No shirt no shoes no service

[quigon-jin95]

ok so i get the rule that if your not wearing shist or shoes your spreding germs and being undecent but... what about pants?is it supposed to be implied or what i dont understand cuz it doesnt make sense

[Konosko]

No way, it means they would love to see your man meat while your ordering food, its a compliment you see?

[Bit]

Not having pants on is sometimes against local laws anyway so it's implied.

[Khymera]

its perfectly fine to go into stores restaurants without pants, just as long as you keep your privies neat and clean

[Sinitech]

It's implied that anyone intelligent enough to make it to any kind of store in the first place should be smart enough to know that pants are required in public.

[XenonMonkey]

Lack of lower body-wear is against the law.

[quigon-jin95]

At 6/21/10 04:01 PM, Khymera wrote: its perfectly fine to go into stores restaurants without pants, just as long as you keep your privies neat and clean

oh ok i get it now so do i have to shave up firsr lol

[whatty]

At 6/21/10 04:07 PM, Piss wrote: I had a great idea concerning this.

Eh. It's not really an idea dude. It's been done already. Lots of places have booths like this. How are you supposed to patent a window?

[Ericho]

I am pretty sure wearing pants is simply the norm so it is implied. It reminds me of this one comic strip that showed a guy doing just that and of course that comic strip was banned. I always thought that was a really funny thing to say, because when you see "No X" on any sign you assume that means you are not supposed to have that. I always thought that sounded like you weren't supposed to have shoes or a shirt on at first. It is just worded poorly.

[BritPop]

This topic has been done countless times.

[Raab]

At 6/22/10 11:44 AM, Ericho wrote: It is just worded poorly.

No its worded humorously/poetically.