so this is an example....i just decided to go back to beginning of year.
the woman in that picture is bigger than this woman here that was said to fall outside the F/S scale?
dont you think PP?
Cheers, there are quite a few things I think you have to take on board.
Try to keep it as brief as I can:
1. I have my own personal definitions on Bubble, acceptable butts etc but it has not been about my definitions but what the Punther's Code has stipulated. I have done my best to interpret the code and also to keep this thread on the correct path where others have just posted any WG without carefully reading the directive as Punther requested.
2. There are two parts to Punther's Charter - what I will call the articles (ie his first post). However, just as important is his second post (ie sub-sections) where he list a variety of WGs he thinks this thread covers through use of photos specifically
3. There is a danger of reading his post - if done so at all but yet at the same time still not quite understanding and placing one's own yardstick in it's place. So when one posts it is more of the poster's taste which is fine if it coincidentally ties in with Punther, but obviously not if it doesn't.
4. There is also the danger of taking too much of a literal interpretation - as you have done in this instance. If a woman is a SBBW and she stands over 6ft tall. She will be more likely to be nominated into this thread than compared to a BBW who may be of a smaller dress size and who stands at 5ft 2".
Why? - Because he former will maintain her
overall shape better
4a. So there is a
relativity aspect which has to be used and assessed when utilising the Punther's Code. This is also the case with small to medium sized bums. Small to medium sized bums are welcomed, contrary to what may have been interpreted, but when they are entered Punther has added that they must have 'impeccable shape'. So there are two terms for consideration i
smaller sized sized 'impeccable shape' and for larger sized women [ii]they must maintain 'their overall shape' in other words not to look fat.
5. There is also another misconception that there are no large/thick WGs in Punther's post but a clear look at the pictures will show otherwise
6. This is where I have found things slightly complicated using the Punther's code. When describing his upper limits and BBWs, unfortunately the pics he uses in his second post (sub-sections to the articles) are no longer available. Nonetheless in the articles, one of those women he describes as approaching BBW is clearly just an average body. The other one which by my own classification would be too large but nonetheless, I have used her, in other wother words Punther's definition as my gauge when assessing larger sized WGs.
Thought I would add this in first before answering your questioning - which I will do in a second. Just about to pour myself a glass of organge juice for brekiee...Do excuse me!! 
