Southwest Airlines apologizes to Attractive Passenger (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
You may recall Southwest Airlines passenger Kyla Ebbert who recently appeared on several TV channels to talk about her run-in with a Southwest Airlines’ employee concerning proper airline attire. Southwest Airlines has apologized to Ms. Ebbert:
“Southwest sent passenger Kyla Ebbert an apology saying it was “very sorry” on a taping of the Dr. Phil Show Friday, and Southwest president Colleen Barrett was trying to reach Ms. Ebbert via telephone.
“We searched for the naked truth, gotten down to the bare facts and she kind of caught us with our pants down,” Southwest chief executive officer Gary Kelly said Friday morning. “So we’re apologizing and we’re going to move on and hope we keep her as a good and valued customer.”
Kelly doesn’t think his people or Kyla did anything wrong although he admits Southwest could have handled it better.
UPDATE: Here is an article with more about Southwest’s response.
— DRJ
unless you’re prepared to arrest me for a crime, shut up and get me a martini now.
assistant devil's advocate (6382cd) — 9/14/2007 @ 11:52 amI wonder if this had anything to with it?
As Allahpundit says, “Once is an overeager employee, twice is company policy.”
Paul (5efd01) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:23 pmWell thank God. At least there is justice in the world.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:31 pmThis thread is, as they say, useless without pictures.
Tony (e5eb9f) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:42 pmCheck the links I posted, tony.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:43 pmHere you go, Tony. Click the video link too and watch it all the way through if you’re curious about what she’s wearing under the skirt.
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:59 pmYeah, DRJ, seriously, you gotta give us pics.
If you don’t know which ones to give us, just imagine the ones you would take away from your nephew and child first.
Those are the ones.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 1:08 pmSome have observed the irony that this is Southwest, which promoted itself years ago by showing off its flight attendants’ skimpy uniforms.
I think that merely raises the question of how many lumpy, mustachioed women have gained seats on Southwest’s board of directors in the intervening years.
McGehee (25adee) — 9/14/2007 @ 1:45 pmThere is a picture of the lovely Ms. Ebbert in her “offensive” outfit when you click on her name in the post. I only posted this because I noticed that some here have a special interest in this story, so give me partial credit for that.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:04 pm“…the naked truth…
Kranky Old Guy (c269bc) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:13 pm“…the bare facts…
“…our pants down…
Is this statement by Southwest chief executive officer Gary Kelly a tongue-in-cheek double-entendre response, or what???? His apology was worthless!
DRJ, have you seen this video?
Southwest Airlines has been known for fun and innovative advertising expressing our unique personality. Here are some of our favorite video clips from the past.
And that’s on their website today.
I say Kyla should get a job as a
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:21 pmstewardessflight attendant.Totally. She should still sue. In all seriousness. The flippant response should come up at the trial.
Unless she gets a worthwhile settlement offer first.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:22 pmMcGehee #8,
It was a “guy” named Keith who gave her a hard time. Hardly a red-blooded American boy, in my opinion.
Kranky Old Guy #10,
Gary Kelly is looking at a lawsuit so he’s playing the “slut” card.
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:24 pmChristoph,
What damages do you think she could PROVE?
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:25 pmSouthwest prides itself on being fun-loving and I think the apology was offered in that spirit. I’ve flown Southwest more times than I can count over the years and they don’t care what you wear as long as it’s decent. My guess is this wouldn’t have happened unless someone on the flight complained to the flight crew.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:32 pmI’m not an expert in U.S. law. I’m not qualified to say.
But something for humiliation and given no dress code plus the video on their website and its description, which kills Southwest’s permission, punitive damages.
Not sure of the amounts. Something more than nothing. I’m sure Southwest will offer a settlement.
They’d be fools not to.
It ain’t going to bankrupt them, but they don’t need to look stupid any longer than necessary. Not only does it peeve off hot blooded young men, young women who dress similarly esp. in hot climates, but also a lot of parents who know their daughters dress like that. They won’t choose Southwest preferentially if this is near the top of their minds.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:33 pmpermission = position
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:33 pmI read somewhere that Friday morning out of San Diego to Las Vegas and Sunday evening flights Las Vegas to San Diego on Southwest are the strippers run.
Girls work the weekend in Vegas and do their other lives in San Diego.
Not that it matters anyway, but I’m sure the staff on those flights has seen it all… so to speak.
At least the gal was wearing panties for the TV interview. I was at a brewing company up here in Santa Barbara watching a football game from a counter and a girl wearing about the same skirt with no panties sits down at a table across from me. I don’t know how long the flight is from Tcson to San Diego but I do know that by a little after halftime, I was over it… until now.
The airline should have just let it go and maybe ask her to take a window seat so the guys up the aisle don’t get a neck injury trying to look up her skirt
SteveG (4e16fc) — 9/14/2007 @ 2:45 pmRoy Orbison says it for me. 😉
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 4:05 pmi would not object to kyla sitting on my lap, no matter how long the flight was.
assistant devil's advocate (43b5db) — 9/14/2007 @ 4:45 pmThis morning, in synagogue for the second day of Rosh Hashanah, I noticed two teenage girls (roughly 16 or 17) wearing a skimpier outfit than that worn by Ms. Ebbert. Hopefully they were wearing panties. No one seemed to be concerned. In fact, no one seemed concerned. They were not among the girls chanting the Torah reading–that might have made a difference. (Obviously, this isn’t an Orthodox congregation, where neither girls in too short skirts nor girls chanting the Torah reading would be found–it’s a prosperous suburban Conservative congregation.)
kishnevi (ef1d3c) — 9/14/2007 @ 5:23 pmMaybe a passenger or Keith had a 12 year old daughter.
Kishnevi- obviously not Orthodox, but even those I know who attend a Conservative synagogue would not imagine allowing their daughters to wear something like this, even with “long-johns” on.
Not to get everyone started, but attracting attention is like attracting fish, what kind of fish you catch is dependent on the bait you use. Do young women not understand men/boys? Or do they like to attract guys who flock to the most visually stimulating woman around?
I believe the linked article states she works at Hooters, so she apparently enjoys men eyeing her. Her mother’s statements seem encouraging of her behavior.
Other than wanting to get money (no other reason needed), why make all the fuss about being humiliated, etc? I can understand humiliation if an airline employee said within the hearing of other passengers, “Can’t you wait to put on your work clothes until tonight before you hit your corner?” or some similar taunt.
Money aside, if she thinks what she is wearing is really appropriate she says, “You’re really a prude, you know. I guess you never go to a beach or swimming pool.”
To be really emotionally distraught about it raises the possibility that there is a tinge of conscience that hasn’t been fully suppressed.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:03 pmMaybe a passenger or Keith had a 12 year old daughter.
Kishnevi- obviously not Orthodox, but even those I know who attend a Conservative synagogue would not imagine allowing their daughters to wear something like this, even with “long-johns” on.
Not to get everyone started, but attracting attention is like attracting fish, what kind of fish you catch is dependent on the bait you use. Do young women not understand men/boys? Or do they like to attract guys who flock to the most visually stimulating woman around?
Other than wanting to get money (no other reason needed), why make all the fuss about being humiliated, etc? I can understand humiliation if an airline employee said within the hearing of other passengers, “Can’t you wait to put on your work clothes until tonight before you hit your corner?” or some similar taunt.
Money aside, if she thinks what she is wearing is really appropriate she says, “You’re really a prude, you know. I guess you never go to a beach or swimming pool.”
To be really emotionally distraught about it raises the possibility that there is a tinge of conscience that hasn’t been fully suppressed.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:04 pmMD in Philly #22:
I remember seeing that reality series about Southwest Airlines awhile back, and the amount of crud airline employees put up with every day, including passengers who were too obese for a single seat, or barefoot, drunk, smelly, rowdy, or otherwise unable to be let on the plane … well, I guess I tend to give them some credit here.
I notice that the young woman ended up “pulling her tank top up and her skirt down” when she finally boarded, which leads me to believe that everything may have been a little more revealing than the way she modeled it on TV.
Who knows.
Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:12 pmIf one dresses in a manner intended to grab attention, one ought not complain — much less sue — when one gets attention. There is no way to guarantee that the attention one gets, when one dresses in a manner intended to grab attention, will only be of the type and from the people that one intended.
Beldar (d47ce6) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:24 pmMD in Philly,
This is one time when you and I must truly disagree.
As a basic principle, if I can bear the sight of my own bare body I should be able to bear the sight of the bare bodies of others.
Maybe a passenger or Keith had a 12 year old daughter.
The parents of that child should have taught her that what others do and what she does are two different things. But if they think that there will always be a “Keith” there to shield her from the fashion sense of another woman ….
Not to get everyone started, but attracting attention is like attracting fish, what kind of fish you catch is dependent on the bait you use. Do young women not understand men/boys? Or do they like to attract guys who flock to the most visually stimulating woman around?
To take it to the most extreme scenario, that’s why God invented guns and daddies who teach their daughters how to use them. Seriously.
I will defer to your medical expertise whether fear of nudity is properly classified as a neurosis. I consider it a ridiculous puritanism.
I agree with you about her reaction and all the lawsuit nonsense. “Honey, for every guy who thought you looked great, me included, you should have anticipated five more people who thought you looked like a slut.”
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:34 pmIn the late 60’s, on PSA, compared to the STEWARDESSES, she would have been over-dressed.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:35 pmSouthwest has a history of dress code issues.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:28 pmOh my gosh. Sounds like the pilots’ frat party.
Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:32 pmWhat a tempest in a teapot. “Keith” should have offered her a blanket to cover up with, pointing out that several other passengers complained…oh …wait. No other passengers complained?!?! Then “Keith” should just apologise and shut-up. But now I hear southwest is going to have fares honoring the miniskirt…Thats what I woulda done.
paul from fl (ae01cb) — 9/15/2007 @ 4:04 amLook, if you dress that way, you’re gonna get attention – and lots of it. She knew that and that is why she dressed how she did. Every woman knows this.
So when she called her mom and cried, “I didn’t want to make a scene. I didn’t want to draw attention.”, I’m thinking she should have thought of that when she was getting dressed that morning. At least be honest about it – that she looked very provacative was not an accidnt.
The biggest concern I had was, if Southwest is so busy monitoring the dress code of passengers, who’s monitoring potential terrorists boarding the plane?
Dana (78e5fc) — 9/15/2007 @ 9:38 amNews Update:
It only proves, once again, that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
So… anybody want to talk some more about that MoveOn ad in the New York Times?
Oregonian (261bfb) — 9/15/2007 @ 10:21 amIt only proves, once again, that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
No, Oregonian, what it proves is that Southwest is moving fast to mitigate a potentially damaging situation that could mar their sterling reputation as a flier, and are using a promotion that fits with their previous humorous ad campaigns; the “Must Be Football Season” commercials, for example. It is because of their sterling reputation, apology to Kyla Ebbert and past humorous ads that this works.
Since when is lawbreaking good publicity? The NYT is in CYA mode, and will lose hundreds of thousands in ad revenue because of it. Call that a fearless prediction.
The money quote from Glen Wishard on MoveOn:
Hmmm…
Maybe it would be a good idea to bring lots of publicity to MoveOn. We could flip over that rock and expose all the creatures of the night hiding beneath it.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/15/2007 @ 10:58 amDana #31:
Well, as we haven’t heard (and probably won’t) from the steward who spoke to her, we really won’t know how far her skirt was pulled up or her top pulled down to show cleavage.
Given that she can’t even sit down without flashing her panties in the “skirt pulled down” mode, who knows what was going on with the “skirt pulled up” mode. Let’s hope she wasn’t going commando.
Given that SWA employees deal with hundreds if not thousands of customers a day, it just doesn’t seem plausible that one would single her out for no reason at all.
Just my opinion.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:12 amPaul #33:
Since when is lawbreaking good publicity?
Which law?
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:15 amWhich law?
Don’t play obtuse with me, bucko.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:21 amIt might be fearless, but it’s also demonstrably wrong. The MoveOn ad hit the publicity jackpot, and it’s already brought additional revenue to the NYT as other groups try to grab a bit of the action. (Ever heard of Rudy Giuliani?)
Any lobbyist in Washington would sell his left nut for the kind of media attention that MoveOn got out of a single black-and-white ad. Ari Fleischer must be seriously pissed.
Oregonian (261bfb) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:24 am“we really won’t know how far her skirt was pulled up or her top pulled down to show cleavage.”
#34 – it doesn’t matter. My point was she knew she was playing up her best assets and that is always to draw attention. Good or bad, she’s gonna get it… to say she didn’t want the attention is hogwash. Comes with the territory of short skirts, high heels, tight tops and natural attributes.
Dana (78e5fc) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:30 amThe MoveOn ad hit the publicity jackpot, and it’s already brought additional revenue to the NYT as other groups try to grab a bit of the action.
Giving 65% discounts as the now-forever established price is not a revenue-producing publicity jackpot, you idiot.
The NYT was forced to give Rudy (and everyone else) the deep discount to keep from being charged with violating federal election laws. (Paying attention, Itsme?)
Now stay on topic, Thread Hijacker. This is a thread on Southwest Airlines. If you want to discuss the MoveOn/NYT, there is are several thread already on that topic, post on those, or get your own blog and go crazy.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:34 amWhoops…that last sentence should have read:
Paul (5efd01) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:36 amIf you want to discuss the MoveOn/NYT, there are several threads already on that topic; post on those, or get your own blog and go crazy.
Paul #36:
Which law?
Don’t play obtuse with me, bucko.
Okay, I won’t.
I can’t tell from your prior whether you were just speaking in hypothetical or if you are claiming they actually broke a law.
If it’s the latter, I’d be curious to know which law it is, since it seems to have been made clear that they offered MoveOn the same rate they offer to anyone else who is willing to buy on a standby basis.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:57 amCorrection: speaking in hypotheticals
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:58 amDana #38:
True.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 11:59 amPaul #39:
The MoveOn ad hit the publicity jackpot, and it’s already brought additional revenue to the NYT as other groups try to grab a bit of the action.
Giving 65% discounts as the now-forever established price is not a revenue-producing publicity jackpot, you idiot.
The NYT was forced to give Rudy (and everyone else) the deep discount to keep from being charged with violating federal election laws. (Paying attention, Itsme?)
Now stay on topic, Thread Hijacker. This is a thread on Southwest Airlines. If you want to discuss the MoveOn/NYT, there is are several thread already on that topic, post on those, or get your own blog and go crazy.
———————————————
Yes, I am paying attention, thanks.
Giving 65% discounts was always the established price for those willing to buy on a standby basis. That is the exact same basis on which Rudy bought his ad – they weren’t “forced” to do anything different for him.
True, there are other threads on this topic, and this information has been posted and discussed there.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 12:08 pmItsme, I also said this:
and your link and quote is part of it.
Now I suggest you see the additional trouble the NYT is in on the “That’s Gotta Hurt” thread, and stop hijacking. This is a Southwest Airlines thread.
Paul (a9b43f) — 9/15/2007 @ 1:16 pmPaul #45:
Itsme, I also said this: The NYT is in CYA mode
Yes, you did. As part of a claim that they were breaking the law. And then you claimed they were “forced” to give Rudy the same rate simply to avoid being in trouble for breaking the law.
I guess having to do a fair amount of public relations commenting could be construed as “CYA,” but not because they broke the law. It’s because they were accused of doing something they didn’t do.
As to “hijacking,” it seems that you were the one who picked up the topic from Oregonian and ran with it, but whatever you say.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 1:38 pmAs to “hijacking,” it seems that you were the one who picked up the topic from Oregonian and ran with it, but whatever you say.
Which you are now doing. Again.
Paul (a9b43f) — 9/15/2007 @ 1:52 pmPaul #47:
I see. Correcting wrong information someone else posts is hijacking” the thread.
Got it.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 2:17 pmWhy yes, when its not what the thread is about. Seems simple to me.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/15/2007 @ 2:29 pmI’m sure it does, Robin. I’m sure it does.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 2:35 pmCorrecting wrong information someone else posts is hijacking” the thread.
That’s assuming you are “correcting” it. Which you aren’t.
Paul (a9b43f) — 9/15/2007 @ 3:10 pmPaul #51:
Very well then. Responding to someone’s comment.
Which means you “hijacked” this thread by responding to Oregonian’s joke in the first place.
And are hijacking it again by responding to me.
Over and out.
Itsme (665878) — 9/15/2007 @ 3:20 pmAs noted above, “Once is an overeager employee, twice is company policy.”
McGehee (25adee) — 9/15/2007 @ 5:55 pmAs to “hijacking,” it seems etc. and subsequent comments:
interesting choice of work given the original subject of this post
kishnevi (7dd83d) — 9/15/2007 @ 6:43 pminteresting choice of work given the original subject of this post
should have been interesting choice of words
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for my Typing 101 class.
kishnevi (7dd83d) — 9/15/2007 @ 6:46 pmThis is one time when you and I must truly disagree– nk
Well, I don’t think we completely disagree (not that it would be crisis if we did).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/15/2007 @ 7:21 pmFirst, we agree about her reaction and lawsuit nonsense.
Second, we agree that children should be taught that what others do and what they do themselves are two different things. Our only difference is how much good reinforcement from others outside of the family do we want/expect (don’t expect a lot, but will take all I can get.
Third, we agree that God gave us guns and daddies to protect our daughters. I think God does ask young ladies to exercise some discretion as well.
Can we also agree that if we have a wife secure in our love of her the most we’ll get is a slap on the head and “watch where you’re going” when we ogle Ms. Ebbert? 😉
nk (474afa) — 9/15/2007 @ 7:38 pmnk-
Yes, but I don’t plan on testing the premise!
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/16/2007 @ 8:14 pm1. How the heck did MoveOn and politics get into a discussion about a gal wearing a crotch-revealing micro-mini?
2. Have seen some pretty hateful and cranky flight attendants in my years… on EVERY airline I’ve ever flown… but I cannot believe that any flight attendant would just randomly decide that somebody’s clothing was “offensive” and make this big of a hoopla…. unless, of course, the clothing WAS offensive.
3. Since it was a male flight attendant, I find it seriously unbelievable that he would say jack to a gal in a short skirt. Either he’s gay and says “you GO girl… show that stuff…. ” or he’s straight and says “Gimme your number, byatch.” haha
4. Would LOVE to get the dirt on what really happened on that plane.
5. Why was the micro-mini wearing gal raving on talk shows AFTER Southwest apologized to her?
6. My primary concern is this…. if I had a real life, I’d have never noticed this stupid story in the first place. Nor would I be taking the time to respond to this discussion. And, the fact that there is such a lengthy discussion indicates to me that no one else around here has a life. Criminy…. we’re not talking about world peace, the environment, education, or anything else that might matter… we’re talking about a gal who maybe showed off her cootchy by wearing a really short skirt. Oooooooooooooh…… my grandkids will LOVE to hear about THAT issue…..
Brenda (f82323) — 10/22/2007 @ 11:27 pmYou’re a moron. There are at least tens of thousands of flight attendants in the world… you’ve seen several act “pretty hateful and cranky”… leaving aside the facts in this specific case which reasonable people can doubt… you can’t balieve that “any” flight attendant would show poor judgement… ergo, her clothes must have been offensive?
That’s the opposite of reasoning. I can’t express how stupid that is.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/22/2007 @ 11:32 pm… we’re talking about a gal who maybe showed off her cootchy by wearing a really short skirt. Oooooooooooooh…… my grandkids will LOVE to hear about THAT issue…..
Inordinate attention paid by men to pretty girls showing off their “cootchies” is how grandkids come about.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 3:51 amSorry, nk, but I don’t think motherhood is in her future. A pole maybe, but not kids. Ms. VaJayJay
dave (0606c0) — 10/23/2007 @ 4:01 amHear, hear, and God bless “cootchies”.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/23/2007 @ 4:40 am“You’re a moron.”
This is a typical comment for you, Christoph, and I’m getting tired of telling you to tone it down. Everyone slips up from time to time and lets anger get the best of them, but in general I don’t want to see language like this right out of the gate. Yet you appear to make no effort to stop. You merely say things like, “Well, she really *is* a moron.” I don’t care. It drags down the tone of the comment section. Enough already. Think before you hit “submit.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/23/2007 @ 5:15 amShe’s still part of the eternal grand strategy of womankind to divert blood from men’s brains to another part of their anatomy which, mostly, leads to: “Wife, house, kids … the whole catastrophe!” 😉
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 5:35 amI think the flight attendant probably thought that if she didn’t ask her to cover up she would get a complaint from the parent of a child who went to the restroom and saw the woman in that state of dress.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/23/2007 @ 5:54 amThe passenger reaction was over the top. Like so many people in today’s world, she finally found an issue so that she could get a slice of that lucrative victim pie that is out there.
If you look at the second photo on this link, as a commenter pointed out, her skirt is well below her hips and is just above her pubic bone. You can see the belt loops well below her hip bone. Still, she can not cover up her crotch.
Someone on another board connected with the airline said a passenger in the waiting area complained. Not because of the skirt, but because the woman had her tank top pulled down below her breasts and was relying on the green sweater to cover them. As you can see by this photo, that would be impossible.
dave (0606c0) — 10/23/2007 @ 6:07 amIt seems strange to me that this situation should arouse resentment. It’s skimpy cause to get anyone’s underwear in a knot.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 9:54 amAnd you say your wife reads this blog, nk?
Did you get a new couch or something? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/23/2007 @ 10:04 amIt’s from “Zorba the Greek”, Scott. She and I have watched it many times together. It was written by the same author who wrote “The Last Temptation of Christ” and some of the presents she has bought me are his books. To paraphrase a fovorite author: “My wife and I see eye to eye on most things. When we don’t, I remember that she is a woman.”
I believe you are still a bachelor. All I can say is, wait and see.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 10:20 amnk: I think the airline is getting a bad rap. I also think she still might try to exhort money from them through a phony lawsuit. Obviously, she’s got your vote . . .
dave (0606c0) — 10/23/2007 @ 10:41 amI never pegged you for a bright-eyed optimist nk… 🙂
I think it’s a safe bet I won’t be getting married for a long, long time…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/23/2007 @ 10:54 amThat’s a coincidence, NK. My husband and I agree on almost everything, too, except sometimes I have to remember he’s a man.
And thanks, Patterico #64. I’m happier (and smarter) already.
DRJ (fb1a22) — 10/23/2007 @ 11:44 amThis is a thread that I don’t mind seeing around for a long time. Poor Brenda doesn’t get it:
we’re not talking about world peace, the environment, education, or anything else that might matter… we’re talking about a gal who maybe showed off her cootchy by wearing a really short skirt.
She just doesn’t know what’s really important. 😉
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 11:46 amDRJ #73: Men and women are different. Vive la difference.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/23/2007 @ 11:48 amPlus, there was no maybe about it. :p
dave (0606c0) — 10/23/2007 @ 12:12 pmxahos rimahece gykma
ze165007 (30b2b5) — 1/19/2008 @ 9:35 pmmica http://ze165007.mc0ltil.net/sitemap18.html [url=http://ze165007.mc0ltil.net/sitemap18.html ]lihy[/url] wokub