Puffer

Freddy:  If you're interested (and quick), this 'used' Bosch router from Amazon is a good deal:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B001E4EJ5S/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used&m=A2OAJ7377F756P

Play it again, Shyheels!   Elementary, my dear Freddy!

I will be happy to act as referee if the pair of are going to have a shoot-out to settle things! 

Yes indeed, Freddy

39 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Barbara Stanwyck could wrap me around her little finger anytime ...  And Fred MacMurry, an actor who might put a twinkle in the eye of any woman. 

While on the subject of actor and actresses meeting an early demise, my 'notable' would be Kay Kendall.

...

Yes indeed to all of that, Freddy.   And I could add a few others:   Gene Tierney; Grace Kelly; Liz Taylor (when young - as in Ivanhoe).   There just seems to be something special about these 40s/50s stars; certainly they looked glamorous and dressed accordingly.

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

You guys clearly do not read hard boiled American detective fiction - Chandler, Hammett etc. 'Gat' is 1940s slang for a pistol.

at the moment I am staying in an almost comically awful seedy hotel - every cheesy Hollywood stereotype of a low budget Latin American hotel is on display here. Don't know whether to laugh or cry...

I do heartily dislike the  term 'guy' being used in the UK - especially when 'you guys' is used to address a mixed-sex bunch of people.   I am neither an American man nor a bonfire effigy!   I do wish 'guy' could be left where it belongs - in the US; we are 'blokes' etc in the UK!   (No offence taken or intended, Shyheels; you are in good (bad) company these days!)

Your hotel does conjure up a lot of images, Shyheels!   And the posts above cover much of the ground.   Bogart and Bacall were indeed great on screen.   In fact, most of those 40s/50s Hollywood 'sirens' were not only good to look at but fine actresses.   I suspect most of them died too young from lung cancer, however.   My favourite 'film noir' is Double Indemnity (Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson) - I'm sure you both know it.   (The title, incidentally, is a misnomer; life or accident insurance is not a contract of indemnity insurance; it pays out according to a specified scale of benefits for each injury or death.   But the title Double Scale Benefits would not have quite the same impact, I admit!)

I wish I had 10p for every handful of assorted debris I have removed from under various floors when boards come up.   As you say, Freddy, it is all too easy for previous 'tradesmen' to leave everything there (sometimes including tools, pipe fittings and other useful items!).

As to replacing your damaged floorboards, much will depend on whether they are to be covered afterwards (fitted carpet; vinyl; laminate ...).   If so, why worry about the different width - if the thickness is the same, surely you can mix-and-match with reusable removed boards and supplement in a suitable place with new ones of whatever width is available (cutting a narrow one if necessary for the fill-in)?    You may need to remove a few more boards to achieve the optimum repairable area.   And I question the real need for t&g, unless draughts or dust are a particular problem.   OK, you may end up with a bit of a patchwork, but if it's solid and covered, so what?   You are lucky in that you live (I assume) in a relatively modern house with boards that can be matched from stock for thickness - my Victorian house has boards that are about 3mm thicker than anything commonly used today; I always keep (or scrounge from elsewhere) any decent boards that match for thickness.   Another suggestion is to use chipboard (preferably P5 t&g) in 18mm or 22mm if this matches for thickness - a single panel might get you out of trouble in an area that is unlikely to need lifting again.   I nearly always screw down floorboards; 1.5" or 1.75" No. 8 csk screws are ideal and allow for subsequent removal with minimal damage to boards or anything under them.

A router is an extremely useful tool; I would not be without mine and am certain you will love it if you get one and realise its potential; very little practise is needed.   It does not have to be expensive either; 28295 from Toolstation (£49.98), SF 49312 (£49.99) SF 31457 (£35.99), or possibly Argos 711/3914 (£39.99) should all be fine for anything other than heavy repetitive work.   An extra set of 0.25" router bits is handy; again not expensive (and much cheaper than buying individually).   Mrs Freddy should be instructed to put these items on your Xmas list - NOW!  With the supplied fence and a Workmate, you can rout most things - I do have a small table but rarely use it - too fiddly and not always easy to use in its fixed workshop position.   You should be able to rout board edges (if you have to) using just the fence from one side, and possibly without needing to plunge cut - I rarely 'plunge' as I find it more difficult to control than taking (if necessary) several cuts at different fixed depths.  Just remember to allow a little extra board at each end so that the router/fence still has something to bear against at each extremity of cut.

My only personal experience of firearms is with the school CCF, where I fired a .22 rifle on the range (with some success) and a .303 on exercises, the latter mercifully using blanks!   Of sharper memory is the week in CCF camp on Salisbury Plain immediately after Christmas 1962 - the start of the worst winter in England since 1947 (which I didn't experience) and thence to now.    Firing blanks at an imaginary enemy when you were up to your armpits in snow was simply silly; I managed to avoid most of that by making myself indispensable in the cookhouse, keeping all the stoves etc going - dry, warm and useful.   Sobering now to think that was almost 53 years ago.

I'd never heard the term; not too many armed gangs here in Kent.   'Gat' as in Gatling gun, presumably?   Although that was a machine gun, not a pistol.

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Thanks! I'm quite chuffed really. They will be waiting for me on my return. Always wanted a pair of PVCs - and wished I dared. Now I have. Odd that this seems more daring that travelling into a remote and rather dangerous pocket of Central America. But then I am accustomed to that - not ordering up shiny PVCs

 

Just lobbed into my next airport...no driver waiting. Swell...

Good luck with your daring purchase - we look forward to learning how you get on with them (and get them on!).

As to the missing driver (abducted?) ... don't forget the golden rule: take the THIRD taxi in the rank outside.

Watch out for anacondas.

I agree entirely about many (if not most) knee boots having a too-generous shaft width.   Both my pairs (Sherbert, from the now-defunct Big Shoe Boutique, a Barratt offshoot) have shafts that are far too wide for me when wearing even normal-width straight jeans, which then bunch and billow (sounds poetic, but it ain't a good look!).   And in tightish jeans they just slosh around my fairly slim calves.   An assistant in Evans did tell me that, as the more mature and/or larger lady was its prime customer, its boots invariably had a wide shaft.   I'm not frantically trying to find a pair of (affordable) slim-shafted knee boots (with pointed toes and, say, a 4" stiletto or slim stacked heel) in UK11 (Eu45) but it would be nice to know they existed somewhere.  

I recall that 'killing the fatted calf' was referred to in the parable about the prodigal son.   It seems, however, that it would be better if associated with the prodigal mum. 

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

 

Au contraire, I refer to Messrs Tesco Tricks and Deceit Co. Ltd. Who use a yellow sticker system, often placed beneath something that isn't 'on offer', but might relate to something in close proximity. They are also keen to exploit the 'special offer' of 8 items (toilet roll) that is actually a more expensive buy than 2 off 4 packs.  Catch them at the right moment though, and the price of their short dated produce is hard to beat. IE, two off loaves of bread, at 10p each. (Both straight in the freezer.) ...

As for reviews, I always go straight to the lowest ratings. I read 5 or 10, as I'm looking for the Achilles heel of the product. 'Wrong colour', 'slow delivery' or anything like it are discounted. Two or three "broke down on second day" type reviews exclude the product unless they were posted in 2012, and the 2015 reviews are all exemplary. ...

I know what you mean about Tesco (and others) with misleading labels and bulk-buy savings what ain't.   Caution is always needed.   I don't find much in the way of short-dated discounts at the local Tesco - except perhaps about half an hour after Sunday opening, when a lot of Saturday leftovers are nicely priced - and it's even better at Morrisons (which is, admittedly, a larger shop).   I'm not often out at either on a Sunday morning but I can be sure of a quick kill if I happen to be there.

I agree with your approach to reviews, whether of consumer products, holidays, restaurants, books or anything else.   Probably 50% of all reviews (if readable at all, considering the ignoramuses who often write them) are so bigoted, biased or irrelevant that they should be discounted.   Of the others, one does need to eliminate the out-of-date or mistaken (e.g. someone not realising what the reasonable limitations of the purchase were, or misusing it).

Surprisingly, one of the best vacuums I have ever known and used was (and still is) a cheapo Argos 'Challenge' bagless vertical cylinder type, given to me at least 6 years ago by my son after he had used (and abused) it for various tasks.   It has been my 'DIY' vac ever since, sucking up all sorts of on-site debris without complaint, provided the filters are kept clean (not difficult).  I did, early on, have a problem with a wire to the switch fracturing, but that was easily repaired.   Such cleaning is not a task I would entrust to a Miele (too delicate!) but the latter is excellent for normal household tasks, including pet hair etc (if you have any - we don't).

The last boots look over-generous in the shaft width.   May suit some (not Freddy) but probably not ideal, especially for wearing concealed.

47 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Mrs Freddy can 'nose out at bargain' at the supermarket, now she has a handle on the "xx" per £ or per kg label they often provide. She likes using the one supermarket though as she does the bulk of the shopping and it is a chore. She insists the familiarity of the venue allowing her to minimise her time there. I would and have tried others, with ASDA being my preferred choice (on balance). There is an ALDI not far away, but parking isn't a pleasant experience. 'Standard procedure' is to check the items bought at discount were actually registered at the till as discounted products. Some supermarkets are legend for this, and the one we use is the leader-of-pack for it.

Overall, Mrs Freddy is less resistant to a 70% off 'bargain' when it comes to clothing for herself. She has two large wardrobes here, literally crammed full, most of which I'm adamant hasn't seen the light of day .... Her version of my shoe collection I suppose.

These days we seldom buy household goods or electricals, without some reference to retailer reviews or a review site.

 

  

Good points, Freddy.   The cost/weight ratio is very important; it is not always the larger pack that gives better value.   My wife dislikes shopping of all types - particularly as her eyes are sensitive to fluorescent lighting - and never shops more often or for longer than is absolutely necessary.   I quite like wandering round a shop, whether buying or browsing (apart from heel-spotting), so am happy enough to do the major supermarket shopping etc - which ensures that it is done 'properly' .

I assume you are saying that you find Asda unreliable at recording discounted prices properly, rather than most reliable; is that so?   (I cannot say I have had that bad experience with Asda - although I do find it adept at advertising 'specials' which are nowhere to be found on getting to the branch.   And when did you last see any sort of discount coupon issued by Asda?)   I do quite often shop there; the local branch, although not large, is quite convenient.   (It was formerly a branch of Wickes; alas, no plasterboard or sand available.)

Reliable reviews of consumer goods are a must.   There are some (e.g. Revoo) on line, or Which? is available in the library.   (Avoid those, such as typical of Argos site, which consist of little more than a purchaser saying 'I bought one last week and I like the colour ...' which says nothing about usage.)   I've just been persuaded to buy a new vacuum cleaner; Which? (and others) pointed at Miele being by far the best for a standard cylinder type (borne out by our own experience) but they ain't cheap.   But the optimum model for us (not the dearest of several variants, some costing £200+) was available from a retailer we know of in Brighton at £130 'collected' (£20 less than anyone else) and easily bought online and picked up a couple of weeks later when I was visiting family in the town; a result all round.   I could have bought something 'satisfactory' for half the price but here I think the extra cost for proven reliability/performance was worthwhile.   But it's thin gruel for the next week until our finances recover ... (either that or the butler's wages are cut).

I have all the supermarkets (except, alas, Aldi) within easy reach and absolutely no store-loyalty.   We have little brand-loyalty either; we avoid most branded items unless they have demonstrably better qualities than own-brand or unbranded items.   My wife and I shop wherever is cheapest at the time for certain items, balanced by overall convenience - we don't go to three or four places in the same shopping trip but would take advantage of best buys when in each shop or area.   A quick (but not slavish) check on a website such as http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/ (recommended, but not infallible) gives a good invitation as to the preferred source.    And of course any sensible discount coupons (such as £5 off a £40 spend) are taken into account, with immediate needs bolstered by non-perishable extras for future use if a target has to be reached.   (I pride myself on adding up the cost of items in my head as I walk round, and usually stop when I reach the 'target'.   I am rarely wrong with my total at the till, unless something has been mispriced - in which case I may be prompted to query it - or can only be estimated until it is weighed.)   If all this sounds like a Scrooge-like fetish, it is justified not only by the real savings that can be made but also by the useful mental (and physical!) exercise required.

My wife does not have quite the same nose for, or pursuit of, a 'bargain' as I do, and sometimes deludes herself when shopping.   By that I mean that she will buy something that we need (or she thinks we need) because it is 'on offer' without thinking about the real worth of what she buys as well as alternative sources that might be better/cheaper.   I can't really blame her for falling for the first trick in the seller's portfolio but it would be better if she considered the bigger picture.   

The above considerations apply similarly to non-supermarket purchases.   Brand-avoidance may be more difficult (or dangerous) but a little research pays dividends, especially when buying consumer durables - everything from an electric kettle to a range cooker, or a TV or a car.   Here, ease of use/reliability/longevity are key factors and the game is then to find the best price for the preferred item, allowing for any advantages or otherwise in the seller's location, service etc.

What I will not do is to spend money without thought on any non-trivial impulse buy, however flush I may be.   Or buy something that may be both good and desirable in itself but which is so expensive that I could never regard it as giving a worthwhile 'payback'.   So, the YSL boots at c£800 will never be mine, however much I may admire them, and however big the likely discount.   (That said, if I saw a pair at £100, I would probably surrender!)

Yes, people watching can be fun.   I am not a latent crossdresser (at least in any serious lifestyle sense, as distinct from a spot of experimentation) but I very often see a woman in an outfit that makes me wish I could wear it in public and with same ease as she does.   And of course just female footwear can have the same effect.   This can easily lead me to imagine myself in the woman's skin and wonder about her lifestyle, clothes and shoe choices and whether she likes to wear (higher) heels, other styles ...

Easy but sometimes frustrating escapism.

Both are nice; do tell us how you get on with them, and size/heel heights etc.

1 hour ago, Shyheels said:

I don't wish to learn about saving money. I don't throw it away, but I do not stint on things that seem important to me. I spend freely in such cases, and in this I am enthusiastically supported by my wife. We both are happy to splurge and count the cost later. We do not gave much and are by no means rich, and in general our wants are very modest indeed compared with most. No fancy cars etc. But if we wanted a nice night out, a trip to the theatre, we don't sweat it.

again, we are not spendthrifts, but happily push the boat out for things that matter to us

A sensible overall view.   But by 'saving money' do you mean (a) accumulating it (e.g. in a savings account) for the future; or (b) reducing expenditure by buying wisely, (e.g. getting a discount) without sacrificing the nature or quality of what you want?   (I am merely curious; different people have different ideas about 'saving'.)

4 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

... Mrs Freddy is impressed. (Though I might have chosen the wrong word? )

I hope you don't mean that she has been forcibly enlisted in the Royal Navy after being nabbed by the press gang?   But, if so, did you engineer it in order to save all the extra Christmas expenditure on such trivia as her food and clothing?   That's got me thinking ...

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

... (I don't need to use it as I have already bought the filler, silicone, abrasive paper etc for my wife's Xmas present.  )

4 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

What crackingly good ideas!  

Yes indeed - my wife likes a bit of rough.

Yes, money is for spending - but spending wisely.   As I often have to remind my wife (when she cadges £10 to get yet another new outfit from Millets), I will spend a pound as willingly and frequently as any man - but I like to get at least £1.25's worth for it.

I was very reluctant to shell out about £110 for my MJ boots (delivered) as that seemed a great deal for just another item of footwear that would get little wear.   But I realised that they were not only special, and fulfilling an unrealised ambition, but were actually good value in terms of the bespoke workmanship they represented.   I don't regret it, and the £110 would merely sit in an account earning possibly 1.5% net if I hadn't spent it ...   Well, that's my excuse, anyway.

Must dash now ... off to post my begging letters (unstamped) and note to Santa.

4 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

... I must have looked at 40-50 pairs to find potential purchases over a period of months, and bought/tried on at home, around 8 pairs before deciding to keep the ones I have.  (And one of those two pairs has a slight manufacturing fault on the hem.)

 

3 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Unlike 98/99% of mens jeans, and 100% of mens trousers, "ladies" leg wear, almost always comes with stretch these days. Try some. 

Although I have been compelled to wear a ladies jean most of my life (and loose trousers for formal wear) mens jeans are an appalling fit when compared to the multitude of ladies versions. Once you get past the 'which section did they come from' hurdle, there is no looking back. 

 

If M&S employed a 'Mr Humphreys' in its branches, he (at least) would have great pleasure in measuring your inside leg so frequently.

I can see the appeal of women's jeans (I've not yet tried any) but are they not usually fairly obvious, i.e. because the fly is the wrong way round?   (Or is that not the usual convention?)   I would wear a 36" waist, 32" inside leg (without allowance for heels) so not sure what woman's size I should try.   (If you say WXOS I shall sue ..!)

Yes, a good brand and CU - the Wylex I have spare here is just the larger version of same.   (Pity you cannot use it; we could have done a deal!)   

I also have a TS promo code (£5 off £40+ spend) valid to 21 Dec - but it isn't apparently transferrable or you could have it.  (I don't need to use it as I have already bought the filler, silicone, abrasive paper etc for my wife's Xmas present.  )

All three ticked in my case - and I suspect by most others!

Good luck, Freddy, if you go - whatever you wear.

I'm not a Philistine, nor unduly tight-fisted (unless you ask my wife!) but I am totally unwilling to go to any sort of live performance (theatre, ballet, opera, concert, stage show or whatever) that costs more than, say, £20 for the seat - and not even then if the cost of travel etc is significant.   I simply don't enjoy something of that sort enough to justify making a big dent in my pocket - as with luxury hotels or holidays and the like.   More to the point, on the last few occasions I have been tempted by (or treated to) such an event, the aggravation of getting to the venue, being ripped off for any extras and finding a poor seat/view and mediocre performance has made the whole event less than worthwhile - I would have been better-off (in all senses) to watch it on the TV!   That said, I do enjoy live theatre at one or two of the small provincial places which are easy to access and have a sensible price structure.   And, if going alone, I am likely to emulate you and Shyheels and dress to suit my mood without making a fool of myself.

17 hours ago, ting said:

... Ok, I don't want to look feminine but it would be great if we were "allowed" to wear masculine heels like higher cowboy boots, chelsea boots etc. My wish has risen more urgent this winter. So I ordered some chelsea boots with 2.5 inches heels from England and I wear them every day in my leisure time when shopping and so on (I don't have the courage to wear them at work in the office and that upsets me. They ARE mens' shoes but I am afraid to wear them at any occasion).

Maybe you guys can encourage me ...

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Well done! 

2½ inches/6cm is a good height to using for walking everywhere. Not too high to affect your walking style (gait) too much, so it would be realist to imagine you aren't noticed wearing them in a social setting, though some might notice you are taller?

If you want encouragement to wear those boots in a work environment, perhaps you should show us how you wear them? 

I have a couple of pairs of men's 'Beatle' boots with 2.5" cuban heels and pointed toes that I can and do wear quite often in a normal social situation.   They may be noticed but there is nothing about them that is weird and I have had compliments from both men and women - a simple 'I like your boots' is always encouraging.   I am going to wear a pair later today when I go to have Christmas drinks at a friend's house.   As I am retired, I no longer have an office or other workplace in which to wear them, but I would expect them to be accepted by colleagues even if they are rather too informal for some businesses.   As Freddy suggests, it depends on the type of work and how you dress otherwise.   Good luck anyway - a few years ago I would have been reluctant to go out anywhere in such boots but now it is no big deal.

2 hours ago, Heels said:

Brantano is one shoe shop  that I don't  visit. Just looked online and there is nothing I would want to buy.  They don't seem to do high heels.

Yes, I rather agree.   Most of what it sells (for either sex) is rather boring and solid, and generally expensive.   Librarians and geography teachers must love Brantano!