at9

Time Out 11-17 Sept has a short piece on page 40. Talks about Terry De Havilland and Patrick Cox making heels for men. Concludes: ".... it might be some time before men are tottering around in eight-inch stilettos. Still, it could be time to ditch the £5 plimsoll and trade up, one inch at a time"

Sounds like a great day out. New Yorkers have seen it all before. Even more than Londoners. I recognised the location of the picture before reading the text. "Top of the rock" is a good alternative to the Empire State Building. Two advantages. You get a great view of the Empire State Building. You can pre-book timed tickets so you don't have to queue.

Boys were fascinated by high heels in a tough area of Glasgow in 1963:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7586007.stm

Not really sure where this belongs in the forum so mods, please feel free to move it if appropriate.

An idea which can work. No guarantees. Wear subtle heels on the 2nd date. Such as 2.5" wedges, not readily visible but they'll make a difference to your height. She may well notice the change in height and comment. That's your cue to show her the shoes and mention your interest.

Ah yes, I should have guessed they were NW, they do make great styles and in large sizes. ........

Unfortunately I am a US 12M or a UK10 (I can do UK9 but they pinch), i'm jealous of all you guys with UK8 or lower size feet, it opens you up to a much wider selection.........

I have a pair of them in brown. (Nine West, style: Olamis) I'm really size UK9 and the UK8/US10W (largest size they do) are rather tight round the toes. I ought to get them stretched. Otherwise they are lovely boots and very confortable.

Something a bit odd here. UK male and female shoe sizes are nominally identical. For example I usually take UK9 in both mens and womens shoes. Of course sizing does vary, espeically with higher heels where you may need to go up a size.

The 2 size difference is between UK and US womens. So UK7 is usually equated to US9 womens.

Boots add the complication of ankle, calf (and thigh) sizes. I have thin legs and find most boots too wide though this can be fixed by a good shoe repairer.

Make sure you know whether you are buying UK or US sizes. Better still is to try them on first.

I went to a couple of these fetish fairs a few years ago. Not sure if it was the same organisers - there might have been 2 rival fairs then. The venue was different (I think it was St Pancras town hall) and everything was very pleasant. All very low key and matter-of-fact, a bit like a school bazaar but with stalls selling fetish gear instead of cakes and bric-a-brac. Folks were friendly and encouraged you to try on everything from shoes to corsets. Visitors and stallholders wore anything from t-shirt/jeans to full fetish. Sounds like it's a pretty poor show now - I won't be too tempted to go again.

Virtually everywhere will have size 8. There are also quite a few size 9s around. Clarks, Hush Puppies, Next and others have quite a few styles in size 9. Evans have bigger sizes too - be careful because their sizing is often generous.

....You're all so much more decent than I thought.

We're hiding our true feelings. What we really want to do is chop off the legs, complete with shoes, to keep as precious souvenirs.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tom+lehrer/i+hold+your+hand+in+mine_20138407.html

I'd say keep your money in the UK only, dont buy your shoes from outside the UK at all, then see how many companies from abroad join in to help us when they start losing some trade?...

/rant/ and most of the money goes out to China anyway 'cos that's where it's all made /end rant/

It's import from the US or go without.

Have you got friends in the US? Have them shipped there and treat yourself to a trip acorss the pond. Or have your friends ship them to you with more appropriate documentation. Remember that the boots will be secondhand by then and hence worth rather less.

..... chose a somewhat exaggerated carriage cost from 'thin air'. Double the actual cost. ......

And I thought I was writing at least partially in jest:mecry:

At least with stuff I've had from the US the sender has been fully aware of the need for nice clear customs documentation and I've never been charged more than 17.5% VAT plus the £13.50 Parcelfarce handling fee.

From my limited experience of importing stuff from the US the amount levied is very variable. It should be VAT at 17.5% plus any duty plus the handling charge which itself may be subject to VAT. You don't usually get a full breakdown of what's what. The rate of duty depends on the type of goods and there's a complicated document on the HMRC website that explains it all after a fashion. In practice I think they just multiply by the number they first thought of.

Unfortunately, duty and/or VAT is levied on the carriage charge too. The £6 handling carge is quite reasonable. Parcelfarce charge £13.50 for this "service":sad: ISTR Royal Mail only charge £4.50 for handling.

The sizing table on the archieeyebrows website is confusing. For example: UK8=EU43=US9. While nothing is 100% certain I usually take UK8=EU42=US9.5 (this is US mens, US womens would be 10)

It's like in the Beatles song: "I get high with a little help from my friends"

I always assumed they were referring to high heels:smile:

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/b/beatleslyrics/withalittlehelpfrommyfriendslyrics.html

And Clogs are found causing trouble down drains:smile: Pumps can be used to solve the problem:mecry: It must be Friday!

And I very much doubt that humans, with all their best efforts, could cause any harm to this planet. This planet was around along time before us humans got here, and before any life at all, and it's put up with more crap than we've ever given it.

Absolutely right. However we may not be able to put up with what the planet dishes out to us. There are several well documented events when much of life became extinct. We are not sure why the dinosaurs died out - it could have been due to a big meteorite - but it may have been due to a huge volcanic event. Even in more recent times the human population has been through some severe declines. The Black Death is a well known example. The cause of that isn't known but it probably didn't help that a lot of humans lived close together in towns.

I think it's obvious (never quite 100% sure) that we can do nothing about huge volcanic events but I'm sure it's in our own best interests to try and keep this planet as a pleasant place to live. I strongly believe (and belief is appropriate here) that there need be no conflict between good business, high standard of living and keeping our planet in a decent state. I'm not claiming it's easy. It needs good science (entirely possible), good governance (I have my doubts but it may be possible) and goodwill (war hasn't died out just yet so I have my doubts).

The planet itself won't mind one little bit what we do to it. It will survive just fine. Whether through our own actions or natural causes it may shake us humans off like a bad case of fleas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JNR

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do.

Please read my contributions more carefully. I have never said that I strongly believe that man is to blame for global warming. Even if it turns out that we are entirely blameless it's still not a bad idea to harness the power of business in aid of the environment. What kind of crazy civilisation digs mucky black coal out of the ground and burns it to release all sorts of horrible stuff when the sun is providing lots of energy for free if we are clever enough to harvest it? What kind of crazy civilisation leaves itself at the mercy of all sorts of dubious regimes to satisfy a craving for oil?

Simplifying Arctic's notes:

All scientific knowledge is provisional and can be overturned in the light of new evidence.

This is a huge strength because science is a self correcting system which may make mistakes but can also correct them. Unfortunately it is often seen as a weakness, especially by those who claim with certainty to know the absolute truth. Usually by citing a deity of some kind. However not believing in (say) quantum mechanics doesn't stop all the transistors in the chips in your PC stop working. Science is also not appropriate for enquiring into ideas such as beauty and love though I'm sure some will disagree.

Actually overturn is a bit of strong term in many cases. For example Newtonian mechanics are a very good description of how things move. Good enough to send men to the moon. Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics are not the whole story, strictly speaking they are wrong. But still very useful and good enough for most purposes. One day somebody may find errors in relativity and the new knowledge will be incorporated into science once there is enough evidence.

Where does global warming fit into all of this? There are plenty of people with plenty of axes to grind on all sides of the argument. Much of Florida (Norfolk for us in the UK) may disappear under water dues to man's action or due to natural causes. It hardly matters what is the cause if you are paddling a boat around the remains of your house. The business opportunities are huge; there need be no conflict between good business and the green agenda. It is unfortunate that government instinct is usually to raise taxes as a response. That has little to do with science.

Much closer to home (for me) is London. There is a wonderful bit of engineering called the Thames Barrier that has saved London from flooding on a number of occasions. The trend is for it needing to be closed more and more often as the years pass. By 2030 it's quite likely that rise in sea level together with a storm surge will overtop the barrier and cause havoc in central London. Manhattan is also vulnerable. This sort of incident will make 9/11 and 7/7 look quite minor. Neither Londoners nor New Yorkers want to go swimming in the streets.

I'm not claiming that going green will prevent any of these disasters. But it might. Going green should be profitable and improve our standard of living. That's good enough for me, even without the possible environmental benefits.

Love both of these pairs from NEXT, wonder if they will fit me?

I have a pair of the Next ankle boots in size 9W. £20 in the sale last year. I'm at the small end of 9 and so don't really need the wide fitting in these and might have even done well with an 8 but they didn't have either of these. The 9W are fine but I tend to use thicker socks or a thin insole. So if you're a largish 9 they'll be fine.

....why is the rest of the world waitingfor us? After all, the entire European continent is just as vulnerable as is the North American continent.

The Danes are probably world leaders in wind power. About 25% of their electricity comes from wind which is about the practical maximum for wind and a stable grid. The French are probably the world leaders in nuclear, with around 80% of their electricity generated that way. Some is exported to the UK via an undesea cable. The UK is possibly world leader in wave power though that's not saying much, seeing as it's hardly got started again. The government sabotaged research into viable schemes (look up Salters Duck) way back in the early 1970s, before the last big oil price shock. The Germans and Scandinavians have building codes that mandate really good thermal efficiency for their houses. Iceland has fortunate geography that gives them more geothermal energy than they can use. They effectively export some of it by having aluminium smelters there. Norway again has fortunate geography and generates the bulk of its electricity from hydro. Some may be exported to the UK soon via undersea cable.

The US and Israel, possibly others, are starting to make significant investment in solar thermal electricity but it's painfully slow.

Let’s face it, the truth about both global warming and the war in Iraq depend solely upon your political point of view. The "is it is, or is it aint" position is driven by the agendas of both the far left (socialists) and the far right (conservative).

Some very wise words here. But never mind global warming, let's take a slightly different view.

There is no doubt that the US has been badly hit by the rise in oil price. This depends heavily on some nasty Arabs and some equally nasty Russians and Venezuelans. (Apologies to any of these who are reading, this isn't aimed at you personally unless you happen to be an oil baron) It is blindingly obvious that reducing reliance on imported oil in a sensible way will be good for the economy and the environment at the same time. Both sides should be supporting it in a big way. Corn to ethanol is a bad solution because the numbers don't add up properly. Nuclear might be a good solution but it's politically sticky. Fusion is still a scientific maybe. Passive solar is a complete no-brainer; why pay for energy that you can get for free. Large scale solar thermal power generation and potovoltaic in the sunbelt states would be superb. Hydrogen may be useful as a means of storing and transporting energy but it's not an easy technology and would need a huge infrastructure. Wind and wave can work but need to be done on a large scale to make an impression.

As a minor(?) bonus, if the US wasn't so worried about oil supplies it could save the odd trillion $$$ and many lives by not having to fight in Iraq.

I'm not making a conservative or a liberal case here, purely a commonsense economic one. The US is extremely well placed here, with lots of land and lots of sun. So are southern Europe, much of Africa and the Middle East. Northern Europe and the UK is not so well off for sun though we've got wind and wave energy.

The point of all this is that there's a darn good economic case for green energy so why aren't we doing it in a big way. Conservatism? Lack of imagination? Pressure from the oil business? Stupidity? The US could easily lead the world in this, just as it does in many high tech fields.

Looked round the BBC Breakfast website to try and find anything related to high heels and found this from 2002. Interesting mixture of opinions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2192678.stm

You only need one rule: "Respect people as you would in real life." 50 pages of text are not needed to explain that

Absolutely correct. But there are various conventions that are unique to the 'net which may need explanation. For example using ALL UPPERCASE is, by convention, shouting. It's only a convention, not inherent or necessarily obvious. If you're an old time Telex user or computer programmer then all uppercase may seem entirely normal. Smilies are also something that may be misunderstood. Different age groups may perceive things differently too. Notably with "text speak" which can annoy older people but be entirely normal to younger folk. I happen to like good gramer and speeling [sic] but it's hardly essential provided the message is clear. There are additional problems due to the international nature of the 'net. Rememeber the US telephone operator asking the British caller "Are you through?". Fortunately this particular problem has now been abolished by technology.

On the more general point, some people are less socially aware than others and more detailed rules may be of greater use to them. The trouble is that those who most need them are the same people who are least likely to read them.

It's not quite the net but the arguments are similar. Many companies demonstrate their contempt for customers who phone them by subjecting them to multilevel menus and poorly trained staff, some of whom speak a language that is only vaguely related to English. I don't know if the French etc suffer similarly.

I actually work in Scotland for much of the year and to the jocks the whole of England is 'down south'

For us southerners the north begins at the Watford Gap (not Watford as is commonly supposed) which is in Northamptonshire. Also known as the Tripe Curtain. North of there folks live down coalmines, race whippets, keep ferrets down their trousers and eat black pudding and, of course, love tripe.

This extends quite a long way until you get to the Haggis Belt which, in theory, starts at the Scottish border though can extend south into tripe country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_Gap

What happens as you go west is best left to Offa, who built a dyke to keep out the wild Welsh and their sheep.

Prejudiced? Moi?

Footnote:

http://www.oules.lightentertainment.org/myths/prejudice.html