azraelle

Welcome--wish my own daughters were as open-minded. Well, one--the 12-yr old, is, sort of open-minded--she's kind of (what passes for gothy in Alamo, NV, but not really). Her main thing at the moment is Bud-K replicas from the Lord of the Rings movies, more especially the daggers and swords

And she does like boots, especially medium-heel knee-high and "granny" styles.

bric-a-brac

She should have climbed the hill backwards--then the heels digging in woulld have been a help instead of a hindrance! That's what I would have done.

You could wear a big sign that removes all doubt that may be in anyone's mind, "I wear high heels because...."! I have actually thought of doing this, or something like it (a custom bumper sticker, or an embroidered jeans jacket, perhaps?).

Sorry--I meant "ADM", which you have mentioned.

ADM: Atomic Demolitions Munition

ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile

ICBM: Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile

Are you sure you mean ABM? Or would an ICBM do the trick?

The topic was "what other items of clothing do you REALLY like?"

Presumably other than hi-heels....

Corsets; skenn wrote:

not extreme, I go for the 60% (of Hips)rule

(!) With my (presently) ~44 inch hips, this works out to ~26.5" waist--and this is not extreme?? I have a new Axford's corset with a 34" waist that is a tad loose feeling, except when I attempt to bend over (!)--I might be able to tightly lace up a 32" corset, which would make me look extremely wierd, but that is about it. So for me at least, I go for the 70-75% rule!

Thong panties; pantihose or "stay-ups" (known as "Thi-Tops" or "Thigh-Highs" in America); tight, preferably lycra-containing, women's hip-hugging jeans (with loooong inseams--try http://www.alloy.com for inseams up to 37") the more stylish (different from traditional jeans style) the better--laces, exposed buttons, side or back zipper, etc--and women's dressy pants as well, the same rules applying as for jeans here too; bodysuits (try http://www.bodysuits.com); women's shirts and blouses, especially those made of velvet, velveteen, "peachskin", suedecloth, satin, or lycra-cotton broadcloth; and women's "large-wale" or conspicuous weave sweaters. Not into dresses/skirts/kilts at all. I also like leather, especially suede, and polyurethane, especially for pants. And finally, I have a "thing" for "toe socks" (women's, naturally, though I've never seen them for men, except for one pair in a muted color that a friend brought me back from Japan a couple of weeks ago--apparently they are acceptable attire for guys over there, possibly due to their resemblence to "Ninja Boots").

Jays (lackeys)

Tahira, were I buying them for someone special (I can't see ME in them, except maybe the...), I'd go with the black suede, the silver, and the red. The patent black looks too "campy".

Dr. Shoe wrote:

azraelle wrote:

Let's see, the PM of the UK is chosen by Parliament, if my memory of government is correct. How is that different from being chosen by some supreme court justices?

No he is not. Every constituency in the UK returns a member of parliament who will almost certainly be a member of a political party; Labour, Conservative (Tory), Liberal Democrat, Green, etc. There are a few Independents like Martin Bell. The party that gains the overall majority of seats in the House Of Commons will find that their leader becomes Prime Minister and the leader of the second strongest party will become Leader Of The Opposition (Iain Duncan-Smith), thus (in theory) the Prime Minister is chosen by the people. However, it is actually an irony that more people voted Conservative in the last election than Labour but because the bulk of Tory votes were cast in a few constituencies where they have a very strong showing then they only returned a few Tory MPs. In most Labour seats they were returned with narrow majorities. Also only 48% of the electorate voted and Tony B Liar's party (New Labour) polled 45% of the total vote so only around 21% of the electorate actually voted for him!

I said, that the PM is chosen by parliament. You said, that the leader of whichever party in parliament ends up becoming the majority party, is chosen as PM. What's the difference?? My point was that the PEOPLE do not choose your PM by popular vote ONLY (without one or more insulating or buffering layers in between). Technically speaking, the President of the US is NEVER chosen by the people only either--the constitution specifies that a group of people, known as the electoral college, chosen by the Governors of the respective states, shall choose the President. There is no mention whatsoever that they have to follow the wishes of the people in the last popular election. Traditionally most of them have, but some don't. So, technically speaking the Supreme Court verdict on the popular election was irrelevent--the people could have elected MICKEY MOUSE (on second thought, maybe they did! )--what matters, technically is that the electoral college voted George W. Bush in as President.

Hello Laurie

I realise that it may be some time before you get to read this, but I wish you a speedy and full recovery from your surgery, and a happy and healthy future together for you and Chris.

All the best

Stephen xxx

ECHO/ECHO

It never attacked us, no, but it did have nuclear missiles aimed at us in 1962, Cuban refugees have been fleeing to our shores by the thousands every year since Castro took over in 1959, "Bay of Pigs" might have been successful, had not the newly ensconced Kennedy administration pulled out the promised air cover at the last minute, and neglected to tell the refugee army about it resulting in slaughter and torture of thousands. Are you going to intimate that the Cuban people have been better off since Castro took power?? You could compare Castro quite favorably to Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin...you get the idea. I believe God put us on this earth to do what good we can do--do we sit idly by watching fellow human beings suffer needlessly, or do we try to do something about it besides chaining ourselves between a couple of trees to stop traffic in the name of "Give Peace a Chance"? Which has about the same net effect as straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic as it is capsizing.

Highluc wrote:

If you think an appointed (by judge) president can start a war against anybody just because they have mass destruction weapons and have used it in the past, then we all should be entitled to ask the USA to disarm because they already used nuclear (against Japan) and biological (agent orange stuff) weapons in the past. Their agressiveness also has been proven by attacks against Cuba, Grenada etc.

Let's see, the PM of the UK is chosen by Parliament, if my memory of government is correct. How is that different from being chosen by some supreme court justices?

Every time someone brings up the fact that the US has used nukes (on Japan) I bristle. Many studies have been done to estimate the number of casualties on both sides that would have resulted had the US chosen to invade Japan using only conventional weapons. All have concluded that the loss of human life, both civilian and military would have been far greater than resulted from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Onward and upward. Agent orange consists of 2,4-D, an herbicide that has been in constant use since WW-II and is one of the safest known, and 2,4,5-T, a more modern herbicide, but only marginally more injurious to animal life than 2,4-D. The mixture was used on the TREES IN THE VIETNAM JUNGLE!!! The only injurious ingredient was dioxin, which was a manufacturing by-product of 2,4,5-T, which was present in very small quantities, and is normally removed in the commercial grade. The removal process costs (in 1980 $) about $5/gallon. Since the cost of 2,4,5-T was around $60/gallon, an additional $5 isn't all that much, but the US Army chose to be cheap, since they weren't going to intentionally use it on personnel, and ordered the non-purified product, and that decision eventually bit them in the ass. The point is that we didn't use it with the intention of causing human casualties--we used it to be able to detect shipments of supplies to, and infiltration of, Viet Cong soldiers thru a semi-denuded jungle.

Then we have accusations of aggressiveness towards Cuba (!) and Grenada.

Not that I agree with your position on Iraq, Dr.Shoe, but the irony of your little scenario is a little too close to home to those of us in the US who know what REALLY happened (and what the actual "haul" of "illegal weapons" actually was) at both Ruby Ridge (in Idaho), and the "Branch Davidian cult" compound in Waco, Texas:

Now consider a scenario. Someone makes an allegation to the police that a neighbour has a large quantity of illegal firearms in their house so of course the police conduct a search and find nothing. Next the person says that he must have weapons because he saw them 5 years ago so the police go back- nothing. Next the man says that his neighbour "might" be dealing drugs and harbouring a known criminal thus sending the police back again- they find nothing. IMHO this is the same as the situation with regard to Iraq. The UN inspectors are like the police [or ATF, in the cases of Ruby Ridge & Waco] and the US and UK coalition are like the neighbour- who would be charged for wasting police time in the above scenario. Giving the UN more time won't make a difference, they won't find a thing but that doesn't mean to say that Stan has it hidden somewhere.

...We all know that I think platforms are cheating...I wish to have the angle that the foot has to take with higher heels. It isn't about the height for me. I'm plenty tall in regular five inch stilettos...

Platforms are "cheating" if you like/wear them for the purpose of greater height. If you have some other reason, which I do, then they are not. I too want the foot angle that only at least a 4.25" heel can provide. Unfortunately, nearly all platforms, especially the &^%$^$#%$@#^ fetish ones, stop at an effective height of only 3" or so. They are not comfortable at all. Which is why I like a 0.5-0.75" platform--for comfort for the ball of my foot when I walk. And for the more rigid sole for my right foot to press against when operating the accelerator--it seems to put less strain on my knee with a platform, as opposed to a thin flexible sole. I too am plenty tall, without any heels at all! Just one more reason why I can't stand plats higher than 1".

Please accept my apologies for kibbutzing on/in your soapbox, Laurie.

Jezebel, I too like your hair, although I am probably in the minority in my rather conservative locale--a high school girl was expelled for 3 days last year for coming to school with her hair dyed purple--and her mother had helped her dye it! So it wasn't just a "kid's thing". I still can't stomach Monty Python, though, sorry!

Chemin de Fer

Isn't that a kind of smoked cheese?

My word:

Caster

See the [partially autobiographical] Prince movie Purple Rainfor identification of Apolonia (I probably misspelled her name--she is[was] one hot ChickeeBabe (my word contribution today!)

GAWD! Monty Python sucks raw thousand day old eggs. It's right up there on my list of the very worst flicks of all time along with Buckaroo Banzai... PLEEZE, LET THIS THREAD DIE THE QUIET DEATH IT SO RICHLY DESERVES! :x (you need one of the little yellow face being gagged with a spoon)

I liked The Sweetest Thing. Lots of heels, hip hugger pants, great acting, one of the funniest plots I've ever come across...

If not pauper, then how about Apolonia?

PT Cruiser is the "cat's meow" for me, though it'll be a cold day in Hell when the devil comes skating in on the ice (in heels) B4 I'll be able to afford one, as also my other favorite "car" the Hummer. The new VW Bug isn't too bad though, especially in bright yellow!! A Hearse would be OK if it was painted in some lovely colour like candy apple burgundy, purple, red, or royal blue, or perhaps some combination of these!!

Because I wear PH under pants 100% of the time, runs don't destroy their usefulness, esp. if "repaired" quickly with nail polish. That said, I have several pairs of light support, reinforced toe Just My Size by Hanes that I have worn countless times for upwards of 3 years. From a woman's point of view (at least a woman fond of dresses) they are too "ragged" to be useful. But for me....And since I like the feel of the nylon/lycra on my legs, when the toes are too uselless to wear anymore, I cut them off, and wear them under my "toe socks", of which I have quite a bunch, Walmart having had a winter clearance sale on very thick well-made glitter toe socks (for women, naturally) at $2 per pair.

I have discovered quite recently that hosiery holds up much better if the toe seam is put on "vertically" from under the big toe overit and along the top of it, instead of laying it "horizontally" over the tips of all the toes together. This is NOT intuitive!

...but those Bronx "Banshee" pointy high heel ankle boots are absolutely gorgeous to wear...

A shoe named BANSHEE?

I'M SAVED!!!! azraelle (actually "azrael")="angel of death" in Hebrew & Arabic, or so I was told. "angel of death"~="banshee"!

IF I were to ever wear RED spikes in public, these would be the ones (over tight breeches of course!)

The chance of that happening is about the same as the proverbial snowball surviving in Hell, though!