new shoes

hello there

usually, or normally, yes, indeed i am someone that gets all sentimental and what have you over certain things. with this it is a rare instance of me not being alone, look you see, for many other people get the same way. but, that said, being somewhat sad and emotionally challenged by having to replace shoes is quite a new one on me. 

i suppose it's because the shoes which are now knacked have been on quite the adventure with me. as in yes, they are the ones i wore all the way to New Zealand and back. which means they were the very ones what got tested and x-rayed at customs in Heathrow on suspicion of having explosives on or in them. many a think it is that i have been called, most of them true, but shoe bomber (or at least potential one) was indeed a whole new experience. 

they are, however, of no practical use no more. for a start they seem to be worn out. the thickness between my feet in them and the ground beneath the shoes is more or less equal to a sheet of paper. so, with reluctance, i got new ones. of a similar style of course. 

a perplexing factor of this century which i don't understand is how "them", the people, go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible. we live in an era of extraordinary communication availability and the potential to create wonders. yet we spend all of that in making things far tougher than they need be. it is already so that my (UK measurement) size 13 feet are a challenge to find shoes for. now they have littered the market with all sorts of "laceless technology". what a farce that is. shoes what do not have laces are not "new", they are either slip ons or mere slippers.

by some miracle them sort of nice people at Sports Direct were able to sell me the only pair of size 13 Skechers what they had. well, the only pair with laces. i really, really don't care for this "laceless" idea of theirs. going on the adverts, no, i am not "wasting time" tying laces, i am making sure the shoes stay on, thanks. also, if you want your product to be taken seriously, maybe don't limit the budget to the extent that Jamie Redknapp is the "face" of what you sell. he is at best, and i do mean at best, a very poor man's "he will do" alternate to the bewilderingly omnipotent Joe Cole.

right above these words is an image of the box. someone got all excited with the space they had and wrote out as many "special features" of the shoes as they could think of. the first two make vague sense, but i am not certain of the third. can't think of a time when i had shoes on and they were unresponsive. not entirely sure what "positive energy return" is either. again, i am at a loss to think of a time i was aware that shoes were giving me a "negative" energy return. perhaps i have been doing shoes all wrong for all this time then. oh. 

provenance was established above, if you were paying attention. for the matter of the price, well, let's say north of £50 but also south of £60. somewhere between those two. generally yes i do try and find the cheapest shoes possible, but with the limitations of stock on the size i need this is not always possible. besides, cheap shoes are going to be uncomfortable, so it makes little sense to do it so. 

would i describe myself as happy with the purchase? pretty much. of the ones they are replacing, the left one had developed a sort of squishy squelching sound as i walked about. it was annoying and fairly audible, so it was uncomfortable if not embarrassing to be strolling in them. 

at this stage no, i don't know of these will at some point be tested for explosives (or similar) by the staff of any particular airport. you never know, though, they might. hopefully not, as it wasn't the greatest thing what had ever happened to me, but i suppose at least they didn't get the gloves out for any further checks. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!