|
-
21st September 07, 08:57 PM
#1
I would only critique the shirt for being tucked in. I would much prefer to see a white t-shirt underneath it and the Hawaiian shirt unbuttoned.
There is also the British common law that anything twice done becomes a tradition.
My own philosophy is pretty close to Lawson's, "Great Scotch, no rules". Take a deep breath and realize that every kilt "rule", let alone every fashion "rule", is fraud. Not one can be substantiated. So, as you dress, think of who you might offend. If you don't want to offend them, dress accordingly. If it doesn't matter, dress as you like.
So, on our anniversary this past summer, I wore my kilt with sandals and a t-shirt to walk on the beach and lunch at a cliff side pub. Later, I changed into socks and shoes, and dress shirt for a more formal fancy supper. Still later, I was about to change to another black tshirt and boots to hang out with my daughter downtown. I decided to call it a night and didn't go. The point is that I kept the same kilt and sporran on all day and changed other items to what seemed appropriate at the time. I probably broke tons of fashion rules. Do I care? No, my fashion conscience is clean.
I appeal to an earlier tradition.
(Before anybody takes exception to my statement about substantiating, understand that even if you could find a legitimate originator of a fashion tradition, my statement means what does it matter, really?)
Fortunately, my clan/heritage has a strong tradition: Despite Them!
-
-
22nd September 07, 02:46 PM
#2
 Originally Posted by Archangel
Fortunately, my clan/heritage has a strong tradition: Despite Them!
Well put. :-)
I'd simply add that every observation about rules, conventions, written or unwritten would be equally valid if we substitute the word (pardon the expression) "troosers" for "kilt."
Ken Sallenger - apprentice kiltmaker, journeyman curmudgeon,
gainfully unemployed systems programmer
-
-
22nd September 07, 02:59 PM
#3
 Originally Posted by Archangel
...
There is also the British common law that anything twice done becomes a tradition....
Huh? Where did you hear that?
-
-
22nd September 07, 03:02 PM
#4
Geographical
How long it takes something to become a tradition depends on where you are.
In most of the UK, it takes at least 200 years.
In the American South it takes 300 years.
In the US east coast, it takes about 100 years.
On the US West Coast, it can take up to 20 minutes.
-
-
22nd September 07, 03:06 PM
#5
 Originally Posted by gilmore
On the US West Coast, it can take up to 20 minutes.
But...why wait so long?
-
-
22nd September 07, 03:14 PM
#6
 Originally Posted by Coinneach
But...why wait so long?
You have a point. Twenty minutes or until the espresso is brewed, whichever comes first.
-
-
24th September 07, 08:07 AM
#7
 Originally Posted by gilmore
You have a point. Twenty minutes or until the espresso is brewed, whichever comes first.
Oh, that is SO twenty minutes ago.
We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance. - Japanese Proverb
-
-
22nd September 07, 04:00 PM
#8
 Originally Posted by gilmore
Huh? Where did you hear that?
You are in a mood today, aren't you.
Google it!
-
-
22nd September 07, 04:32 PM
#9
 Originally Posted by Archangel
You are in a mood today, aren't you.
Google it!
Anglo-American common law is law created by the courts and is followed as precedence, as opposed to statutory law created by legislative bodies. I really doubt that any court would come up with a holding that "anything twice done becomes a tradition."
-
-
22nd September 07, 07:38 PM
#10
 Originally Posted by gilmore
Anglo-American common law is law created by the courts and is followed as precedence, as opposed to statutory law created by legislative bodies. I really doubt that any court would come up with a holding that "anything twice done becomes a tradition."
There is no such thing as Anglo American "common law". Two separate countries sharing an arbitrary law structure, highly unlikely don't you think?
I'm not even sure that America, the U.S., has such a thing as "common law". I have the feeling that part of the uprising in 1766 was to get rid of that.
The UK does, although that is being reduced. It's still strong in Scotland's law. I hope somebody in the UK can update us on that.
You can google it to find the references, I did, successfully.
In any case, this is taking us away from the topic and the point of my original post.
To paraphrase Monty Python: contradiction/challenge (tracking your posts today) is not conversation. The debate paradigm says that you should posit your counter, i.e. provide where in British law tradition is defined. Then I defend my statement, etc. That way we both learn something.
Your call, until then, I'm "standing down" and not getting drawn in further.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks