If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

On 18/04/2019 11:12, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .Â*Â*Â*

Rolling circumference.

FMurtz wrote:

If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

Elasticity. Without which it would not be a belt, but a stick. Or a
hoop. But not both.

--

Roger Hayter

FMurtz Wrote in message:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .


(Smily noted)
What was the inside is under elastic tension when layed out
linially, so it's a bit of an irrelevance.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


You are too optimistic.

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain

The Tailor of Panama had an answer: "Let's say 36 inches plus lunch".

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

Andrew wrote:

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his
optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of
optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a
38" belt!

--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 15:54:43 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Andrew wrote:

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his
optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of
optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a
38" belt!

Belts aren't normally fixed right at their tips. So your belt must be longer than your girth.


NT

wrote:

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 15:54:43 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Andrew wrote:

On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his
optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of
optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a
38" belt!

Belts aren't normally fixed right at their tips. So your belt must be
longer than your girth.


NT

Very true. But the nominal size of a belt is usually the circumference
when done up to one of the first few notches. They aren't sold. or
described, by actual length.

--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 22:19:51 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 15:54:43 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his
optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of
optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a
38" belt!

Belts aren't normally fixed right at their tips. So your belt must be
longer than your girth.


NT

Very true. But the nominal size of a belt is usually the circumference
when done up to one of the first few notches. They aren't sold. or
described, by actual length.

I could have sworn the last 2 I got were, but I couldn't swear to it.


NT

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

It stretches.

On 18/04/2019 23:07, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 22:19:51 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 15:54:43 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 18/04/2019 12:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:12:16 UTC+1, FMurtz wrote:
If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is
it the same length inner and outer .

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain


Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual
size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his
optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of
optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a
38" belt!

Belts aren't normally fixed right at their tips. So your belt must be
longer than your girth.


NT

Very true. But the nominal size of a belt is usually the circumference
when done up to one of the first few notches. They aren't sold. or
described, by actual length.

I could have sworn the last 2 I got were, but I couldn't swear to it.


Good job you stopped yourself then.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 14:22:48 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
The Tailor of Panama had an answer: "Let's say 36 inches plus lunch".

That's a very good answer.

Owain