I remember in the seventies (when I was a teenager) that I used to sometimes see English soccer on TV - and I thought the baggy shorts that they wore were the absolute pits. If you remember, the men who played Aussie rules wore tight short shorts.

I still don't like huge baggie boardies or shorts on a bloke.

I took note this year how the tennis playing men wore much longer baggy shorts.

(Memories of Boris Becker in his shorties come flooding back : )

But really who knows why fashion alters. After the hot-pants and mini skirt fetish in the late 60's early 70's petered out, they were replaced for quite a few years with maxi style fashion where skirts hems rested between the knee and the ankle - although bikinis were still all the rage for swimming.

(Thanks for the compliment on the writing, Saltpetre. Why don't you ever post in the general section? Just curious....)

You are very welcome, Poirot, I do very much enjoy your posts. I also very much appreciate those of Pericles and Pelican. It's great to get such balanced and well constructed views from the other side of the 'human equation', so to speak. (So many mysteries, so little time.)

I'm afraid I wasn't aware of the General Section (typical male 'one thing at a time' syndrome?). I just didn't go looking for anything else on OLO to have to get my head around - and I spend far too much time here as it is. (I also don't do Facebook or Twitter.)

Your question prompted me to take a look, and I'll think about it, but I do enjoy having the articles as a start point - something to get my teeth into. Also, the general section looks as though one would need to get in on the 'run' and then stick with it until the fox is brought to ground. I tend to be more of a plodder - needing a good chew on the cud before committing to a considered view.

Still, I'll keep an eye on it, just in case, and thanks for making me aware of it.

Saltpetre,

Fancy you not being aware of the General section - (often the discussion there is just as lively as that in the Articles)

....anyway, you did receive an honourable mention over there once when in our frivolity we were casting OLO participants in Downton Abbey.

Guess who you were?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5216&page=0#141545

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5216&page=0#141547

(I was Cora - Countess of Grantham)

Well, Poirot, what an exceedingly interesting thread that was. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Ghosts, June 2012? How time flies.
Trust Squeers to come up with a thought-train which would cause contributors/respondents to examine their reasons and interests for their participation on OLO, or other online media, and their thoughts on integrity, as well what contributing/participation means to them, and be so illuminating about themselves. Fantastic! Riveting repartee!

My view: We are what we think, and we expand and improve what and how we think by listening and participating/sharing. (Houllie worries me a bit though, with his mischievous 'devil's advocate' leanings.)

It has been very interesting endeavouring to put 'flesh and bones' on the various contributors, and that thread did more in that regard than all my other tentative plunges into this 'pool'. How interesting and so very sincere you all are - which is very refreshing indeed.

As for anonymity, I always try to maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity (not always perfectly, I must admit - but I always sincerely regret any transgression in that regard), and this causes me to expect and assume the same of others, unless or until 'bitten'. But, pseudonym or no, we stand convicted out of our own mouths, and a poor reputation is in my view a far heavier burden than some bangs and bruises (or some broken bones).

Some wonderful imagery in that thread - 'condescending' to Squeers (the obviously 'sharp as a tack' intellectual academic extraordinaire Squeers!) how absolutely delightful, but of course he would take it in stride. (Mind you, I can understand his wives not wanting to discuss religion or politics (or Capitalism) with him, or him with them. Lord luv em.)

With that m'dear, this (temporary) Earl must bid adieu, for off to UNESCO on an urgent calling must one make haste without further ado. (That Trev is quite a character builder, particularly with Poirot egging him on.) Bonne chance.