or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ShaneB

None at all - that's the point: they literally left nothing upturned, they hemmed them as if they were jeans. The trousers weren't cuffed so I can't even go down that route.
Point taken. Looks like I'll have to view it as a very annoying (and expensive) lesson; does seems like a commonsensical point to me though that they leave some material left, it's all well and good them measuring but what about shrinkage or even future saleability? Oh well - if anyone wants some size 32 x 31.5 trousers let me know!
Does anybody know of any London / England equivalent to the much lauded Thick as Thieves suit makers? They seem to have unbeatable prices for decent canvassed suits and yet they're unparalleled (by my reckoning) in this country [England]
Is it customary to request that the tailor, when hemming unhemmed trousers, leave a certain amount of fabric unhemmed on the trouser? Or should they, as I expected and have previously experienced, leave at a minimum 1.5" or thereabouts, or at least some material? I've just received back four Incotex trousers that have been hemmed but unbelievably they haven't left any material unhemmed to be released: I asked for 31.5" inseam but it turns out I've miscalculated by 1/2"...
He hasn't said that at all. I suggest you re-watch the video; Starkey makes it crystal clear that race does not beget culture.
Why does it? Starkey is disavowing cultural relativism: he's saying that European culture is better than certain black cultures which, in Britain's case, is Afro-Caribbean culture.
Many people have criticised Starkey for submitting his views in a very befuddled and oblique way, but I'm unsure whether those criticising him realise how very, very hard it is to keep a trail of thought when you're hemmed in on either side by a hostile audience: it was essentially - intellectually speaking - 3 Vs. 1 and believe me, as soon as the adrenaline increases in those situations it becomes extremely difficult adducing points eloquently and coherently.
It does seem absurd but as I said above, it was envisaged that it would solve the disequilibrium in Congress by leveling the north / south divide (the north had almost double the [white] population in the early 19th century, rising to about three-times by the time of the Civil War).
It could only be a perpetual institution if it was inviolable.Okay I stand corrected. But the Fugitive Slave Clause refers predominantly to slavery; indentured servitude even if it did continually (marginally?) up until the 18th century wasn't the pressing concern when the Legislature framed those amendments. Plantation owners - to whom the clause was directed at for their benefit - weren't interested in indentured servants: they wanted slaves; the practice of indentured...
It was - but only in the 17th century. It had largely been superseded by slavery beginning with the 18th century.
New Posts  All Forums: