Puffer

Not unkind at all! I'm proud to have been around (and observant) when winkle-pickers and policemen's helmets were seen every day. And nurses wore seamed black stockings and starched caps, errand boys whistled and railway porters carried luggage for a tanner tip. Alas, nostalgia is not what it used to be ...

I remember that exchange too - and I'm sure I've posted it here. My copyright!

The toes are not particularly long or very sharply pointed. The whole appearance is well-balanced; they would look totally wrong imho if they had a stubby or rounded toe, quite apart from the foreshortening effect. My Miguel Jones boots have a high 5" heel and their pointed toes are longer - perhaps a little too long (and I like pointed toes!) - but again the overall look is balanced:

True about the men's Cuban heels, which are traditional for Latin dances. Indeed, the 'Beatle boot' (of happy memory) was derived from a flamenco dancer's boot but with a more pointed toe. I have two pairs of these Madcap zip-sided boots, with 2.7" heel and neat centre-seam on the pointed toe, the tan leather (as shown) and black suede : They are good to wear, although I've not (yet) tried dancing in them. My wife doesn't like them - she thinks the heels are effeminate (not so) and that I don't need to be taller (true) whilst the pointed toes are 'old fashioned' (nonsense!). .

Well, this 'skirt' ain't PVC but does look like rubber, albeit actually leather: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5020257/Balenciaga-ridiculed-1-700-car-mat-skirt.html Not at all up my street - but possibly up yours (If you'll pardon the expression).

Yet again my carefully-worded statements are misinterpreted. You should not assume that my interest in (or knowledge of) 'fashion' extends no further than the items I personally might wear, or like to wear. Like you, I have been an interested 'observer' since childhood; unlike you I have however not studied fashion in depth nor become involved in fetish wear. I willingly accept that PVC became an important fashion item from the mid-60s - but not imho (from observation) the major development of that vibrant decade or at any other time. It was certainly not the principal fashion innovation in the 60s or worn almost universally by women of all persuasions. The subsequent widespread use of PVC (or PU etc) for a variety of fashion or household purposes has no bearing on the original assertion of PVC's '1960s landmark status'.

What makes you now say that I inferred that you might suggest that PVC was all-important, at some time in the 1960s or otherwise? You merely said that many people would associate the 1960s with PVC. Maybe so, but the 1960s as a whole was a very varied decade in fashion terms (and of course otherwise) and the advent of PVC but one fashion 'landmark', and then largely in the latter half. There were many other notable and popular fashion developments in the 60s - with the mini-skirt a strong contender for that with the biggest impact. Let's leave it there. You clearly have more enthusiasm and regard for PVC than I do. Your choice!

You originally wrote: 'If a large group of people were collected together, and they could mention one thing that made them think of the 60's, I would expect a great many would suggest PVC clothing. Yes, haircut would be in there, winkle-picker and or Chelsea boots, but many would proffer PVC.' The 1960s was very much a game of two roughly equal halves, as I well remember. You rather implied it was all one era. Winkle-pickers, Chelsea boots (and stilettos) gave way mid-decade to Mary Quant, mini skirts and (I agree) PVC. That was quite a divide as hair got longer, skirts got shorter and heels got lower. I know which half I preferred!

Having the advantage (?) of age, the 1960s are perhaps more deeply etched in my memory and certainly remain very vivid. I started grammar school in 1960 and travelled daily into and around West London so saw for myself how fashion was developing. What I observed in the first half of that decade (before flower power and hippies spoiled everything) was imho a golden era and has influenced me ever since. If only I had been (say) 10 years older and truly able to participate in everything typical of that period and not merely to observe it! [Offers of a time machine set to, say, 1962 gratefully considered.] I don't think of the 60s as notably a 'PVC era', although I agree that it emerged as a component of everyday fashion, particularly during the latter part of the decade. Yes, shiny PVC jackets and coats were seen in the early 60s, complementing beehives, stilettos, pencil skirts and fishnets - a sort of 'French Tart' look (which was not appreciated by everyone, obviously), but it was only when mini skirts had become mainstream that I recall PVC becoming a more general fashion material, notably including the 'go go' knee-length boots. My impression is that PVC (and certainly shiny PVC) has usually been seen as a cheap (in both senses) substitute for leather and, unlike leather, is not really a mainstream fashion item, even now, and certainly not for men. But maybe I will be proved wrong ...

Unless further confusion has entered the arena, the discussions have been relating to the Pat Boone song 'Speedy Gonzales', rather than any subsequent cartoon characters. Predictably (and sadly), the song is now regarded as a racist slur - no further comment needed.

I think you need a better textbook on logic. One that doesn't also suggest, for example, that (a) All policemen have big feet; (b) I have big feet, so I must be a policeman. Evening all!

Indeed so. And I'll wager that anyone making a critical comment to or about any copper wearing heels or nail varnish will get his (or her) collar felt for an alleged 'hate crime'.

Understood - they obviously won't work in any footwear that is not at least 'bootee' height. I've never tried them but I find it hard to understand that they could be practicable (or comfortable) except in a very well-fitting (tightly laced or zipped?) high ankle boot.

You are surely not suggesting either that (a) 'speedy' is in any event a preposition; or (b) because the 'Gonzales' in 'Speedy Gonzales' is a (proper) noun, the word preceding it must be (per your quoted 'authority' above) a preposition? If there is some other logical explanation for what you are suggesting, please let me have it; I am completely flummoxed so far.

Something described as 'speedy' has the properties of being effected promptly or within a short period of time, not necessarily at a fast pace. I would tend to agree that a 'speedy computer' is a peculiar beast, although the processor in it could well be described as speedy, indeed extremely so. (By the way, you will find the computer's wheels inside it, driving the fan or the disc drive.) So, the concept of a speedy recovery is one that is effective within a short period, regardless of the rate of recovery. ('I hope you will get better as soon as possible.') Not quite the same as a quick, fast, swift or rapid recovery, all of which imply something that takes place during a short period of time but does not necessarily start immediately, or at least promptly. Subtle distinctions, but valid ones. Some good illustrations here: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/speedy Please enlighten me as to use of 'speedy' as a preposition (by Mr Gonzales or otherwise)? A preposition indicates a relationship in time or place; 'speed' however describes a rate of change of place with time. Reference to 'recovery' reminds me of the very common announcement on radio's traffic news, e.g.'The accident at Junction 5 is now being recovered ...' No, it is not! It is the hardware involved in the accident (damaged vehicles, debris) that is being recovered (or at least removed from the road). Colloquial, yes; logical, no.

Why? Mr Gonzales would certainly approve. See for example: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/speedy

'Trash' is a noun; 'trashy' the adjective derived therefrom; 'trashily' likewise the adverb (= in a trashy manner). So, one can wear clothes that are trash, and therefore look trashy, and the wearer therefore dresses trashily. 'Trashily' (adverb) most certainly exists in UK English; it is the American trend to use adjectives as adverbs that gives the impression that adverbs are either non-existent or at best redundant. Colloquial maybe, but not in our manor. Yes, sometimes a distinct adverbial form does not exist and the adjectival form is used, perhaps a little awkwardly, e.g. 'daily,' 'fast'. But do you doubt, for example, the existence of 'speed/speedy/speedily' or 'care/careful/carefully'? I can see a detention (or 100 lines) in the offing ...

Are you saying that your iPad defaults to that erroneous usage and cannot be altered, or manually corrected? (I don't own an iPad, so am unfamiliar with it.)

Russ (and others) may possibly be interested in these 'height enhancers' that I've come across by chance: https://www.wish.com/search/men high heel shoes?hide_login_modal=true&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlI3YxeL61gIVVUAbCh0gFASbEAAYASAAEgLD0PD_BwE#cid=589ba816384ac26de873a667 Not too expensive for an experiment, I suggest? The same site has other inserts, insoles and other items, all apparently from China, and generally very cheap. These, for example: https://www.wish.com/search/men high heel shoes?hide_login_modal=true&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlI3YxeL61gIVVUAbCh0gFASbEAAYASAAEgLD0PD_BwE#cid=577728fca3c82e7837486371

Les Dawson was a much-loved northern comedian, known for his gurning, deliberately mangled piano playing and deadpan delivery of mother-in-law jokes and the like. I knew he had a daughter but have no knowledge of her activities or whatever talent she may (perhaps) possess. And may I request that we endeavour to use an adverb in future!

Yes, I understand why old wine can appreciate in value and why a collector will regard that missing vintage as a 'must have', regardless of price. (The concept is of course not unique to wine as many antiques, stamps, coins, books etc will also fall into that category.) But, potential investment appreciation aside, my central point remains: WHY sink money into something that cannot be enjoyed in any tangible sense, which is how this discussion started? I can understand the perceived beauty of some object that is not, perhaps, a conventional one for display and admiration (or indeed gloating). Freddy's bicycle frame is a case in point - it is attractive in its way (and doesn't need a 'frame' to display it!). After all, people like Tracey Emin have made fame and fortune from turning mundane and even rubbish items into so-called art. (In Herne Bay, as I write, there is an abandoned shop full of junk and jumble, plainly visible in the window and behind. Some wag has added a sticker inside which proclaims 'Window display by Tracey Emin'!)

I won't comment further on the distinctions you drew about cash resources and have now somewhat clarified. But I am concerned to hear that you have such a large amount of cash 'lying around' at home (and not, apparently, just overnight) which is neither secure nor working for you. The best instant-access online account pays 1.3% at present and, whilst still very low compared with historic rates, is better than nothing and removes the risk element. I hope at least the further funds in your bank account are earning interest. As to admiring rather than gloating, the distinction is likely to be a fine one - but I didn't suggest that you 'gloated', although many others might. I agree that (so-called) 'fine wine' is generally bought as an investment. My point was that wine is a costly purchase which (unlike a painting, a state-of-the-art camera or a pair of designer shoes) has almost zero intrinsive visual appeal and cannot be 'enjoyed' in any meaningful sense without being destroyed - leaving little to do apart from gloating. I wonder how often such collections are ever sold-on (at a profit, after storage costs etc) or indeed drunk with real pleasure? It seems to me that the value and its growth are almost entirely illusory, and that can be true of many antiques and jewellery items too, but at least they are usually nice to look at, if not locked away in a vault.

I don't think it was her - but I wouldn't object to laying her on the floor in lieu of the lost DPM.

I assume you mean: 'The handicap I have is no 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing.'? (And, if you think about it, that is a double tautology: spare cash = cash lying around = cash doing nothing! I once met a man who told me that he 'imported foreign goods from other countries abroad', i.e. he was 'an importer'.) It is a truism that money can't buy happiness - but then again it can make being miserable a lot more comfortable! As to merely admiring (gloating over?) prized purchases, the extreme must surely be those who pay a huge sum for a bottle of vintage wine, which sits undrunk gathering dust in a cellar for years and is just occasionally looked at. Hardly an object of beauty or even erotica.

I mislaid a roll of black damp-proof membrane recently. Has anyone seen it?