My mom won't enforce modesty--what to do?

[Lost_Wanderer]

Would say there is no need for a basketball team to all wear the same thing since clothing conveys no information?

I just love how you avoid the issue and refuse to face the fact that regardless of what is being conveyed, the overall value of the medium you guys espouse is fictional.

So what if it conveys information? What good is information when it’s FALSE? Disguises and deception only give people more reason to never believe what is being ‘communicated’.

How we choose to look conveys information. How we are born looking we can not help. But we can work with the material we have. A person could be naturally beautiful but do nothing to take care of their body. Are you saying a dirty, disheveled person is not conveying information about themselves?

1 Samuel 16:7 would tell me what Obi-Wan said to Luke, “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

Sorry, but your words are starting to make me sick. You’re actually justifying the bullying, humiliation, and social mockery I received because I refused to kowtow to the A-crowd definition of ‘good appearance’.

Appearance is not everything, but it is also not nothing. Witness the words of Jesus:

Uh, no. It is just nothing. In the end, people don’t eat the wrapper of a candy bar. They just eat the candy.

‘But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.’

This verse is about chastising those who are flamboyant in their religiosity, not about appearance or modesty. Try something else.

 

[Portrait]

You miss the point – your argument was that the stomach need not be shown. This does not make showing it immodest because you have not established that anything that need not be shown being shown is immodest. This is absurd when one takes a position on any other issue – such as chocolate. It is parallel because you have not created a difference by explaining why necessity applies to modesty but not to eating, for example. Similarly, no woman needs to show her ankles, but doing so is hardly immodest. There is a more direct example.

Instead of focusing on examples in your response, however, please focus on establishing why it matters that the stomach being shown is immodest because it is not necessary to show it.

What is “unseemly prominence?” What is “an immoderate amount of flesh?” Give me a standard that I can apply to other clothing. Assume I am a robot that needs concrete criteria to apply in order to make a judgment.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

By Catholic standards of modesty exposure of one’s stomach in public is decidedly unecessary and trespasses the boundaries of propriety as it revealing that which ought to remain hidden. Excessive consumption of chocholate, dear friend, has no connection whatsoever with being modestly attired in public and practicing a proper reserve. It is not even remotely analagous, for the requirements of modesty are based upon Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Unseemly prominence is any garment that accentuates body parts in a manner that indecent and offensive. The ‘standard’ of which you speak is to be found in the traditional teaching of the Church throughout the ages (e.g. papal encylicals and directives etc.) and, of course, our Catechism, which aids our spiritual formation, thus enabling our decision making to be consonant and in alignment with the wholesome teaching of Holy Mother Church. A well-formed conscience will always make the correct choices and not violate modesty, simply because it is a well-formed conscience that is enlightened by sanctified common sense.

If the “weaker sex” of I Pet. 3: 7 does not have reference to physical weakness, then to what does it have reference? Here is the traditional interpretation of the passage as given in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1953, p. 1179,added emphasis mine), “They (husbands) should make allowance for the natural physical weakness of women, and give them the regard which is due to them as 'co-heirs of the grace of life”. Stone for stone, women are as a rule weaker than men.

The first Epistle of Timothy forms a part of Sacred Scripture, which our Church holds to be inspired and regulative. Therefore, we can trust whatever St. Paul says respecting women and need not dismiss it as being culturally bound and hence irrelevant. However, that is for another debate and is not germane to the topic currently under review.

In any event, St. Paul’s entire argumentation is firmly rooted in the Fall and its conseqences and is therefore not something that is subject to modification or revision. First, St. Paul shows that God’s purpose in creating Eve was to provide a ‘help meet’ for Adam (see Gen. 2. 20), thus it is forbidden for a woman to arrogate to herself the headship which is proper to a man. This she would necessarily do were she to enter the priesthood, for it would place her in a postion of authority over a man and hence would be a disavowal of his headship in creation. Second, St. Paul denonstrates that Eve’s part in the Fall was owing to her being deceived (II Cor. 11: 3). Rather than hanker after the vocation of priest, which does not belong to her, she should gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood (see I Tim. 5: 14; Titus 2: 4,5). Now it is perfectly reasonable and a logical deduction to conclude from this that *on**e of the *reasons why the priesthood is not open to women is that they are more easily deceived than men and this would be most problematic were she a priest. This is the whole import of St. Paul’s reasoning and this teaching has not been abrogated and requires no scientific verification to prove its veracity

On the contrary, the passage does have some relevancy to women being sexually exploited by men, inasmuch as, according to St. Paul, there is a congenital weakeness in women, as a result of her being first deceived at the Fall. Thus she must needs take special care in the matter of her clothing choices, as she does have this innate vulnerability, which does leave her open to exploitation. If this can be greatly minimised by being clad in modest apparel, then that is no bad thing, dear friend.

By their wearing of unseemly clothing such as tightly fitting garments, my dear bother, women are making a negative statement about themselves and are declaring to others their conceited disregard for a proper ladylike reserve. If they are women professing godliness, then that will inevitably and quite rightly elicit censure from more pious souls with tender consciences, who will be offended and embarrassed by such shameless immodesty.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Again, your discussion has taken this thread off topic. Please, start another thread of your own. I am going to keep repeating this until you stop.

Please take your discussion to a thread of your own.

 

[Portrait]

My knowledge and reasonable expectation clearly differ from yours. Yours are unreasonable. See? I can make statements that have no independently objective basis too. That does not make them useful or productive.

But you are delving into specifics on the same basis in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Reason in this case is no substitute for science.

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

Scientific analysis does have its place, dear friend, and I am in no wise contending that it should be completely disregarded as worthless. Provided that it is genuinely objective and is not driven by some liberal agenda, the chief aim of which is to discredit some Christian moral teaching that is embarrassingly and awkwardly out of sync with the prevailing godless immoral culture, then it can sometimes be helpful in corroborating Christian morality. Thus, for example, that Chastity.Com article, here on Catholic Answers, makes use of genuine scientific data to good effect to demonstrate that a bikini is unacceptable for a Catholic woman/girl, and I heartily recommend that any one viewing this current thread consult this article, especially if they are of the opinion that a bikini is not an unseemly garment.

Irrespective of whether or not scientific data confirms something to be immodest, in the event of its findings conflicting with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradion, the latter will always prevail over the former. We are not at liberty to dispense with the necessity for a well-formed conscience nourished by the timeless teaching of the Church throughout the ages. If Catholics of former generations had to wait for scientific data to verify all of the moral teachings of the Church, then they would have had to wait a long time. Moreover, they would have surely been at a grave disadvantage and would have been tossed about upon a sea of moral uncertainty. With Potius Pilate they would have declared, “what is truth”?

Men being led into sin is a matter that is proper to the domain of theology, for it involves the Fall and the entrance of sin into the world and its tragic consequences for our race. These are decidedly theological issues. Certain garments such as a bikini (which, as the Chastity.Com article shows, does evoke a sexual response) and mini-skirt are immodest and indecent because they expose an inordinate amount of flesh, which in turn enflames evil desire (concupiscence) in men, which can, and so often does, result in mortal sin. Man is a disordered being and so things are not as they should be, which is why you have problems like impurity of thought and lustful desire. The teaching of both Scripture and Catechism acknowledge this, and advise the faithful to take the necessary steps to reduce its vicious effects, which includes dressing modestly and not revealing what should remain concealed from view. Again, all of this is basic theological truth and does not need corroboration from the scientific community to demonstrate that it is true. It would always be true regardless, because it has been divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which, of course, we believe to be infallible and hence authoritative. As I said previously, my dear friend, authentic scientific data will verify Christian doctrinal/moral teachings ( as in that Chastity.Com article), but even in the absence of any such verification, those teachings will still stand on their own, for they have been divinely revealed and therefore cannot be wrong.

Modern Catholic women who see nothing wrong with being scantily clad in such a tarty garment as the mini-skirt, which shamefully flaunts their legs, should remember that it owes its origin to one Mary Quant here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘swinging sixties’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Woman’s Liberation movement. This disgusting garment became a powerful symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress, as well as allowing her to exercise some sort of ‘power’ over men by being a temptress. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it became a powerful influence in the rising tide of cultural and moral deterioration, the sad effects of which continue to be felt today. For example, we have more teenage pregnancies here in the UK than in most European countries and more couples opt to live sin rahter than enter into holy wedlock. Now I am not sugesting that the mini-skirt alone is responsible for all of this, but it has certainly played no small part in the rising tide of immorality. Now, would any respectable and God-fearing Catholic woman/girl really want to wear a garment with such a shameful history? Moreover, would any respectable and God-fearing Catholic woman really want to parade her legs in such a voluptuous manner, as the mini-skirt does?

All immodest and indecent attire has resulted in the disordered fixation with body parts, which in turn has resulted in the increasing sexualisation of our Western culture and the prevalent decadence which is a sad feature of it. Unless Catholics want to be implicated in this aggressive sexualisation of culture they must eshew all unseemly garments that make a mockery of their profession of religion. We need to dare to be different and keep ourselves unstained from the godless world (James 1: 27).

This will probably be my final post for now, dear brother, so may I wish you and all other contributors to this thread a jolly good weekend, whatever your plans are.

God bless and thankyou for your time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

Scientific analysis does have its place, dear friend, and I am in no wise contending that it should be completely disregarded as worthless. Provided that it is genuinely objective and is not driven by some liberal agenda, the chief aim of which is to discredit some Christian moral teaching that is embarrassingly and awkwardly out of sync with the prevailing godless immoral culture, then it can sometimes be helpful in corroborating Christian morality. Thus, for example, that Chastity.Com article, here on Catholic Answers, makes use of genuine scientific data to good effect to demonstrate that a bikini is unacceptable for a Catholic woman/girl, and I heartily recommend that any one viewing this current thread consult this article, especially if they are of the opinion that a bikini is not an unseemly garment.

Irrespective of whether or not scientific data confirms something to be immodest, in the event of its findings conflicting with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradion, the latter will always prevail over the former. We are not at liberty to dispense with the necessity for a well-formed conscience nourished by the timeless teaching of the Church throughout the ages. If Catholics of former generations had to wait for scientific data to verify all of the moral teachings of the Church, then they would have had to wait a long time. Moreover, they would have surely been at a grave disadvantage and would have been tossed about upon a sea of moral uncertainty. With Potius Pilate they would have declared, “what is truth”?

Men being led into sin is a matter that is proper to the domain of theology, for it involves the Fall and the entrance of sin into the world and its tragic consequences for our race. These are decidedly theological issues. Certain garments such as a bikini (which, as the Chastity.Com article shows, does evoke a sexual response) and mini-skirt are immodest and indecent because they expose an inordinate amount of flesh, which in turn enflames evil desire (concupiscence) in men, which can, and so often does, result in mortal sin. Man is a disordered being and so things are not as they should be, which is why you have problems like impurity of thought and lustful desire. The teaching of both Scripture and Catechism acknowledge this, and advise the faithful to take the necessary steps to reduce its vicious effects, which includes dressing modestly and not revealing what should remain concealed from view. Again, all of this is basic theological truth and does not need corroboration from the scientific community to demonstrate that it is true. It would always be true regardless, because it has been divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which, of course, we believe to be infallible and hence authoritative. As I said previously, my dear friend, authentic scientific data will verify Christian doctrinal/moral teachings ( as in that Chastity.Com article), but even in the absence of any such verification, those teachings will still stand on their own, for they have been divinely revealed and therefore cannot be wrong.

Modern Catholic women who see nothing wrong with being scantily clad in such a tarty garment as the mini-skirt, which shamefully flaunts their legs, should remember that it owes its origin to one Mary Quant here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘swinging sixties’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Woman’s Liberation movement. This disgusting garment became a powerful symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress, as well as allowing her to exercise some sort of ‘power’ over men by being a temptress. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it became a powerful influence in the rising tide of cultural and moral deterioration, the sad effects of which continue to be felt today. For example, we have more teenage pregnancies here in the UK than in most European countries and more couples opt to live sin rahter than enter into holy wedlock. Now I am not sugesting that the mini-skirt alone is responsible for all of this, but it has certainly played no small part in the rising tide of immorality. Now, would any respectable and God-fearing Catholic woman/girl really want to wear a garment with such a shameful history? Moreover, would any respectable and God-fearing Catholic woman really want to parade her legs in such a voluptuous manner, as the mini-skirt does?

All immodest and indecent attire has resulted in the disordered fixation with body parts, which in turn has resulted in the increasing sexualisation of our Western culture and the prevalent decadence which is a sad feature of it. Unless Catholics want to be implicated in this aggressive sexualisation of culture they must eshew all unseemly garments that make a mockery of their profession of religion. We need to dare to be different and keep ourselves unstained from the godless world (James 1: 27).

This will probably be my final post for now, dear brother, so may I wish you and all other contributors to this thread a jolly good weekend, whatever your plans are.

God bless and thankyou for your time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

---

The disordered fixation – lives in the mind-- and Not on the woman being viewed. Clean out the mind. It is the unhealthy view of the body that you portray – that drags boys/mens minds down to the gutter and keeps them there

 

[LaSainte]

It is NOT immodest attire that has resulted in the disordered fixation on body parts. Anything that is concealed becomes titillating. In some cultures where the burka or hijab is worn, a glimpse merely of a woman’s mouth is sufficient. In the Victorian era, it was the glimpse of an ankle or wrist. In parts of Africa, the breasts aren’t even seen in a sexual way because they are on display all the time.

Do you see the point here? Lust is something that comes from within and has little to do with a woman’s attire. A man who is prone to lust will look for and find something to excite him no matter where he is or what the women of that society or culture are wearing.

Again, this is about trying to place the blame for one’s own personal failings onto someone else. If this is such an issue for you, throw away you television and computer and all magazines, for these things are certainly contributing to your evil desires far more than the average woman walking down the street in a pair of jeans.

 

[Baelor]

By Catholic standards of modesty exposure of one’s stomach in public is decidedly unecessary and trespasses the boundaries of propriety as it revealing that which ought to remain hidden.

Why does it trespass the boundaries of propriety? Why does it matter whether it is unnecessary to expose it?

Unseemly prominence is any garment that accentuates body parts in a manner that indecent and offensive…A well-formed conscience will always make the correct choices and not violate modesty, simply because it is a well-formed conscience that is enlightened by sanctified common sense.

Then I have the additional task of determining who has a well-formed conscience. And furthermore, modesty is determinable in a separate way than conscience, just as murder is always wrong by a well-formed conscience but also able to be judged wrong by another route (right to life, sanctity of life, etc.). You have failed to provide any hint of a second route. I have, and you rejected the scientific determination of modesty on no basis whatsoever.

If the “weaker sex” of I Pet. 3: 7 does not have reference to physical weakness, then to what does it have reference?

That is not an acceptable way to approach such analysis.

Here is the traditional interpretation of the passage as given in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1953, p. 1179,added emphasis mine), “They (husbands) should make allowance for the natural physical weakness of women, and give them the regard which is due to them as 'co-heirs of the grace of life”. Stone for stone, women are as a rule weaker than men.

Thank you for posting one commentator’s analysis of the passage.

The first Epistle of Timothy forms a part of Sacred Scripture, which our Church holds to be inspired and regulative. Therefore, we can trust whatever St. Paul says respecting women and need not dismiss it as being culturally bound and hence irrelevant. However, that is for another debate and is not germane to the topic currently under review.

Correct, we need not dismiss it. But we need not take it as immutable and proscriptive for all time either.

In any event, St. Paul’s entire argumentation is firmly rooted in the Fall and its conseqences and is therefore not something that is subject to modification or revision.

Certain aspects, yes – not all. Most of the subsequent paragraph is irrelevant, hence my lack of response.

Now it is perfectly reasonable and a logical deduction to conclude from this that *on**e of the *reasons why the priesthood is not open to women is that they are more easily deceived than men and this would be most problematic were she a priest.

No, it is not. The reason that women are not able to be priests is that Jesus was male and chose only men to be his apostles/priests. Your reasoning is totally unfounded, and there is no logical connection in any immediate sense. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that, and the Church explicitly agrees with me, not you.

And ability to be deceived is a scientific issue, not a theological one. It is something neuroscience can quantify. And it already has (although I am unfamiliar with the breakdown of the genders).

We are not at liberty to dispense with the necessity for a well-formed conscience nourished by the timeless teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

Reality never conflicts with a well-formed conscience; so an embrace of reality and the recognition of a conscience that agrees with it is a recognition of a well-formed conscience.

Men being led into sin is a matter that is proper to the domain of theology, for it involves the Fall and the entrance of sin into the world and its tragic consequences for our race. These are decidedly theological issues.

And the theological nature of them ends there. Humans have brains. Brains can be studied.

Certain garments such as a bikini (which, as the Chastity.Com article shows, does evoke a sexual response) and mini-skirt are immodest and indecent because they expose an inordinate amount of flesh, which in turn enflames evil desire (concupiscence) in men, which can, and so often does, result in mortal sin.

Prove that mini-skirts do. Post the study.

 

[severus68]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

**By Catholic standards of modesty exposure of one’s stomach in public is decidedly unecessary and trespasses the boundaries of propriety as it revealing that which ought to remain hidden. **

 

[L_piperatus]

All immodest and indecent attire has resulted in the disordered fixation with body parts,

…leading also to girls starving themselves to the point of anorexia, getting silicon breast implants and subjecting themselves to other sorts of unnecessary and harmful surgical procedures, suffering from self-image issues revolving around their bodies…

If this 11-y.o was my little sister or niece, I would be worried about the way she dresses, and I would try to gently influence her to dress more modestly.

 

[Walking_Home]

…leading also to girls starving themselves to the point of anorexia, getting silicon breast implants and subjecting themselves to other sorts of unnecessary and harmful surgical procedures, suffering from self-image issues revolving around their bodies…

If this 11-y.o was my little sister or niece, I would be worried about the way she dresses, and I would try to gently influence her to dress more modestly.

---

Better yet – encourage the lechers and perverts to hold themselves responsible for the rot in their own mind --and work to purify their minds/hearts.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

…leading also to girls starving themselves to the point of anorexia, getting silicon breast implants and subjecting themselves to other sorts of unnecessary and harmful surgical procedures, suffering from self-image issues revolving around their bodies…

Right while the era of modesty lead girls to stay stuck at home, sewing, knitting, without so much a voice or a choice to pursue something THEY want instead of what their abusive husbands wanted. They couldn’t do sports. At one point, they couldn’t even do theater. For them, you’ll either end up a wife or a nun.

Oh yes, wonderful times indeed.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Please take your discussion to a thread of your own.

Please, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Take this discussion to a thread of your own!!!

 

[severus68]

Please, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

Take this discussion to a thread of your own!!!

The OP has been advised and agrees her mother should do the parenting.

I think we should ignore posts designed to change this to another “The important of modesty in women” thread.

The Fashion Police can start their own thread which will be inevitably closed soon.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The OP has been advised and agrees her mother should do the parenting.

I think we should ignore posts designed to change this to another “The important of modesty in women” thread.

The Fashion Police can start their own thread which will be inevitably closed soon.

Most of the thread has been taken up with this debate, yet the parties involved refuse to budge. Useless philosophical badminton.

I am tired of seeing this all over the forum. It wastes bandwidth and is extremely annoying.

 

[L_piperatus]

Right while the era of modesty lead girls to stay stuck at home, sewing, knitting, without so much a voice or a choice to pursue something THEY want instead of what their abusive husbands wanted. They couldn’t do sports. At one point, they couldn’t even do theater. For them, you’ll either end up a wife or a nun.

Oh yes, wonderful times indeed.

I think there is a healthy (pun intended) middle ground, when it comes to obsession with body parts and fashions. An 11-y.o. girl can surely benefit from the wisdom of an older sister, who may try to gently redirect and empower her not to be a slave of fashions, especially immodest fashions.

I live in one of the epicenters of the fashion industry, and I often travel in the same elevator with these female models who look anorexic, have surreal silicon-enhanced bosoms, dress in super-mini dresses, and I feel sorry for them. Not saying that the OP’s little sister will necessarily end up starving herself to the point of becoming anorexic, or having unnecessary and dangerous plastic surgery procedures, but at its extreme, an inordinate preoccupation with fashions, with body parts, can lead to this. These poor girls who work in the fashion industry will do really unhealthy things to their bodies, because with today’s fashions, they must expose so much of their bodies, and there are unrealistic and unhealthy expectations regarding how slim their bodies must look like, how large their breasts should be, and so on. BTW, I’ve just read about a male swimsuit model who had plastic surgery to enhance his pectoral muscles. Male models also often have surgical procedures to enhance the appearance of their calves. It’s really stupid and harmful, if you ask me. It’s not a healthy world, and it’s driven by outlandish expectations, and a slavish urge to live up to those expectations.

My point was simply about the value of empowering the OP’s little sister not to follow slavishly every fashion and trend out there. Modesty empowers and releases us from the slavery of following peer pressure into dangerous (morally and even physically dangerous) territory.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

My point was simply about the value of empowering the OP’s little sister not to follow slavishly every fashion and trend out there. Modesty empowers and releases us from the slavery of following peer pressure into dangerous (morally and even physically dangerous) territory.

Right, as if rules on modest attire where never in anyway another form of social slavery, de-empowerment, and conformity with peers. Modesty was a fashion trend in the old days too. Your reasoning that it is somehow a form of empowerment and liberating is both ironic and hilarious.

True non-conformity is in fact a less preoccupation with what your deceptive eyes tell you and a focus towards within. I have a sister who is now currently having a hand at modeling (in fact, she’s currently at a local mall right now). She, my mother, and even my brother act like the fashion police. It’s even more disheartening when I’ve had people admire the things they compel me to wear.

What difference would it make if they simply swapped the jeans and snazzy shirts with suits and 1950s (Ugh) attire? None. I am a slave to their fashion whims either way. Religious motives are a moot, insignificant, and irrelevant point. I am an even greater slave to the whims of those obsessing with petty externals.

To all of those in the Party of Modesy and the Fashion Police, I say, “You don’t know this ‘nerd’. You dress your way, I dress mine! You don’t know those women. Go back to your pews and pray for yourselves!”

 

[Walking_Home]

Right, as if rules on modest attire where never in anyway another form of social slavery, de-empowerment, and conformity with peers. Modesty was a fashion trend in the old days too. Your reasoning that it is somehow a form of empowerment and liberating is both ironic and hilarious.

True non-conformity is in fact a less preoccupation with what your deceptive eyes tell you and a focus towards within. I have a sister who is now currently having a hand at modeling (in fact, she’s currently at a local mall right now). She, my mother, and even my brother act like the fashion police. It’s even more disheartening when I’ve had people admire the things they compel me to wear.

What difference would it make if they simply swapped the jeans and snazzy shirts with suits and 1950s (Ugh) attire? None. I am a slave to their fashion whims either way. Religious motives are a moot, insignificant, and irrelevant point. I am an even greater slave to the whims of those obsessing with petty externals.

To all of those in the Party of Modesy and the Fashion Police, I say, "You don’t know this ‘nerd’. You dress your way, I dress mine! You don’t know those women. Go back to your pews and pray for yourselves!"

---

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Most of the thread has been taken up with this debate, yet the parties involved refuse to budge. Useless philosophical badminton.

I am tired of seeing this all over the forum. It wastes bandwidth and is extremely annoying.

Once more, with feeling…

GO MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD!!!

Thank you.