http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-1085 Kathleen Fasanella Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:56:55 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528#comment-1085 You know, things are getting crazier everyday. This is getting ridiculous. One of my designers described a size 6 as one of "the larger sizes" the other day. We've got a lot more nutjobs getting in the business lately. I may have to rescind all I said. I think they ARE vanity sizing. Maybe it's time for me to get out. I'm getting too old for the insanity. You know, things are getting crazier everyday. This is getting ridiculous. One of my designers described a size 6 as one of “the larger sizes” the other day. We’ve got a lot more nutjobs getting in the business lately. I may have to rescind all I said. I think they ARE vanity sizing. Maybe it’s time for me to get out. I’m getting too old for the insanity.

]]> http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-1084 Neil Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:10:40 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528#comment-1084 Maybe I should have saved the Flat Stanley statement for this. Although he would probably be a size 2. Maybe I should have saved the Flat Stanley statement for this. Although he would probably be a size 2.

]]> http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-1083 McGehee Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:55:14 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/archives/528#comment-1083 A size-minus-two dress ought to come with weights sewn in the hems if they're to be sold in chronically windy locales. A size-minus-two dress ought to come with weights sewn in the hems if they’re to be sold in chronically windy locales.

]]>