I'll be the good samaritan again and start a new thread =)

I hope nobody minds...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 29, 1998

Answers

Dan,

Once again, I quite thank you.

Miss Kat,

As you seem to have some qualms with my way of speech (not that I notice a difference, except in personal style, between that of myself and that of, say, yourself), and think I was not acting properly (I do not see how one could be more "casual" than I have been), I would appreciate your insight on what I could do to "correct" this matter. For you see, I have been writing in my everyday manner of speaking in all my contributions to this board, and the "P.A.T.H." message board. Simply put, how should I "act differently" here than I would with my friends? I await your response.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 30, 1998.

I have no "qualms" with your way of speech George. You just don't seem to be speaking casually. Of course, my definition of casual seems to differ from yours. I don't think I can explain it any way other than you speak WAY too properly compared to most people. Not that there's anything wrong with that. That's what I keep telling you! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you breaking those rules. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be the need to, as you can't act as others here or think as them or say anything without it being propriety obsessed. The whole point of me bringing that to your attiention was to prove that everybody breaks rules. Everybody. And sometimes it's alright. That's all I'm trying to teach you George.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 30, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I am afraid that you are quite incorrect: it is never, may I repeat, never "alright" to break or disregard rules. I have spoken to my former governess on this matter, as well as my parents, great-grandfather, and grandmother. If you wish, I will write a social critic, explaining this problem. However, each and every person whom I have asked agree with me: I have not broken any rule of propriety here, as I have used ordinary language whilst contributing herein. I did not speak in any formal manner whatsoever. To each of the aforementioned individuals, I read a few passages of my contribution. There is no such thing as, "too properly", as such makes no sense - one cannot do something in "too proper" a fashion. There is an etiquette for every situation, and, according to myself and all the others whom I have asked (again: I will write a social critic if you wish to take this any further), I have not broken any rules of propriety or etiquette herein. Your accusation of my having done so is quite a serious matter, and I wish to follow this to the fullest extent. Good evening, Miss Kat.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 30, 1998.

I suggest that social critic be someone most of us know, like Miss Manners or Dear Abby. I'm sure there are others most of us have heard of.

-- BobG (rgregorio@bob.bob), August 30, 1998.

George, is it true that JJAstor got rich from trading to indians (Native Americans) his beads for their furs? I heard this today.

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), August 30, 1998.

Kat, you know as well as I that George will continue to run in circles regarding your conversations. I don't know if he will ever understand your point. I am not saying he should change his opinion, of course, but I wish he would try to see yours. Infortunately it hasn't in the past happened, nor do I think it will in the future...

By the way, I am impressed you've read Mr Washington's book! Very cool...

Hi BobG...hope you are well. :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 30, 1998.

"BobG",

You speak of Mr. John Jacob Astor, Sr., who lived during the late-eighteenth through early-nineteenth century. Col. Astor was his great-grandson. Indeed, your statement is basically true. Mr. Astor, a German immigrant (although he lived in the United Kingdom for a few years, and spoke English fluently), founded the trading town of Astoria, Oregon, from which he headed quite a few fur-trading ventures. His son, William Backhouse Astor, continued this, but moved to New York. Of course, the Astoria Trading Companies were gone by the late-ninetheenth century, but Mr. Astor did make his initial wealth via fur. Col. Astor's fortune, although mostly inherited, was acquired via his inventions (i.e. the modern electric turbine, of which he aided in the invention, and the modern hand-brake for bicycles), among other engineering ventures.

Actually, I have spoken of "Miss Manners" many times, she being Mrs. Judith Martin. I have met her on a few occasions, and my mother knows her quite well. Although she is not exactly of the Aristocracy, her advice and knowledge is quite respected. She would be a prime consideration, were I to write or telephone a social critic. However, I would also consider Mrs. Henry Cabot Lodge, III, in Boston - a "social court" of sorts, if you will.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 31, 1998.

George,

I was taking from what you wrote on August 28, 1998 in my last post when I quoted you as saying you had the best life. You said, ". . . there could be no better life than that prescribed by correct propriety." Since you say you live the life prescribed by correct propriety, it only follows that you also feel that there is no better life than that which you live. All of this is taken from what you have said. Do you not agree?

I then simply stated that your opinion on your lifestyle is your own, and it may do you some good to consider other people's opinions. Do you agree?

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 31, 1998.

I know he won't, Gilded. But I'm still gonna try. If I can even make him REALIZE that there's a point of view other than his own, maybe I've made a difference. However, he dosen't seem to care that I try so hard to open his eyes. So maybe I should just give up. It's not making any impression as far as I can see.

And George Washington's book, while very interesting, is not a difficult read. You just have to know a bit about older english.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 31, 1998.

George,

As _I_ see it, you are somewhat breaking those rules. But of course, you are _always_ right, aren't you? (And just in case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.) I wish you would just listen, and CONSIDER the fact that someone besides you might be right. You're completely missing the point here! I'm sorry I'm so frustrated, and most likely by your standards rude, but I still can't believe you won't even think for yourself once in a while.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 31, 1998.

Misty,

Indeed - there can be no better life than that prescribed by correct propriety. However, I endeavour (as one should) to pursue correct propriety. In its essence, "Correct Propriety" (the proper-noun version) is a utopia, and, as utopias cannot exist on this earth, I do not live within one. "The best life," by its very definition, is a utopia. St. Thomas More derived the word "utopia" from the Greek word for "no place". Hence, one can never live "the best life". What one should do, however, and what is done by the American Aristocracy (as well as all the "polite society" of this planet) is the pursuit of correct propriety - that fruit of true Enlightenment. I do hope that this has made sense. Indeed, one should follow correct propriety, however one can never truly attain "Correct Propriety", as such is impossible, given the nature of utopias.

Miss Kat,

I agree: President Washington's treatise (it really isn't a "book", per se) does use some antiquated English. However, this is mostly due to its use of the old second-person singular pronoun "thou", "you" being second-person plural (or polite). I do consider it somewhat saddening that our language has lost this pronoun, as, in doing so, it lost a very small (and yes, insignificant, in the end) part of the "politesse of language", if you will. Although, one must realise that, in President Washington's time, "thou" had already been discarded from everyday usage, and was only used in formal documents (although our Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not use it). In all reality, President Washington would have spoken the same English as you and I, as he was living in the modern period - he spoke modern English.

No, Miss Kat, I am not "always correct." Such would be perfect, and therefore impossible. Such would also be immodest. I do not know everything, and do not purport to hold such knowledge. However, after quite a few consultations on this matter (I further spoke to my grandfather and two of my maternal aunts), I do believe that I am correct herein. Again: you have accused me of something quite serious, this being a breach of etiquette. And, as you give no insight into what I am "actually" doing incorrectly, I am forced to receive advice from others. I have only written in a casual and informal manner whilst contributing to this message board (and P.A.T.H.), and verily do not understand your assertation that I have not. One should always "think for oneself", although one's thought should be within bounds of propriety. As Voltaire stated, "Liberty is freedom within correct boundaries." I hold true to this statement.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 31, 1998.

George,

Don't all of these people you have consulted think like you? The only other viewpoint you have consulted on this matter is mine, which you don't seem to be listening to, since I have told you exactly how you have broken these rules. You can't consult a bunch of people who think exactly like you and call that a good representation of opinions on this issue, nor can that be called thinking for yourself. Asking a bunch of other people what the answer is is NOT thinking for yourself. I would think, as much as you talk, you would have some substance to back it up. I would like to see you decide this matter without the help of any valets of former governesses(who, by the way, are employees and therefore tend to agree with their employer no matter what).

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 31, 1998.

Um, that "of former governesses" should have been an or.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 31, 1998.

Miss Kat,

You have accused me of a "breach of propriety", which I do not seem to understand - I would appreciate it if you would explain to me exactly how I have broken President Washington's forty-second rule. How has my language been "overly-formal", or unsuitable for this message board?

The people of whom I have asked advice do not "think like me." Rather, they think for themselves, within the boundaries of correct propriety, as one should. Miss Kat, I do believe that I am somewhat more learnhd than yourself (I do mean no disrespect) in matters of propriety, as you attest to not having followed it. Certainly, my valet, former-governess, parents, grandparents, great-grandfather, and aunts know more than I. Again - if you truly wish, I will consult Mrs. Judith Martin or Mrs. Henry Cabot-Lodge, III, as they know more about this matter than anyone else.

If you do not wish to listen the advice of those who know quite a bit about propriety and etiquette, and wish to argue solely within the bounds of President Washington's treatise, I am fully prepared to do so. His Excellency's seventy-second rule reads, "Speak not in an unknown tongue in company, but in your own language, and that as those of quality do and not as the vulgar; sublime matters treat seriously."

Your bit about my former governess is quite disrespectful to her, as she is a very kind and wonderful woman. It is she that taught my sister and I the most about basic propriety, and she is somewhat of an expert in the field, so to speak. She is no longer an "employee" of my family, and she is now a governess in Philadelphia, for another family. She, too, thinks for herself, although within the bounds of propriety. My valet, as well, is a very kind and wonderful man, and the same can be said about him.

Miss Kat, we are speaking of a matter of propriety and etiquette, which are most certainly not "in the eye of the beholder". They have been chronicled by many people, and many others, unlike myself, are true experts in this field. I merely endeavour to follow what is correct among these matters, and, as you have accused me of a breach of etiquette, I must look to the correct authorities on the matter. One mustn't decide "propriety" for oneself, as such would not be correct or proper at all; rather, one must consult various authorities. I do believe that I have made myself quite clear and understandable herein. Now, I must change for dinner, and I bid you a good evening.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 31, 1998.

You're missing the point! I'm not saying that you have completely disregarded any rule, and yes you seem to know more about being a brainwashee than I. BUT, in some interpretations(i.e. mine) you have somewhat disobeyed the rules I mentioned. Interpretation is the key word there. You don't seem to understand, and I am becoming increasingly frustrated with your inability to consider other points of view. I have to go do the laundry now, so I will end this message here. Think a little about what I've said, please? And by think, I mean using that grey matter between your ears, not asking Miss Manners.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 31, 1998.

Lord, it's getting hot in here!

George, if we still lived in President Washington's times, your language would be completely normal. Since we don't, your language is not. I'm not saying it's WRONG, so don't go off on a tangent about that, I'm simply saying it is not at all modern. How you cannot tell that we all speak differently, or perhaps more casually, than you is really a puzzler to me.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 31, 1998.

To all,

As I will begin my school classes tomorrow, I shall most likely contribute to this board with less frequently. However, I will attempt to do so when it is convenient.

Miss Kat,

Your comments are quite insulting, especially given that you seem to need to use nonexistent words with which to do so (i.e. "brainwashee"), although I did understand what you meant. You do not seem to understand that propriety does not entail the absence of "thinking for oneself". However, it means that one must do everything one does within its boundaries - everything. You asked me to, "Think a little about what [you've] said," and accordingly, I have done so. However, I have concluded that propriety is not open to interpretation; though it may be applied to every situation, each rule basic propriety (President Washington's treatise is the most basic of all} means one thing, and only one thing. I did not create propriety: I merely attempt to follow it. Hence, this is not "my opposition" - it is simply what one does.

You are completely correct - I do not understand whatsoever. The only difference between our writing that I can discern is your usage of words that do not exist, and the usage of some strange idioms. We both use complete sentences, correct grammar, correct spelling (although I seem to be the only American here not using so-called "American English", for such is merely an incorrect dialect - a corruption by Mr. Noah Webster), and good form.

There is only one correct point of view on the issue of propriety - anything else is, by its very nature, impropriety. Propriety is not "in the eye of the beholder". And, as you asked, I shan't telephone Mrs. Martin.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

I never meant to say that the English language hasn't slightly changed since the late eighteenth-century (especially in this country, with the development of corrupt "American English"), as it most certainly has. Certain sentence structure has become unfashionable, and other types have entered. However, the language is basically the same - such is why one can read eighteenth-century documents with such ease (whereas seventeenth-century and sixteenth-century documents are sometimes in need of unraveling).

Your statement that I speak eighteenth-century English is quite amusing, as I do not see how such would be possible. A person who speaks eighteenth-century English could not understand modern television, modern law, or any other form of current communication. If I were to speak eighteenth-century English, and all the other contributors herein turn-of-the-millenium English, I would not be able to understand you very well, and most certainly would not be able to carry on any sort of intelligent speech. To say my speech is "not modern" is simply preposterous.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 31, 1998.

I've finally realized who "George" really is. Welcome to TitanicShack, Mr. STING:

I don't drink coffee I take tea my dear / I like my toast done on one side / And you can hear it in my accent when I talk / I'm an Englishman in New York /

See me walking down Fifth Avenue / A walking can here at my side / I take it everywhere I walk / I'm an Englishman in New York /

I'm an alien I'm a legal alien / I'm an Englishman in New York / I'm an alien I'm a legal alien / I'm an Englishman in New York /

If "manners maketh man" as someone said / Then he's the hero of the day / It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile / Be yourself no matter what they say /

Modesty, propriety can lead to notoriety / You could end up as the only one / Gentleness, sobrity are rare in this society / At night a candle's brighter than the sun /

Takes more than combat gear to make a man / Takes more than a license for a gun / Confront your enemies, avoid them when you can / A gentleman will walk but never run /

If "manners maketh man" as someone said / Then he's the hero of the day / It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile / Be yourself no matter what they say /

I'm an alien I'm a legal alien / I'm an Englishman in New York / I'm an alien I'm a legal alien / I'm an Englishman in New York /

-- IzzySting?.com (foo@bar.com), September 01, 1998.

Sorry, that should be a "walking CANE", not can.

-- IzzySting?.com (foo@bar.com), September 01, 1998.

George,

I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but I really want you to try and see it from another point of view, even if you don't agree. There are most certainly other opinions and points of view about propriety, as I think has been proven again and again. Just because you do not agree with them does not make them less valid than your own. I think it most certainly is in the eye of the beholder, but you are allowed to have your opinion too. All I'm asking is that you forget for one moment who you are and how you have been raised, and put yourself into the shoes of someone else whose opinion differs from your own and try to see that point of view. Just SEE. You don't have to agree, just SEE. How can you call it thinking if it's only thinking the same things you already know? Expand. Explore. And then tell me if you gained any knowledge.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 01, 1998.

Mr. Dalton,

Regretfully, my surname is not "Sting". You should have no problem in guessing my identity, as I state it quite openly after each message, as one should. My name is George Percival-Symington Haverstrom, III, I am seventeen years of age, and I live in New York, NY.

However, your poem is quite interesting. I agree: gentleness and sobriety (I assume that such is metaphorical, and not literal) are rare in this society. However, if you use the poem to refer to me, you are quite incorrect: I am not an Englishman. I was born in the United States, and am not an alien - I have been an American citizen my entire life. Also, one does not carry a "walking cane" (one says "stick") unless one needs it for physical support. Rather, a stick is an accoutrement of "white tie". Lastly, I drink both coffee and tea (coffee in the morning, tea for tea), and my accent is not British whatsoever.

Miss Kat,

I will not, even for one moment, forget who I am and from where I come. How dare you even suggest something such as that, as it would be extreme impropriety. One should always be aware of from where and what position one comes. I will say this for the very last time: propriety is not "in the eye of the beholder" - one cannot pick and choose "individual propriety", as, if one does not conform to correct propriety (there is no interpretation necessary: chronicles thereof are written in very plain and distinct language, unlike our Constitution), one is practicing impropriety. I do forget who said it, but I quite like the statement, "Putting oneself in another's shoes rarely guarantees a good fit." Do keep this in mind. Impropriety has nothing to offer but filth, chaos, and evil - in other words, it has lead to our "modern" day.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 01, 1998.

George,

I think I see the problem here. I mean no offense to you whatsoever, but it appears that, to many on this thread, you seemed to have led a sheltered existence, and justify it by the approval of the very ones who have sheltered you. There's no denying that you are well-educated, but one can be educated, yet still sheltered. I've met many Americans of various socio-economic backrounds and have never heard anyone use words like "whilst" and "verily" in everyday conversation.

Earlier, you mentioned that everyone here seems to speak "American English" which is an incorrect dialect. Well, this is America, and this is the way most Americans speak. Now, do I believe something is right just because "everyone is doing it"? No, but language is something that has always evolved through history. I'm sure if we went back ever so far enough, there'd be someone, somwhere, who would think your dialect was more corrupt than theirs.

If I remember correctly, this whole "propriety" thing began because people took issue with you regarding the feasibility of a character like Rose existing in the earlier years of this century. If women, somewhere along the way, began behaving in a way you define as "improper", then the seeds of "impropriety" had to have been planted in the Edwardian era (or earlier) in order for them to bloom when they did. Somewhere, a woman stood up and said, "This is improper? Says who?" If Rose had been a real person, she could have been one of those people. To validate your opinion by asking someone who gave it to you in the first place makes it non-valid. What would you expect them to say? "No George, I've been lying to you all these years. Actually, it goes like this..." Questioning things in life is not rebellious, it is taking real ownership of the things you were taught. I respect your views on "propriety" , George, but as I read your responses, I ask myself, are the rules of propriety made for you, or are you made for the rules of propriety?

-- Michael (foo@bar.com), September 01, 1998.

Michael

Thank You!!!!!

George,

I have one question for you. Have you ever taken into consideration the posibility that other people have opinions that are as valid as yours, concerning any matter?

All I want is this one question answered. I believe that I have asked this many times before, just never in such a direct manner. Regardless, I have never gotten an answer.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 01, 1998.

George,

Good Lord, hon! Calm down. I'm sorry I've so upset you. I didn't mean to. We won't continue with that in the eye of the beholder thing, it's not getting anywhere. But I think you've misunderstood me a bit. When I asked you to forget for a moment who you are, I meant to think from another point of view. Try to become someone else for a moment in your mind to see how they are thinking. It will help you better understand other's points of view. That's all I meant. I do that all the time, and I haven't forgotten who I am or where I'm coming from, it just helps me to understand people I'm talking to. I'm not asking you to change your personality or anything. Don't ever do that. Ever. And in response to that quote, I have one, "Don't judge a man until you've walked two moons in his moccasins." In other words, don't judge a person from your point of view, try to understand why they think the way they do. Then you can understand why they act the way they do. The mind is an interesting thing, you can learn to condemn those different from your own or you can learn to explore them and learn.

It's really upseting me that you keep taking everything I say the wrong way, I'm trying very hard to make it in terms that I believe can be clearly understood. But apparently I am not doing a good job of that. I'll just have to try harder. Well, to avoid saying anything else offensive tonight, I will end here. Of course, I will be back tomorrow. We'll continue then. Goodnight, George.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 01, 1998.

OH MY GOD!! After re-reading George's last post, I realized him and me actually agree on something- today's modern society being filth, chaos, and evil. However, I believe that the situations that have caused us to believe this have been different. How interesting! Well, George, maybe we're not as different as I had thought.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 01, 1998.

Michael,

I do not take your statements about my upbringing in an offensive manner whatsoever. I should hope that I have been sheltered from the awful "mainstream society" - if you perceive such as having occurred, then my parents raised me well. You have never heard anyone use the very-common words "whilst" and "verily" in daily conversation? Certainly, one should use them where and when applicable, but they are ordinary words like any other. I find this quite strange.

I should not have stated, "spoken American English," but rather, "written American English." For, as I am sure you know, we do not speak any differently (besides the obvious accent) than the British. However, I was never taught corrupt "American-English" spellings, and I thank my teachers and governess for this. Agreed - language does change (such is quite evident in the evolution of the English language), but one's spellings should not deviate from the correct. At its core, the English language is one forged by war (the early wars of Wessex, the Norman Conquest of 1066, the Danes, &c.) - only then, under times of occupation, is it right for language to change very much. Nevertheless, so-called "American English" spellings are actually incorrect. One does not pronounce the word "colour" as "col lor"; one states, "colour", as the "our" in the word brings a schwa. American English is corrupt and incorrect.

Yes, there were "budding feminists" during the Edwardian Era (although there were more beforehand). However, during the Edwardian period, they did not have much effect (thank God). Edwardian "feminists" were women such as Ms. Emma Goldman (the Communist, who was deported to Russia in 1919), Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Miss Margaret Sanger. I wish to say this for the very last time: it is wholly and completely impossible for any woman like Miss Rose Dewitt Bukater to have existed among the American Aristocracy at any time during the Edwardian Period. Actually, a woman such as her could never have existed at ALL within the Aristocracy.

I justify my life, and I justify propriety via those who have found and lived with happiness therein. Questioning propriety brings about chaos, and only spawns revolution. Such is not allowable. One does not question propriety - such would be improper. You ask, "Are the rules of propriety made for you, or are you made for the rules of propriety?" Here, you seem to ask, "Why are you here," thereby asking the meaning of life. I am afraid that I do not know this. Propriety was not created by God, although it incorporates quite a bit of morality; rather, it was created by man. It spent about six hundred years evolving into its present form, having done so by the late seventeenth-century. The purpose of propriety is to foster order, stability, morality, and kindness toward all. In my opinion, and those of almost everyone I know, propriety, etiquette, politesse, and bienseance are the most important items in life, as they dictate all.

Misty,

Why even ask such a question? Of course the opinions of others are and can be equally as valid as mine! However, when one looks at the subject at hand, viz. propriety, there is only one correct viewpoint and one correct opinion, as propriety is very straightforward and not open to interpretation. Nevertheless, if everyone was pigheaded regarding every topic, no one would ever make progress, and society could not function. And, if I did not think so, I could never have learned anything in school. One must consider logic.

Miss Kat,

First of all, there is no need to refer to me as "Honourable", as I do not hold a title or a position of legal power. I am not quite certain as to your reasoning behind calling me "Honourable."

As I stated to Misty, one must attempt to see others' points of view, as I always attempt to do. However, when it comes to propriety, there is only one correct viewpoint - that prescribed thereby. Propriety is straightforward, and not open to interpretation.

I detest "Indian metaphors", but I will play along in this case. Why should I "wear the other's moccasin" in this matter, when it does not fit me whatsoever? Also, I simply cannot fathom why one would or could dislike propriety - it is merely not something for one to like or dislike: it is something for one to follow, unquestionably.

Now I, too, shall part for the evening. I bid you a good night.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 01, 1998.

"Michael", I have liked your contributions and wonder who you are. I think I know. (We've emailed privately.) Please use your real name; you've done so elsewhere, if you are who I think.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 01, 1998.

George, I challenge you to not capitalize or underline words, for doing so this regularly indicates inability to debate, not to mention impropriety. Ditto with the words Mr. Dalton suggested you stop using as well ("propriety", "improper", "proper", "dramaturgical", "prithee"). One always makes a stronger argument by using a wide vocabulary. I congratulate you for acknowledging how pigheaded one can become about any topic, including propriety, better known today as "dramaturgy".

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 01, 1998.

Also, George, simply repeating a point does not make it convincing, which is what you always do when saying "Rose" would never have exisited in the Edwardian era. I personally don't have a strong opinion on whether or not her persona could have existed then, but think one of the numerous reasons Cameron's film is popular is that viewers enjoy imagining she did; she for the most part behaves in a way audiences wish they could were they in similar circumstances. George, could you get your parents to contribute here? I'd be very interested in learning their perspectives, especially since they're closer to me in age.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 01, 1998.

George:

I love your speech!

-- cgk (foo@bar.com), September 02, 1998.

George,

Thank you for your response. When you replied, you said that questioning impropriety "spawns revolution". Can it not be said, then, that had not individuals questioned the propriety of the British more than two hundred years ago, America might still be under British rule today? After all, the British might have considered the American Revolution an extreme case of impropriety (to say the least). In this light then, revolution gave way to our freedom. I understand (and agree) with your reasoning that certain laws actually give us more freedom, though some might find certain laws restrictive. My only point here is that revolution is not always a bad thing. After all, our country was founded by individuals who questioned the way things were.

BobG,

Hello, glad to meet you. I don't think I'm who you believe I am. We've never e-mailed eachother and my real name is Michael. While I've followed these threads closely, I've only contributed here and there. Nice to meet your aquaintence, though!

-- Michael (foo@bar.com), September 02, 1998.

"BobG",

How, exactly, does underlining words (if you are not aware, underlining is used to stress words in a sentence) indicate either inability debate or, especially, impropriety? At no place or time do chronicles of propriety state that one should not underline words for emphasis.

Sir, when an argument is over propriety, it is quite impossible (and unreasonable) to not use the words "propriety", "impropriety", "proper", and "improper". Also, I have never used the word "dramaturgical" in any of my contributions to this message board. Lastly, I do not see what is wrong with the word "prithee". It simply means, "I pray thee," and is quite helpful in stressing the intended attitude in sentences such as, "Why, prithee, should I do something such as that?" Indeed - one should use a wide vocabulary, where applicable.

It is quite impossible to be pigheaded about propriety, as stubborness is an asset. Propriety is not open to interpretation - it is to be followed in the correct, established manner. No chronicle of propriety states "dramaturgy", where the word "propriety" is intended, although both Mrs. Amy Vanderbilt and President Washington chose to title their works by other names.

You ask if I could persuade my parents to contribute herein. Certainly, my mother would never do so, as she does not believe the internet to be something which ladies should use. However, my father has agreed that, if he has the time, he will do so. Look for his message soon.

"CGK",

I thank you for your compliments, and am glad that you enjoy my writings. However, I find it interesting that you, Mr. Dalton, Michael, and the person calling himself "Izzysting" all have the same e-mail address. Hence, I am forced to suppose that you are the same person. By what name should I refer to you?

Michael,

Indeed - impropriety spawned the American Revolution. Certainly, there were other ways to furnish the basic needs of the colonies other than open revolt. If it had been my choice, the colonies would never have revolted, and would have remained a part of the British Empire. Revolutions are rarely a good idea, especially if they spring forth from impropriety. Only under fascistic or totalitarian regimes is revolution something to be undertaken.

The government of His Majesty King George III was most certainly not totalitarian or fascistic, as His Majesty was a monarch, and his government was that of a constitutional monarchy. Any British governmental failings were caused by the House of Commons, and men like the Prime Minister, Lord North.

The colonies could have accomplished their ends (i.e. destruction of taxes, reforming colonial government, &c.) in other, better, more legal ways. Indeed - our country was founded by individuals who questioned "the way things were" (i.e. His Majesty's government). We have been worse off for it. Constitutional Monarchy is a much finer form of government. However, I will say that our "founding fathers" were quite skilled philosophers.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

PS: I do not wish to argue over the "benevolence" (or lack thereof) of the American Revolution. Although I consider our nation among the best on this planet, our nation and continent would not, in my opinion, be in such a horrid shape as we are now, had better measures been taken, and had the colonies remained a part of the British Empire.

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 02, 1998.

George, in your above entry you state that Dalton, Michael, Izzysting and cgk must be the same person because they all use the same email address, this being foo@bar.com. This is the address that Thomas asks us to use if we do not have an email address or if we don't wish to publish our proper one. Therefore, these people are indeed different identities, they either don't have or don't want to publish their email addresses.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), September 02, 1998.

George,

When did I call you "Honorable"? I don't remember calling you that. As a matter of fact I'm sure I didn't call you that. Can you please explain to me why you thought I called you that?

It was not an "Indian metephor" for your information, it was a quote my great-grandmother used to say a lot. And her mother said it before her. It was not a metephor of any kind. It was a saying.

Where do you keep coming up with this aurgument about other's shoes not fitting you (i.e. not agreeing with others' positions)? That's absolutely no reason to not try and see other points of view. And you don't do that. You have yet to even consider trying to see mine, and any other having to do with propriety and the way you think things should be. So I don't know how you could say that.

I understand where you're coming from, which is why I'm being so relentless in my trying to get you to listen. You don't seem to have expanded much beyond what you've been taught since birth, and I think that dreadfully sad. It's sad because you're missing out on so much, and so many other valid and wonderful points of view.

Alright, I'm going to stop before I become even more of a hippie and start pasting peace signs everywhere. But, again, think about what I've said.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 02, 1998.

Kat, he must have misunderstood your "hon" word that was followed by the period sign. He took it literally, by the dictionary, which would produce "honourable." But I know your word referred to something else :-)

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), September 02, 1998.

Oh, was that it? And wipe that smile off your cyber face, I say that to everybody. I guess I say it so much I just started writing it. That's funny he thought it meant Honorable.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 03, 1998.