Puffer

Yes, historically the transitive form was considered correct - the institution 'grades' the ability of its students. But no longer the preferred phrasing - and certainly not in the UK. Oh dear! Saying that someone 'graduated the college' is never right in either British or American English; it must be 'graduated from the college' or (per mlroseplant) 'were graduated by the college'. See me in my study after prayers for chastisement, SF.

I couldn't help noticing your phrasing here, mlroseplant. You almost make it sound as though your son was calibrated (as with a thermometer) by his school! Although I am aware that, in the US at least, the concept of 'graduation' sometimes takes the historic transitive form (i.e. a college 'graduates' its students), it is now usual (and universal in the UK) to express the concept intransitively, i.e. that the student graduates. The 'was' in your construction makes all the difference. And when I see in your post in another topic: 'I was contacted by a young woman we know who has just graduated from college this month' it is clear that you 'swing both ways'! Anyway, congratulations to your son - and to you for your very public heel wearing. Detention excused.

Interesting shoe-size/height comparisons just discussed! BFG is lucky (in terms of footwear availability) to have feet that are quite small for his height. Can I remind everyone that, especially when commenting on size comparisons, it is important to 'speak the same language'. Remember that UK sizes are unisex and usually (but not univerally) one size smaller in number than equivalent-sized US men's footwear and three sizes smaller in number than US women's. So, my UK11(or Eu45) = USM12 = USW14. Using the 'USM' and 'USW' prefixes avoids confusion. I'm assuming that BFG is USW12/13 and Stoney is USW14.

Well done, BFG! I have a pair of knee-length boots with a very similar heel of 3.5" (and no platform) which I have worn out under boot-cut jeans a few times, without obvious problems. The slim heels are scarcely masculine, and neither really is long boots-over-jeans, but I am encouraged by your outing to be more adventurous with mine! What is your usual boot/shoes size? I assume a large size, given your height. (I am 6' 1.5" and a UK 11 or 12.)

Mlroseplant: I think you would enjoy wearing a pair of 'Springolator' mules. They can still be found from sellers of 'vintage' clothing.

Yeah? That could be ANYBODY under the car - come out and prove it's you!

If so, I begin to despair of attitudes and values in what passes for an enlightened and tolerant society. Still, the same degree of prejudice in the UK will surely add a further nail to the Corbyn coffin.

I agree - but there is quite a lot of uneven ground and cobbles to negotiate, so some care is needed. (The locations look to be Dubrovnik and Kotor - am I right? Both are well worth a visit, in heels or not.)

You asked for it: There was an old man of Kentucky Who considered himself very lucky When in thigh boots and skirt He caused women to flirt And men to think that he was plucky.

But, even if that is correct and the opening 'if' implies moot (in itself moot, for reasons already given), the whole point is that Shyheels's parenthetic qualification removes any doubt about the loving. That is what he meant, and said positively.

Your first four words say it all, Megan. The remainder is pure speculation as Shyheels did not imply doubt merely by using 'if' and the context of his posts (let alone his denial) makes it clear that none was intended. QED.

Beginning a sentence with 'If' does not in itself make the statement which follows moot. Whilst an element of doubt might be implied by 'if', its use is nothing more than a conventional politeness unless the context clearly shows otherwise. 'If...' = 'That being so...', or 'As...'. For example, if a man tells his friend that he is now aged 65, the friend could reply 'If you are, you can get a pension ...' without implying that he disbelieves the stated age.

I've always liked the look of sandals, particularly the lighter, strappier women's styles, as most traditional men's styles are so heavy and ugly. Until perhaps 25 years ago, it was unusual in the UK to see a man barefoot in open sandals other than at the beach or pool and, like heels, there was a 'too feminine' stigma attached to them when worn normally in public. But times have changed and it is very common to see men in sandals in most informal settings - and I don't just mean the ubiquitous (and scarcely attractive) rubber flip-flops; many more elegant and often unisex styles are available in men's sizes although women still have a far better selection, alas. Anyone holidaying in Greece or Italy, for example, can find good-looking leather sandals at a reasonable price. I wear sandals as often as possible in the summer months when the weather and practicality permit. Whilst I would like to try wedges, I have yet to find any that would fit and be sufficiently discreet. So, I have to be content with some like these four pairs, all of which are cool and comfortable.

I don't know what your usual UK size is, but I'm guessing 11 if (like me) you wear an Eu45 or 46. You will be unlikely to fit into any USW12 shoes - and USW13 may be tight, especially if not wide fitting or with fairly high heels. So, if you need USW13 (or 14), your choice will indeed be limited, with some Payless branches a possibility for USW13 (sometimes wide fitting). Good luck anyway!

I've come late to this debate and I won't attempt to join it. I will however say that (a) since retirement from a professional career, I've rarely had the need to wear a suit, or a tie; (b) but when I do need to wear a suit and/or a tie (because of a conventional expectation), I do so comfortably and willingly - it makes a pleasant change not to dress down; (c) the three-piece suit is not dead; I've got one and wear it on 'suitable' occasions; (d) when male evening dress (dinner jacket, dress shirt and bow tie) is called for (perhaps once or twice a year at most), I will wear it happily - again, it makes a welcome change. What I don't like, however, is the sloppy behaviour of many men who either don't know or don't care how to wear a suit and tie when that is the expected and correct dress - a wedding being the most obvious example. Taking one's jacket off, especially in warm temperatures, may be acceptable if undesirable but wearing a waistcoat without a jacket, or a tie (and collar) undone destroys the inherent elegance and formality of a special occasion. I don't think it is too much to expect a man to keep up appearances for a few hours, even though women rarely need to do so in that they can usually choose their outfit to suit their comfort and preferred look rather than to meet a strict convention.