Pants

Catfish · Killer Of Trees

Pants

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Catfish wrote:

He thinks ... that my 63 pairs is excessive...

I believe that my exact wording was 'That's more pants than anyone actually needs'.

26 is indeed the volume of pants that I posess. This is enough to let me go 3 weeks between laundry sessions, whereas you can go 2 whole months! Imagine that... not having to do your washing for 2 whole months! That's verging on decadence. You really do live the high life, Catfish!

This could well be the greatest thread subject EVER!

Susan · Tickle me, Elmo! I'm Roger Moore's Stunt Double!

55 of the little blighters!

Mostly black or white lace, but some red lace, one pink lace (), one very sophisticated black and cream pattern with black lace & satin trims (oooooooh!) and a couple of gold ones!!! (heavy I know )

A girlie needs this many pairs

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Susan wrote:

A girlie needs this many pairs

Yeah. Um. Why? You can only wear one pair at a time and presumably you do your laundry more frequently than once every 7.8 weeks.

Henglegert Rinkerdink · Sorry... I must have the wrong street.

3 pairs ... this allows for just over a week between laundry sessions.

More seriously ... er ... dunno, 15 pairs of decent pants and a couple of pairs of "laundry day" pants ... ones I wouldn't wear out incase I got run over, what would the ambulance person think!

I need to buy some more pants

Aodan · Teiam Member

I don't know the exact total.. but I guesstimated that i've got near the 30 mark... although now that I'm really thinking about it.. I might actually have double that.... I'm not sure lol

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

So, a question; did you all know how many pairs of pants you own, or did you have to count? I have no idea of the top of my head, though I really don't think it's that many (I go with the principle that I can see no reason for more than 2 weeks everyday knickers, plus some nicer ones).

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

I had to count. Actually... Catfish counted them...

Aodan · Teiam Member

I didn't count.. I'm just trying to think how many I have.. some of them should probably be tossed (elastic too stretchy, or coming off.. that sort of thing) but they just keep getting recirculated.. I'll find them.. and then just toss them back into the laundry hamper hehe .. and all my pants are everyday pants. I don't have any need for frilly stuff lol

Catfish · Killer Of Trees

Just looking at the current poll it looks like JDK is in the 'normal' range, and 63 is indeed above the average so far.

When I collected up and counted my pants I was very surprised at the result. There's usually a few pairs in the washing machine, a few pairs in my overnight bag, some hanging on the clothes horse, some in the laundry basket, some on my bedroom floor and probably only about 20 in my pants draw (and I usually have a pair on too ). Therefore, I don't usually see them all in one place and didn't actually realise I had this many. I wouldn't be surprised if in fact there were more lurking about around my house...

I do have valid reasons for owning lots of pants. I hardly ever throw any away, even when they have lots of holes and are hangin' on for dear life , and I've often gone away for weekends and forgotton to take any...so the first port of call is a shop to buy at least 3 more pairs. Also, I'm a sucker when it comes to buying in bulk... why buy 1 pair for £x when you can get a 5 pack for < £x*5 ?

NateO · Vice JDK and Man of the People

Catfish wrote:

So.... how many pairs of pants (that's knickers for everybody in the US) is it normal for a person to possess?

Aren't pants, erm, pants? Like trousers or jeans?

Not too many Yanks or Canucks would know what you meant by knickers. You'd have to go with something like underwear, underpants, drawers, boxers, tighty whities, panties, etc...

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

NateO wrote:

Aren't pants, erm, pants? Like trousers or jeans?

No. You colonial lot just decided to arbitrarily use the word for 'underwear' to mean trousers. You're dumb like that sometimes.

We forgive you though. It gives us someone to point and laugh at.

Fanny. He he he.

NateO · Vice JDK and Man of the People

ddvmor wrote:

No. You colonial lot just decided to arbitrarily use the word for 'underwear' to mean trousers. You're dumb like that sometimes.

Erm, no we didn't. Trousers are pants like Chinos or Slacks. 'Underwear' is under-wear.

The two aren't remotely the same. Unlike the picture in this thread, underwear goes under the trousers.

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

No no no no no no. See, trousers are trousers. Pants are underpants. I can't help it if you were brought up in an etymologically deviant part of the world!

BrianS · Still Number One

NateO wrote:

ddvmor wrote:

No. You colonial lot just decided to arbitrarily use the word for 'underwear' to mean trousers. You're dumb like that sometimes.

Erm, no we didn't. Trousers are pants like Chinos or Slacks. 'Underwear' is under-wear.

The two aren't remotely the same. Unlike the picture in this thread, underwear goes under the trousers.

Of course you know the underwear goes inside the pants.

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

ddvmor wrote:

No no no no no no. See, trousers are trousers. Pants are underpants. I can't help it if you were brought up in an etymologically deviant part of the world!

You're getting quite aggressive in your old age...

bonniepirateanne · Date: Sep 12, 2006

he is right though stead, i have this argument every other day - english is our language, we've been using it for a heck of a lot longer than our fellow lovelies across the pond

, what we say.. goes

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Heh.... apart from the french bits and the nordic bits and the latin bits and the...

...but whatever its made up from... we were speaking it first!

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

At least we don't claim to be speaking French or Nordic or Latin.

NateO · Vice JDK and Man of the People

sha76jam wrote:

At least we don't claim to be speaking French or Nordic or Latin.

No, but words like centre, cheque and metre look pretty French to me!

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

Absolutely and Chirac recently stormed out of a presentation from a leading french businessman because he spoke in English claiming it to be the "International language of business" -

If you consider that the US is the biggest 'business' country in the world - we should probably defer to their spelling of things these days.

Controversial I know -

PS Nate - when can I come over for a free holiday?

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

NateO wrote:

No, but words like centre, cheque and metre look pretty French to me!

Well yes, because we stole them! We then anglicised their pronunciation. And never suggested we were speaking French.

Henglegert Rinkerdink · Sorry... I must have the wrong street.

JonnyStead wrote:

we should probably defer to their spelling of things these days.

No, no no no, no no no no no and if you suggest that again Mr Steadman I will have to take steps.

Our language is rich and diverse and I hate seeing it simplified. The fact that crib notes in A-Level English-lit courses are now available in TEXT SPEAK makes my blood boil.

Centre is how it's spelt, not center. Through, not thru. And as for how the fudge you get "Aloominum" from Aluminium I will never know. There are U's in colour and neighbour.

Chirac was annoyed because the presenter, who was French, spoke in English to a room consisting of predominantly French businessmen. So I'd suggest, that while his reaction was over the top, French would have been the more sensible language of choice.

Sorry if this seems over vitriolic in a thread about pants but there you go. Spell things however you like in your own country, that is your right ... just don't call it English. Call Flumpish or something.

Oh and Daz, pants only became short for underpants after the proliferation of the word pants to means trousers came through from the states, before that it was slang for underwear, like trolleys or kecks. So pants is right, trousers are the bits that cover your legs.

Now stop spoiling my day with all this atrocious spelling and get back to counting your trolleys and seeing by what percentage they outweigh your strides.

Henglegert Rinkerdink · Sorry... I must have the wrong street.

Ahem, sorry, it appears I ranted

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Henglegert Rinkerdink wrote:

Oh and Daz, pants only became short for underpants after the proliferation of the word pants to means trousers came through from the states, before that it was slang for underwear, like trolleys or kecks. So pants is right, trousers are the bits that cover your legs.

Er. I'm not quite sure whether you're agreeing with me or not. So I'll assume that you are and revel in my rightness.

bonniepirateanne · Date: Sep 12, 2006

to everything you said hengle

(and what sharon said too)

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

to everything you said hengle

-from me too!

Henglegert Rinkerdink · Sorry... I must have the wrong street.

Thank you all, I feel honoured!

And Daz, yeah I was agreeing with you ... just expanding on how wrong pants=trousers is

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Yay!

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

Henglegert Rinkerdink wrote:

Thank you all, I feel honoured!

And Daz, yeah I was agreeing with you ... just expanding on how wrong pants=trousers is

Girl