Puffer

Thank you, AndyMany. As I couldn't quite recall the detail of Fred, I Googled 'ascot' and all became clearer. An 'ascot tie' is a type of cravat, shaped and tied inside or outside the shirt. Although still seen in the UK, apart from use in very formal 'aristocratic' (royal court) dress they are rarely worn casually by anyone under 60 or so. Despite being less formal than an ordinary tie, they always seem to me to be stuffy - an open-necked shirt without any tie is much more usual as casual wear. From the pics I have seen, Fred is wearing a plain neckerchief rather than a true ascot, either loosely knotted or possibly threaded thru a ring. That was a fashion popular with young men in the early 70s but rarely seen now.

Puffer! It's a story. Lighten up....

Yes, of course! But I merely wondered why you found it necessary to go overboard with the violence - one break would have been enough!

Nice story, Bubba, well presented, but this bit stretched its credibility somewhat for me:

'He walked toward me, threatening to take my head off with one swing of his beefy arm. When he swung at me, I just grabbed his arm and broke it in three places. Then I broke one of his legs in a couple of places and stuffed his shirt down his throat. And I did it all while wearing a pair of boots with 4” stiletto heels.

After their shock wore off, his friends picked him up and carried him to the hospital. When he was released five weeks later, he was arrested, tried and convicted of felony assault and is currently in prison serving the second year of a three year sentence.'

Yes, David was entitled to defend himself against an unprovoked attack, but using the minimum force necessary. Five limb breakages is just a tad over the top, don't you think? I would expect David to have faced similar charges too! Or is the law in the US really that tolerant?

Not so.

I have heard all classes of people use either pronounciation. In fact I change the pronunciation to suit the context. For example I might say "Eether way" but then "I can't decide ayether." I think if it's at the start of the phrase it's "eether" and at the end or in the middle it's "Ayether".

Yes, both pronounciations are heard in the UK but I cannot say that I have noticed many people changing from one to the other, according to word position. On balance, 'ayether' would be considered by an educated person to be the more correct and the use of 'eether' can attract criticism. Neither I nor anyone close to me ever uses 'eether'. However, historically, I believe that 'eether' has a good UK pedigree but is usually regarded as the US pronounciation and therefore not the preferred one. But to convince anyone much under 50 that they should ignore transatlantic influences is something of a lost cause!

That said, what on earth is an 'ascot'? Not in my UK dictionary but I'm guessing that it is a cravat or something similar. If so, the typical Englishman in such garb (a dying breed, fortunately) would definitely be an 'ayether' user, don't-yer-know.

A few points arising from the above:

1. The word you were looking for, Bubba, is 'subrogation'. Your own insurer meets your loss and is then subrogated to your rights against whoever might ultimately be liable for it, i.e. entitled to pursue appropriate legal action in your name and recoup its outlay if it can.

2. It would be unusual for two insurers to go to court over a disputed claim, unless mega-bucks were involved. They will normally settle after a bit of haggling, as of course they should. In motor insurance (at least in the UK), it is quite common for two insurers with similar portfolios of business to have what is called a 'knock-for-knock' agreement between them. Under this, the car's insurer will meet the full cost of repairs even though a third party (with a different insurer) was at fault. The principle is one of swings and roundabouts; next time, the other insurer may be the one to pay up because it insured the car.

3. Yes, HS, you should involve your own insurer (and certainly notify it of the accident) - even though ultimately you may not need to claim on your insurance because the TP does pay up. Any insurer (yours or a TP's) is going to look critically at your claim, especially if you have a write-off (total loss) and want to get the pre-accident vehicle value (i.e. the like-for-like replacement cost). You will likely need to haggle and maybe get expert help (e.g. from a loss assessor or motor engineer) to 'prove' the value. After all, if you were the person liable, you would not pay the first sum demanded without seeing reasonable evidence to support it, would you?

Sorry if this is all a little off-track - but most of us are car owners/drivers and the scenarios are hardly irrelevant, unfortunately. And do keep in mind that (whatever one's personal experiences may be), an insurer stays in business only because it does provide reasonable cover at a realistic premium and meet its claim obligations. You can fool some of the people ...

I must say that I'm rather surprised at the apparent lack of interest here in this venture and the photos, videos etc that accompanied it. OK, so there was nothing spectacular or unique but it was a little diifferent and eye-catching. Did anyone bid in the auction or participate in or view the walk? Does no-one have a vew on Vernon Kay and his heeling?

There are strong and sensible arguments against men wearing stilettos in public, as distinct from more modest cuban or similar heels, when in male mode. But, as I have suggested before, a pair of pointed stiletto boots worn with narrow jeans (and not concealed) always seems to me to be a smart, unisex look that anyone who is not too top-heavy can carry off. Your pics exemplify exactly what I had in mind, Bootking, and the look is great; well done!

... What happened to the idea of customer care to encourage trust and satisfaction so they will want to return and do business? It seems the only reason a business wants to keep their patrons is to suck all the money out of the person who happens to initiate a purchase. A while back I was in an accident that totalled my vehicle. The insurance company that was responsible to make restitution for the fault of its policy holder wouldn't restore my loss to the status I had before the accident. It's doubtful I will ever knowingly join their policied members, because of the unjust dealings they gave me to deal with my loss. They were more concerned with their bottom line, instead of restoring my status of well-being. I'm not oblivious to their point of view, but through their dealings, I have resolved to use legal counsel should I ever find myself in similar circumstances, which will probably cost considerably more than the equality settlement I formerly sought.

I'm not too clear about your situation, HS. Are you saying that your car was wrecked through the fault of a third party and his insurer has not adequately indemnified you (in your opinion)? If so, you should be taking legal action against the third party, which will be defended (or not) by his insurer. (Yes, it will cost you, but you should recover your costs if you win.) But what about your own insurance - you are surely covered for own damage which your insurer will pay for and then recover (if it can) from the TP?

Why should the TP insurer have any concern for you - its interest is limited to that of its own insured driver and therefore to minimise its loss caused through his fault? Of course it is seeking to protect its 'bottom line' rather than to so impress you that you might seek to buy its insurances in future. Or am I missing something?

A few years ago, my wife had a no-fault accident, with liability admitted by the third party. She had scarcely gathered breath before the TP insurer had phoned her and arranged for her car to be repaired at its expense; she didn't need to claim on her own insurance at all. That service was impressive and she later did transfer her cover there, but only because the premium and other terms were favourable. So, yes, it can happen but my previous point remains - it is the TP interest that comes first. In this case, there was nothing to be gained by denial or delay and the cheapest option for the TP insurer was to pay-up gracefully and thereby minimise its extra and avoidable costs.

... Attached are pictures of the four pair; the lowest heel is 2.75" and the highest is 3.25".

I've only just caught up with your posts, Mae, and must congratulate you on four good choices of footwear - nothing too feminine or extreme and all clearly smart and wearable in most situations in male mode. I would feel happy to try any of them in public - and I wish I could, but nothing much like them available in UK11 it seems!

One piece of advice, HFM, with no offence intended. Whatever business you decide to get into, you will need to communicate effectively with your customers and others. That will be particularly important if and when you need to advertise your business or specific products.

Your postings on this board are not written in conventional English. In particular, you ignore capitalisation and punctuation and what you say is often in one breathess sentence. That may be your preferred style but it is not effective communication and, frankly, sends out a negative message - I for one find your postings hard work to read and understand fully. I'm sure that you are capable of good writing and I do sincerely suggest that you adopt a more conventional style. Just remember that, if you are in competition with others (as you surely will be), you do not want to give yourself an avoidable handicap.

Good luck with whatever you do - and don't forget to notify HMRC when you start your business as the taxman is increasingly hard on those who don't, regardless of any profit made.

hmmmm, it would appear that one would have to be intimately familiar with the local dialect (how these words are used in a particular place/community) in order to capture the "true" meaning that the speaker was implying. However, the similarity in the use of these two words is great enough for any English speaker to discern the exact meaning with just a moments thought.

You are right, Bubba. Local (mis)usage or idiom can reveal an emphasis or shade of meaning that diverges from what is usually regarded as the norm. Usually, the difference is either obvious or of no significance but sometimes there might be confusion or even apparent conradiction. A couple of examples will suffice - I have no idea whether they translate into US-speak!

1. If a Scotsman asks: 'What's happening just now?', he wants to know the current position, i.e. 'right now'. In England, however, 'just now' is usually interpreted (somewhat illogically) as relating to the immediate past and the answer will reflect the recent rather than current situation. A cause of confusion when a situation is changing rapidly and the two parties have a different background.

2. The two words 'road' and 'way' are not exact synonyms; the latter has a wider meaning even in the sense of a route or thoroughfare. (The term 'railroad', which is of course the norm in the US, was originally common in the UK but has given way completely to 'railway', although a railwayman will invariably speak of learning or knowing 'the road' - i.e. the route and its characteristics.) In the north of England, many if not most people tend to use the dialect derivative 'anyroad' instead of the usual 'anyway'. No real confusion as the meaning is obvious from the context.

Anyway/anyroad, enough of this!

Although 'close' and 'shut' are used in many senses in the UK in an almost interchangeable manner, meaning e.g. to enclose (as in putting the lid on a box) or to bring to an end (as in shop trading), the verbs do differ in their overall concept. To 'close' is essentially to come together (as with curtains) or to come to an end (as with a performance), whereas to 'shut' has more a meaning of blocking a space or securing or confining something (as with a door and the like). I think that, rather as Dr Shoe comments, the use of 'close' in relation to doors and windows etc is something of a politeness; it has a gentler and less imperative flavour than the more direct and commanding 'shut'. I have always been puzzled by the use of the term 'winding up' in relation to the permanent closure of a business or other activity (and, in the legal sense, to the dissolution of a company). If we wind up a watch or clock, we are putting fresh energy into it so it will continue to run - but the opposite is surely true of closure of a business, where we are actually 'running it down'. Maybe it is not the clock analogy that we should consider but that of winding-up a ball of wool or a length of cloth, i.e. tidying them up before putting them away. Is 'winding up' used in the US in relation to a business or company in the same legal and/or commercial sense; I guess it must be?

As an insurance professional, I could say a great deal on this subject, both pro insurance and also to sympathise with those who buy it or need to claim on it. But this is really not the place to dwell on some complex issues with, inevitably, a high legal and technical content. I will say that I am distinctly unhappy with the growth of the compensation culture and the problems that this causes all parties. But it is not just liability insurance that is suffering problems; property and pecuniary insurances (including motor) get progressively more expensive as repair/replacement costs increase and exaggerated if not fraudulent claims (often including manipulated 'accidents') abound. Dr Shoe is a little off-beam in some of his comments. An award of damages is intended to restore the victim to his pre-damage situation as far as this is possible - which obviously involves complex valuation issues when personal injury or death (as distinct from pure property damage) is involved. It is right that pain and suffering and loss of earnings etc are recompensed. In the UK (unlike the US), there are very few situations where punitive (examplary) damages can be awarded and no-one should imagine that victims routinely get a bonus in this way at the expense of whoever caused the 'injury' leading to liability. The Doc may have the clear exception of defamation in mind, where exemplary damages are frequently awarded to 'punish' a publisher for making mega profits out of a high-profile libel (because lots of extra papers were sold). The other main exception is where someone has abused a public office and an example must be made of his conduct; the police are the main offenders (but I would suggest that MPs should be considered also!). One area in which law reform is being considered is that of 'no fault compensation'. This would allow those who suffer loss, damage or injury to claim some recompense even in situations where that arose without being the clear legal liability of anyone else. But someone (whether the state or not) must pay for it ....

Even in the US, the spelling of "nite" is considered to be a courseness.

And, in the UK, the spelling 'courseness' is considered to be a coarseness!

Quidam means "someone" in Latin, that's why I chose this nick. It's like saying anonymous but with a twist.

I do like the name, with its connotation of anonymity, and perhaps mystery! But I don't think your explanation quite does it justice - quidam is usually translated as meaning 'an anonymous passer-by (or bystander)' or, more prosaically, 'everyone and no-one'. A walk-on extra in a film, perhaps?

Picture the heel-wearing man who quietly walks through the streets, minding his own business. He is noticed by some of those he passes but probably not recognised. Who was he? Why was he wearing heels? Who cares? The moment passes ... all is forgotten. He could have been almost anyone on this board!

looks like fun but the invite to the walk seems sexist to me?

How so? Yes, it does start off 'Stilettos at the ready, ladies!' and go on to comment that 'if more than 2,000 women take part ...' (neither of which positively excludes men) but the application form allows for entries from people with the title of 'Mr' or 'Sir', amongst many others.

I wonder if there will be any male entrants? Vernon Kay??

Interesting fundraising initiative here - the publicity photos & video include Vernon Kay wearing red stiletto platforms!

http://www.heelsthatheal.com/

Yes indeed - and he implies that he likes wearing heels and this isn't his first time. And he is well over 6' tall so I wonder what size he takes?

There is a lot of other material on the site and its links, including the charity shoe auction on eBay (22 shoe lots) which runs for a week from 8pm today. And the photos of assorted celebrities wearing or talking about their heels are also in the Fabulous magazine free with today's News of the World. All worth a look.

Wearing shorter jeans may get you more comments, but London is noted for its rainy weather and fog. You just have to take the chance on that.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

You've been watching too many of the old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films, Dawn! London has variable weather but is never particularly wet for long (unlike, say, Manchester) and 'proper' fog is a rarity. And, since clean air legislation came in more than 50 years ago and the burning of coal tailed right off, there are no longer any 'pea souper' smogs when smoke and fog combine to produce nil visibility and a real threat to health. Oh yes - Jack the Ripper hasn't been seen around lately either!

With respect, Steve63130, you didn't read boots_1000's post carefully enough before you jumped in to accuse him of making various incorrect statements based on a minimal sample size etc. And in your own first posting too!

I hold no brief for boots_1000 but, as I read it, he was expressing his opinions rather than stating categoric facts. And he did invite readers to debate the points he made. Also, he did not say that men only wear heels as a fetish, but that he considered women who liked men in heels did so for fetish reasons.

And are you not yourself making a sweeping and generalised statement by suggesting that 'there is no sexual charge from wearing heels'? I would suggest that there is plenty of evidence (on this board and elsewhere) that some men are clearly turned on by heel wearing. But I happily accept that this condition does not apply to you!

Hi all, mine's pretty easy really.

It is just as well that you were not born ten years later, isn't it - or we might be forgiven for thinking that you were a porn star.

Haha let's go back to Puffer and Emma. Or maybe Puffer and M:a as I assume Puffer isn't your real name.

I've never understood why 'o' in woman sounds like 'i'.. Otherwise pretty much in the english language makes sense.

No, Emma, I was not christened 'Puffer' - I do explain its origin on 8 June above.

In the singular 'woman', the 'o' is pronounced more like a long 'u' (as in 'put') - but both the 'o' and the 'e' are pronounced like a short 'i' (as in 'sit') in the plural 'women'. (Because some feminists dislike having '-men' in 'their' word, they often deliberately write it as 'wimmin'.)

Thanks for the clarification, Emma!

So your name isn't Phu-ff-aar? Instead it's Puh-ff-ah?

As you wish! But I didn't intend it should start 'Ph' (= 'F') or finish with a drawn-out 'aaaaa'. Let's go back to 'Puffer'!

The celebrated Irish writer, George Bernard Shaw, liked to point out pronounciation peculiarities in the English language. He suggested that the imaginary word ghoti should be pronounced as fish - the gh as in enough; o as in women; ti as in station. (I hope your Swedish background can cope with that!)

My username is actually M:a with a : instead of a - but somehow that messed up everything so admin hade to change it.

M:a is my real name spelled in a different way. You'll know what my mother named me if you just say it out loud one time

Will we? So, is your name 'Mcolona' or 'Mhyphena' or 'Mdasha' or just 'Ma', and is the 'a' long or short? I think we should be told!

Regards,

Puh-ff-ah (or something like that, I think)

The short answer is 'yes' but obviously there are many options and not everyone wants or can afford all the frippery. And I think that 'average' (i.e. mean) total wedding costs are somewhat misleading as many people can have quite an elaborate function without spending a great deal, whilst some others will incur huge expense of many times the mean. Although the credit crunch has encouraged some couples to economise, often by utilising a DIY element with practical help from family and friends with catering and other facilities, I would agree that the UK trend is towards spending more and some couples (or their parents) have very extravagant ideas. I assume that the US follows the UK custom of the bride's family meeting most of the wedding costs, although it is becoming more common for the bridegroom's family to contribute. I suppose I should be lucky that I have no daughters - but none of my 2 sons and 3 stepsons is yet married!

My wife and I went to a ‘second time’ wedding yesterday in a medium-sized East Sussex town. The modest church ceremony was followed by the reception at the nearby golf club in a very pleasant setting, with weather to match. There was a fair range of guests, aged from around 10 to 75 (but very few 25 – 40), notably including about 10 pretty girls aged between13 and 25, three of whom were bridesmaids. Alas, there was really nothing exciting to note on the footwear front. The men can be dismissed immediately; almost all of them wore black Oxfords - just about the dullest men's shoe ever - with absolutely no ‘high’ heels or even ‘shoes of character’ (except, perhaps, my own – fairly pointed black Faith slip-ons).

The bride (a tall, slim blonde in her mid-40s) looked stunning in her dress (which, together with those of the bridesmaids, had been made by my wife as her wedding gift and was greatly admired) but wore almost flat off-white satin pumps with a block heel, neat but totally boring. The youngest bridesmaid (13 and the bride’s daughter) also looked lovely but clearly had great difficulty walking in her 2” kitten heels and her 15-year old sister did somewhat better in black satin 2.5” peep toes. Before the ceremony, my wife was talking to another acquaintance (a neighbour of the bride) and asked after her children. This lady replied that her daughter was now 13 and that ‘you can’t miss her; she’s the blonde in the ‘killer heels’ that she can barely walk in’. When the girl appeared shortly afterwards, she was in a neat black and white dress and complementary two-tone court shoes with a stiletto heel around 3.5” – but she walked competently and confidently in them for the entire period of the wedding and reception and was clearly comfortable. I’m glad she didn’t hear her mother’s reference to ‘killer heels’ (which always sounds pejorative to me) and somewhat disparaging remarks about her ability to wear them – but maybe she had been practising, unknown to mum.

Most of the other girls and a few ladies in their 40s or early 50s wore stilettos. Two of the older ladies looked good in stiletto sandals with heels a little over 4” but there was nothing otherwise higher than about 3.5” and most of the remaining ladies looked as though they were shod for walking round the shops rather than for a wedding, comfy sandals being to the fore. But at least there was none of the common 'my feet are killing me' shedding of shoes before taking to the dance floor in bare feet or nylons, never a flattering sight.

I do wonder what the trend would have been with more ladies present in the 20 – 40 age range, or are the very high platform stilettos etc only for downtown ‘clubbing’ rather than for a smart (but certainly not pretentious) wedding? And the contrast between the two otherwise very similar 13-year old neighbours was very marked, one being totally at ease and the other anything but. A sign of the times, maybe, but I suggest that high-heel practise should be on the school curriculum – and preferably for both sexes!