Comments on: NO underpants were visible, and he’s a FOOL to call them ‘TEAL’ when they were OBVIOUSLY TURQUOISE https://sorrywatch.com/no-underpants-were-visible-and-hes-a-fool-to-call-them-teal-when-they-were-obviously-turquoise/ Analyzing apologies in the news, media, history and literature. We condemn the bad and exalt the good. Sun, 09 Aug 2020 05:22:53 +0000 hourly 1 By: alan1018 https://sorrywatch.com/no-underpants-were-visible-and-hes-a-fool-to-call-them-teal-when-they-were-obviously-turquoise/#comment-187247 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 17:50:11 +0000 https://sorrywatch.com/?p=3921#comment-187247 Great Sorry Watch post. The image caption is priceless.

I am so glad you corrected my impression of this informative and entertaining site.

]]> By: sumac https://sorrywatch.com/no-underpants-were-visible-and-hes-a-fool-to-call-them-teal-when-they-were-obviously-turquoise/#comment-187224 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:47:48 +0000 https://sorrywatch.com/?p=3921#comment-187224 In reply to Pat Adams.

She was being vague. It could have meant that, or it could have meant that she was carried away by her enthusiasm for health-plan documentation and, if not interrupted, might have done something she would later regret.

She was talking to the sheriff about what was on the public record, possibly hoping he would make things go away if she could enlist his sympathies.

At least she’d established that there was no body-cam video.

]]> By: Pat Adams https://sorrywatch.com/no-underpants-were-visible-and-hes-a-fool-to-call-them-teal-when-they-were-obviously-turquoise/#comment-187218 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:40:13 +0000 https://sorrywatch.com/?p=3921#comment-187218 “…the ranger came along to ‘save her from an uncomfortable situation.’ ”

Was she saying he was being rapey??

]]> By: tanita https://sorrywatch.com/no-underpants-were-visible-and-hes-a-fool-to-call-them-teal-when-they-were-obviously-turquoise/#comment-187215 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:37:15 +0000 https://sorrywatch.com/?p=3921#comment-187215 Divine… intervention.
Right.

]]>