[Didymus Much]

Context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasyrma

[WWJDnow]

Didy, please, this is a church website. Women and children can see the pornographic images that you post here. Nobody here wants to see a woman exposing her lady parts.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasyrma

Also, what kind of caption is this? Per your source: a caption contest or caption competition is a competition between multiple participants, who are required to give the best description for a certain image offered by the contest organizer.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Also, what kind of caption is this? ...

A poor one, I'll admit. I really had nothing, and I still don't. So I threw it out there.


And all the image really shows is the side of her leg. She's scaring a demon, and scaring demons is a good thing, right? Your Jesus did it, according to the Bible. I was just looking for the True Christian™ take on her, uh, method (which I will readily admit Jesus did not use (according to the Bible)).

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasyrma

Mr. Much, you hellbound atheist dick! I dunno where you got that artwork depicting one of my better Filipino houseboys in costume (we were having cold beverages and some thespian entertainment with my h-boys performing in a totally innocent manner). There's nothing to see here. Scatter etc. If you were among my tithers this would mean a substantial raise.



I still don't understand how you always come back after all the dozens of times I banned you.

[Isabella White]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

Didy, please, this is a church website. Women and children can see the pornographic images that you post here. Nobody here wants to see a woman exposing her lady parts.

Exactly so, dear Brother WWJDnow! If Mr. Much does not reform soon, then I fear that shall instruct one of holy moderators to take appropriate action!

I shall place Mr. Much's name at the top of my prayer list for the McGill Street Ladies' Wednesday Afternoon Bible Study, Prayer Meeting and Tea & Social (held this week at Sister Clarabelle's lovely home — she makes such luscious date squares!)

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

And all the image really shows is the side of her leg.

Yes. A woman's legs are lady parts that should not be on display.

Once Donald Trump is re-elected again, we'll have national legislation that forces women to keep their legs covered down to their ankles. #MAGA

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Mr. Diddy,

was your post an attempt to exorcise by using female genitalia?

[Isabella White]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

Yes. A woman's legs are lady parts that should not be on display.

Once Donald Trump is re-elected again, we'll have national legislation that forces women to keep their legs covered down to their ankles. #MAGA

Amen, dear Brother WWJDnow! Oh, how I do hope that the days of my mother's fashions will come back soon. And, with our beloved President Trump soon to be in charge once again, that will happen, certainly — and quickly! I have every confidence that our dear Ladies of Landover will only be too pleased for this glorious moment to arrive. Why, I can almost hear Sisters Joanna, MitzaLizalor, Handmaiden, and Basillisa chattering with great excitement and anticipation now — as they should be doing!

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Romeo Rovagnati

Mr. Diddy,

was your post an attempt to exorcise by using female genitalia?

I'm the one who doesn't believe in any of this claptrap, remember?


Tho I have to put "FAIL" on any demon that gets skeeved by a bit of gig.

[MitzaLizalor]

I'm not sure who's trying to convert whom with all the jabbering and gurgling going on.
There are other venues you could check out for that, somewhere in Riyadh maybe?
The décor is probably more what you're used to.



Back on topic now: Yes! In the 1800s there were some lovely fabrics. They're still available too, at auctions of garments from the period. Similarly for Elizabethan designs – but fabric sourced from so long ago tends not to be useable. Many were embroidered however. Taken as a sample and scanned (or photographed) and fed into one of those computer-driven embroidery machines, a durable reproduction can be achieved. Concerning the later Victorian material, a word of caution. Shops selling GOTH clothing (and post mortem dolls ) do have the same fabric, either still in production or reproduced as rayon lace, but are part of the demonic network so active in these last days. Such places should be avoided – and anyway mostly what they have is black.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Isabella White

The husbands of the two women on the right dressed their wives the way a lady should be dressed. However, the low bustline of the woman on the left is totally unacceptable. No part of a woman's bosom should ever be visible.

[Isabella White]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

The husbands of the two women on the right dressed their wives the way a lady should be dressed. However, the low bustline of the woman on the left is totally unacceptable. No part of a woman's bosom should ever be visible.

Oh, Dear! I do thank you for pointing out this terrible travesty, dear Brother WWJDnow; however, that picture was not like that when I added it to my message. It appears that Satan has hacked my account and edited the photograph! Something tells me that this might be the work of that Hillary woman since I've been calling out the Clinton News Network for so many attacks on our beloved President Donald J. Trump! Or, could it have been that dastardly Obummer??

[MitzaLizalor]

Are you referring to the "redaction bar" on the nearest, er, wife? It may not have been as successful as intended. In any event, I hope you didn't follow Didymus' link. Are we going to dignify his attempt with a caption? He could be trying to fit in or something.

“Stranger things happen at sea”