I think that they are fooling themselves if they think that this does anything to ameliorate the comments from last week. However, Tim has ameliorated his comments for me by being in complete agreement with me that Uli should have won. He pointed out in his podcast (and on the Tim's Take blog) that she created the best design AND she had a model who wasn't all modelly. Okay he didn't say "modelly". But you know what I mean.

I think this week's challenge proved that most of the designers have no clue how to design for a plus-size woman, at least not on such short notice. Shapeless ponchos? Ick.

Exactly. Jeff's design was hideous. And Kayne's was so old lady. How does a scarf draped over the front of a shirt make it fashion-forward? And Robert, much as I liked him personally (as did everybody else), completely deserved to be out. That looked like every mother-of-the-bride-ish outfit I've ever seen, and the plain black and red *was* boring.

I missed the comments about the models and sizes last week. Must hie myself off to Tim's blog.

Well, apparently neither do a lot of designers whose JOB it is to design plus-sized clothes, no?

Jesse -- what you said.

still on project. hate.

I send an email with ten questions. I get a response telling me why I can't get an answer to #1. That's it. I know I shouldn't feel stupid replying with a "What about the other stuff?" email, especially since I've been owed the information awhile. I'm just surprised by the whole thing. And totally shouldn't be.

ita, do you work with the monkeys in that monster.com commercial? Because it kind of sounds that way.

This challenge really could have benefitted from some additonal time. I don't see how they expected anything other than a train wreck given that they really didn't give anyone time to *think* let alone try things out.

As I understand it, the general rule on the use of honorifics associated with advanced degrees was that you used them when they were relevant. This would include job-related settings, of course, but it is broader than that. For instance, if a psychologist is serving on the local school board or a geologist is serving on the local land use planning commission, you would continue to use Dr. on the grounds that the degree may be relevant to the expertise the person has in these roles.

But if the psychologist is leading nature hikes or the geologist is coaching little league they aren't doctors any more.

Why the traditional exceptions for clergy and physicians? There was an assumption that the minister's domain extended to all of human life so the degree was always relevant. And 100 years ago, the physician's expertise COULD be relevant at any time, if there was an emergency, and it was effcient to scan the guest list, passenger list, etc to see if there was a physician in the group. Do either of these exceptions make sense in a religiously diverse society with quick access to emergency medical care? Probably not. In a medical emergency, you'd be better off finding a paramedic or a nurse practitioner than a dermatologist or radiologist. It's a stupid rule.