I was in a drugstore yesterday and the boy in front of me in line was shirtless – but he was BUYING shirts, a three-pack of those Hanes underwear T-shirts. Here are my questions: Does the fact that he was purchasing shirts negate the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” rule? He began opening the package as soon as the cashier handed it back to him, after ringing it up, so maybe the fact that he was only shirtless for PART of the time he was in the store makes it okay. More importantly, WHAT could possibly have happened? He couldn’t just have spilled something on the shirt, or ripped it in some way – in that situation I have to imagine he would keep the shirt on while buying new shirts. The shirt he was wearing must have been DESTROYED in some fashion, and destroyed while he was far enough away from home that going home and getting a new shirt wasn’t an option. He clearly needed a shirt immediately, thus the new shirt purchases: if he was just wandering around shirtless, why enter the drugstore and buy shirts? He must have been wearing a shirt and then it somehow became UNWEARABLE, but whatever happened wasn’t traumatizing enough to make him go home. He was ready for more shirt-destroying action.