NO
Would you go out wearing 'nothing' but a few strategically placed pom-poms?
(Thanks to Jeff Meyerson)
« Previous | Main | Next »
February 27, 2015
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
-
She wears it well...
Posted by: Allen at Division | February 27, 2015 at 10:31 AM
Not after Labor Day...
Posted by: Hammond Rye | February 27, 2015 at 10:35 AM
Nah ... pink & lavender are not my colors ...
Posted by: O the Umanity | February 27, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Tribbles?
Posted by: Ralph | February 27, 2015 at 11:02 AM
The
Emperor'sKardashian's New Clothes?Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | February 27, 2015 at 11:02 AM
huh, no pockets - where's she gonna put her cell phone ?
oh, wait a minute . . .
Posted by: ligirl | February 27, 2015 at 11:13 AM
That dress is not gold. Or black.
Posted by: oneblankspace | February 27, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Strategically placed pom poms are an integral of any well-organized military operation.
Posted by: Clankie | February 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM
I saw the Strategically-Placed Pom Poms warming up for Katy Perry. Helluva show!
Posted by: Alien8 | February 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM
Oh no
Posted by: Theresa | February 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM
Kinda reminds me of my third grade ballet recital costume.
Posted by: ubetcha | February 27, 2015 at 12:57 PM
$538? I guess it is true what they say about women's clothing, less costs more.
Posted by: max | February 27, 2015 at 01:03 PM
Not only would I not wear this dress I d@mn sure wouldn't pay $538 for it either.
Posted by: nursecindy | February 27, 2015 at 01:04 PM
$5.38.
There. Now the price is correct. That darn decimal place really makes a difference.
The dress is currently on-sale for $2.50. That's because it is half-off.
Posted by: PirateBoy | February 27, 2015 at 06:35 PM
Well done, PirateBoy!
Posted by: will dooley | February 27, 2015 at 08:05 PM