yozz

I agree with the remarks about the 10 sec timer. It can be a lot of fun to try to make a good picture. In the beginning you may have to take 50 or more pictures before you have one that you are happy with. You have to figure out where to stand exactly so that you are in the picture the way you want to be. You have to get the focus set to where you will be, rather than to the background. Etc. Etc. Then you have to make sure that your pants or other clothes fall properly which in the hurry of getting into position inside the 10 sec is easily forgotten etc. But after a while you get the hang of it and you can make decent pictures. And if you are lucky you get one or two great ones. Of course, an experienced photographer will do all those things right immediately. But (s)he may not tell you how many pictures (s)he had to throw out during learning. Y.

For the results department you should have a bit of patience. In the beginning you have to do it every few days and you wonder how they can grow so fast. But after a while (a few months) you will notice that there are far fewer hairs and they are thinner, hence you notice them less. I am doing this now for a few years and even when I skip a few weeks you hardly notice what has grown back. With shaving it works the opposite way: the hairs start to grow more. The pain is a one time investment. The second time it is already much less. And shaving the very first time and waiting a few days may be the better solution. And what is a little bit of pain to feel great afterwards. Let us not be sissies ****ducks to avoid some objects****. And women do it all the time. There is a dutch saying "wie mooi wil zijn moet pijn lijden" which translates into: if you want to be beautiful you have to suffer.

I think it all sounds rather silly. Any salesperson worth their salary will see immediately through whatever trick you are inventing. It actually draws more attention than less. The best thing is to do normal. Buying shoes for someone else who doesn't come to fit them? Whatever ruse you invent will give the salespeople a good laugh afterwards. If you do normal you are just one of the men who buy women shoes. All salespeople I have talked to say they get those quite frequently, especially for boots, although they don't say what that means in numbers. And they will very happily sell you the complete inventory. Of course the first time your heart may set a new record for beats per minute, but if you manage to stay cool on the outside, all that happens is that you have to pay, you get the shoes and you leave the shop and the salesperson continues with the next customer. Many years ago (1990) I was in a department store and some man was getting a pair of stiletto boots which he put on the belt, the girl rang it up, he paid and that was it. And I thought: "that easy?", so next time I went to that shop I bought my first pair of high heeled shoes, just like that. Quick learner. The only playacting you have to do, is to look normal. That's all.

Yes, and also the remark was made that with a wedge heel there is no front of the heel.

Hi.

Let's suppose a situation:

you're a man (hetero, non wearing heels) or a woman, and I'm a male friend of yours.

I just told you that I like wear heels and especially female heels.

What's the worst words you want to ask me?

(probabily I will not try to answer to your questions)

Thank you!

How about: "What does your wife think of it?"

Personally I use one of these epilator machines. The first time is a bit painful, especially on long hairs. But after you do this for a while it becomes only a little irritating. The exception is the hairs on the toes. They remain a bit painful. In the beginning the best is every few days, but after a while fewer and fewer hairs grow back and the ones that grow back become thinner. Now I do it on average every two weeks and my wife does it even less frequently. The only real problem is 'ingrown hairs'. Some hairs may grow back but not make it through the top layer of your skin. They continue flat under the skin. You can see that and the best way to deal with them is with a fine needle: just get under the middle of such a hair and lift it out. Completely painless. It is easier if you have a partner who helps you with the ingrown hairs on the back of your upper legs. Don't use an epilator under your arms. My wife tells me that ingrown hairs there can cause quite a mess and in the worst case infections. It is also rather painful to use in the really sensitive spots..... Y.

Those are very good ideas. They will however need a reeducation of a sizable fraction of the population. Knowing the dutch government they will probably introduce a littertax "to educate the people" (I hope they don't read this). Little known fact: all of shipping causes more pollution than all of flying and gives cars a close run for first place. (at least according to a radio program I heard last week on the dutch radio). How are we going to take care of that if we cannot even get national laws to take care of local pollution? I guess we should just start with being environmentally aware ourselves and hope that others will follow the example. Even if you don't believe this is necessary, see it as a sport. A challenge. But don't overdo it. They say that not having any children is environmentally the best action you can take during your lifetime. Y.

How about volcanic activity. If man has such a great influence on global warming, climate change, etc., how are proponents of global warming planning to handle volcanic eruptions and activity? After all, one single major valcanic erepution spews a larger volume of gasses into the earth's atmosphere than all of man's "harmful" discharges ever have. And, guess what? The earth has managed to survive in pretty darn good shape.

I am afraid, Arctic and at9, I strongly believe that man's activity doesn't cause significant global warming as you believe they do. And I don't believe any arguement me, Bubba136, or anyone else, can change your mind. And, I doubt that you will change his (or my) mind with your arguements, either. Sorry, but I just don't believe it.

I am sorry, but I have to side with at9 and Arctic.

The fact that some industries have abused 'scientific' reports to 'prove' that smoking

isn't healthy, doesn't have anything to do with the research on climates. To say that

'if industry can twiddle things with such reports on smoking where research can

easily be manipulated

this will undoubtly be the case also with climate research' is comparing apples and

oranges. The data and the methods are completely public in climate research.

It is open to peer review where people often try their best to criticize each other.

And as said before: it isn't said (except for maybe by some journalists who don't

understand it) that it has been proven. It is said that it may well be the case.

The fact that governments and companies then abuse this to get more money out of

our pockets should not change the 'may well be the case' into 'cannot be the case'.

About the volcanoes. This is a very bad example. Time and again volcanoes have

heavily damaged the environment and it took the earth many years to recover.

Evidence is that at least once the total human population may have been reduced

to at most a few thousand. Probably very many species have been brought to

extinction. Volcanic eruptions like in the beginning of the 19-th century in Indonesia

have killed people worldwide by the hundred thousands by failed harvests etc.

I have read that in the sixth century the population of Byzantium was reduced in a few

years from a quarter million to a small fraction of that. Modern research shows that

it was probably due to a big volcanic eruption somewhere in the world. Lack of food

must have killed many. With the current world population, even a small fraction of that

kind of effect will kill many.

As people we do have a strong effect on the environment. Have a look at the

previously thought inexhaustible oceans. Many types of fish population are in danger.

The only healthy cod fish population near Europe is in the arctic ocean and diminishing

rapidly because of criminal fishing practices. We almost wiped out the whales.

Tuna becomes a serious problem. etc. etc.

The polution of the oceans is also becoming a serious problem. And what is still clean

will become polluted soon enough.

The tropical forests are disappearing rapidly. Look at what happens every year in

South-East Asia when people in Sumatra and Borneo burn down parts of the forests

and the whole of the region has trouble breathing. And next we have started to chop

down the forests in Siberia which recover even slower.

The idea that we are not influencing the climate is much harder to believe than the

opposite. It is just that many people don't want to change their way of living and

hence try to find arguments (rationalizations) to not do anything. And because our

governments and companies so often cheat us, it is easiest to say that this is the

case again.

And I think that we should use good arguments rather than the 'I believe'. Once you

start about believing, rational discussion stops. We may as well not have this

discussion at all.

Y.

The science of global warming/tempreture chang is just that. A science. Theories in science are postulated and then worked through by "scientists" until they arrive at either a positive, proven conclusion or a negative realization that the theory isn't true.

Results of scientific theories are never, ever, never-ever proven by "consensus" and just because they're accepted as true by "consensus" doesn't prove them to be true."

And, anyone that believes a scientific theory is true because a consensus was reached by a bunch of egg headed, ivory tower, snippy nosed, intellictually superior acting guys, with a political ax to grind and socialist agenda to implement, that have been sitting around smoking cigars and drinking singal malt whisky, is just as wacky as the guys reaching the "consensus."

Please Bubba calm down. It is very nice to give the Hollywood version of scientists,

but the people I know in that field are not at all like that. They are responsible beings

who will tell you exactly what is fact and what isn't, they don't smoke, and in the

street will look like normal people (don't know any wearing heels).

Fact: CO2 goes up.

Fact: statistical extrapolation shows temperature going up.

Fact: Human consumption of fossil fuels is skyrocketing.

Question: are they correlated? It could be. But one has to be careful with that. Years

ago I saw two graphs: One of the sunspot activity and one of the number of GOP

senators in the USA. Perfect match.

Most scientists don't have an axe to grind. They enjoy the research by itself.

Nearly 100% of things done in climate physics cannot be proven. It can only be made

plausable. And indeed, it is not democracy. The majority can be wrong. But that doesn't

mean that if you are one of the few saying something different, you must be right.

You must have some pretty good arguments (or even theorems and proofs) to

overcome such odds.

With the proof of climate change and the possibility of human involvement, there is

no proof that would hold up in the equivalent of a criminal court. But try to compare

it with the following: If somebody is accused of being a serial murderer and the

prosecution thinks they had a good case against this person but the jury claims

the proof isn't beyond a reasonable doubt and hence he is acquitted, would you

send your daugther on a vacation with this innocent person?

The problem is, we have only one earth, we suspect a correllation, we think that if

we wait too long we may not be able to do anything. What is the wise thing to do?

This is why scientists say we have to change our habits. The problem is that then

politicians try to use this for personal purposes and industry tries to play with our

sentiments to get our money. But because they do that and we see that, that doesn't

mean the scientists are wrong.

<step down from soap box>

<whisky (also single malt) and smoke give me a migraine headache>

<I wonder where my social agenda is. Oh, I forgot, I don't have one.

Gotta write that down somewhere>

Y.

All we really need is a few volcanoes having major eruptions. Or continue spewing small particulate matter in the air.

How about a few underground nuclear tests in Yellowstone national park to set off

the supervolcano. That will really cool down the planet. Estimates are by more than

10 degrees centigrade. There are of course a few side effects, like wiping out the

whole of the USA, but on the positive side: that will reduce oil consumption a lot.

And the people in North Africa may experience a white Christmas.

The main problem is that most people have a difficult time with statistics. There are always fluctuations. Global warming doesn't mean that we won't have cold weather anymore. It will just be (a little bit) less frequent. And then, it may well be that most of the planet gets warmer but some parts will actually get colder. This would definitely be the case if the melting of the polar ice would cause the gulfstream to revert. The geological evidence is that this has happened in the past. It will get mighty cold in Europe. Have a look at the map of the east coast of North America at the same latitude..... Expectations are that this year the world average temperature will be a bit lower because of la Nina (cold current in the pacific ocean), but in a few years there will be another el Nino and things may be hot again. I know somebody who's job it is to work with the climate models, and although Al Gore may at points exagerate, on the whole he may not be very far off. And the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere seems really the work of humanity, because over the past years we have actually had relatively little volcanic activity (a major source of CO2, but also volcanoes have a cooling effect due to the dust they put in the upper atmosphere). Now, whether governments and companies abuse the situation to squeeze more money out of the public, there you can make some safe bets. In Holland we had a case where they put 25 cents extra tax (still in the old coins, hence about 11 Euro cents) on each liter of gasoline to make people drive less. Yet in the budget they put this with the (correct) assumption that people would keep driving just as much. Another hype is the hybrid car. The other day one of the consumer programs here went to investigate how much they really save and how they live up to the advertised promises. There was no measurable profit. In the advertisements they do as if the electric engine runs for free. Would be great of course, but is a bit against physics.... Y.

DeSalto you have a very good point. To be honest, I do believe the style does make a difference. The heels i wear mostly in public are stacked 4" or about 3/4 to an inch in diameter. Just a bit larger than stiletto and close toe. Some are definitely more fem than masc though.

Yes, but you yourself don't look even close to feminine. Anybody seeing you will

immediately know that you are not impersonating a woman. You radiate that much

stronger than most people here. Together with your confidence this makes you an

example for many.

Y.

That is a great step forward! Would it be possible that we get to see a picture of the approved outfit (or at least below a certain line)? Y.

Like with any new fashion, many people will at first think negative things. If the years have been accumulating on you, you may remember that when the miniskirt came out, almost everybody was speaking shame of it. Yet a few months later most women had one (or more). To most people the idea of men in heels is rather new and like a new fashion they may think and even say YUK. This lasts till they have seen it a fair number of times and then they will look for something else to gossip about. When questions about men in heels (or in skirts or whatever) are asked on a blog or forum, many people will react with what they think other people will think they should react with. This is very much so with the people in most of those blogs I have seen. The really smart and sensitive people probably don't say very much. In dutch we say "empty barrels sound loudest" (free translation). Another good example is taking a walk through the red light district in Amsterdam (very touristy). You immediately pick out the British. They are usually very loud to give themselves a posture because they think they shouldn't be there. If you would give significance to the remarks made by those people...... Of course you have a point that you may attract more negative remarks than most of the people here. If you wear red pumps in public you are not really hiding anything. And there may also be a big difference where you do this. In Amsterdam or London people are used to a lot and will usually think "if that is what he likes". Don't try that though in one of the small very calvinistic towns here in the Netherlands where they still think that every woman in Amsterdam must be a whore and every man a drugs dealer. Don't despair. There are also women who have an open mind. As you can read in our fantastic hhplace, many of us have found one of those. Of course, quite a few haven't, but to generalize from the negative experiences is of the same category as saying that all men in heels or a skirt must be gay, or all men must be alcoholics, or all women like soaps. Don't give up. If you find the right woman, you will be in heaven. Y.

If you are going to wear them under pants, nobody will get to see the bow. The toe part looks perfect. The only thing that could be better is that the color of the heel and the front is different. This might catch the eye a bit quicker than when they would be the same. Keep in mind that when you walk, the pants go up a bit and the heel becomes more visible than when you stand in front of the mirror. On the whole they look very stylish.

My wifes. Once she approves the rest of the world will have to accept it....

But these look good. Y.

Isn't it surprising how comfort becomes more important as you spend more and more time wearing your heels out in public? Housebound heel wearers can afford to wear their 5" and 6" heels for hours on end inside but when they have to walk a couple of miles around a mall or spend an afternoon on their feet, comfort and ease of wearing becomes paramont.

My experience is the same. At first you look for very high heels, but that is as long as

you walk a few steps at a time inside. The more you go outside the more you decide at

the last moment to go for something slightly lower and much more comfortable.

Maybe we are just learning what many women know already for ages.

Y.

It didn't say, but the implication was wrt to other people maybe interacting with their partner. There are those people.... Now don't get upset if you happen to be not very tall. It is statistical. Maybe if women don't appreciate such jealous behaviour of their hubby, they should put them in heels. Now that would be something... Y.

How? What would you suggest?

Well, this was a problem that the ancient Greek already worried about.

Their democraty didn't work that well in the end either.

The best they could come up with was what we would call 'enlightened despotism'.

Clearly that hasn't worked 100% either or the words tyrant and despot wouldn't have

such a bad fame nowadays. It seems to have worked rather well many times though.

The current way of elections in which it is more important that a person looks perfect

on television and what he says is hardly relevant looks like a recipe for disaster.

This is already described in fahrenheit 453 (or whatever the number was).

Years ago there was a scientific american article analysing the performance of

English kings with those of American presidents. There had at that time been roughly

the same number of them. Ranking them good, mediocre, bad etc. it turned out that

the number of good ones of each was roughly the same. Idem bad ones.

I guess the only thing you can say against the kings is that some of the better ones

got to power in a rather violent way.

I guess I don't know what would be the best system. I am happy that I don't qualify

for the US presidency..... (in case they make that like jury duty).

Y.

Last saturday there was an interesting item in the dutch teletext. According to a recent investigation tall men are less easily jealous than short men. That would suggest an easy solution. Why don't all those short people with problems take this easy solution? Y.

My wife is less than 2 inches shorter than me. So when she wears heels and I don't she may be taller. I then call her my tall one. When she wears flats and I wear heels she is my short one. In both cases we enjoy and have fun. It is so superficial to make a big point out of relative size. My wife told me about a woman she knows who is 6 feet 2 inches and loves to wear heels. It makes her special. For the ancient Greek the size of a woman was a measure of beauty. Who doesn't like a beautiful woman (at least to look at)? Y.

But then that still leaves to question of whom we can vote for that's going to be any better?

If you knew your classics you would know the answer (see third volume of the hitchhikers

guide to the galaxy "So long and thanks for all the fish"). Why do people vote for the

lizards? Because if you don't vote for the right lizard the wrong lizard might get elected.

In short: we need a completely different way to select leaders.

To Cindy: It does cost a lot more nowadays to get the oil. With the prices this high,

it becomes profitable to get at the oil in the deep see, the north of Alaska, Sachalin

etc. Many of these fields wouldn't be operated if the prices would be lower.

Squeezing more oil from a given field is also requiring more technology, like injecting

steam etc. On the whole the oil companies make more profit, yes, but it is far from

all profits between your 40 ct per gallon and $3 per gallon. And if the US government

would charge the Iraq war to the oilindustry......

Y.

Also in Holland the cost of gasoline is very high. At the discount station my last fill went for $ 8.70 the gallon. The only short term solution for this is to make sure you live very close to your work. This doesn't improve mobility in the job market, and when both partners pursue a career there is definitely a problem. There are two possible solutions: electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars. The problem with electric cars is that the battery technology isn't up to it. The problem with hydrogen cars is that there is no distribution system for the hydrogen. In principle one could fill a desert with solar cells and have them convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then transport the hydrogen to wherever it is needed and then use it there. But there is a vicious circle involved. If you can only buy your hydrogen at a selective number of pumps near some big cities and possibly along a few highways, everybody will be waiting buying such a car. But if nobody is buying who is going to invest in those pumps? In short: we have dug ourselves into a big hole. But something has to happen but the oil will be running out even further and the Chinese and people from India will be getting more cars while we are paying them more and more money because their products are cheaper than our products (are they really when we consider all secondary costs?). Of course it would already help to get a government that doesn't profit from the oil industry. Or the weapons industry that is very eager to let you spend 3 trillion dollars to assure an oil supply for a few more years. I wish you guys in the US a lot of wisdom in your next elections. The poor people who have to drive 70 miles a day just to go to work should consider their situation very carefully, because there are absolutely no signs that the things will ever go back to what we had a few years ago. Sorry to be so pessimistic. We will eventually make things better again, but it will take many years. Y.

Couldn't find my category. I am not into stilettos, although I like to look at them. But I have a rather expensive and very beautiful wooden floor. Inside I wear anything between 3 and 10 cm but wide enough that I don't leave footprints. Outside it depends. To work, no heels, but the shoes do come from the side of the store that has the more exciting collection. But then something neutral enough not to cause gossip. Shopping etc, something with 3-8 cm heels but that looks like I am into fashion, in the sense that it combines well and is a bit on the challenging side but not too much so. Y.