Jump to content

Talk:Peachoid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Symbolism and pranks

[edit]

The Peachoid has also been confused for a huge butt, leaving passing motorists confused at what the City of Gaffney meant by this enormous landmark.

I think it is understood exactly what the Board of Public Works "meant" by erecting this monument, after all, South Carolina produces more peaches than any other state, except California. As a matter of fact, at one time, one S.C. county alone could produce more peaches than the entire state of Georgia (The Peach State).

Sure that's what they meant. What's your point? The article has to state it, really, though, since SC being the "real peach state except California which is cheating because it's so big" is not general knowledge. Georgia, for its part, never set out to be the Peach State. It set out to be Empire State of the South. The whole peach thing is based on several misunderstandings. "Peachtree Street" is the center of Atlanta, but it's really named for a pitch tree rather than a "peach" tree. Hypercorrectives decided that old timers had been mispronouncing "peach." It was a pitch tree because the city was Cherokee territory, and the treaties for the land were conducted at a pitch tree (one with sap exuding). From Peachtree Street to Atlanta Peach to Georgia Peach to Peach State, all on a game of telephone. <shrug> We still need a GFDL photo of the thing, though. Surely someone is driving past it with a camera every day, and one will post a photo? Geogre 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for the big butt, that's because peaches themselves have had that association for a long time. See Eat a Peach. Geogre 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

For a long time, a really substandard photo sat in there that was shot through a car window with an Instamatic camera decades ago. The reason for it, though, was to show all the development on the stretch of I-85 by the Peachoid (i.e. the effects of building a folly on the local economy). I won't mourn losing the poor quality photo, but we need one from across I-85 N showing the context so that readers can understand how the Peachoid is visible to travelers. Geogre 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I was just going for a ground-level high-rez photo when I took that one yesterday. I made sure to get the telephone poles and power lines in front of it to give a sense of scale. I drive through that area at least once a month on business trips, so I'll try to get one that includes the interstate and some of the nearby businesses on my next pass. 'Card 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a godsend! I have wanted, ever since I wrote the first word of this article, to emphasize that this is a folly that worked. Most of the roadside attractions fail to do much for their towns, but the Peachoid started out as a single finger aimed at Atlanta and slowly began gathering service industries. I know that Charlotte's growth probably did more to boost Gaffney than anything, but still... that hideous thing has been turning heads for decades now. I noticed, in the new photo, the power lines, and I almost didn't re-insert the trashy context image from before, hoping that the lack of lines in the construction photo and presence in the new one could tell readers, "this area has grown so much that they need electricity for a lot of stores out there," but I thought it wasn't quite enough by itself. Thank you. Geogre 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Well, we may now have an embarrassment of riches. Still, better to have too many than too few. Geogre 10:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well... I suppose there's something to be said for quantity, anyway. In a few weeks when I get the photo I mentioned in the earlier post (with highway and local businesses included) I may add a gallery to the page and put some of the new additions in there - if no one has any objections. 'Card 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone will. The feature of this feature is its folly, so visuals are more germane than any number of words. The other thing, and this is something that the Gaffney folks could answer (and probably won't) is whether the Peachoid or Charlotte is responsible for the increase in commerce in the area. It would be telling, really, to see whether the place is getting more residential or agricultural revenues, as that might hint at the answer. Big weird features can make business...maybe. Geogre 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of images, and which

[edit]

There are probably too many photos, yes. The purpose of the article, more or less, is to document and explain a very noticeable and mysterious roadside sight. The Peachoid itself is a visual that prompts interest in the text, so, if there were ever going to be a visually overbalanced article, this would be it. However, what we really need is a clear overview, and a "before and after" of what has happened to the site. Most of the time, curiosity and folly architecture does not result in building up a community, and I'm sure it isn't the Peachoid alone that has done it for Gaffney, but the kind of development that has occurred suggests that the Peachoid, like South of the Border on I-95, is becoming a "oh, let's stop here" magnet.

So, we can get to before & after and clear overviews, or we can institute a "Gallery" (which makes sense to me). I reverted to prior to the image cuts because of which images got cut and how severely and without any concession for giving multiple views. Geogre 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're giving way too much "mystery" to a water tower shaped like a peach. That's all it is. Done and said. Celebrities typically get one to two photos on their page, no more. What makes a giant peach-shaped water tower more special? One to two photos is what the page deserves, no more. We can open this up to wider comment, but 7 photos of a peach-shaped water tower is just ridiculous. I don't care if you want to choose the photographs that go on the page, but it doesn't merit more than that. this page doesn't deserve a gallery either. They are all the same photo. In detracts from the page to junk it up with every possible viewpoint of the same peach-shaped water tower. See WP:Images. --David Shankbone 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly the voice of reason. Let's be real. Yes, indeed. So nice of you to engage in dialog. Geogre 12:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're being unreasonable and giving undue weight to one piece of Novelty architecture - you keep reverting back to the original junked-up page that shows the same thing in image after image. You haven't provided any reasoning as to why seven photographs of the same thing should be smattered across the page, or even why a gallery is merited. Multiple photos look junky, give WP:Undue weight to the architectural curiosity just because the locals had the desire to not create a boring water tower, but one shaped like a peach. --David Shankbone 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting each other and discuss which images should appear in the article. I have cut them down to five, and put one in the lead and four in a gallery, but perhaps you should discuss whether I have chosen the right ones. Here they all are:
-- ALoan (Talk) 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of those images is probably non-free (or disputed, anyway). Linking here: Image:Peach2.gif: "The Peachoid soon after construction. The water tower has resulted in a great deal of commercial development (compare to above image)." (not sure which image it was being compared with). Carcharoth 09:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Should this particular link to a deleted image be kept in the article or deleted?

Don't you think that it's best to start by asking here without an RFC? Has no one even thought of that. Utgard Loki 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks bizarre? How about a randomly chosen picture from the gallery that looks bizarre? Could you suppose, even for a second, that someone like me might have a good reason? No? Not at all? I mean, I did write the damned thing, so one might assume I have some interest in making it look good. Just because you don't understand does not mean there is not a reason, and when you actually ask me I might even tell you what it is. If you try this childishness and presumption, though, don't expect graciousness. Ask Angr. He's full of grace and politeness, and he has managed to get my highest estimation of his judgment, intelligence, and communication skills for it. Geogre 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the RFC template (what is it with you people and templates?), as it is entirely out of process to launch an RFC without trying to discuss matters first. Geogre 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should lazy people replace a meaningful image with a random one because they can't understand?

[edit]

I say no.

I will not tolerate anymore "debate by edit summary, either." If you want to change the article, talk about it here.... Not by being imperious at my talk page, not by edit warring, not by being an ass in technicolor.

Would any of you churlish people even think about asking me why I revert? No? Then you are all but vandalizing an article. Are any of you going to find out my reasons? No? Then you are edit warring. If you cannot bother to discuss, then you cannot have your way. Geogre 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geogre, I think you need to read WP:OWN. --David Shankbone 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm so glad for the help, there, but I think you still need to understand how discussions take place. They do not take place by telling people what they should read. They take place by a series of questions and answers. You have not asked any, sought any, nor received any, and therefore you are being disruptive. Geogre 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two have removed it, and two have restored it. If you believe that Wikipedia is a teeter-totter and simply a game of Red Rover, then you are betraying a deeply flawed and pernicious misunderstanding of everything we're about. No one asks "if they may" remove a link, but it is the spirit and policy of Wikipedia to avoid edit warring by asking why a person is opposing one's edits and to seek resolution. I don't expect you to want to resolve the matter, as I don't believe you are interested in anyone's thoughts, but I do expect you to show respect for other editors. Geogre 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not game

[edit]

It is vandalism, in my estimation, to remove the link repeatedly without discussion. So far, no one has discussed it. Once you do, we will all be limited to playing nice. However, sermonizing with edit summaries is its own form of disruption. This is, incidentally, my dispassionate verdict on the matter. Please discuss matters and treat those who disagree with respect. Realize that they have every right that you do. If they have written the bulk of the article, they probably have more of a right, in that they have more knowledge of both the article and the subject. To call that "OWN" is not only infantile in its misunderstanding but, in fact, a type of personal attack. Geogre 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I raised this on ANI. Instead of blustering, why don't you just say why you want it on there. Instead you edit war and own the page, and stomp your foot because we haven't asked you. Seriously? You say infantile? --David Shankbone 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, child, the very reason for reverting is that the most important thing about Wikipedia is discussion. Ask anyone. I deplore people who will not be bothered to ask each other questions and learn their motivations. I wouldn't care much about the issue itself, but I care enormously about your not learning to ask, read, and listen. Geogre 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not. HTH HAND. Geogre 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the last version that did not display wiki markup to the reader, but that is not an endorsement of that version. Having seen Geogre's work elsewhere, he's probably right on the content question, but it might be better if everyone left it alone until tomorrow. Tom Harrison Talk 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had wanted discussion. Of the photos we have, there is a low quality one from a car window from 1986 that shows some of the "before" state, but it is low quality and does not really show the lack of development around the water tower. The rest are contemporary and show all sorts of commercial development. DavidShankbone, above, thinks the entire article is worthless (see the discussion of which photos, way up, from May), and so I'm a bit mistrustful of his good will at suggesting which photo is best, as he seems to entirely misunderstand the purpose of the article, or simply to sneer at it without any actual argument. Regardless, the dead link (not a restored image) was meant to be a placeholder while I searched. Apparently, though, because no one else can understand why I want that (without asking me, of course), except two people, it simply must not be. I realize that DavidShankbone considers himself a self-anointed (not appointed) expert on photos, but he's as wrong as possible on this article, and he's even more wrong about how to conduct oneself on Wikipedia. Geogre 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason Geogre is very tied to the Peachoid and this article in particular. I do not consider it worthless, when I first stumbled upon it there were eight photographs all over the place. I trimmed them down, which birthed that discussion above. The question here really came down to should a dead image link remain in an article, and only Geogre feels it should (in this case). If he's looking for another source, fine - but there's no need to have it in there while he does so, and it junks the page he loves so dearly. That's all. --David Shankbone 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even more free psychotherapy? Wow. I'm the luckiest man in the whole world. Is there any chance whatever that I can read and understand something that is written here that DavidShankbone doesn't get? Is there any possibility that you don't get it and yet that it's worth getting? Any spare psychological insight for yourself? Do I have to get your permission for a dead link to remain while I look for another source? Could you have asked me why I wanted it? Could you have trusted me, had you asked? Are these too many hypotheticals, since, in the event, you acted with nothing but hostility? It is, I believe. HTH HAND. Geogre 22:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, Geogre, if I knew how you were going to totally freak out over your ownership of an article about a water tower shaped like a peach, I would have asked. I was totally wrong. Bad David! Bad David! --David Shankbone 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you know, you could have discussed it? I know you think it's only necessary if you're caught and can't buffalo along, or at least you seem to feel that way, but it's really good practice everywhere. Geogre 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and let me explain some more of the magician's tricks, DavidShankbone. We had a new user who was uploading images. I thought, and I know this is a crazy idea, that I would be very polite and praise the photos lavishly. I wanted the new user to feel good about what he was doing. I wanted him to have his gallery, if he wanted, but he was still snapping and uploading at the time. I couldn't say that, above, because he was brand new and there, and I didn't want to seem patronizing. I know that you were untroubled by any desire to be polite or nice, but I thought it was important. I guess I'm just too old fashioned, in Wikipedia terms. Of all those images that the user uploaded, I thought one or two, maximum, was actually useful, but I thought it was good to avoid OWN issues and to welcome them all at first.
Good Lord, is this really necessary to explain? If it is, is the person who needs the explanation worth the effort? I had thought not. Geogre 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about (if for some reason leaving it in html comments was not satisfactory) putting the link here on the talk page? That way it won't get lost but also would not be in article space. That's what I typically do with links I do not have time to chase down that very second, see Talk:Christopher Columbus (whaleback) for example. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, Lar, that's fine, and all of this would have been moot had anyone gone to this talk page to ask in yet another sense. Look up there. ^^^^^ See that "Which pictures" section and a gallery that ALoan put up? Peach2.gif is the very disputed image. I don't know if it had always been displaying here (or how, if it had been deleted), but it's the image that I think best shows how the area looked before this oddity (I think it's something like 86,000 passers-by a day) began attracting gawkers. Geogre 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, folks, just look at that image. It's the first one displayed. It's from the air, and it's good quality. It's simply the best image overall and certainly the best of the "before" images. I think the fact that it's from the air makes a USGovt source more likely, but I would never argue that likelihood is sufficient. I have only done perfunctory searches so far, but SC.gov has gone weird ("privatized!") with oddly copyright status user-uploaded photos, and USGS simply doesn't do this kind of thing, that I could find. Geogre 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly baffled at what's just went down here (or still seems to be going down here...) and why. Can't we all just get along?
While I'm tossing out warm and fuzzy feel good suggestions here, maybe suggesting that it's up to the other guy to go to the talk page first might not always work perfectly, sometimes one just has to grimace and go first, be the bigger mensch, all that. After all, life isn't always peachy. OK, that pun tanked, I'm sorry. But oh my goodness what a spectacle. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It never rose to the level of an AN/I matter. The AN/I matter (undeleting an image) was over 18 hours after it began with a thoroughly unpleasant, snide comment on my talk page. This is DavidShankbone going to AN/I because I wanted a dead link displayed. That's why I wasn't exactly... impressed? overawed?... by the prospect. It's rather a non-issue. As for "going first," my point was that, since they were communicating solely by edit summary, I used mine to say, "Let's talk about it." I said it to Angr, too. I pointed out to all of them and invited them to discuss it. Nothing. Just revert, revert, revert, and edit summary name calling. Well, if that is the preferred method of communication, what choice have I but to do the same? Seriously. I'm not exaggerating. Look above. Look at me practically begging them to ask me what it was I was thinking and their saying that there's no need. They're right, I'm wrong, and shut up. Well, golly. If I had used my buttons, as it were, to, oh, protect without listing the page on protection requests or, say, block someone for "incivility" for the first insult, then, yes, this would have been a matter for soul searching AN/I. As it was, I wanted the dead link to display so that I could be reminded of what I'm looking for, and they didn't want to find that out. They just wanted to OWN the revert war. Ugly and stupid, I'd say. Geogre 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking to the whole lot of you rather than just you, Geogre... you're guilty of letting them get to you, yes, and then some (you've never been a slouch at giving back what you got :) ) but everyone in this ought to be scratching their heads, in my view. This really is small beer after all, and why not give the guy who wrote bunches of the article a bit of leeway either way? It's like there are these (not exactly) invisible fault lines and when things start, they start back up along the same faults, with the same grievances and slights brought to the surface. Well never mind, I think I'll go back to writing an article, or back to commons, or back to IRC, or back to coaching, or something... ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folly, novelty?

[edit]

The interesting thing to me about the water tower is that it's somewhere between a folly and novelty. According to the Gaffney folks, they didn't intend a roadside attraction, but they did intend a political statement (a double barreled one: "Georgia sux" and "we tricked the feds into paying for this," if I can be so cynical). Well, the western world is littered with things like that, but this one interestingly seems to have actually attracted surrounding commerce and, possibly, population. That's weird. World's Largest Toilet and the like might get a gift shop, but they rarely mean much more. Gaffney is near Charlotte, but there are other towns on the same interstate that are available. Therefore, the phenomenon has an in between status. It's sort of a folly (had it been purely a political statement, I think it would have qualified as a folly). Because it's a mimetic building, it's sort of novelty architecture. Because it ended up attracting business, it's sort of a roadside attraction. This is what amuses me about it. It probably started out with folly intentions, took novelty form, and then had roadside attraction effects.

I've also thought that the correct category would be roadside attraction. Most of those don't cogenerate a great deal of development, though. Dillon, South Carolina, for example, is home to one of the most obnoxious and famous roadside attractions on the east coast, and yet Dillon hasn't really grown. It has a moderately large city near, too, but Dillon hasn't really grown much, and yet it has had many more years to benefit from a more-travelled interstate and an advertised attraction. Geogre 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the growth in Gaffney is due to other things. The peach industry or other industries might have led to growth even in the absence of the Peachoid. The presence of a roadside cafe is not at all surprising. Anyway, I've attempted to justify the use of the aerial pic in a new gallery, and I've made a new selection of pics. Some of the ones there were just of substandard quality. A better one from the I-85 would round off the gallery nicely. I predict that despite my embedded HTML comments, someone will remove the non-free pic "because it is in a gallery". I will then point them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Galleries and the example of the mixed free and non-free gallery at Padmé Amidala#Costumes (with accompanying text), and they will then try and justify their removal after having removed it. Or maybe not. Carcharoth 10:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and can it really be a folly if it has a clearly defined purpose that it has served well all these years? Being a water tower? Have a look at Kuwait Towers for a good example of deliberately turning a water tower into an iconic landmark. Indeed, the water tower building program in Kuwait made all the 30+ water towers into iconic structures. Have a look at the details here. I suspect there is a niche field of water tower architecture that could have a little article. Shall we tell Giano? :-) Carcharoth 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point that it was functional, and yet I still have this impulse that any structure that is designed to make a point is folly. Strawberry Hill served as a house, after all. Most follies do what they set out to do, but those functional items that are set forth to make an idiosyncratic point ("towers should be labyrinths!" "country manors should be mysterious!") are follies (constructed due to the folly of the designer). Could the development be from other reasons? Of course. I don't think it can be proven at all, except that it does correlate in time and that there are many other nearby towns that could have served the other impulsive needs over Gaffney. Therefore, it's likely to have been effective. It's not a restaurant, though. The town went from practically non-existent at the highway to being substantial at the highway during the years after the opening of the water tower. There are more historical places very nearby (Cowpens battlefield) and other cities nearer the NC border (and thus a shorter commute to Charlotte), and all are in the same peach growing county. Local economic policies might have had an effect, but I can't know that from this distance.
As for a field of water tower architecture, I have already been doing some of that. I took a few other water tower photos, as I see them as being the perfect location for a local authority to express itself. Emory University has a water tower that looks exactly like a golf ball on a tee, and so the students nicknamed it the Bobby Jones Memorial water tower. The irony was pretty thick, there. I also like the antique water towers with anachronistic boasts on them. Geogre 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For editors following my edit summary request to look at the talk page, my justification for using a non-free image in a gallery is the accompanying text with the gallery. For more on this, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Galleries and the example of the mixed free and non-free gallery at Padmé Amidala#Costumes (with accompanying text). Also note that WP:NFC does not explicitly ban non-free images in galleries. It only says that galleries usually fail WP:NFCC#8. My NFCC#8 justification can be seen embedded in the article as HTML comments, and implicitly as the text accompanying the gallery. The HTML comment in full is:

"The non-free image Peach2.gif is used in the gallery as part of a visual series on the history of the Peachoid. The accompanying text in the Architectural details section is used to justify the use of the non-free image. The gallery format is chosen to make the article more readable, and is not relevant to whether or not a non-free image should be used. WP:NFCC says: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable." In this case, the use of the image in a series to show the changing appearance of the structure and the surrounding area meets the significance criterion."

Those editors who came here first before editing the article, thank-you. Those editors who removed the image first, please respond below to what I have written here. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Artist

[edit]

I was an employee of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company at the time the Peachoid was under construction, and I think it would be good to clarify the role of The Artist in the painting of the Peachoid. In fact, the Artist didn't paint it. He painted a small-scale wood model (as I recall it was about 24" high or so), which was built for him by CB&I, and the CB&I paint crew did all the rest of the work.

That work included taking precise measurements of the color areas, mixing the paint to match the Artist's colors, laying out the color areas on the structure itself and applying the paint. The latter included figuring out how to get the gradations of color (from yellow to reddish-orange, e.g.)

I mention this because I know that at the time of the Peachoid's dedication, they had the Artist up on the stand, had him take the bows, and the poor, dirty workmen who'd done 98% of the work, didn't even get an acknowledgement.

At least Wikipedia could correct that small injustice by adding the above information.

B. Polhemus (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butt

[edit]

I loved stumbling across this article. I lived in North Georgia for nearly 12 years and drove past the Peachoid almost every time I traveled between there and home in Pennsylvania. It is every bit the landmark that this article says it is. My only objection is that the resemblance to a butt may be overstated. Sure, it makes for a good joke, but especially given the stem, leaf and paintjob there should be no confusing what it is supposed to be--I knew it was a peach from the first time I saw it. Great article though. PurpleChez (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The article currently says
The Peachoid was also a focal plot point in the Netflix original series House of Cards (Season 1, Episode 3), whereupon it is jokingly remarked that the Peachoid resembles a giant pair of buttocks or vagina.
   While i'm not going to try to rewrite it for you or source it adequately, IMO it might be valuable to point out that that version poorly represents the scope and content of the reference.
  1. For those interested, the lead character is written as "Frank" J. Underwood, USRep for the SC 5th & House Whip for the party that also holds the White House (but i've gotten no clear impression of which party that is); i'm also not sure if it is the majority party, tho i think so. Gaffney is indeed in that district.
  2. What makes it significant to the plot is the death of a teenaged girl in a traffic collision just after she had texted something to the effect of "OMG, it looks just like a ...", where the object of the simile was either omitted by the bearer of the bad news (as too obvious or too embarrassing for them to complete it in present company?) or conveniently cut off by the closing of an office door or a shift of scene. Underwood knows that he both is expected by the owners to protect them from demands for expensive modifications, and must appear concerned about "the safety of our kids". He seems satisfied that "they" (the owners? his in-[election-]district office staff? their mutual allies in local government?) have already put up signs about not texting while driving for traffic approaching the tower from both directions, and that money is being lined up for IIRC a scholarship fund in memory of the dead teen.
  3. In a later scene that's probably even shorter, several good-old-boys, probably southeastern congressmen presumably gathered for some other business, are briefly heard discussing what features on the tower correspond to what anatomical features, with the money-line probably being something about how to construe it, depending what position you are looking at the tower from or imagine you looking at a body from (perhaps with some insinuation about "do you really think of that anatomy as being viewed from that angle?"). I end up unclear whether two disputants were talking about whether to construe it as buttocks or vagina, or about which way was up.
  4. I'm pretty sure the only tower shots shown featured the side with the leaf, with the cleft out of sight (or possibly missed by attention being drawn away by some artful distraction).
--Jerzy•t 07:39, 29 & 04:29 30 May 2013 (UTC)
   Re pt 1 above, the Administration is D and the House has a 2-vote D majority.
--Jerzy•t 04:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
   Oh, and the labia majora usually look something like the peach cleft; the vagina does not.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

See this discussion related to copyright of the Peachoid. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peachoid&oldid=1201250922"