"beady eyes"

[Harrison Hill]

"l'll keep my eyes on you", could mean "I'll look out for you and help
you if you need help!"

"l'll keep my *beady* eyes on you", only means: "I know what you are
up to, and I'll catch you when you do what I'm expecting you to do!"

So a very evocative word. But why? And is it only BrE as my COD
asserts?

For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
(should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8

[R H Draney]

Harrison Hill filted:

>
>For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
>(should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
>AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
>this link:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8

Now how did I know what song that was going to be even before I clicked the
link?...probably because it's the only song I could think of that contains the
word "snoopy", other than the Royal Guardsmen....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Curlytop]

R H Draney set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

Hang on - didn't he fight the Red Baron in another equally silly song?
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[Lady Mondegreen]

Harrison Hill graced the interwebs with the following pearls of wisdom:

> For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
> (should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
> AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
> this link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8

Come on, spill the beans. What *were* you singing instead? As my username
would suggest, I'm rather interested in this sort of thing.
--
I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail
Yes I would, if I could,
In Chorleywood.

[Harrison Hill]

On Feb 7, 8:06 pm, Lady Mondegreen <somebody.e...@somewhere.com>
wrote:

[Curlytop]

Harrison Hill set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
> (should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
> AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
> this link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8

This song was a favourite of mine when I was a kid. My childish imagination
missed the subtle nuances of the lyric and I took it to be part of some
road safety campaign.

[Peter Moylan]

Curlytop wrote:
> R H Draney set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> Harrison Hill filted:
>>> For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
>>> (should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
>>> AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
>>> this link:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8
>> Now how did I know what song that was going to be even before I clicked
>> the link?...probably because it's the only song I could think of that
>> contains the word "snoopy", other than the Royal Guardsmen....r
>
> Hang on - didn't he fight the Red Baron in another equally silly song?

Snoopy, let your hair hang down.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[R H Draney]

Peter Moylan filted:

>
>Curlytop wrote:
>> R H Draney set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
>>
>>> Harrison Hill filted:
>>>> For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
>>>> (should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
>>>> AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
>>>> this link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8
>>> Now how did I know what song that was going to be even before I clicked
>>> the link?...probably because it's the only song I could think of that
>>> contains the word "snoopy", other than the Royal Guardsmen....r
>>
>> Hang on - didn't he fight the Red Baron in another equally silly song?
>
>Snoopy, let your hair hang down.

That's Sloopy, making plans to meet her grandfather John B....r

[LFS]

On 07/02/2012 23:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Curlytop wrote:
>> R H Draney set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
>>
>>> Harrison Hill filted:
>>>> For forty years it turns out I have been singing the wrong words
>>>> (should have been "snoopy" which I have never heard and is presumably
>>>> AmE) in this erotic song from the 1950's (sic). Laura, do *not* click
>>>> this link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cjaheraq8
>>> Now how did I know what song that was going to be even before I clicked
>>> the link?...probably because it's the only song I could think of that
>>> contains the word "snoopy", other than the Royal Guardsmen....r
>>
>> Hang on - didn't he fight the Red Baron in another equally silly song?
>
> Snoopy, let your hair hang down.
>

Hang on - Sloopy, you mean. The Wiki article on that song is
fascinating: I had no idea that US states have official rock songs.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Peter Moylan]

The poor cook he got the shits.

[John Dean]

Harrison Hill wrote:
> "l'll keep my eyes on you", could mean "I'll look out for you and help
> you if you need help!"
>
> "l'll keep my *beady* eyes on you", only means: "I know what you are
> up to, and I'll catch you when you do what I'm expecting you to do!"
>

Only ever heard it in the singular - examples in OED include:

1978 L. Heren Growing up on The Times v. 167 The vice squad might have had a
beady eye on me, but I was glad to hold his hand.

1979 H. Kissinger White House Years xix. 748 The beady eye of Secret Service
agents Ready and McLeod, who were not about to leave me to the mercy of
unscreened foreigners.

1958 Chicago Tribune 9 Feb. (Comics Feature Mag.) 9 'Anyhow, who'd ever
think of connecting that runt with this deal?' 'Maybe you're right! But just
the same I'm going to keep my beady eye on young Mister Dondi.'

1985 Times 9 Oct. 21/1 The Chancellor is still keeping a beady eye fixed on
his other monetary indicator, £M3 (broad money, in English though not in
American).

The only entries I can find in OED for the plural version relate to eyes
which have, literally, a beady appearance.

1879 Black Macleod of D. I. 170 The ugly brute, with its beady eyes and its
black snout.

1961 D. Stuart Driven iv. 35 The sight sometimes of a bungarra, the long
sleek brown and buff big lizard,+staring down with beady eyes in long
reptilian head.

I think of "I've got [rather than 'keep'] my beady eye on you" as a service
usage. I remember it from "The Army Game" in the 50s.

--
John Dean
Oxford

[tony cooper]

You might be surprised about what is "The Official..." in some US
states. Most states have a state flower, a state tree, and a state
bird. (Florida: Cabbage Palmetto, Orange Blossom, Mockingbird)

Florida also has an "official" mammal, marine mammal, salt water
mammal, insect, reptile, saltwater fish, freshwater fish, shell, wild
flower (in addition to just "flower"), beverage, fossil, stone, gem,
and song.

All it takes for something to become "The Official..." is for a bill
to be introduced and passed in the state legislature. Debating the
merits of what should be "The Official..." allows the legislators
respite from considering really serious and important bills like State
Senator Gary Siplin's "Droopy Drawers" bills that would make it an
offense to wear trousers hanging below the waist area that reveal the
wearer's underwear. The bill passed.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[LFS]

Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since we
seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to subsequent
generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the headquarters
of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see that they
needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.

[Jerry Friedman]

I was /very/ disappointed that the state of my birth has "Hang on,
Sloopy" as its official rock song. At least the resolution that made
it official was humorous.

The state where I live doesn't have an official rock song, but it does
have an official ballad, an official cowboy song, an official Spanish-
language song, and an official bilingual song in addition to its
official song (which was written by a daughter of Pat Garrett, the
sheriff who killed Billy the Kid).

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/nm_symb.htm

--
Jerry Friedman

[Katy Jennison]

A whole page? Crumbs. Not simply "Shoes, not trainers; no jeans; if in
doubt, think smart funeral"?


--
Katy Jennison

[Peter Moylan]

I think smart funeral means trainers and jeans to that generation.

[Mike Lyle]

IIRC, my father and/or his contemporaries used to say things like
"Keep your beady eyes off my cake" when I was little, so an army
origin for that sort of use is very likely. Reptilian eyes can seem
unlovable to us mammals, especially when in a fixed gaze.

During a Commons debate in the last Tory administration, somebody read
from _The Wind in the Willows_, (from memory) "...peeping out from the
rushes were a pair of beady little eyes, and a little brown nose..."
"It's Tony Blair!" cried a voice. (A put-up job? I can't imagine why
you might think that.)

--
Mike.

[Mike Lyle]

When a teenager in our village fell down the quarry, his mother asked
for all the youngsters to come to the funeral wearing their ordinary
casual clothes, and it looked much more sincere (and more moving) that
way.

There is now, says Howard Jacobson, an evening dress code referred to
as "Black tie no tie": that is, DJ gear, but open neck. The tieless
business fashion seems to me to have been started by President
Ahmadinejad; so I suppose that's his kind of evening dress, too.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Feb 8, 3:23 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:

> Katy Jennison wrote:
> > On 08/02/2012 16:47, LFS wrote:

...

> >> There should be more laws about how to dress, since we
> >> seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to subsequent
> >> generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the headquarters
> >> of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see that they
> >> needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>
> > A whole page?  Crumbs.  Not simply "Shoes, not trainers; no jeans; if in
> > doubt, think smart funeral"?

There are refinements. When a female friend of mine worked as a
middle manager at a very big American company in the '90s, I was
interested to learn that gold jewelry was more "corporate" than
silver. I don't know whether Laura's students need to worry about
that, though.

> I think smart funeral means trainers and jeans to that generation.

To all generations here. I live near two funeral homes, so I glimpse
lots of funerals, but hardly ever see a tie, suitcoat, or sportcoat.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]

> I live near two funeral homes, so I glimpse lots of funerals,
> but hardly ever see a tie, suitcoat, or sportcoat.
>

See many ponchos y sarapes? :-)

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[R H Draney]

Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>On Feb 8, 3:23=A0pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>wrote:

>
>> I think smart funeral means trainers and jeans to that generation.
>
>To all generations here. I live near two funeral homes, so I glimpse
>lots of funerals, but hardly ever see a tie, suitcoat, or sportcoat.

People these days seem to attend funerals in "business casual"...I'm not sure
which half of that description I find more troubling....r

[tony cooper]

On 10 Feb 2012 01:03:53 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

I think the dress code varies by age and social group. I haven't
attended a funeral in quite some time, but I recently attended a
memorial service. The deceased had passed during the Christmas
holiday, a family-only funeral service was held, and a memorial
service was held in January for friends and neighbors.

All the men had on jackets and ties or at least a jacket. All the
women wore "Sunday best". There wasn't anyone there under 40.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:

> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.

I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.

But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
"business casual" as their normal dress.

I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
*Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
>> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
>> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
>> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
>> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>
>I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
>At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
>of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.
>
>But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
>"business casual" as their normal dress.
>
>I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
>others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
>*Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?

While I have no strong objections to the change in dress codes in the
business environment, I do wonder about people who think that dressing
a bit more formal is "uncomfortable". I never felt uncomfortable
wearing a suit and tie. Doing so certainly never made me less
productive.

Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
people.

[LFS]

I have been to two funerals in the last couple of weeks. The second was
yesterday. There were several hundred people there and I have no idea
what people were wearing as everyone kept their coats on.

[LFS]

On 10/02/2012 15:54, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> LFS<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
>> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
>> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
>> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
>> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>
> I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
> At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
> of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.
>
> But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
> "business casual" as their normal dress.
>
> I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
> others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
> *Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?

*I'm* not making anyone do anything. The firm has asked those organising
the trip to make sure the students are appropriately dressed.

The City of London is still pretty conservative. New recruits to
accountancy firms get instructions on appropriate dress and behaviour.

Apart from not being allowed to wear trousers at work, I never found the
dress code a problem when I worked in the City. My clothes weren't
uncomfortable. And I find the notion of clothes distracting anyone from
being productive quite strange.

"Fairly hot young hedge fund", eh? Say no more...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
>>> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
>>> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
>>> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
>>> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>>
>>I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
>>At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
>>of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.
>>
>>But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
>>"business casual" as their normal dress.
>>
>>I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
>>others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
>>*Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?
>
> While I have no strong objections to the change in dress codes in the
> business environment, I do wonder about people who think that dressing
> a bit more formal is "uncomfortable". I never felt uncomfortable
> wearing a suit and tie. Doing so certainly never made me less
> productive.

I'm too hot, the coat collar rubs my neck, the tie makes the neck
constraint worse, the sleeves/shoulders limit arm motion. Don't tell me
it didn't fit right, I tried lots of things in various stores over the
years, and most of the ones I took home were modified to measure.

Basically, I (and much of the tech industry) views wearing a suit or a
tie as a gesture of submission we make to people who insist on it and
have the power to impose their will. And who value conformity over
results.

> Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
> middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
> me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
> with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
> people.

Has nothing to do with current dress fads, I dressed this way in 1980,
and close to this way in 1970. (I'm actually wearing cargo pants today;
I do that a fair amount since I discovered them.)

Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
probably impair their work effectiveness? This makes no sense to me.
The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
anything about his competence as a broker.

[Snidely]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> scribbled something like ...

> Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
> probably impair their work effectiveness?

If someone can't bother to get out of their PJs to meet with outsiders, I
may leap to conclusions about other efforts they may make on my behalf.

> This makes no sense to me.

Social reasoning can get complicated, I understand.

> The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
> conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
> anything about his competence as a broker.
>

Submitting? No. Showing respect for me? That would be a positive
influence on me.

How do you feel about Western businesspersons going to, say, Japan ...
should they make any effort to learn about what sort of bows and
handshakes are expected during meetings, or would that impair their
performance?

/dps

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
>>> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
>>> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
>>> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
>>> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>>
>>I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
>>At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
>>of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.
>>
>>But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
>>"business casual" as their normal dress.
>>
>>I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
>>others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
>>*Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?
>
> While I have no strong objections to the change in dress codes in the
> business environment, I do wonder about people who think that dressing
> a bit more formal is "uncomfortable". I never felt uncomfortable
> wearing a suit and tie. Doing so certainly never made me less
> productive.

I think it's purely a matter of not having worn them enough to ignore
them. If you put on a suit half a dozen times a year, you're going to
be accutely aware of the extra weight on your shoulders, the
unfamiliar feeling of having something touching the front of your
neck, and the decreased padding in your shoes.

My 13-year-old son[1] similarly doesn't like wearing jeans because
they feel uncomfortable to him. He wears shorts and lightweight
"sport pants", so jeans are "heavy" and "constricting". Of course, if
at some point he starts wearing them regularly, I have no doubt
they'll become as comfortable to him as they are to me.

I actually enjoy putting on a suit (my son thinks I'm weird) and feel
underdressed without at least a jacket and tie at things like
weddings, funerals, or High Holiday services. But it's definitely
"dressing up" to me. For work and on weekends, you can find me in
jeans and a button shirt, tennis shoes or sandals.

That's probably about median at my office. Many people wear more
formal pants and footwear, a number wear t-shirts and, sometimes,
shorts. A jacket and tie will typically get joking questions about
whether you have an interview scheduled at a competitor, but mostly
means that your entertaining high-level visitors who will expect it.

> Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
> middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
> me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
> with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
> people.

I can agree with that, although I'd say that it's two different
points. The not inspiring confidence is a job-specific thing and
what's expected for a job can be expected to change over time. A
stockbroker who dressed like one would have been expected to in the
late nineteenth century would similarly seem out-of-place.

[1] I must have blinked. Last night we attended the information
briefing at the high school he'll be attending in the fall.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |barbarian, and thinks that the
Chicago (1964-1982) |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |
| Shaw, _Caesar & Cleopatra_
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Skitt]

Snidely wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet scribbled something like ...

Here's a picture of me in my Test Engineer days at Lockheed. I was
supervising a bunch of techs then and writing software that ran the
testing systems.

http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/workplace.jpg

I am the one at the far left, second one up behind the front guy who is
holding his right arm. I have long hair, and I'm wearing a bleached
denim jacket (with a huge eagle embroidered on its back). This was in
the late '70s.

As the years went by, I trimmed my hair and quit wearing the jacket, but
other than that, I always dressed very informally (I didn't have to deal
with any outsiders, other that the occasional vendor who wanted to sell
us something).

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Dr Nick]

I went to one for a colleague a couple of months ago. He'd specifically
asked for bright colours (preferably green). I wore a shirt and tie -
with a loud tie: about the minimum I'd ware to any formal occasion.

Mind you, he was determined to put two fingers at to the whole respect
bit. He programmed "Bad Touch" for the music when the coffin went
behind the screen.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> scribbled something like ...
>
>
>> Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
>> probably impair their work effectiveness?
>
> If someone can't bother to get out of their PJs to meet with outsiders, I
> may leap to conclusions about other efforts they may make on my behalf.

Right, wasting effort on dressing up shows they'll devote their effort
to your business. That's insane.

All it shows it they're conforming to your idea of proper dress -- and
not to mine or a lot of other peoples'.

>> This makes no sense to me.
>
> Social reasoning can get complicated, I understand.

Yes, I notice a lot of people have a huge amount of trouble with it. If
you start from the assumption that the convention is the right, you'll
never be any good at it.

>> The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
>> conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
>> anything about his competence as a broker.
>>
>
> Submitting? No. Showing respect for me? That would be a positive
> influence on me.

It's "showing respect" to try to manipulate you by dressing to your
requirements? No, that's *disrespect*. Trying to manipulate somebody
is never respectful.

> How do you feel about Western businesspersons going to, say, Japan ...
> should they make any effort to learn about what sort of bows and
> handshakes are expected during meetings, or would that impair their
> performance?

Across such gulfs as that, both sides need to make attempts to bridge
the gap.

[Cheryl]

On 2012-02-10 5:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Snidely<snide...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> scribbled something like ...
>>
>>
>>> Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
>>> probably impair their work effectiveness?
>>
>> If someone can't bother to get out of their PJs to meet with outsiders, I
>> may leap to conclusions about other efforts they may make on my behalf.
>
> Right, wasting effort on dressing up shows they'll devote their effort
> to your business. That's insane.
>
> All it shows it they're conforming to your idea of proper dress -- and
> not to mine or a lot of other peoples'.
>
>>> This makes no sense to me.
>>
>> Social reasoning can get complicated, I understand.
>
> Yes, I notice a lot of people have a huge amount of trouble with it. If
> you start from the assumption that the convention is the right, you'll
> never be any good at it.
>
>>> The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
>>> conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
>>> anything about his competence as a broker.
>>>
>>
>> Submitting? No. Showing respect for me? That would be a positive
>> influence on me.
>
> It's "showing respect" to try to manipulate you by dressing to your
> requirements? No, that's *disrespect*. Trying to manipulate somebody
> is never respectful.

It's no more disrespectful to feel comfortable in the company of a
financial advisor (or other hired expert) in a suit than it is to feel
comfortable in the company of one in jeans. It might be manipulative for
a financial advisor to choose one or the other in order to make the
potential customer comfortable and happy, but that level of
'manipulation' is on the level of treating others with kindness and
respect by trying to please them - more of a virtue than a vice, I think.

--
Cheryl

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:09:07 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>

The way to protest against conformity is to all wear tee shirts.
Xerox and IBM seemed to get results from field tech people even though
they conformed to the company dress codes. It isn't an either/or
thing.

>> Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
>> middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
>> me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
>> with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
>> people.
>
>Has nothing to do with current dress fads, I dressed this way in 1980,
>and close to this way in 1970. (I'm actually wearing cargo pants today;
>I do that a fair amount since I discovered them.)
>
>Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
>probably impair their work effectiveness?

Your assumption here is that he - like you - feels that a more formal
mode of dress is uncomfortable. That's not at all necessarily the
case. It certainly wasn't for me.

The idea that a dress shirt somehow impairs a stockbroker at work is
baffling to me. If your jacket collar rises higher than your dress
shirt collar and rubs on your neck, you are buying ill-fitting
clothes.

>This makes no sense to me.
>The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
>conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
>anything about his competence as a broker.

I would not have confidence in a tech person's competence just because
he was wearing a tee shirt and cargo pants. I might question his
taste in music or causes, depending on the tee shirt, but it wouldn't
make me feel he was somehow better at his job because he is dressed a
particular way.

As far as "submission", we all submit to our bosses one way or the
other. Dress codes are just one area of possible requirements by the
bosses.

[Katy Jennison]

This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has before,
that women win in this respect. I have far more options if I want to be
both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially in hot weather
but also under most other circumstances. Why have men not risen up and
demanded liberation from suits and ties?

--
Katy Jennison

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I am not protesting against conformity (by my dress; I am protesting
against enforced conformity with my words here of course). I am
dressing to be comfortable. In some environments I look like everybody
else, in others I don't. I'm ont going counter to the field, I'm going
with what is comfortable for me.

> Xerox and IBM seemed to get results from field tech people even though
> they conformed to the company dress codes. It isn't an either/or
> thing.

Sure, I wouldn't say it totally prevents any work. In fact, I didn't.

It makes a bigger difference if you're doing something hard, in my
experience.

>>> Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
>>> middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
>>> me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
>>> with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
>>> people.
>>
>>Has nothing to do with current dress fads, I dressed this way in 1980,
>>and close to this way in 1970. (I'm actually wearing cargo pants today;
>>I do that a fair amount since I discovered them.)
>>
>>Why do you trust somebody who dresses in uncomfortable clothes that
>>probably impair their work effectiveness?
>
> Your assumption here is that he - like you - feels that a more formal
> mode of dress is uncomfortable. That's not at all necessarily the
> case. It certainly wasn't for me.

Not a question of what he feels, it's a question of what the
stockbroker feels (he's the one who is, or isn't, uncomfortable).

> The idea that a dress shirt somehow impairs a stockbroker at work is
> baffling to me. If your jacket collar rises higher than your dress
> shirt collar and rubs on your neck, you are buying ill-fitting
> clothes.

It presses on the shirt collar, making it more noticeable.

>>This makes no sense to me.
>>The only thing I can read out of it is you see him submitting to you by
>>conforming to your expectations -- which doesn't, to my mind, say
>>anything about his competence as a broker.
>
> I would not have confidence in a tech person's competence just because
> he was wearing a tee shirt and cargo pants.

Good; you shouldn't.

That's kind of the whole point, really -- dress doesn't tell you much of
anything about a person's competence.

> I might question his taste in music or causes, depending on the tee
> shirt, but it wouldn't make me feel he was somehow better at his job
> because he is dressed a particular way.

T-shirt today is blank, dark gray. I keep away from words on it at work,
especially political words. I sometimes wear T-shirts from state parks
around the state and further afield.

> As far as "submission", we all submit to our bosses one way or the
> other. Dress codes are just one area of possible requirements by the
> bosses.

Varying ways, and to varying degrees, yes.

[tony cooper]

At a Florida funeral, there would be no coats. This is not
necessarily a good thing. When the attendees are elderly, a coat
would cover up terribly out-of-date suits and sports jackets. The
older the crowd, the more likely it is that the men will be wearing
suits, sports jackets, and ties purchased in a completely different
fashion and body weight era.

[R H Draney]

Dr Nick filted:

>
>I went to one for a colleague a couple of months ago. He'd specifically
>asked for bright colours (preferably green). I wore a shirt and tie -
>with a loud tie: about the minimum I'd ware to any formal occasion.
>
>Mind you, he was determined to put two fingers at to the whole respect
>bit. He programmed "Bad Touch" for the music when the coffin went
>behind the screen.

I'm going to have to start programming the music for mine one of these days...I
wish I could be there to see the reaction to "Paralyzed":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzpVO5FiER8

[David Dyer-Bennet]

We have; isn't that what I was just saying?

On the other hand, sometimes I see women freezing to death, when men
wearing suits and ties get to determine the air conditioning settings.

[Peter Brooks]

On Feb 11, 12:16 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>
> That's kind of the whole point, really -- dress doesn't tell you much of
> anything about a person's competence.
>

'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?

[Snidely]

Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> scribbled something like ...

> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has before,
> that women win in this respect. I have far more options if I want to be
> both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially in hot weather
> but also under most other circumstances. Why have men not risen up and
> demanded liberation from suits and ties?
>

Because it got us Nehru jackets in avocado or moss?

/dps

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Very much, of course.

Most especially when everybody is dressing the same by decree; at that
point it tells you very little indeed about the individual.

[tony cooper]

Liberation? I always felt a bit more confident and a bit more
self-assured when in a suit and well-chosen tie when in a business
environment.

If we're honest, appearance means a lot to all of us. We are
uncomfortable if over-dressed or under-dressed for the occasion and
the crowd. I'm not sure women have the advantage there. I can
compromise if I don't know what the expected wear will be. A blazer,
a open-necked solid-color dress shirt, and leather shoes puts me no
worse than the middle for any occasion. The blazer can stay on or
come off and the shirt sleeves can be rolled up. My wife is stuck
with the look she leaves the house in.

David D-B chooses to wear tee shirts, but admits that just any tee
shirt isn't appropriate. By choice of tee shirt design, he's making a
similar statement to the stockbroker...a National Parks tee shirt says
he's an enviornmentally-aware progressive-type of guy who may rock
climb and volunteer to clean up a waterway on weekends. A plain tee
shirt says he's moderate and not out to offend anyone with a political
statement or date himself by wearing last year's band logo.

Women don't understand neckties, but that's our spot of color and
individuality. I noticed, during the political debates on TV, that
Sarah Palin, Hilary Clinton, and Michelle Bachman often wore red
dresses. That's a strong color that makes a statement about the
wearer.

The men, though, all wear dark blue suits or dark blue with
pinstripes. You can't tell them apart if their back is to you.
Facing you, though, you see the neckties. Why not allow us our
peacock moment? You do it with dress color and scarves.

One last point...David D-B might not have this problem, but a
well-tailored suit makes me look slimmer. Tee shirts have the opposite
effect.

[LFS]

Perhaps because many of them don't feel a need to be liberated and feel
quite comfortable in them?

Son caused many more arguments about appropriate clothing than Daughter
when young. Working in a creative industry, he can wear whatever he
chooses now but he did eventually conclude that smartening up for
important meetings - the sort where you want people to give you money -
was a good idea.

[Skitt]

Peter Brooks wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> That's kind of the whole point, really -- dress doesn't tell you much of
>> anything about a person's competence.
>>
> 'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?

It really depends. The man could be downplaying his status. Some call
that "sandbagging".

I have been known to "sandbag" in my younger days.

[Skitt]

tony cooper wrote:

> Katy Jennison wrote:

>> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has before,
>> that women win in this respect. I have far more options if I want to be
>> both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially in hot weather
>> but also under most other circumstances. Why have men not risen up and
>> demanded liberation from suits and ties?
>
> Liberation? I always felt a bit more confident and a bit more
> self-assured when in a suit and well-chosen tie when in a business
> environment.

A lack of self-assurance is something I never suffered from in my work
environment. I also enjoyed a certain reputation that allowed me to be
pretty much my own boss. I was lucky that way.

[tony cooper]

We were in different fields. I had to deal with new people all the
time. When in sales, customers. When I started the company,
potential vendors. Yesterday's success never meant much today.

The customers were surgeons, and they didn't like to appear to be
influenced by someone of lower caste like a non-M.D..

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Peter Brooks wrote:

>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>> That's kind of the whole point, really -- dress doesn't
>> tell you much of anything about a person's competence.
>

True.

>
> 'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?
>

No.

Proverb: "Clothes make the man."
German: "Kleider machen Leute."
Swedish: "Kläderna gör mannen."
Dutch: "Kleren maken de man."

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
I need Facebook's "social network"
like I need a social disease.

[Mike Lyle]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:53:23 -0500, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

>
>Women don't understand neckties, but that's our spot of color and
>individuality. I noticed, during the political debates on TV, that
>Sarah Palin, Hilary Clinton, and Michelle Bachman often wore red
>dresses. That's a strong color that makes a statement about the
>wearer.
>
>The men, though, all wear dark blue suits or dark blue with
>pinstripes. You can't tell them apart if their back is to you.
>Facing you, though, you see the neckties. Why not allow us our
>peacock moment? You do it with dress color and scarves.
>

And cufflinks. They're the only kind of jewelllery I can stand
wearing, and even among my cosy casual shirt comfort, I still
sometimes regret that I don't often have the chance to wear links any
more.

>One last point...David D-B might not have this problem, but a
>well-tailored suit makes me look slimmer. Tee shirts have the opposite
>effect.

Dead right, I'm sad to say. Few men don't look better in a suit (my
ex-brother-in-law had the most extraordinary knack of looking neat in
absolutely any clothes: I can't make a similar claim).

(Have we mentioned before that in OurE a "dress" shirt is for evening
dress? I'm not sure what we call an ordinary shirt: "an ordinary
shirt", probably. Button-down collar makes it an "Oxford"; but I can't
be specific about the rest.)

--
Mike.

[Joe Fineman]

Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:

> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has
> before, that women win in this respect. I have far more options if
> I want to be both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially
> in hot weather but also under most other circumstances. Why have
> men not risen up and demanded liberation from suits and ties?

This point was made vigorously so long ago as 1939, by a famous
fashion designer named Elizabeth Hawes, in a book titled _Men Can Take
It_. She sniggered at men who made fun of women's fashions, and
pointed out that no-one forced them to wear 3 times as much clothing
as women on summer days. The book is full of remarkably up-to-date
good sense, despite being in many respects a charming period piece.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-can-take-Elizabeth-Hawes/dp/B0006AOJ4C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328999379&sr=1-1
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: There I was, starring in the band, drooping myself into a :||
||: stinker,... :||

[Joe Fineman]

LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:

> Son caused many more arguments about appropriate clothing than
> Daughter when young. Working in a creative industry, he can wear
> whatever he chooses now but he did eventually conclude that
> smartening up for important meetings - the sort where you want
> people to give you money - was a good idea.

In my 70s, I do it once or twice a year, for fun. It makes me feel
grown up.

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Before filling your wheelbarrow, point it in the direction :||
||: you intend to go. :||

[Joe Fineman]

Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net> writes:

> Peter Brooks wrote:

>> 'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?
>>
> No.
>
> Proverb: "Clothes make the man."
> German: "Kleider machen Leute."
> Swedish: "Kläderna gör mannen."
> Dutch: "Kleren maken de man."

In English, however, we also have the expression "stuffed shirt".

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Laissez-faire means laissez-unfair. :||

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:01:48 +0000, Mike Lyle
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>One last point...David D-B might not have this problem, but a
>>well-tailored suit makes me look slimmer. Tee shirts have the opposite
>>effect.
>
>Dead right, I'm sad to say. Few men don't look better in a suit (my
>ex-brother-in-law had the most extraordinary knack of looking neat in
>absolutely any clothes: I can't make a similar claim).
>
>(Have we mentioned before that in OurE a "dress" shirt is for evening
>dress? I'm not sure what we call an ordinary shirt: "an ordinary
>shirt", probably. Button-down collar makes it an "Oxford"; but I can't
>be specific about the rest.)

A dress shirt, in my vocabulary, is a shirt that can be worn with a
necktie. It's not a rule, but you would normally buy a shirt with a
specific collar size and not a shirt that comes in a shirt size like
small, medium or large. Collar size here is by the inch: 15", 15
1/2", etc.

Cuffs would be barrel (button) or French (cufflinks). "Oxford", to
me, is the material and not a style. I wouldn't expect an Oxford
cloth shirt to have French cuffs, but they usually have a button-down
collar. A shirt with a non-button-down collar and French cuffs might
be pinpoint cotton.

I'm rather traditional, and don't recognize a short-sleeve shirt as a
dress shirt or one that should be worn with a tie. I'm, by far, in
the minority on this in Florida.

What you seem to call a "dress shirt" is what I would call a "tux
shirt", but I don't know what clothiers call them. Also, I don't know
what you call that pleated bib-like thing on the front of them.

I've worn a tux at weddings and a few upscale charity events, but
don't own anything except the socks and the shoes. I cheated on the
shoes and wore plain black shoes and not the patent leather shoes that
the tux rental places offer.

I've never had occasion to wear a dinner jacket. We might have a term
conflict here...a tux - tuxedo has a black jacket and a dinner jacket
is white. To me. Other colors are available, but that's just weird
to me.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:31:16 -0500, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:
>
>> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has
>> before, that women win in this respect. I have far more options if
>> I want to be both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially
>> in hot weather but also under most other circumstances. Why have
>> men not risen up and demanded liberation from suits and ties?
>
>This point was made vigorously so long ago as 1939, by a famous
>fashion designer named Elizabeth Hawes, in a book titled _Men Can Take
>It_. She sniggered at men who made fun of women's fashions, and
>pointed out that no-one forced them to wear 3 times as much clothing
>as women on summer days. The book is full of remarkably up-to-date
>good sense, despite being in many respects a charming period piece.
>

Hmmph. I'll start listening to women who want to liberate me from
uncomfortable things when the women don't have the heels of their feet
four inches off the ground and their toes jammed into points.

[R H Draney]

tony cooper filted:

>
>Hmmph. I'll start listening to women who want to liberate me from
>uncomfortable things when the women don't have the heels of their feet
>four inches off the ground and their toes jammed into points.

You may be on the verge of starting a new trend: seeking fashion advice from
only the butchest of lesbians....r

[Nick Spalding]

tony cooper wrote, in <3b1ej7das3n8uhier...@4ax.com>
on Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:25:24 -0500:

>I've never had occasion to wear a dinner jacket. We might have a term
>conflict here...a tux - tuxedo has a black jacket and a dinner jacket
>is white. To me. Other colors are available, but that's just weird
>to me.

I came across my dinner suit - black jacket and trousers - the other
day at the back of a wardrobe. Bought in 1951 and needless to say not
fitting too well now.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[the Omrud]

UK term: a dinner suit is matched black trousers and jacket. The jacket
lapels and the stripes down the outer edges of the trouser legs are
usually made from a more shiny material, although still black. It's
traditionally worn with a white dress shirt and black bow tie, and
optionally a more colourful cummerbund. It is the normal uniform for
men in classical choirs, for which reason I wear one several times a
year. I have a very nice one from M&S which is washable (hurray). A
dinner jacket is the jacket of the dinner suit.

I think the only other time I've worn it is at a works event where we
were asked to, although I noticed that some men were in dark business
suits, presumably because they didn't own dinner suits. My family
doesn't go in for formal-dress weddings, which in any case seem to be a
recent phenomenon. A jacket and tie is fine for any wedding I've ever
been to.

"tux" is not a UK word, and I suspect it's used for different items of
clothing by BrE speakers who have adopted it.

--
David

[Joe Fineman]

She was against that too, as a matter of fact.

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: So near, and yet, so what? :||

[Mike Lyle]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:43:03 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/02/2012 02:25, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> A dress shirt, in my vocabulary, is a shirt that can be worn with a
>> necktie. It's not a rule, but you would normally buy a shirt with a
>> specific collar size and not a shirt that comes in a shirt size like
>> small, medium or large. Collar size here is by the inch: 15", 15
>> 1/2", etc.
>>
>> Cuffs would be barrel (button) or French (cufflinks). "Oxford", to
>> me, is the material and not a style. I wouldn't expect an Oxford
>> cloth shirt to have French cuffs, but they usually have a button-down
>> collar. A shirt with a non-button-down collar and French cuffs might
>> be pinpoint cotton.
>>
>> I'm rather traditional, and don't recognize a short-sleeve shirt as a
>> dress shirt or one that should be worn with a tie. I'm, by far, in
>> the minority on this in Florida.

I don't know if it still happens, but in Queensland you could see a
businessman in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with a tie.

I've got one of those washable M&S ones for choral purposes, too. I
was a bit embarrassed about it, but the bloke next to me also has one.
It's only stage costume, after all. I've grown out of three proper
woollen instances of the damn things (only one of them bought new),
and found out about the last one only when I had to eat at an Inn of
Court: I had to rush out and buy a suit, as I thought it infra dig to
wear M&S evening dress (what a prat!), but was OK about one of their
lounge suits. I've now grown out of that suit, too.

No way am I going to lash out on patent shoes.

Ob Tuxedo. We tend to think of formal wear as of Brit origin, but I
think the DJ was invented at or for the Tuxedo Club. To my great
surprise, I discovered that my son didn't use the term "dinner jacket"
at all, and many of his generation seem to say "tux". When young, I
thought "Tuxedo" was just the American term for a white DJ; not sure
when I found out the true American usage as detailed above by Tony.

We all received an invitation marked "Lounge suits" a few months ago,
and only one of my young + partners knew what it meant. They felt it
probably didn't mean track suits, but were otherwise without clue. I
blame the parents. I had to improvise a quick sartorial history lesson
(not my specialist subject) to explain how what I call, if pressed, a
"lounge suit" came to be to them a "business suit": I still remember
black coats and striped pants being quite unremarkable.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Feb 11, 7:25 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:01:48 +0000, Mike Lyle

> <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
...

> I'm rather traditional, and don't recognize a short-sleeve shirt as a
> dress shirt or one that should be worn with a tie.  I'm, by far, in
> the minority on this in Florida.

Richard Fontana agreed with you there, as I recall. Farther north I
think you'd be in the majority, at least among the people who
routinely wear ties.

> What you seem to call a "dress shirt" is what I would call a "tux
> shirt", but I don't know what clothiers call them.  Also, I don't know
> what you call that pleated bib-like thing on the front of them.

I think I'd probably call the shirt "one of those pleated shirts you
wear with a tux". In some circumstances I might say "tuxdo" or
"dinner jacket".

> I've worn a tux at weddings and a few upscale charity events, but
> don't own anything except the socks and the shoes.  I cheated on the
> shoes and wore plain black shoes and not the patent leather shoes that
> the tux rental places offer.
>
> I've never had occasion to wear a dinner jacket.  We might have a term
> conflict here...a tux - tuxedo has a black jacket and a dinner jacket
> is white.  To me.

Not to everyone. This is from "Don't Waste Any Film on the Horses: A
Day at the Carolina Cup", by Eugene Rogers, "published" in a college
literary magazine (which I also contributed to) in 1981. It's a
humorous essay on a one-day series of steeplechases (for horses) held
in Camden, S. C., in April.

"'You have to understand,' she says, 'After today you wear white
dinner jackets instead of black.'"

That's a stratum I've had only peripheral contact with.

> Other colors are available, but that's just weird
> to me.

Once normal for weddings in (ahem) certain social classes, but Google
Image searches for "prom" and "wedding tux" suggest that black is
back.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Joe Fineman wrote:

>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> 'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> Proverb: "Clothes make the man."
>> German: "Kleider machen Leute."
>> Swedish: "Kläderna gör mannen."
>> Dutch: "Kleren maken de man."
>
> In English, however, we also have the expression "stuffed shirt".
>

???

[Jerry Friedman]

On Feb 12, 3:03 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
...

> I had to improvise a quick sartorial history lesson
> (not my specialist subject) to explain how what I call, if pressed, a
> "lounge suit"

What do you call it if it's wrinkled?

Sorry. Really.

> came to be to them a "business suit": I still remember
> black coats and striped pants being quite unremarkable.

I wore that once as an usher in a wedding.

"Pants"? Would my saying "shambolic" be an appropriate return for
that?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Leslie Danks]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:43:53 -0800, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:

> Joe Fineman wrote:
>>
>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'The apparel oft proclaims the man' - disagree?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Proverb: "Clothes make the man." German: "Kleider machen Leute."
>>> Swedish: "Kläderna gör mannen."
>>> Dutch: "Kleren maken de man."
>>
>> In English, however, we also have the expression "stuffed shirt".
>>
> ???

A dish much favoured by cannibals, I believe.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Mark Brader]

David Dyer-Bennet:

> I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
> others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
> *Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?

Hear, hear.
--
Mark Brader "All this government stuff, in other words,
Toronto is not reading matter, but prefabricated
m...@vex.net parts of quarrels." -- Rudolf Flesch

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:37:35 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet:
>> I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
>> others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
>> *Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?
>
>Hear, hear.

If I had David D-B's full and bushy beard and long hair, it would make
me uncomfortable. I've tried growing a beard, but I find it itchy and
annoying.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I find it comfortable, whereas I find shaving regularly annoying.

However, I have no objection to other people not wearing beards. I
wouldn't make it a religious requirement.

[Dr Nick]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>

> wrote:
>
>>LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Good thing, too. There should be more laws about how to dress, since
>>> we seem to have failed to pass on any idea of appropriateness to
>>> subsequent generations. We are taking a bunch of students to visit the
>>> headquarters of a leading accountancy firm and I was horrified to see
>>> that they needed a page of instructions on suitable attire.
>>
>>I came along JUST at the right time -- when dress codes were going out.
>>At this point my boss at a fairly hot young hedge fund wears jeans most
>>of the time, and *I* wear t-shirts.
>>
>>But then, a decade ago the big Wall Street firms had already gone to
>>"business casual" as their normal dress.
>>

>>I'm afraid you're just falling behind the times, and trying to make
>>others suffer as you did. Why should I wear uncomfortable clothes?
>>*Especially* to work, where they'll distract me from being productive?
>

> While I have no strong objections to the change in dress codes in the
> business environment, I do wonder about people who think that dressing
> a bit more formal is "uncomfortable". I never felt uncomfortable
> wearing a suit and tie. Doing so certainly never made me less
> productive.
>
> Jeans and a tee shirt may be alright for some, but an over-weight
> middle-aged stockbroker in a tee shirt doesn't inspire confidence in
> me. (Not that I'm saying that that's you) The problem with going
> with the current dress-fad is that certain styles don't flatter many
> people.

I wear a shirt and tie to work. There are a variety of reasons, but one
is that I like the symbolic divide between "home me" and "work me" and
wearing different clothes helps. There's something about taking your
tie off to symbolise "right, that's it!" that is very satisfying.

And I enjoy my job.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

[Dr Nick]

Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:

> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has
> before, that women win in this respect. I have far more options if I
> want to be both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially in
> hot weather but also under most other circumstances. Why have men not
> risen up and demanded liberation from suits and ties?

I've always felt the opposite. It's really easy for men: if it's a
formal occasion it's your suit. A very posh one, your DJ, anything else
open necked shirt and casual trousers or jeans and t-shirt.

That's it. No problems with "have a worn it before" or "what if Bill is
wearing the same thing". No "is it too flirty or two stiff". Dead easy
for men, a nightmare for women.

[Joe Fineman]

Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:

> I wear a shirt and tie to work. There are a variety of reasons, but
> one is that I like the symbolic divide between "home me" and "work
> me" and wearing different clothes helps. There's something about
> taking your tie off to symbolise "right, that's it!" that is very
> satisfying.

During my respectable years (1964-71), I accomplished that by
switching from pants with creases to jeans when I got home.

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Politicians stop stinking when they die. :||

[LFS]

On 14/02/2012 20:13, Dr Nick wrote:
> Katy Jennison<ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:
>
>> This is quite an enlightening thread. It strikes me, as it has
>> before, that women win in this respect. I have far more options if I
>> want to be both smart and comfortable than most men do, especially in
>> hot weather but also under most other circumstances. Why have men not
>> risen up and demanded liberation from suits and ties?
>
> I've always felt the opposite. It's really easy for men: if it's a
> formal occasion it's your suit. A very posh one, your DJ, anything else
> open necked shirt and casual trousers or jeans and t-shirt.
>
> That's it. No problems with "have a worn it before" or "what if Bill is
> wearing the same thing". No "is it too flirty or two stiff". Dead easy
> for men, a nightmare for women.

None of those things worry me (although I might be a bit surprised if
Bill was wearing the same thing as me) and very few of my female friends
would worry either. But I have known some men who agonised over their
clothing in a similar way.

I hesitate to ask but "two stiff"?

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[franzi]

LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote

I think it ought to be a large G&T, or a double whammy, but haven't the
Latin to prove it.
--
franzi

[Dr Nick]

Heaven alone knows now. Obviously should have been "too" but "stiff"
probably should have been "formal". My brain is definitely turning to
mush, no bout adoubt it.

[tony cooper]

I found "two stiff" quite easy to understand. I mentally changed the
"two" to "too" because of context, and understood the "stiff" to mean
overly-dressy for the occasion.

I don't think of women's outfits as being "formal". Men's, yes. Men
can dress too formally for the occasion, and women can over-dress for
the occasion. Neither, however, seems to be a problem anymore. The
opposite is the problem.

[Katy Jennison]

Yes, isn't that where we came in? The youth of today not dressing
appropriately for job interviews?

I do, though, appreciate it when an event invitation includes a dress
code. It's surely the hosts' responsibility to help the attendees to
avoid the embarrassment of showing up in a tux to a jeans event, and
vice versa.

If in doubt, actually, I ask the hostess. Hosts aren't usually very
forthcoming about this sort of thing.


--
Katy Jennison