Winter walking gear & clothing



On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:54:44 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Laird wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, any Real Man knows that undies can be used about 4 times over
>> (inside out and/or reversed) and would have kept schtum.

>
>It isn't a smell problem, it's a soaking wet with seawater comfort
>issue! Fortunately I've a foam seat and a good spraydeck so managed to
>keep everything in the cockpit dry so didn't need to take Roos up on her
>offer ;-/


With a good seat and spraydeck, I imagine going commando is another option
:)

--
Computer widow: Family goes broke watching Dad have fun.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:57:09 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> Not so, Peter. Not here (N England). 'Pants' refers to outer wear
>> only, for either sex. Underpants are underwear.

>
>I have several N. English acquaintances who don't appear to think the
>same way.


Probably from the wrong side of the Pennines.

> Most often use the term as "Pants!" as a very mild expletive.
>
>Pete.



That's a very new usage.
The word comes from 'pantaloons', which were an outer garment.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:47:32 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:03:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Pants are an undergarment or a colloquialism for ****
>>IME, I don't think we should encourage the outdoor trade to change the
>>language for no good reason!

>
>Not so, Peter. Not here (N England). 'Pants' refers to outer wear
>only, for either sex. Underpants are underwear.


A use I have yet to encounter, despite consorting with a bunch of
Yorkshiremen for longer than I care to remember and living just outside
Manchester since 93. To which backwater dost thou refer, prithee ?

--
Sure I can help you out, which way did you come in?

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:06:28 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:47:32 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:03:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Pants are an undergarment or a colloquialism for ****
>>>IME, I don't think we should encourage the outdoor trade to change the
>>>language for no good reason!

>>
>>Not so, Peter. Not here (N England). 'Pants' refers to outer wear
>>only, for either sex. Underpants are underwear.

>
>A use I have yet to encounter, despite consorting with a bunch of
>Yorkshiremen for longer than I care to remember and living just outside
>Manchester since 93. To which backwater dost thou refer, prithee ?


The capital of the North, the European Capital of culcher 2008,
Britain's second city as was. The route to Empire.

Maybe it's a class thing?

I never heard anyone refer to their underwear as pants, anywhere I've
been. Always underpants for men, knickers, drawers or (more recently)
panties for women. Occasionally, among old people, knickers used for
men too.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:41:04 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>Shall we move onto the Great Scone Pronunciation Debate? ;-)


What debate? The word is pronounced "skon".

Right, next topic?

:)




Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On 31 Dec 2004 13:20:03 GMT, Roos Eisma <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peewiglet <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>However, I wonder whether it may be a regional thing with 'pants' and
>>trousers. I've actually always called long pants/trousers either pants
>>or trousers: to me 'pants' just sounds slightly less formal, and, of
>>course, it's quicker to type. Also, 'pants' has never been a
>>colloquialism for **** where I live, and although I've often seen it
>>used to mean '****' in the broader sense, in recent years, I had no
>>idea that it had literal overtones.

>
>On our way to a sea kayaking overnight trip, shortly after we met:
>
>Pete: Oops, I forgot to bring spare pants
>Me (having a spare pair of Tracksters): You can borrow some of mine


I'd have said exactly the same! (Well, assuming I'd had a spare pair
etc).

>Some odd looks in both directions later we cleared up the language
>confusion :)


It could have been fun! :)

>I started off using a mix of UK and USA words, I learned English from a
>mix of sources and most of the time wasn't aware of it being one or the
>other.


I used to enjoy hearing new American words, and as a child it was fun
to giggle about the confusion over chip, crisp etc, but I find the
creeping Merkinisation of our language very disturbing. Viva la
difference, etc!


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:04:12 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>>> Not so, Peter. Not here (N England). 'Pants' refers to outer wear
>>> only, for either sex. Underpants are underwear.


That's my experience, certainly...
>>
>>I have several N. English acquaintances who don't appear to think the
>>same way.

>
>Probably from the wrong side of the Pennines.


No doubt!
>
>> Most often use the term as "Pants!" as a very mild expletive.


>That's a very new usage.


My experience also!

>The word comes from 'pantaloons', which were an outer garment.


Ha, the killer blow.... :)



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:14:28 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>I never heard anyone refer to their underwear as pants, anywhere I've
>been. Always underpants for men, knickers, drawers or (more recently)
>panties for women. Occasionally, among old people, knickers used for
>men too.


I don't believe I ever did either, until fairly recent years, even at
Uni, where there were people from all sorts of backgrounds drawn from
all over the country. Blokes there seemed to refer to their underpants
as underpants, or shreddies, or skiddies, or boxers, or shorts. Not
pants. That was the early 80s: maybe it's an age thing?


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:17:26 +0000, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I don't believe I ever did either, until fairly recent years, even at
>Uni, where there were people from all sorts of backgrounds drawn from
>all over the country. Blokes there seemed to refer to their underpants
>as underpants, or shreddies, or skiddies, or boxers, or shorts. Not
>pants. That was the early 80s: maybe it's an age thing?


I won't ask what you did at uni!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:50:43 +0000, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]
>they did, so I'm going to re-proof them thoroughly in accordance with
>Paramo's instructions before I wear them again next weekend.


I'm using pure soap flakes instead of the Nikwax/Grangers washing
product, and at the moment I'm having a run through the washing
machine w/o clothing, just to wash the detergent residues away.

I carefully measured out the required amount, in a/c with the
instructions on the side of the soap flakes box. However, there was a
scene in Dr Who right back in the late 60s/early 70s that some of you
may have seen, which captures very accurately the appearance of the
washing machine at this moment... :)




Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:21:41 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:17:26 +0000, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't believe I ever did either, until fairly recent years, even at
>>Uni, where there were people from all sorts of backgrounds drawn from
>>all over the country. Blokes there seemed to refer to their underpants
>>as underpants, or shreddies, or skiddies, or boxers, or shorts. Not
>>pants. That was the early 80s: maybe it's an age thing?

>
>I won't ask what you did at uni!


Heh heh.... it did occur to me after I sent that that it might wrongly
(of course) appear that I had an unnatural familiarity with the way
blokes described their u/pants... in the OTC, though, they seemed to
talk about their underwear on a very regular basis! :)



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:06:18 +0000, Peewiglet wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:41:04 +0000, Peter Clinch
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>Shall we move onto the Great Scone Pronunciation Debate? ;-)

>
>What debate? The word is pronounced "skon".


Is that an o omicron or o omega?
>
>Right, next topic?


Compass vs GPS?

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:03:38 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>[...]
>>>Shall we move onto the Great Scone Pronunciation Debate? ;-)

>>
>>What debate? The word is pronounced "skon".

>
>Is that an o omicron or o omega?


Omicron, naturally :)

>>Right, next topic?


>Compass vs GPS?


Music v. no music?

Walking poles or not?

Mobile phones, anyone?


:)


Walkers are such an argumentative bunch!

(Except for me, of course.)



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
"Phil Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:06:18 +0000, Peewiglet wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:41:04 +0000, Peter Clinch
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>>Shall we move onto the Great Scone Pronunciation Debate? ;-)

>>
>>What debate? The word is pronounced "skon".

>
> Is that an o omicron or o omega?


Hmm, it's an o as in

Q: What's the fastest cake in the world?

A: S'gone.


druidh
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:24:12 +0000, Peewiglet <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]
>>Compass vs GPS?

>
>Music v. no music?
>
>Walking poles or not?
>
>Mobile phones, anyone?


Mea culpa. How on earth could I have omitted Goretex v. Paramo from
the list.... :)


<Trots downstairs to put Paramo pantrousers in the washing machine>



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
Peewiglet wrote on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:11:34 +0000....
> I used to enjoy hearing new American words, and as a child it was fun
> to giggle about the confusion over chip, crisp etc, but I find the
> creeping Merkinisation of our language very disturbing. Viva la
> difference, etc!


The chairman of the quoted multinational company that I work for is
well travelled and should have known better. But that didn't stop him
walking into an American stationery shop, choosing a sweet and
innocent young female assistant, and telling her that he wanted to buy
a rubber.

True story, I was there at the time.

--
Tim Jackson
[email protected]lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:25:25 GMT, "druidh" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Phil Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:06:18 +0000, Peewiglet wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:41:04 +0000, Peter Clinch
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>>Shall we move onto the Great Scone Pronunciation Debate? ;-)
>>>
>>>What debate? The word is pronounced "skon".

>>
>> Is that an o omicron or o omega?

>
>Hmm, it's an o as in
>
>Q: What's the fastest cake in the world?
>
>A: S'gone.


:) That's the one!


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:39:36 +0000, Gordon Harris
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>>>I used to enjoy hearing new American words, and as a child it was fun
>>>to giggle about the confusion over chip, crisp etc, but I find the
>>>creeping Merkinisation of our language very disturbing. Viva la
>>>difference, etc!

>>
>>You hate the Merkinisation and so you keep attempting to speak in
>>French...?

>
>Actually, he is tri-lingual. :)
>
>Viva is Spanish, la is French, difference is English.


I like to think I'm an adaptable sort of piglet.... :)


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:08:55 -0000, Tim Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote:


[...]
>The chairman of the quoted multinational company that I work for is
>well travelled and should have known better. But that didn't stop him
>walking into an American stationery shop, choosing a sweet and
>innocent young female assistant, and telling her that he wanted to buy
>a rubber.


And was the assistant able to laugh about it? Things were pretty
strait-laced when I worked as a trip guide in Massachusetts one summer
in the early 80s... too sexually repressed for that sort of giggle, as
I recall.


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:54:05 +0000, Peewiglet wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:39:36 +0000, Gordon Harris
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>>>I used to enjoy hearing new American words, and as a child it was fun
>>>>to giggle about the confusion over chip, crisp etc, but I find the
>>>>creeping Merkinisation of our language very disturbing. Viva la
>>>>difference, etc!
>>>
>>>You hate the Merkinisation and so you keep attempting to speak in
>>>French...?

>>
>>Actually, he is tri-lingual. :)
>>
>>Viva is Spanish, la is French, difference is English.

>
>I like to think I'm an adaptable sort of piglet.... :)


Perhaps you are bisextile as well?

Actually, he is tri-lingual
^^
Just a leap in the dark. :)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"