On Friday last week we illustrated our US election coverage with a photograph of John McCain pulling a characteristic, tongue-poked-out face as he took a wrong turn on leaving the set of his last televised debate with Barack Obama. Two readers took grave exception to this, accusing us of a “lack of common decency”, of insulting Senator McCain, and of being “cheap and offensive”.

Much has been made in discussion of the American presidential candidates of both men's (and, indeed, their running-mates') facial expressions. It is surely legitimate for The Times to select just one photograph, out of the dozens we have published of both candidates over the past months, that illustrates Mr McCain's off-putting habit of sticking his tongue out.

Those who put themselves forward for the highest office in the free world must expect their every move to be photographed, analysed and publicised. That is our job. Most Times readers surely do not expect to see only flattering, posed studio portraits of the great and the good in our pages, any more than they expect to read only flattering, fawning descriptions of them.

Penny wise

You're all much older than you look. Last week's plea by Ken Batten for “penny” and “pence” to replace the ubiquitous “pee” in speech sent many readers straight back to 1971, as if it were yesterday.

Tony Whittaker was first off the mark: “Your correspondent hoping against hope that we might start calling pennies pennies is probably too young to recall the situation at decimalisation. Up to that time, things priced in pennies were by a further British quirk marked up as ‘d' for denarius, which was never spoken. There was big potential for confusion at the changeover, and all coinage actually carried the designation ‘new penny' or ‘new pence' on large coins.

“Prices for items in new pence were marked up in shops as ‘p' or, indeed, as ‘np'. Since ‘pence' had been the terminology used for old pennies, we had to use something different, ie, ‘pee' for new pennies. So of course it stuck.”

John Yarnall, of Kingston upon Thames, joined in: “During the changeover to decimal coinage, it became necessary to distinguish in conversation between old and new pence...The term ‘pee' gained favour in conversation. It was, of course, never written down as such.”

And Alex Galloway, of Kenilworth, added: “In the run-up to decimalisation in 1971 there were a number of government TV ads to help the transition, one of which ended, ‘Remember! One pee is worth more than two dee.' The expression stuck. It is a rare example of a government advertisement that actually produced a discernible effect on public behaviour.”

Buoys ahoy

Last week too, Roy Munden was irritated by the phrase “buoyed up”, which seemed to him a prime example of a redundant preposition: “Have you ever heard of anyone or anything being buoyed down?”

Quite possibly, says Ned Stidolph, of Bognor Regis: “Buoys are used for warning or direction; thus a submerged hazard is ‘buoyed', as is a reserved mooring point. While it is amusing to think of Gordon Brown or Scotland being ‘buoyed' as a dangerous hazard, the writers clearly meant that they were ‘buoyed up', ie, given added buoyancy. If you were attached by safety line to a metal sphere filled with air you would be buoyed up; if it sprang a leak and filled with water, you might be buoyed down.”

Mitchell Horwood agrees: “Mr Munden is quite wrong: generally speaking buoys do not keep things up. They mark the position of things on the bottom. So you buoy the edge of a channel, or a wreck, or an anchor which has been slipped, or a crate of doubloons on the sea bottom.

“As there are things like lifebuoys which do give support by way of their buoyancy, it is not wrong to say that someone or something is buoyed up.”

There's a second bee in Mr Horwood's bonnet: “Rather than stopping this correct usage, perhaps you would send out a directive to all your writers, especially your sports writers, informing them that ‘sanguine' does not mean ‘calm', as they all seem to suppose, but ‘optimistic'. No doubt it is because of an association with sang-froid, but the bloody origin lies in the four humours.”

Bond's foes

Any excuse for a mental picture of Daniel Craig in swimming trunks.

Oliver Dickinson writes: “On the front cover of TheKnowledge (October 18), ‘we track down 007's latest evil nemesis'. Bond has had no nemesis; on the contrary; he has been the nemesis of various evildoers.

“Nemesis was originally the principle of divine retribution for hubris, arrogant behaviour that offended the gods. It transfers reasonably well to whatever or whoever brought about someone's inexorable, if sometimes long-delayed, and normally deserved downfall. It should not be used simply to mean an enemy or adversary, which are perfectly good words in their own right.”

Finally, apologies in advance for deserting my post for possibly the next couple of Saturdays - I am summoned to do my civic duty and serve on a jury from this Monday. I can only hope for an early release for good behaviour.

Times Recommends

• Fragility always gets my sympathy vote
• Double it and you get the real jobless total
• Has al-Megrahi paid his council tax?