Texans beware

[crfriend]

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

[STEVIE]

A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.

Careful BM, that may be contributing to global warming besides containing a pretty good pun too.
Steve.

[Elisabetta]

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

Last year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.

He looked good. Natch, he’s Brad Pitt. Given the heatwave in Berlin, the asymmetrical, knee-length, raw-edged hem was a wise choice providing optimal breathability.

Maybe playing Achilles in “Troy” accustomed him to getting a little more air under there. When asked why he chose to wear a skirt to the premiere, he cagily told Variety, “I don’t know! We’re all gonna die, so let’s mess it up!”. YOLO, Brad. Life’s too short to be moist in the nethers.

All over the world, men are reclaiming the right to wear skirts, a right that over centuries societal pressure has chipped away.

The modern Westerner may think men have always worn pants. Of course, we know from watching The Ten Commandments that isn’t true. The first known pants-wearing people were Asian nomadic horse tribes in the sixth century BC.

In those societies, pants were worn by both men and women. The Greeks and Romans thought the bi-legged garments barbaric. They preferred to lounge about eating olives in goddess dresses. For more strenuous activities, like Olympic competitions, they’d just go naked.

But pants persisted. Certainly, practicality boosted their popularity. They kept legs warmer in cold climates. They were more protective during military operations. Riding a horse was more pleasant. Oh, the chafing! How did Lady Godiva stand it?

Over centuries, split leg coverings evolved from Henry VIII’s hose and codpiece to French revolution style knickers and stockings. Ankle-length pants were worn mostly by the working class.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s, that English King Edward VII made the modern trouser silhouette popular amongst men. It’s now become the de facto standard of Western male dress.

As a tomboy growing up in the 1970s, I would rather be tarred and feathered than wear a skirt. You’d have to catch me by the ear and force me to change out of my plaid polyester slacks.

I refused to be hampered by my clothing, preferring to somersault, cartwheel, and hang upside down from the monkey bars with abandon. Crawling around under the bushes with my plastic Breyer horses was so much easier in my patched-knee Toughskins. A short Brady Bunch-style skirt might have left my legs free to play kickball, but I could never sit carefully enough to avoid a major wardrobe malfunction.

However, for the last few years, I’ve come to embrace skirts and dresses. They’re now a constant fixture of my summer wardrobe. Last year here in Texas we had 68 days above 100 degrees. I lounged around all summer in a dress that was essentially a long tank top. To be truthful, I do more than lounge in tank dresses. I buy groceries, visit the post office, and go out to dinner. I wear them everywhere.

Is it any wonder that some brave guys are trying to bring back the skirt for men? It doesn’t matter how much a fabric claims it “wicks”. In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.

As women, we should support men’s right to dress for maximal comfort and utility. After all, we know what it’s like to be persecuted for fashion. Women completely lost the ability to wear pants in Western society in the 18th century. In some countries, women were actually thrown in jail for the practice.

Today, pants-wearing by women is widely accepted in the United States and Europe. Therefore it is astonishing that even as late as 2019, three girls had to sue their school in North Carolina for the right to wear pants in class. They won. The judge overturned the school’s dress code as unconstitutional because “the skirt requirement causes the girls to suffer a burden the boys do not, simply because they are female”.

When I lived in Seattle in 2019, I was surprised by the number of skirt-clad men I encountered riding the bus or walking around downtown. As these were athletic young men, I first thought they played field hockey or tossed a few cabers around after work. But, the absence of uniforms, hockey sticks, sporrans, and bagpipes clued me in that they were just going about their days in freedom and comfort.

Seattle is home to one of the largest skirt stores for men, Utilikilts. They sell a variety of USA-designed and sewn kilts. The “Workman” style can even carry an entire six-pack. Now that’s fashion and function! They sell kilts, or in their words, “Men’s Unbifurcated Garments”, all over the world, a testement (is that spelled wrong?) to the demand for their product.

Take heart, men, there is legal and fashion-scene precedence. If you want your thighs to rub together when you walk, you should have that choice!

There’s some hard opposition though.

On April 13, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller updated the agency dress code to say that employees must dress according to their “biological gender”. What the hell is he talking about?

His policy says :

The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.

My summer tank top dresses wouldn’t pass this dress code. That’s OK, it’s a casual look that isn’t appropriate for a representative of a public-facing government agency. I find comfort in knowing the next time I visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, no matter what other inconveniences I endure, at least I won’t suffer the insult of being served by a guy wearing an ankle-length wife beater.

Just look professional, people.

I have sympathy for the folks in Human Resources who have to write the dress code. Like “pornography”, the definition of “professional” slips from your grasp as you try to define it with words. Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?

It’s OK to have constraints. But do we need to throw the undies out with the wash water and completely ban people with penises from wearing skirts? GQ says 2023 is the year of the skirt for men. Are Robert Pattinson and Harry Styles wrong?

What would Jesus do? Every morning, when confronting his wardrobe, he chose a simple knee-length linen shift.

It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women. The policy states that employees can be fired for violating the code. That’s fighting dirty. The clothes don’t make the man. He/She/They/We must resist being shoehorned into categories.

Stand up for your fellow man if he wants to slip out of his pants and show a little leg. How else would we know Brad Pitt has a delightful rhinoceros tattoo on his right shin? How can we deny men the freedom women have enjoyed for centuries? You’ve come a long way, baby. Just watch those subway updrafts, guys.

When there are two standards, there is no equality. Let’s give people with testicles the same right as people with ovaries. To do otherwise would be injustice enough to make Justin Beiber clutch his pearls.

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

I pasted the article here for you based on BM's link that was shared.

[Barleymower]

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

Last year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.

He looked good. Natch, he’s Brad Pitt. Given the heatwave in Berlin, the asymmetrical, knee-length, raw-edged hem was a wise choice providing optimal breathability.

Maybe playing Achilles in “Troy” accustomed him to getting a little more air under there. When asked why he chose to wear a skirt to the premiere, he cagily told Variety, “I don’t know! We’re all gonna die, so let’s mess it up!”. YOLO, Brad. Life’s too short to be moist in the nethers.

All over the world, men are reclaiming the right to wear skirts, a right that over centuries societal pressure has chipped away.

The modern Westerner may think men have always worn pants. Of course, we know from watching The Ten Commandments that isn’t true. The first known pants-wearing people were Asian nomadic horse tribes in the sixth century BC.

In those societies, pants were worn by both men and women. The Greeks and Romans thought the bi-legged garments barbaric. They preferred to lounge about eating olives in goddess dresses. For more strenuous activities, like Olympic competitions, they’d just go naked.

But pants persisted. Certainly, practicality boosted their popularity. They kept legs warmer in cold climates. They were more protective during military operations. Riding a horse was more pleasant. Oh, the chafing! How did Lady Godiva stand it?

Over centuries, split leg coverings evolved from Henry VIII’s hose and codpiece to French revolution style knickers and stockings. Ankle-length pants were worn mostly by the working class.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s, that English King Edward VII made the modern trouser silhouette popular amongst men. It’s now become the de facto standard of Western male dress.

As a tomboy growing up in the 1970s, I would rather be tarred and feathered than wear a skirt. You’d have to catch me by the ear and force me to change out of my plaid polyester slacks.

I refused to be hampered by my clothing, preferring to somersault, cartwheel, and hang upside down from the monkey bars with abandon. Crawling around under the bushes with my plastic Breyer horses was so much easier in my patched-knee Toughskins. A short Brady Bunch-style skirt might have left my legs free to play kickball, but I could never sit carefully enough to avoid a major wardrobe malfunction.

However, for the last few years, I’ve come to embrace skirts and dresses. They’re now a constant fixture of my summer wardrobe. Last year here in Texas we had 68 days above 100 degrees. I lounged around all summer in a dress that was essentially a long tank top. To be truthful, I do more than lounge in tank dresses. I buy groceries, visit the post office, and go out to dinner. I wear them everywhere.

Is it any wonder that some brave guys are trying to bring back the skirt for men? It doesn’t matter how much a fabric claims it “wicks”. In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.

As women, we should support men’s right to dress for maximal comfort and utility. After all, we know what it’s like to be persecuted for fashion. Women completely lost the ability to wear pants in Western society in the 18th century. In some countries, women were actually thrown in jail for the practice.

Today, pants-wearing by women is widely accepted in the United States and Europe. Therefore it is astonishing that even as late as 2019, three girls had to sue their school in North Carolina for the right to wear pants in class. They won. The judge overturned the school’s dress code as unconstitutional because “the skirt requirement causes the girls to suffer a burden the boys do not, simply because they are female”.

When I lived in Seattle in 2019, I was surprised by the number of skirt-clad men I encountered riding the bus or walking around downtown. As these were athletic young men, I first thought they played field hockey or tossed a few cabers around after work. But, the absence of uniforms, hockey sticks, sporrans, and bagpipes clued me in that they were just going about their days in freedom and comfort.

Seattle is home to one of the largest skirt stores for men, Utilikilts. They sell a variety of USA-designed and sewn kilts. The “Workman” style can even carry an entire six-pack. Now that’s fashion and function! They sell kilts, or in their words, “Men’s Unbifurcated Garments”, all over the world, a testement (is that spelled wrong?) to the demand for their product.

Take heart, men, there is legal and fashion-scene precedence. If you want your thighs to rub together when you walk, you should have that choice!

There’s some hard opposition though.

On April 13, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller updated the agency dress code to say that employees must dress according to their “biological gender”. What the hell is he talking about?

His policy says :

The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.

My summer tank top dresses wouldn’t pass this dress code. That’s OK, it’s a casual look that isn’t appropriate for a representative of a public-facing government agency. I find comfort in knowing the next time I visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, no matter what other inconveniences I endure, at least I won’t suffer the insult of being served by a guy wearing an ankle-length wife beater.

Just look professional, people.

I have sympathy for the folks in Human Resources who have to write the dress code. Like “pornography”, the definition of “professional” slips from your grasp as you try to define it with words. Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?

It’s OK to have constraints. But do we need to throw the undies out with the wash water and completely ban people with penises from wearing skirts? GQ says 2023 is the year of the skirt for men. Are Robert Pattinson and Harry Styles wrong?

What would Jesus do? Every morning, when confronting his wardrobe, he chose a simple knee-length linen shift.

It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women. The policy states that employees can be fired for violating the code. That’s fighting dirty. The clothes don’t make the man. He/She/They/We must resist being shoehorned into categories.

Stand up for your fellow man if he wants to slip out of his pants and show a little leg. How else would we know Brad Pitt has a delightful rhinoceros tattoo on his right shin? How can we deny men the freedom women have enjoyed for centuries? You’ve come a long way, baby. Just watch those subway updrafts, guys.

When there are two standards, there is no equality. Let’s give people with testicles the same right as people with ovaries. To do otherwise would be injustice enough to make Justin Beiber clutch his pearls.

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

I pasted the article here for you based on BM's link that was shared.

Thank you and apologies I would have cut and paste but I was out delivering children to their explorers fun.

[Barleymower]

A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.

Careful BM, that may be contributing to global warming besides containing a pretty good pun too.
Steve.

Ha ha Steve good one. Who says skirts won't warm your cockles?

[Elisabetta]

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

Last year, at the Bullet Train premiere, Brad Pitt walked down the red carpet wearing a brown linen jacket, biker boots, and a matching linen… skirt.

He looked good. Natch, he’s Brad Pitt. Given the heatwave in Berlin, the asymmetrical, knee-length, raw-edged hem was a wise choice providing optimal breathability.

Maybe playing Achilles in “Troy” accustomed him to getting a little more air under there. When asked why he chose to wear a skirt to the premiere, he cagily told Variety, “I don’t know! We’re all gonna die, so let’s mess it up!”. YOLO, Brad. Life’s too short to be moist in the nethers.

All over the world, men are reclaiming the right to wear skirts, a right that over centuries societal pressure has chipped away.

The modern Westerner may think men have always worn pants. Of course, we know from watching The Ten Commandments that isn’t true. The first known pants-wearing people were Asian nomadic horse tribes in the sixth century BC.

In those societies, pants were worn by both men and women. The Greeks and Romans thought the bi-legged garments barbaric. They preferred to lounge about eating olives in goddess dresses. For more strenuous activities, like Olympic competitions, they’d just go naked.

But pants persisted. Certainly, practicality boosted their popularity. They kept legs warmer in cold climates. They were more protective during military operations. Riding a horse was more pleasant. Oh, the chafing! How did Lady Godiva stand it?

Over centuries, split leg coverings evolved from Henry VIII’s hose and codpiece to French revolution style knickers and stockings. Ankle-length pants were worn mostly by the working class.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s, that English King Edward VII made the modern trouser silhouette popular amongst men. It’s now become the de facto standard of Western male dress.

As a tomboy growing up in the 1970s, I would rather be tarred and feathered than wear a skirt. You’d have to catch me by the ear and force me to change out of my plaid polyester slacks.

I refused to be hampered by my clothing, preferring to somersault, cartwheel, and hang upside down from the monkey bars with abandon. Crawling around under the bushes with my plastic Breyer horses was so much easier in my patched-knee Toughskins. A short Brady Bunch-style skirt might have left my legs free to play kickball, but I could never sit carefully enough to avoid a major wardrobe malfunction.

However, for the last few years, I’ve come to embrace skirts and dresses. They’re now a constant fixture of my summer wardrobe. Last year here in Texas we had 68 days above 100 degrees. I lounged around all summer in a dress that was essentially a long tank top. To be truthful, I do more than lounge in tank dresses. I buy groceries, visit the post office, and go out to dinner. I wear them everywhere.

Is it any wonder that some brave guys are trying to bring back the skirt for men? It doesn’t matter how much a fabric claims it “wicks”. In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.

As women, we should support men’s right to dress for maximal comfort and utility. After all, we know what it’s like to be persecuted for fashion. Women completely lost the ability to wear pants in Western society in the 18th century. In some countries, women were actually thrown in jail for the practice.

Today, pants-wearing by women is widely accepted in the United States and Europe. Therefore it is astonishing that even as late as 2019, three girls had to sue their school in North Carolina for the right to wear pants in class. They won. The judge overturned the school’s dress code as unconstitutional because “the skirt requirement causes the girls to suffer a burden the boys do not, simply because they are female”.

When I lived in Seattle in 2019, I was surprised by the number of skirt-clad men I encountered riding the bus or walking around downtown. As these were athletic young men, I first thought they played field hockey or tossed a few cabers around after work. But, the absence of uniforms, hockey sticks, sporrans, and bagpipes clued me in that they were just going about their days in freedom and comfort.

Seattle is home to one of the largest skirt stores for men, Utilikilts. They sell a variety of USA-designed and sewn kilts. The “Workman” style can even carry an entire six-pack. Now that’s fashion and function! They sell kilts, or in their words, “Men’s Unbifurcated Garments”, all over the world, a testement (is that spelled wrong?) to the demand for their product.

Take heart, men, there is legal and fashion-scene precedence. If you want your thighs to rub together when you walk, you should have that choice!

There’s some hard opposition though.

On April 13, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller updated the agency dress code to say that employees must dress according to their “biological gender”. What the hell is he talking about?

His policy says :

The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.

My summer tank top dresses wouldn’t pass this dress code. That’s OK, it’s a casual look that isn’t appropriate for a representative of a public-facing government agency. I find comfort in knowing the next time I visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, no matter what other inconveniences I endure, at least I won’t suffer the insult of being served by a guy wearing an ankle-length wife beater.

Just look professional, people.

I have sympathy for the folks in Human Resources who have to write the dress code. Like “pornography”, the definition of “professional” slips from your grasp as you try to define it with words. Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?

It’s OK to have constraints. But do we need to throw the undies out with the wash water and completely ban people with penises from wearing skirts? GQ says 2023 is the year of the skirt for men. Are Robert Pattinson and Harry Styles wrong?

What would Jesus do? Every morning, when confronting his wardrobe, he chose a simple knee-length linen shift.

It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women. The policy states that employees can be fired for violating the code. That’s fighting dirty. The clothes don’t make the man. He/She/They/We must resist being shoehorned into categories.

Stand up for your fellow man if he wants to slip out of his pants and show a little leg. How else would we know Brad Pitt has a delightful rhinoceros tattoo on his right shin? How can we deny men the freedom women have enjoyed for centuries? You’ve come a long way, baby. Just watch those subway updrafts, guys.

When there are two standards, there is no equality. Let’s give people with testicles the same right as people with ovaries. To do otherwise would be injustice enough to make Justin Beiber clutch his pearls.

I couldn't read it; the site demanded a login.

I pasted the article here for you based on BM's link that was shared.

Thank you and apologies I would have cut and paste but I was out delivering children to their explorers fun.

You're welcome and no worries happy to help.

[Fred in Skirts]

I hoped I was being very careful not to reject anything or push any alternative narrative, but 'Climate Change' (interpreted in different ways to suit the circumstances) is being taken as a fully proved and indisputable fact which can be used to justify all sorts of actions.  In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse.  This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.

Climate change is real!! That fact has been proven, if you look at the evidence.

Fact 1: The world used to be a lot warmer than it is now until the big Meteor blast that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Fact 2: The world went through an ice age and everything was frozen over with a thick layer of ice.

Fact 3: The world is now warming up a bit since the sun has started into it's period of major flares and eruptions. This will cause more problems in the future since it is now early in the cycle.

Fact 4: Man has not had anything to do with all of the above listed facts. If man was the real problem none of the above would have had any effect on the climate!!!

Just my 2 pence worth and you are welcome to agree or disagree as you please!!
This is my thoughts on the subject.

Oh yes, the worlds magnetic poles are moving and just may swap ends, they have done this in the past and that also changes the worlds climate!!



So go have a pint and stop worrying about what you can not change and just enjoy what you can!!



Edited once to fix spelling and extra word that was not needed.

[crfriend]

From Elisabetta's repost (and thank you for that), the guy at the Texas DOA had this to say:

The following are some examples of business attire: For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots. For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.

In the interest of "gender equality", get rid of pantsuits on women. Skirts or dresses only. For men, get rid of the requirement for a tie and sport-coat. Get rid of boots altogether unless the weather is foul; I don't care if this is Texas. Full stop.

Just look professional, people.

This is reasonable and proper, and no professional would violate that rule.

Pajamas are clearly not ok, but how about yoga pants… er… stretchy dress pants?

Spray-on pants are appropriate for no-one in the workplace. Full stop. The women will get a pass on this, as well as a pass on all the other strictures. This is one-sided dictum and should be rightfully struck down as discriminatory.

This is likely Elisabetta:

It’s likely the Texas Department of Agriculture updated the dress code to specifically target transgender men and women.

Transgender FtM types are merely regarded as "tomboys" and remain celebrated in our modern society. This is targetted specifically at MtF "transgenders" and catches MIS in the splatter radius of the machine-gun fire. I do not like being "collateral damage".

As a professional, I know how to dress in customer-facing roles -- and I also know my customers, and my customers know me. I can show up in a skirt-suit or a trouser-based suit equally well. Both would be fine with folks who I know and who know me. I show up on a customer site to fix problems, not be a fashion statement; my behaviour and demeanour will likely overpower whatever I happen to be wearing. The customers know this and respect it.

[ScotL]

This is my new motto: “In 100-degree heat, it’s not gonna keep the ass-crack of your chinos dry.”

[ScotL]

If man was the real problem none of the above would have had any effect on the climate!!!

I’m an interested party. Can you prove this negative?

As I have learned, there are multiple issues contributing to global warming. The combustion of fuels by humans has increased since the ice ages. Fuel combustion leads to greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. So whereas I agree human activity is not the only etiology for global warming, human activity has contributed.

But you say otherwise. I’m sincerely interested in how your data.

[Ray]

A good article - but being pedantic, King Edward VII should have been described as British, not English - as he was head of state of the whole of the UK.

I do hope we are seeing an increasing trend towards degendering clothing.

[rode_kater]

 In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse.  This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.

Ok, I'll bite. Whenever I've asked this question on Reddit for some reason people never come back with an answer, but I'll try. But after that I'll leave it alone:

Do you have any examples of actions that would "make things worse"?

I mean, climate change is going to be pretty bad, so I'm having difficulty imagining what could possibly be worse. It's high school math & physics. There are things that are less certain, like clouds and solar variation, but they won't save us. Is it going to be a hard technical challenge? Absolutely. Are we going to need to make some hard choices? Certainly. Are things going to look very different in 50 years? Yes, just like things looked very different 50 years ago.

FWIW, I've become more pessimistic over the years. There was lots of research in how we could manage the transition with minimal costs and societal upheaval, but that was all ignored and it looks like we're going for the maximal costs and maximal upheaval solution. The planet will be fine and doesn't need saving. Most of the plants and animal would be better off without us. What we're trying to save is our way of life.

[ScotL]

What we're trying to save is our way of life.

Hadn’t thought of it this way before but well said. Global warming is an “inconvenience” to our current way of life. Does make it more palatable if we either put our head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it’s not happening and/or distance ourselves from blame. As it’s been said, science doesn’t care what we think. The truth is the truth.

[Barleymower]

I hoped I was being very careful not to reject anything or push any alternative narrative, but 'Climate Change' (interpreted in different ways to suit the circumstances) is being taken as a fully proved and indisputable fact which can be used to justify all sorts of actions.  In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse.  This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.

Climate change is real!! That fact has been proven, if you look at the evidence.

Fact 1: The world used to be a lot warmer than it is now until the big Meteor blast that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Fact 2: The world went through an ice age and everything was frozen over with a thick layer of ice.

Fact 3: The world is now warming up a bit since the sun has started into it's period of major flares and eruptions. This will cause more problems in the future since it is now early in the cycle.

Fact 4: Man has not had anything to do with all of the above listed facts. If man was the real problem none of the above would have had any effect on the climate!!!

Just my 2 pence worth and you are welcome to agree or disagree as you please!!
This is my thoughts on the subject.

Oh yes, the worlds magnetic poles are moving and just may swap ends, they have done this in the past and that also changes the worlds climate!!



So go have a pint and stop worrying about what you can not change and just enjoy what you can!!



Edited once to fix spelling and extra word that was not needed.

Lies, damn lies and statistics
Information = disinformation
Net zero to stop climate change in its tracks and save lives?

It may well be right, it might be wrong. I think it is better to look at humanities drivers for the last 1000 years. Power and profitability seem to be highest on the agenda.

In a world that is so fixated on profitability, the rhetoric around climate change looks like convenient ploy to convince the population to go quietly.
My view (rightly or wrongly) is the earth is not in dire situation we are led to believe. Instead, I think our leaders want a safe landing for us and by extension them (they rely on us). We, the people are not needed anymore in such vast numbers, AI will undertake most of what needed.

It's doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. Its largely guesswork so I'm probably wrong. I am not the only one who gets things wrong for example, Imperial College London built a model to estimate the number of deaths during the pandemic and was incorrect by a factor of 15.

What I would like to do is move my family somewhere where we can grow some veg and maybe they will leave us alone and I can wear what I want without being nervous about it.

[Uncle Al]

OK - May we all agree that humans have 'SOME' effect on climate change

Getting back to "The Dress Code" by the Texas Ag Commissioner, I feel that it is prudent upon the worker,
to wear what is appropriate for the job at hand. I would not wear a flowing skirt when working around
heavy machinery. Too many opportunities for clothing to be caught up in the gears of said machinery.

If taking water samples from a creek or river, Hip-Waders would be the norm. If horseback riding is
required, a skirt/dress is not appropriate for several reasons. In an office atmosphere, skirts should
be allowed for all workers. Of course the 'office' outfit should be coordinated so the look doesn't
take away from the job at hand.

Just my $.02 worth

Uncle Al