DATELINE: BALLSTON
(Thanks to Matt Filar and Jeff Meyerson)
« Previous | Main | Next »
May 17, 2012
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
She was checking out the hard woods.
Posted by: Horace LaBadie | May 17, 2012 at 02:30 PM
"Nude woman who visits 2 Ballston stores is later found clad and charged"
Charged like a bull?
Charged some clothes?
Charged up?
And don't even get me started on Ballston's "penal law."
Posted by: ubetcha | May 17, 2012 at 02:30 PM
"The manager said 'Ma'am, are you aware you have no clothes on?'
"Doh! I knew I forgot something!"
More likely it was, "No sh!t, Sherlock."
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | May 17, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Her court appearance is in Ballston Spa. Do you need clothes in a spa?
Posted by: Ralph | May 17, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Anyone seen $InsrtBlogLadyNameHere lately?
Posted by: wiredog | May 17, 2012 at 02:52 PM
What?!? She was kosher?
Do we think the quoted speaker knows what that word means?
Posted by: Omniskeptic | May 17, 2012 at 02:58 PM
this was a MAJOR local story. ballston spa half hr from albany.
Posted by: queensbee | May 17, 2012 at 03:01 PM
If she'd just put on a tool belt in the hardware store, she would have walked out with a dozen marriage proposals.
Posted by: padraig the cheesehead | May 17, 2012 at 03:33 PM
I enjoyed the picture, but I guess I need to get my eyeglass prescription renewed...
Posted by: DrPat | May 17, 2012 at 03:54 PM
She was looking for something. I'm not sure what it's called but the description is "woody".
Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2012 at 04:09 PM
"Public (not: "\'Pubic' ... well, mebbe that, too) Lewdness ...
The SCOTUS has suggested that "lewdness, or pornography" is in the eye of the beholder (or set by community standards?) ... and also, it seems, is nudeness ...
I'm suspectin' a test case that could go to the SCOTUS ... merely sayin' ...
Posted by: O the Umanity | May 17, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Wait! You mean you can't shop in the nude?
Well no wonder....
And No I have no pics.
Posted by: MikeyVA | May 18, 2012 at 09:19 AM
I think the whole problem is...wait, there is no problem!
Next customer!!
Posted by: PirateBoy | May 18, 2012 at 10:32 PM