|
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:14:02 UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:18:03 on Thu, 12 Mar 2015, d remarked: For Chelmsford and Crawley the main attraction is cheaper houses and the frequent rail service to London. Since all three places were the homes of colleagues commuting to where I worked in Westminster, that's the main point. The main problem with these commuter towns is that most people don't live within walking distance of the one main station and so its not just a rail trip I don't think you're right there. Most of Chelmsford is within a thirty minute walk of the station. From a quick look at a map, Crawley is similar - and it has three stations A 30 min walk to the station is pushing it for a daily commute, especially if its freezing cold or ****ing down. We don't often agree, but on this one we do. I used to live on a 1960's estate in Chelmsford in a house that Google Maps tells me is 26 minutes from the station. OK for the occasional trip, but when I had to do it every day I soon decided to buy my first car. The 70's/80's estates are at typically 30-45 minutes walk, and show up on the map as "Springfield", "Baddow" etc, but are very much part of the dormitory 'suburbs' of Chelmsford, and all have just the one station to head for. So, in fact, most commuters live more than 30 minutes from the station. -- Roland Perry This is true. Many commuters take a bus to Chelmsford station from the outlying estates. Just too far to walk but bike is feasible. But then, different thread, there is the lady trainee lawyer who runs the seven miles from Blackheath to the City each day to avoid the London Bridge chaos: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-10097213.html DRH |
Overground down again
In message , at
00:55:10 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015, DRH remarked: So, in fact, most commuters live more than 30 minutes from the station. This is true. Many commuters take a bus to Chelmsford station from the outlying estates. Just too far to walk but bike is feasible. But then, different thread, there is the lady trainee lawyer who runs the seven miles from Blackheath to the City each day to avoid the London Bridge chaos: And of course all the lady commuters will need to take two sets of shoes if they walk(/run): the fashion shoes to match their outfit and the comfortable ones. Not being sexist - it's just one of those well understood differences. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:55:10 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015, DRH remarked: So, in fact, most commuters live more than 30 minutes from the station. This is true. Many commuters take a bus to Chelmsford station from the outlying estates. Just too far to walk but bike is feasible. But then, different thread, there is the lady trainee lawyer who runs the seven miles from Blackheath to the City each day to avoid the London Bridge chaos: And of course all the lady commuters will need to take two sets of shoes if they walk(/run): the fashion shoes to match their outfit and the comfortable ones. Not being sexist - it's just one of those well understood differences. It's pretty standard for some women to change from trainers to heels just before (or after) arriving at the office. |
Overground down again
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:12:23 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: The 70's/80's estates are at typically 30-45 minutes walk, and show up on the map as "Springfield", "Baddow" etc, but are very much part of the dormitory 'suburbs' of Chelmsford, and all have just the one station to head for. Many years ago I worked in farringdon with someone who lived in a village a 30 min drive from lincoln station. Her commute could apparently take over 3 hours each way on a bad day because IIRC she had to change at nottingham and if she missed the connection..... God knows how she stuck it , she must have been on a good salary but had absolutely no life outside work as far as I could tell. -- Spud |
Overground down again
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
DRH wrote: But then, different thread, there is the lady trainee lawyer who runs the seven miles from Blackheath to the City each day to avoid the London Bridge chaos: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...os-commuters-t ke-extreme-measures-to-get-home-and-avoid-dangerous-overcrowding-10097213.html I'm guessing her firm must have showers otherwise I doubt she'd be popular with colleagues. Still, doing those miles she'll be looking at a hip replacement op in a few years anyway. -- Spud |
Overground down again
On Friday, 13 March 2015 09:21:22 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 00:55:10 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015, DRH remarked: So, in fact, most commuters live more than 30 minutes from the station. This is true. Many commuters take a bus to Chelmsford station from the outlying estates. Just too far to walk but bike is feasible. But then, different thread, there is the lady trainee lawyer who runs the seven miles from Blackheath to the City each day to avoid the London Bridge chaos: And of course all the lady commuters will need to take two sets of shoes if they walk(/run): the fashion shoes to match their outfit and the comfortable ones. Not being sexist - it's just one of those well understood differences. It's pretty standard for some women to change from trainers to heels just before (or after) arriving at the office. It's certainly very common now in London. I recall seeing it in Boston 25-odd years ago. As Bostonians said/say: "Time to hit the bricks" = don trainers for trek home on the T. DRH |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-13 09:20:35 +0000, Recliner said:
It's pretty standard for some women to change from trainers to heels just before (or after) arriving at the office. I've seen plenty of blokes doing that as well. I prefer more functional shoes suitable for walking for half an hour or so from station to office (as most of them are doing), but then again in work I go for the slightly less formal, outdoorsy look that you seem to be able to get away with. I don't do formal jackets as I get quite hot so the first thing I would do on walking in the office is take it off. And I've never really understood high heels on women, they don't really do anything for me, just strike me as a bit impractical and silly. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
In message , at 11:06:45 on Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: I don't do formal jackets as I get quite hot so the first thing I would do on walking in the office is take it off. You need to look into lightweight suits/jackets. One type doesn't fit all weathers, and I reckon at least four are required to cope with the different seasons. And I've never really understood high heels on women, they don't really do anything for me, just strike me as a bit impractical and silly. Apparently they "do things" for other men, which is why the women wear them. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-13 12:40:35 +0000, Roland Perry said:
You need to look into lightweight suits/jackets Or just not wear a suit, which works for most employers these days. Apparently they "do things" for other men, which is why the women wear them. I wonder what proportion. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 13:26:16 on Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: You need to look into lightweight suits/jackets Or just not wear a suit, which works for most employers these days. The only employer I have to impress is myself. On the other hand I do what I can, to fail to unimpress the people I'm working with. I went to a quite serious meeting in London yesterday and was in two minds whether or not to wear a suit and tie. The decision was a suit but no tie, and the result was that of the men in the meeting: the chair and one other attendee were wearing a suit and a tie, and myself and another were wearing a suit and no tie. Two other men were wearing something more casual, which in the case of the most casual was commented by other attendees on in a jokey, but not necessarily positive, way. Had the meeting been at the UN in Geneva (or somewhere similar), all the men would have been wearing suit and tie - except a very few wearing ethnic costume, which I don't at all disagree with, because a suit and tie is precisely *my* ethnic costume. But I draw a line at the bowler hat, just as the Aussies don't turn up with corks dangling from their hats. Apparently they "do things" for other men, which is why the women wear them. I wonder what proportion. The men or the women? Probably around 75% in both cases. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-13 13:50:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:
In message , at 13:26:16 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: You need to look into lightweight suits/jackets Or just not wear a suit, which works for most employers these days. The only employer I have to impress is myself. On the other hand I do what I can, to fail to unimpress the people I'm working with. I went to a quite serious meeting in London yesterday and was in two minds whether or not to wear a suit and tie. The decision was a suit but no tie I've noticed that Evan Davis does the same now on Newsnight. As the style police have said, "Even a good suit looks cheap without a tie." E. |
Overground down again
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:56:40 +0000, eastender
wrote: On 2015-03-13 13:50:02 +0000, Roland Perry said: In message , at 13:26:16 on Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: You need to look into lightweight suits/jackets Or just not wear a suit, which works for most employers these days. The only employer I have to impress is myself. On the other hand I do what I can, to fail to unimpress the people I'm working with. I went to a quite serious meeting in London yesterday and was in two minds whether or not to wear a suit and tie. The decision was a suit but no tie I've noticed that Evan Davis does the same now on Newsnight. As the style police have said, "Even a good suit looks cheap without a tie." He wears a tie some days -- perhaps it depends on who he'll be interviewing? I don't think he was much of a tie wearer before getting that job, and judging by his tweets, he was in two minds about whether to wear one at all. Didn't Paxo also occasionally appear tie-less? |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-13 13:50:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:
The decision was a suit but no tie, and the result was that of the men in the meeting: the chair and one other attendee were wearing a suit and a tie, and myself and another were wearing a suit and no tie. Two other men were wearing something more casual, which in the case of the most casual was commented by other attendees on in a jokey, but not necessarily positive, way. Convention no doubt, but I totally fail to understand why an ill-fitting piece of old fashioned dress and a bit of fabric constricting your breathing is superior to, say, a neat company-branded polo shirt or a short-sleeved shirt without tie, and a pair of chinos. Maybe I should live in the US. Or Hoxton :) Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 17:08:13 on Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: The decision was a suit but no tie, and the result was that of the men in the meeting: the chair and one other attendee were wearing a suit and a tie, and myself and another were wearing a suit and no tie. Two other men were wearing something more casual, which in the case of the most casual was commented by other attendees on in a jokey, but not necessarily positive, way. Convention no doubt, but I totally fail to understand why an ill-fitting piece of old fashioned dress My suits fit better than my other clothing. and a bit of fabric constricting your breathing It doesn't. is superior Looks smart and has lots of pockets. to, say, a neat company-branded polo shirt I don't have any of those branded with my company, and all the ones branded with other people's company have been over-used for my DIY escapades. or a short-sleeved shirt without tie, and a pair of chinos. That's what I'd wear as "smart casual", but not every meeting is appropriate for that. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-13 17:21:20 +0000, Roland Perry said:
My suits fit better than my other clothing. No doubt you're the pinnacle of sartorial elegance. But most suit-wearers aren't, I observe. and a bit of fabric constricting your breathing It doesn't. It does for me. I absolutely hate having things tight round my neck. is superior Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Other clothes can look smart provided they are neat and properly ironed. or a short-sleeved shirt without tie, and a pair of chinos. That's what I'd wear as "smart casual", but not every meeting is appropriate for that. Indeed not, though I do wish business would grow up a bit and stop worrying about what people wear and worry more about what they do and say. Within reason of course. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 18:19:15 on Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: On 2015-03-13 17:21:20 +0000, Roland Perry said: My suits fit better than my other clothing. No doubt you're the pinnacle of sartorial elegance. But most suit-wearers aren't, I observe. and a bit of fabric constricting your breathing It doesn't. It does for me. I absolutely hate having things tight round my neck. Something's wrong if it's tight. is superior Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Other clothes can look smart provided they are neat and properly ironed. Look neat and tidy perhaps. There's a reason for the term "smart casual". or a short-sleeved shirt without tie, and a pair of chinos. That's what I'd wear as "smart casual", but not every meeting is appropriate for that. Indeed not, though I do wish business would grow up a bit and stop worrying about what people wear and worry more about what they do and say. Within reason of course. In the literal sense, a suit is a 'uniform' (everyone the same), which means to opposite of what you imply - ie everyone can express an opinion without people making prior judgements because of the way they dress. It's also a great leveller on price and availability - anyone can get the outfit (which will last for ages). And there's nothing more distracting than one person turning up in £500 worth of Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen impression. The first thought through many people's minds will be "did he get dressed in the dark and forgot to put on his cufflinks?" -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-14 12:05:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Something's wrong if it's tight. I'm only comfortable if it's so loose it looks untidy. And there's nothing more distracting than one person turning up in £500 worth of Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen impression. The first thought through many people's minds will be "did he get dressed in the dark and forgot to put on his cufflinks?" Only if they're really uptight about dress. But then I suppose Sir Alan's part of the IT industry was curiously formal compared with the rest of it. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 15:07:28 on Sat, 14
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: Something's wrong if it's tight. I'm only comfortable if it's so loose it looks untidy. Then there's something wrong with your collars. And there's nothing more distracting than one person turning up in £500 worth of Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen impression. The first thought through many people's minds will be "did he get dressed in the dark and forgot to put on his cufflinks?" Only if they're really uptight about dress. They aren't uptight about dress, more they don't want to be distracted by people making fashion statements when they are supposed to be making serious technical or policy statements. But then I suppose Sir Alan's part of the IT industry was curiously formal compared with the rest of it. Lord Sugar, now, of course. And yes, most of his people who had any contact with the outside world would wear a suit and tie, just like he and Nick still do on "The Apprentice", and most of the male contestants too. Here's the winner of the first series: http://www2.vismedia.co.uk/newslette...05/amstrad.jpg Several of the female contestants dress as masculinely as possible, to avoid people looking at what they are wearing rather than listening to what they are saying. The opposite is a useful tactic in other circumstances, but it's important to dress appropriately for the occasion. And back in the 80's most of the public-facing personal computer people wore suits - although Hermann Hauser pushed the envelope (as they say) with a trademark polo-neck jumper or cravatte underneath much of the time. Just to prove that there were exceptions to that: http://www.cabume.co.uk/images/stori...startups10.jpg It's almost impossible to find a photo of Clive Sinclair not wearing a suit and tie; and look: here's the two of them: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...3_1417899i.jpg This is what I wore to the office around then (1985), my jacket would be hanging on the back of a chair. [You can also see one of my engineering staff with a tie on in the background]. When I was trying to "look cool" in front of end-users at the weekend I might dress like this [the full t-shirt slogan was "I built Arnold"], but there's still a jacket: http://cpcrulez.fr/im4/3/Roland_Perr..._Show-1985.jpg Sometimes it wouldn't be a suit jacket, and I did have rather long hair (for current tastes): http://www.retrogamer.net/wp-content...1/more-roland- 603x630.png After I left Amstrad this was my provocatively casual publicity photo: http://perso.wanadoo.es/amstradcpc/i...olandperry.jpg Continuing the cap theme, 25yrs later Bruce Schneier turned up to an OECD meeting I was at, wearing his signature cloth cap, an open shirt, and jeans; and although you may regard it as prejudiced, the main reaction from the people round the table was clearly "who is this idiot, and how quickly can we get him to stop talking". He *does* have a shirt/tie/suit though: http://www.american.edu/uploads/stan...ruce-Schneier- 300x200.jpg -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-14 16:51:59 +0000, Roland Perry said:
They aren't uptight about dress, more they don't want to be distracted by people making fashion statements when they are supposed to be making serious technical or policy statements. A short sleeved shirt and a pair of chinos is hardly a "fashion statement", it is a practical, comfortable and tidy-looking outfit. Several of the female contestants dress as masculinely as possible, to avoid people looking at what they are wearing rather than listening to what they are saying. The opposite is a useful tactic in other circumstances, but it's important to dress appropriately for the occasion. I must say I find the ability of women to be accepted in relatively casual dress in offices but not men to be somewhat discriminatory. While I dislike a "you must wear a suit" rule, if one is imposed it should surely apply to all those in the office whether male or female. And vice versa. After I left Amstrad this was my provocatively casual publicity photo: http://perso.wanadoo.es/amstradcpc/i...olandperry.jpg You think that is "provocatively casual"? Crikey. Continuing the cap theme, 25yrs later Bruce Schneier turned up to an OECD meeting I was at, wearing his signature cloth cap, an open shirt, and jeans; and although you may regard it as prejudiced, the main reaction from the people round the table was clearly "who is this idiot, and how quickly can we get him to stop talking". Then they are prejudiced fools, unless of course the topic of his talk was not interesting in and of itself! Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 16:51:59 on Sat, 14
Mar 2015, Roland Perry remarked: This is what I wore to the office around then (1985), my jacket would be hanging on the back of a chair. [You can also see one of my engineering staff with a tie on in the background]. missed out the url: http://www.retrogamer.net/wp-content.../roland-perry- young.png -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
In message , at 17:10:47 on Sat, 14
Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: On 2015-03-14 16:51:59 +0000, Roland Perry said: They aren't uptight about dress, more they don't want to be distracted by people making fashion statements when they are supposed to be making serious technical or policy statements. A short sleeved shirt and a pair of chinos is hardly a "fashion statement", it is a practical, comfortable and tidy-looking outfit. But not in any business meetings. At best it looks as if your luggage got lost on the plane on theh way there. After I left Amstrad this was my provocatively casual publicity photo: http://perso.wanadoo.es/amstradcpc/i...olandperry.jpg You think that is "provocatively casual"? Crikey. It was in 1990, when I was trying to get blue-chip companies as clients. Continuing the cap theme, 25yrs later Bruce Schneier turned up to an OECD meeting I was at, wearing his signature cloth cap, an open shirt, and jeans; and although you may regard it as prejudiced, the main reaction from the people round the table was clearly "who is this idiot, and how quickly can we get him to stop talking". Then they are prejudiced fools, Their main prejudice being "why would this person feel the need to make a statement by his manner of dress, why won't his arguments speak for themselves". unless of course the topic of his talk was not interesting in and of itself! It was interesting, but not for the reasons he intended. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-14 20:29:30 +0000, Roland Perry said:
But not in any business meetings. At best it looks as if your luggage got lost on the plane on theh way there. Depends what the "business meeting" is (in 2015)! Their main prejudice being "why would this person feel the need to make a statement by his manner of dress, why won't his arguments speak for themselves". That formal business wear is staid and uncomfortable? But it has nothing to do with the point. I'm more interested in what people say/do than how they dress, within reason. If their outfit was scruffy, torn, unironed etc I would see your point, but tidy clothes are tidy clothes whether a suit or a less formal shirt and trousers. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-14 17:41:00 +0000, Roland Perry said:
In message , at 16:51:59 on Sat, 14 Mar 2015, Roland Perry remarked: This is what I wore to the office around then (1985), my jacket would be hanging on the back of a chair. [You can also see one of my engineering staff with a tie on in the background]. missed out the url: http://www.retrogamer.net/wp-content.../roland-perry- young.png I don't see why something like this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-2580874-1C47431C00000578-884_634x903.jpg looks any less appropriate. As to a jacket on the back of the chair, what's the point? That's where mine would invariably end up, which is why I've given up wearing one in most cases. A black windproof fleece that I usually wear is more practical against the weather, and similarly comes off and goes on the chair when I walk into the office. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
In message , at 10:30:01 on Sun, 15 Mar
2015, Neil Williams remarked: On 2015-03-14 20:29:30 +0000, Roland Perry said: But not in any business meetings. At best it looks as if your luggage got lost on the plane on theh way there. Depends what the "business meeting" is (in 2015)! Not buying and selling widgets. Their main prejudice being "why would this person feel the need to make a statement by his manner of dress, why won't his arguments speak for themselves". That formal business wear is staid and uncomfortable? You keep coming back to the comfort issue. I find it *more* comfortable than most "casual" wear. "Staid" just means 'simple and accessible'. But it has nothing to do with the point. I'm more interested in what people say/do than how they dress, within reason. If their outfit was scruffy, torn, unironed etc I would see your point, but tidy clothes are tidy clothes whether a suit or a less formal shirt and trousers. The less formal stuff still gets in the way, if you are the odd one out in the meetings where I'm wearing a suit (and you would be). -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
In message , at 10:32:35 on Sun, 15 Mar
2015, Neil Williams remarked: On 2015-03-14 17:41:00 +0000, Roland Perry said: In message , at 16:51:59 on Sat, 14 Mar 2015, Roland Perry remarked: This is what I wore to the office around then (1985), my jacket would be hanging on the back of a chair. [You can also see one of my engineering staff with a tie on in the background]. missed out the url: http://www.retrogamer.net/wp-content.../roland-perry- young.png I don't see why something like this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...-1C47431C00000 578-884_634x903.jpg looks any less appropriate. It's smart, but very business-like. As to a jacket on the back of the chair, what's the point? To be easy to grab when going out of the office. That's where mine would invariably end up, which is why I've given up wearing one in most cases. A black windproof fleece that I usually wear is more practical against the weather, and similarly comes off and goes on the chair when I walk into the office. That's similar to what I have for use when I'm going shopping. But I wouldn't wear that to London. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-15 11:26:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:
As to a jacket on the back of the chair, what's the point? To be easy to grab when going out of the office. So it can provide almost no protection against cold/wind/rain? That's where mine would invariably end up, which is why I've given up wearing one in most cases. A black windproof fleece that I usually wear is more practical against the weather, and similarly comes off and goes on the chair when I walk into the office. That's similar to what I have for use when I'm going shopping. But I wouldn't wear that to London. I do every time (except summer). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:21:20PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
[a suit] Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Trouble is if you actually use those pockets the vast majority of suits start to hang all wrong and bulge in the wrong places and look silly. If you need to carry lots of stuff, then either wear something better suited to the task or use a bag. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information I hate baby seals. They get asked to all the best clubs. |
Overground down again
In message , at 12:04:18
on Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: I don't think you're right there. Most of Chelmsford is within a thirty minute walk of the station. A 30 min walk to the station is pushing it for a daily commute, especially if its freezing cold or ****ing down. I did it for about a year. A bit of rain or cold didn't hurt me. Let me guess - you were a young single male? [Other lifestyles are available] -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
In message , at 12:17:15
on Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: [a suit] Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Trouble is if you actually use those pockets the vast majority of suits start to hang all wrong and bulge in the wrong places and look silly. If you need to carry lots of stuff, then either wear something better suited to the task or use a bag. Not over-filling them is why having lots of pockets is useful. My current suit has four inside pockets as well as the usual three on the outside. It's helpful to have phone, Oyster, NR tickets, some small change, a map of where I'm going; all in different ones. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 08:29:30PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:10:47 on Sat, 14 Mar 2015, Neil Williams remarked: On 2015-03-14 16:51:59 +0000, Roland Perry said: Continuing the cap theme, 25yrs later Bruce Schneier turned up to an OECD meeting I was at, wearing his signature cloth cap, an open shirt, and jeans; and although you may regard it as prejudiced, the main reaction from the people round the table was clearly "who is this idiot, and how quickly can we get him to stop talking". Then they are prejudiced fools, Their main prejudice being "why would this person feel the need to make a statement by his manner of dress, why won't his arguments speak for themselves". Funny, that's exactly what I think of those who wear suits. And with better justification. Normal clothes are, well, they're normal clothes. Suits are something that you have specially for a small part of your life but which serve no useful purpose beyond what they look like. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't -- Marge Simpson |
Overground down again
In message , at 12:43:59
on Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: Continuing the cap theme, 25yrs later Bruce Schneier turned up to an OECD meeting I was at, wearing his signature cloth cap, an open shirt, and jeans; and although you may regard it as prejudiced, the main reaction from the people round the table was clearly "who is this idiot, and how quickly can we get him to stop talking". Then they are prejudiced fools, Their main prejudice being "why would this person feel the need to make a statement by his manner of dress, why won't his arguments speak for themselves". Funny, that's exactly what I think of those who wear suits. And with better justification. Normal clothes are, well, they're normal clothes. Suits are something that you have specially for a small part of your life but which serve no useful purpose beyond what they look like. I'm sure it depends what company one keeps at work. If you turned up at the meetings I went to, nit in a suit you'd likely be the only one dressed like that. Probably, if I turned up at one of yours dressed in suit, then I'd be the odd one out. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:18:34PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:04:18 on Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: I don't think you're right there. Most of Chelmsford is within a thirty minute walk of the station. A 30 min walk to the station is pushing it for a daily commute, especially if its freezing cold or ****ing down. I did it for about a year. A bit of rain or cold didn't hurt me. Let me guess - you were a young single male? I was. I'm not any more, but a bit of rain or cold still doesn't hurt me. Nor does it hurt my half blind pensioner mother when she walks to the station at oh dark thirty in the morning on one of her seemingly continuous gallivants all over the country. -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing in the English language doesn't mean it should be done |
Overground down again
In message , at 13:26:19
on Tue, 17 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: I don't think you're right there. Most of Chelmsford is within a thirty minute walk of the station. A 30 min walk to the station is pushing it for a daily commute, especially if its freezing cold or ****ing down. I did it for about a year. A bit of rain or cold didn't hurt me. Let me guess - you were a young single male? I was. I'm not any more, but a bit of rain or cold still doesn't hurt me. Nor does it hurt my half blind pensioner mother when she walks to the station at oh dark thirty in the morning on one of her seemingly continuous gallivants all over the country. And both of you do that every day - like the commuters we are discussing would be? -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On 08/03/2015 23:43, Recliner wrote: eastender wrote: [big snip] Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar developments. You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and bland upmarket shopping. Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places, not something I welcome or would want to encourage. I find that a pretty depressing attitude from an articulate person such as yourself. I'd hope you don't wish to suppress the right to protest, but one could say such a notion is implicit in your comments. Perhaps you should find something that fires you up and makes you want to protest? There's enough out there. |
Overground down again
On 16/03/2015 12:32, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:17:15 on Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Cantrell remarked: [a suit] Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Trouble is if you actually use those pockets the vast majority of suits start to hang all wrong and bulge in the wrong places and look silly. If you need to carry lots of stuff, then either wear something better suited to the task or use a bag. Not over-filling them is why having lots of pockets is useful. My current suit has four inside pockets as well as the usual three on the outside. It's helpful to have phone, Oyster, NR tickets, some small change, a map of where I'm going; all in different ones. The bugger is managing to mislay something crucial in a pocket - which bloody pocket, which damn jacket? |
Overground down again
In message , at 15:09:40 on Thu, 19 Mar
2015, Mizter T remarked: [a suit] Looks smart and has lots of pockets. Trouble is if you actually use those pockets the vast majority of suits start to hang all wrong and bulge in the wrong places and look silly. If you need to carry lots of stuff, then either wear something better suited to the task or use a bag. Not over-filling them is why having lots of pockets is useful. My current suit has four inside pockets as well as the usual three on the outside. It's helpful to have phone, Oyster, NR tickets, some small change, a map of where I'm going; all in different ones. The bugger is managing to mislay something crucial in a pocket - which bloody pocket, which damn jacket? I've normally got only one jacket in play at a time, even if at a conference that's going on for a week. That's part of the joy of anonymous-looking suits rather than a series of smart-casual bling. As for "which pocket" - things have pockets assigned to them. Simples. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk