he fits in so well here, plus he gives amazing backrubs)

>> ^blankfist:
And to ReverendTed... Who?

I just assumed you'd know who I was, but I forgot your mother disowned you after you sifted this travesty.

The joke here is that I am having intimate relations with your mother, that you sifted a terrible video, and then that you're too dense to understand the joke without an explanation.

Special note to blankfist's handler: You don't have to read this part to him. I salute your fortitude. Few people can tolerate the prick for more than a few minutes, so I can't imagine how unpleasant it is to feed him and bathe him and change his "adult undergarments". I pray you can stave off suicide until your court-ordered community service is complete. With a few years of therapy, the nightmares will probably wane. Probably.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Imstell has definitely changed his tone with a more populist article, the silly avatar, wacky pictures in his comments and a more light hearted demeanor.
Either:
a) He is condescending to 'a site full of retards'.
b) He is attempting a more persuasive, less combative style of argument.
c) He had a bad day and wishes to start anew.
d) He is wearing looser fitting undergarments.
None are against the rules.


d) is totally against the rules. You can't talk about politics unless your panties are in a serious twist.

That said, I'm gonna pile on with the shock that imstellar opposes intellectual property law.

How do you reconcile that with your general feelings on property in general?

Do programmers like me have a right to profit from the fruits of our labor?

I have all kinds of moral objections to the way we shoehorn "intellectual property" into our capitalist society, but I'm not quite sure what practical alternatives there are. At least, without losing the ability to earn a living from doing what I do in the process.

Oh, and as for trying to pin this to Obama, it's clumsy politics. I doubt Obama's even heard about this. I doubt Eric Holder was notified about this. This is probably something happening deep in the bowels of the DOJ's bureacracy. To further reverse the spin, the effort is likely being led by conservatives burrowed into career postings by Bush.

The Krugman article is a better weak spot, politically speaking. Republicans, if they were smart, would beat the drum for nationalization/receivership/FDIC-intervention loud and clear. It'd make people like me think that maybe they'd grown up a little bit, and might have some business still being within 100 miles of Washington.

Instead they're doing crap like putting out a non-budget budget.

Imstell has definitely changed his tone with a more populist article, the silly avatar, wacky pictures in his comments and a more light hearted demeanor.

Either:
a) He is condescending to 'a site full of retards'.
b) He is attempting a more persuasive, less combative style of argument.
c) He had a bad day and wishes to start anew.
d) He is wearing looser fitting undergarments.

None are against the rules.

He is apparently an operative... check a few news articles and some posts which will without a doubt be appearing on the various video sites out there within the coming few days. Investigations are under way, and there is a lot of contradiction surrounding 'Joe'.

This guy has a huge dubious dark cloud hanging over him. He is not a licensed plumber though he does in fact have a plumbing business. He never was licensed, and contrary to his Facebook page, he NEVER was in the local 189 as he claims.

By the way.. his name isn't Joe. It is Samuel.

There is even a supposed accusation that he is related to an individual involved in the Keating 5 and Savings and Loan scandal which McCain was reprimanded by Congress for. I want to learn more about that reported connection to see if it actually has merit. If it does have merit, McCains run for the presidency will flush down the crapper faster than McCain can change his sanitary undergarments.

Quite ironic if a supposed plumber flushes a campaign down the toilet.

"Dylan once joked in one of his patented, Dadaist, stoned, high-wire press conferences in 1965 that if he ever did sell his music it would only be for ladies’ undergarments"

http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article.aspx?id=3296

As if my undergarments hadn't been sufficiently stained already.

Enough is enough. This time I'm sending you the bill.

Even though I could predict the outcome, I still soiled my Depends® brand adult bladder-control reliably-absorbent undergarment. *Fear is a good invocation, but *soil might be more appropriate.

Curse you, lil' killer!

what i s real, anyhow...?
\Quoting the first line from the first hit, on the first search.."palin husband" on Google, from some slanted, pathetically composed with a view to bassshin' a mother a five who lives in Alaska, an happens to be the pick for McCain's fast-track to whatever, and no-doubt an approved-by-the-strong female that allowed it to be published as her words, "In the prepared statement Monday, Sarah and Todd Palin said: "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

Ms. Palin had told Mr. McCain's team about the pregnancy and her husband's old DUI during lengthy discussions about her background, aides said. "

And so and again and again and again, Ad infinitum, asshats that deal in spin and news, will do anything the power structure says to do, with the flaccid skills they have available to them, to get the job, whatever that is, done.....make you cast yer vote a certain way based upon visceral reactions to personal inclinations....In oyher words, dealing the folks who like McCain in the Jesus and Mary Traditional Family Values, etc.camp, a card form the bottom-dwelling recesses of the deck

Read the articles on this story from whatever source, and see the pattern......Politico De Usual, using patsies to ru the game down to the other patsies.....YOU!

Vote for the person who can do it all, for if nobody can stop the runaway freight train of bullshit inthe media, nobody can solve the real problems we face as a world, nobody can make you miraculously think al will be well if you simply, Hope" or "Change" the president, as one would change one's undergarment after a swim in their own fluids in the hopital bed when the nurse call button is broken....The Choice is clear....Nobody For President!!!
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
http://www.wavygravy.net/bio/biography.html

Great reply. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

>> ^oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]
Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.
Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.
Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:
What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?
Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.
Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.
So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?
What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?
Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.
Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

Great reply. Thanks.

Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

^
I don't like it either, but it should be noted that Bob got asked, in the mid 60s, what might tempt him to 'sell out'. He reportedly answered "ladies undergarments and Cadillac!". At least that's how I remember the story.

Huh! At least he's a man of his word. You should drop that in the thread if you haven't already.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
I don't like it either, but it should be noted that Bob got asked, in the mid 60s, what might tempt him to 'sell out'. He reportedly answered "ladies undergarments and Cadillac!". At least that's how I remember the story.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
A fitting Sift for your 100. So perhaps Bob Dylan finally hung up his hat, got bored and started a VideoSift Account.

Oh, Sorry, I forgot. Bob Dylan's Dead. At least to me...

http://www.videosift.com/video/WTF-Bob-Dylan-Cadillac-Commercial