"Miller, Jeffrey" wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 08:19 AM
> > To: Killer Bs Discussion
> > Subject: Re: Man wins tie sex ruling
> >
> >
> > William T Goodall wrote:
> >
> > > Ties are for weddings and funerals, not for daily life.
> >
> > I like dress codes based on some very simple premises.
> >
> > Frex, the dress code based on the two following premises:
> >
> > 1) Nobody wants to smell anyone else's BO.
> >
> > 2) Nobody wants to see your underwear.
> >
> > (Of course, in the case of 2), some females might have gotten
> > away with not conforming to that one when the boss was out....)
>
> Not here. We have a strict, company-wide rule that's actually printed in
> the Employee Handbook: "Proper undergarmets must be worn at all times"
>
> -jeffrey-
The point was, underwear was not supposed to be *seen*. (Nobody really
cared if you were wearing it or not, as long as they couldn't tell you
weren't.) So pants ripped too close to the waistband were out. Pants
ripped around the knees were OK. Pants ripped around the knees due to a
dirt-bike spill were badges of honor. :)
But if a female wore an outfit that allowed underwear to be seen once in
awhile, the guys weren't going to report her. A guy's pants ripped in the
wrong place would elicit complaints pretty promptly.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
