Chapter 4 is now open =)

Just a short note: as we read so much about propriety on this continous thread, I just remembered (while watching the movie on tapes) the scene when Rose and Jack enter in Rose's suite and while the door is open, Rose tells him: "I can assure you it's quite proper." So they must been living on some "propriety" rules before they both broke them with their love and Rose decides "I'm through with being polite." Any "proper" comments, ladies and gentlemen?

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

Answers

Excuse my grammar in the second sentence ("must have been").

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

There is never an excuse for bad grammar, Mr. Draghici. It is the worst form of impropriety.

-- BobG (bob@bob.com), September 02, 1998.

Don't be so hard on him, Bob. =) Forget the Titanic. My mom freaks out when I stay at a friend's house. She has to make sure that there are no guys and if there are, they have to be either married and stuff. You get the picture. It was improper to go into a room with the opposite sex with doors locked. Who knows what goes on in there? It's still this way in some parts of the world. I've heard stories about couples being forced to get married for holding hands and other silly stuff. Besides, Jack was a 3rd class passenger. That makes it even improper....

-- MyName (Hi@howRU.com), September 02, 1998.

George,

I've been reading all of the postings in this thread since it first began. I don't recall this question being asked, so I will ask it now (but if it has been addressed already, just let me know and I'll review the postings): Can you explain the use of hyphenated names among the Aristocracy? I would like to know if there is a particular reason behind the use of the hyphen and the selection of the names themselves. Usually we see hyphenated last names, rather than the middle names such as yours and your mother's name. I've always been fascinated by names, so I would be interested in your comments. Thank you.

Kathleen

-- Kathleen Marcaccio (dkosh@msn.com), September 02, 1998.

Miss Kat,

If you did not mean "Honourable" by writing "hon", what exactly did you mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, "hon" has no other meaning.

I do believe I have made it quite clear that I shan't examine any other points of view concerning propriety, as such would not concur with correct propriety, and hence would be improper. On this matter, I wish not to "expand" (i.e. practice impropriety), but to continue my pursuit thereof.

Dan,

I do not quite understand your tidbit from "Titanic". What is "quite proper"? You seem to have omitted the antecedent, which is most certainly a minor mistake on your part. If their visiting Miss Rose's stateroom is the antecedent, then Mr. Cameron knows nothing about propriety, as such would be thoroughly improper.

"BobG",

I quite disagree. The worst form of impropriety is immodesty.

Miss Marcaccio,

I was not aware that hyphenated names are only present amongst the Aristocracy. Indeed, a hyphenated name may be in either the middle name (i.e. myself, my sister, my mother, &c.), or the surname (the Viscount Linley: David Armstrong-Jones, Henry Cabot-Lodge, &c.). In the case of surnames, such as you asked, the hyphenated name is formed via the joining of two family names. For example, when a Cabot married a Lodge, their names were joined. The same can be said for the Viscount Linley. In my case, I carry the name of my father and grandfather, my being the third "George Percival-Symington Haverstrom". However, I am not quite certain my great-grandparents' reasoning behind "Percival-Symington". As far as I know, these are names that were to their liking. However, one may also use the mother's maiden name, or a portion of it, as with some relatives and relations of mine. Indeed - names, and the science behind them, can be quite interesting.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 03, 1998.

Wrong again. Killing your fellow man (other than as part of capital punishment) is the worst form of dramaturgy, followed by bad grammar, and THEN and ONLY THEN immodesty. I shan't repeat this for not only is it obvious but in the chronicles of Sum Waiz Mann.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 03, 1998.

Hello Everyone!!

I have one question and one comment.

First, the question: Where in the movie does it say that Rose's family is part of the Aristocracy??????? As far as I can remember, it only said they were wealthy. According to George, being wealthy does not make you part of the Aristocracy.

Second: The definition of opinion is "A belief held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge." Keeping this definition in mind George, your comment about your opinions on propriety being the only correct one is false. There is no such thing as a correct opinion. If there is only one correct opinion on a matter, it would be a fact, not an opinion. Your opinion on propriety is no more correct than mine. I believe that a lot of what is considered propriety is out of date for modern times and society as a whole. If you wish to argue that your opinion is a fact, please include FACTUAL evidence upholding your arguments. The definition of a Fact is "something put forth as OBJECTIVELY real, something OBJECTIVELY verifiable. Something with real demonstrable existence: actuality" Following the definition of a fact, your evidence must be objective and come from an objective source. (Not your governess or valet.) If you choose not to make an argument for your position, I will assume you agree that the different opinions are equally acceptable as opinions, regardless of whether you agree with the actual opinions or not. Therefore agreeing that there is no correct or incorrect opinion on the subject of propriety.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 03, 1998.

George, the movie was not explicit on what the dialogue between Rose and Jack was before she made the comment "It's quite proper, I can assure you," so we are left only with a guess that Jack asked her if it was proper for him to be alone with her in her suite. If that is what Cameron had in mind, I agree that it was improper, it would be even today, considering the circumstances. My point was that they were knowledgeable about those rules, yet they chose to break them. I do believe pure love is above all rules. The only commandment left by Jesus is about love, everything else should stem from it. Of course, pure love is utopia, right? It does not exist in practice. Yet, when you feel you are in so deep love, as it was the case between Jack and Rose, you believe you have experienced that pure love and everything else that might harm or limit it would be unwelcome. Hence, their actions should be understood as following from this understanding.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), September 03, 1998.

George,

Ok, first of all, I have not asked you to practice impropriety. Unless by that you mean considering other's viewpoints. If that is the case, then propriety makes no sense to me at all. A system which restricts the thoughts of it's participants is simply terrifying to me.

And "hon" is short for "honey". It's a southern thing. I say that alot, I must have started writing it. Sorry for the confusion.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 04, 1998.

"BobG",

You used "dramaturgy" to mean "impropriety". Earlier, you used this word to mean "propriety". A word cannot have the same definition as its complete opposite. So, I asked one of my English literature teachers for the correct definition of "dramaturgy". Wishing me to find this on my own, he directed me to the Oxford English Dictionary. It only listed two definitions of "dramaturgy", each of which have nothing to do with "propriety". They are as follows:

1) Dramatic composition; the dramatic art. 2) Dramatic or theatrical acting.

After examining this word, I found the definition of "propriety". I examined all seven definitions, none of which are anything like that of "dramaturgy". I fear, sir, that you are wrong about this word - I had not thought it to be synonymous to "propriety". Lastly, killing one's fellow man is not a matter of propriety; such belongs to morality.

Misty,

The word "Aristocracy" is not mentioned in "Titanic", although this can be easily gathered from the film's dialogue. Mrs. Bukater (Miss Rose's mother) speaks of their "good name", "fine memories", "fine items", and other such clues. Of course, in the Edwardian age, this sort of propriety extended not only to the Aristocracy, but to the Bourgeoisie as well. At the time, it was sometimes quite difficult to distinguish between the two classes. Nevertheless, it is plainly visible that Miss Rose was not of the nouveau-riche (from the dialogue), hence, had she been real, she would not have shown the improper decorum that she presents in Mr. Cameron's film.

As to your second paragraph, you have pointed out (quite well, if I may add), a mistake in my statement. For this, I apologise. What I present is not "my opinion" on propriety. Such are the facts as shown by every social critic since the sixteenth century. I do not present "opinions" upon this matter - merely facts. Propriety cannot be "personally interpreted", and it is not "in the eye of the beholder". It is as presented: there can be no changes and no alterations, as such would be impropriety. Propriety cannot be "out of date", for I, my friends, my peers, and my relatives of my age are able to perorm every event in our daily lives quite well. Could it not be that "propriety is outdated", but that "society is improper". Examine my parting quote, which states, "Society's varieties do not concern propriety."

Dan,

Indeed, they chose to "break the rules of propriety" (although I am not quite certain how much Mr. Cameron knows on the subject). However, one must understand that there is an etiquette and decorum for every situation and item that one will encounter - even such amorous topics as that on which you touch. I wish not to discuss "love", as such (especially in this case) has the ability to become vulgar and improper. Nevertheless, Mr. Dawson and Miss Rose (especially the latter) acted in severe impropriety - such is all that matters, and such would not have occurred in the Edwardian age. It is all very simple.

Miss Kat,

Considering "other viewpoints" (again, I state facts pertaining to propriety, as anything else would be inherently improper) about propriety is improper. I did not realise that "hon" meant "honey", which I presume to be a term of endearment (which certainly wasn't needed, although I thank you for the gesture). I have never heard this stated before. Might I ask how one pronounces "hon"?

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 04, 1998.

Pronounce it? Well, it sounds like it looks. Um, well, pronouncing it might be easier if I could figure out a way to spell it that would look exactly as it sounds. Hun, maybe. It's short for honey, so if you just take the -ey off, there you have it.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 04, 1998.

I have read the words "proper", "improper", "propriety" and "impropriety" on this thread so many times that the words have lost all meaning! As for "dramaturgical", well...it's getting there.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), September 04, 1998.

George,

I realize that most people will automatically conclude Rose and her mother were members of the aristocracy. However, since it was never stated, I do not believe they were part of the aristocracy. They lost their wealth, which you said very rarely, if ever, happens. You also stated family would have been able to help them along if something like that did happen. If that were the case with Rose and her mother, Rose would not have been so pressured to marry so young. You also said before that the females in the aristocracy were expected to attend an instution of higher learning. It is clear that Ruth has no intention of allowing her daughter to do that when she says "The purpose of University is to find a suitable husband. Rose has already done that."

As for your conclusions drawn from the dialogue in the film. Fine memories and fine items can be bought with wealth alone. There is no need for the lineage of an Arisocratic family. I am sure Molly Brown had fine items and fine memories, but as you stated before, she was not a member of the aristocracy. William Randolph Hearst had fine memories, fine items (many of which can still be seen in San Simeon, California) and a fine name, in his opinion. You have also stated that he was not Aristocratic. Your comments about the Bourgeoisie and the Aristocracy only lead me to believe that it was more possible for Rose to have been real. The two different groups may have followed the same type of propriety, but it is possible she may have rebelled against that. Therefore, your conclusion does not quite follow your arguments.

Second, you did not give any objective evidence as to why propriety would lead to the best life. (I am assuming that your beliefs on the differing gender roles follow propriety. I believe I remember you saying that.) I disagree. Please give some Objective factual evidence as to why propriety leads to the best life. I will venture to say that I do not follow propriety as closely as you do, but I believe that the way I conduct myself is leading to the best life. Following your logic in your second to the last sentence addressed to me, it would follow that propriety may be out of date in some ways since I, too, am able to perform every event in my daily life quite well.

Last, You state "Society's varieties do not concern propriety." If society's varieties do not conform with propriety, is there a problem with society or propriety? Propriety was established to serve the society, not society established to serve propriety, therefore, maybe propriety should change and adjust with society, not the other way around.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 04, 1998.

George,

I forgot to mention earlier, but thank you for the compliment on my writing! I truly appreciate it.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 04, 1998.

These threads are simply amazing. I congratulate each and every one of you on your skills at debate. I find nothing to contribute here because you are all saying it so well for me (that and the fact that George and I have gone around in circles about these things a ridiculous number of times as it is)!

George, two things: If you dislike the country in which you were born so much, are you considering denouncing your American citizenship one day and taking up in England? From the things you say here, it seems to me you'll be a great deal happier if you do. Second: why do you detest "Indian metaphors"? You should know better than to say vulgar things like that with Native Americans like me in the room. I dare say there's more truth to them than anything in YOUR box of words. Insulting as usual...and after I've been so extraordinarily nice to you.

Izzysting...I laughed uproariously when you posted the lyrics to "Englishman in New York." Why didn't I think of that???? LOL.

Keep on, people. You are all restoring my faith in freedom and humanity in general! :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 04, 1998.

Gilded,

You're a Native American too? I didn't know that. That's why I got mad when George called that saying an "Indian Metephor". I'm not full-blood, I'm just a fourth Cherokee, but I like to be proud of it. And it was a saying, not a metephor. A saying that has some personal importance to me. And, yeah. OK. Well, I'm tired. It's 11:00. Goodnight.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 04, 1998.

Oopsie daisy, that should have been "metaphor". I said I was tired!

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 04, 1998.

Yes, indeed. I am Mohawk, a little less than a third, I think. And very proud of it.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 05, 1998.

To all,

My son, George, has told me much about his contributions to this message board, and I am quite interested. I am his father, George Percival-Symington Haverstrom, Jr., and it has come to my attention that my presence here has been requested. Allow me to introduce myself. I am 43 years of age, I am an attorney at law, and I live in New York, with my family. I have a wife, Marie, a daughter, Eleanor, and, as you all know, my son of 17 years, George. I have read the message by a person calling himself BobG that asks for my perspectives. However, I am not quite sure about what he wishes my thoughts. I presume that he means propriety (what, from reading posts, I have noticed to be the grand topic herein), the film Titanic, and the opinions and facts presented by my son. I would like to begin by stating that I have not seen Titanic, and actually have no wish to do so. George and Eleanor are the only two members of our family who saw the film, as they are both quite interested in our genealogy and the history at hand. From what they have told me, Eleanor did not enjoy the film due to the content and the characteristics of the main character, and George did not enjoy it for reasons of historical inaccuracy and mere bad cinema. However, as I have not viewed the film, I cannot enter my thoughts as to its agreeableness or worthiness.

Although, I can offer my insight as to the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the films main character, her actions related to me from my son and daughter. It is true that, amongst either the Aristocracy or Bourgeoisie of the Edwardian period, a person such as the films main character would not have existed. One must realise that the two rungs of the time were virtually indistinguishable  only via ones name and ones social knowledge could one recognise who is of the Aristocracy, and who is of the Bourgeoisie. As the Bourgeoisie wished to imitate the Aristocracy in every possible manner, from the way one raised ones children, to the way one lived ones daily life, a member of the Bourgeoisie and a member of the Aristocracy would act the same, think the same, and perform every action in the same way. Hence, as the main character was not of the nouveau-riche, her mannerisms, characteristics, and actions were completely and totally unrealistic.

I have read most of the arguments and writings on this board over the subject of propriety. I must state that I am quite proud of my son for having continued to argue his position about this topic. Indeed, propriety means only one thing, and is not, as he has stated, In the eye of the beholder. Any deviation from correct propriety is, in itself by its very nature, impropriety. Such is the affliction of society today, and George is quite correct to oppose it, as any good person should.

Quite a few of you seem to have qualms with the way my son has been raised. I find this quite insulting, and quite baseless. My wife and I have raised both our children in the traditional and proper method, and they have both turned out exactly as we had hoped. I am glad that George has decided not to take into mind any other opinions regarding propriety, as such would entail practising the improper. Georges personal ideal is His Majesty King Edward VII. I cannot disagree with him. King Edward was a good man, with straight priorities. Propriety always came first, as it should in life. I agree with all the opinions and facts presented by my son, as he has researched the Edwardian period, the history of propriety, and our genealogy. I do hope that this letter has been sufficient, and will gladly accept and answer any questions that you might have for me.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom, Jr.

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom, Jr. (Emma81@wans.net), September 05, 1998.

Misty,

On the subject of Miss Rose's actions and her class/rung, I do believe my father's letter explains everything I would wish to. However, evidently, Mr. Cameron knows nothing of the Aristocratic (or Bourgeoie of the time) position on women's educations. A woman should absolutely possess a degree, and should attend a fine university, but not for the reason presented. During the Edwardian period, Vassar, Radcliffe, and Barnard were the three most favoured, although Vassar has now been ommitted. However, many women of the Aristocracy now attend Universities of both genders. Nevertheless, a woman is expected, just as a man, to possess a degree and be fully fluent, intellectually.

Mr. Hearst did not have "fine items". His estate at San Simeon is grandiose, vulgar, and ostentatious. Such is a prime example of immodesty. Certainly, one's estate may be large (such as Biltmore, in North Carolina), but should not be on the scale of San Simeon.

Indeed, I have explained the propriety of gender roles. One may not "pick-and-choose" with propriety - one must merely follow it to the best of one's ability, fully and completely. If every man, woman, and child on earth followed correct propriety, we would live in a new golden age: one of beauty, kindness, bienseance, and correctness.

You ask, "If society's varieties do not conform with propriety, what is wrong, society or propriety?" I assure you that, in that case, society would be wrong. Although, polite society will never be. Propriety cannot change or be bent - much like the mineral mica. Such is fact.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

My uncle, Julian, renounced his American citizenship at the age of 24, and moved to the United Kingdom, hoping to gain the Viscountry of Wiltshire from Her Majesty the Queen - the viscountry once held by our family. However, he has yet to accomplish this, although he fought for the United Kingdom aboard the aircraft-carrier HMS Invincible during the Persian Gulf War. He has also been stationed aboard the ballistic-missile submarine, HMS Repulse. Of course, you must understand that this was much to my grandparents' dismay, as they were quite worried about him. Nevertheless, he received an honourable discharge from the Royal Navy last year, and is now quite happy in London. He still would like the Viscountry, and, although Her Majesty rarely awards hereditary positions anymore, he is quite determined.

I would not wish to do this. I do not "dislike" the United States of America - I merely feel that we have an inferior form of government to the British bicameral Constitutional Monarchy, and that the colonies would have been much better off by remaining part of the Empire and resolving their differences in a legal manner. I intend to remain in this country, although I do adore Britain.

I have nothing against Native Americans (I do apologise for forgetting to call your race by this name), although it is true that, at the time Admiral Columbus discovered the Americas, they were uncivilised and quite barbaric in their ways (human sacrifice amongst certain tribes, &c.). I prefer philosophy from civilised nations (from Sumer to the British Empire), and metaphors as such. I mean no offense by any of my statements, as Native Americans are Americans as well, and deserve respect for their ability to adapt to civlisation. By now, Native Americans are productive, ordinary members of society.'

"Englishman in New York" is a song of some sort? For the life of me, I cannot find any rhythm in it whatsoever. It seemed more like a poem.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 05, 1998.

George:

Although Sting's music often contains complex rythyms (he's the only "pop" musician I know of who writes songs in 5/4 and 7/4, sometimes in the same song), "Englishman in New York", from his 1987 album, "Nothing Like The Sun", is in very proper 4/4 time - as you might expect from the lyrics. BTW: I was wondering how you guessed I was IzzySting, but then read on to discover it was serendipity.

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 05, 1998.

Seems I had a complex "rythym" going on there with my typing....

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 05, 1998.

There! My rhythm is back. Now I just need to work on my velosity....D'oh!

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 05, 1998.

George,

This will be my last post at this thread. Unfortunately, you have still not provided any objective evidence as to why propriety leads to the best life, which I have asked for a number of times. My only guess is that there is no evidence this statement is a fact, and is therefore an opinion, of which I disagree. I do not agree with the gender roles propriety has formed. If I did, I would not be here right now (you stated your mother will not use the internet because it would be improper)

George, it has been a pleasure debating with you. I feel your arguments are a little immature, for you do not have any evidence to support them. It may be in your best interests to do a little more research into your beliefs so that you can find some objective evidence to support them. You may also consider taking a class on critical thinking. The one I took was wonderful, and it opens your eyes to the fact that there are many things in life that should be questioned. It may do you some good, when you are older, to get out in the world and see how the average person lives. You have had opportunities that most parents can never provide for their children, and you should not take for granted that everyone has been able to do the things you have. Propriety may be a wonderful thing. I have never had the experiences you have had to know for sure, but I think if we all followed correct propriety, many of the lower classes would be fazed out and the upper class would be the only one to survive. When you consider how many families are single parent now, with most of them being single mothers, what would they do? According to correct propriety, they should not be working, and they should be maintaining feminine roles. You need to consider how these things would affect EVERYONE, not just you. The upperclass is only a small percentage of the population.

Just as they said Titanic could not be sunk, you say Propriety can not be changed. I disagree. Propriety can be changed. It can be rewritten or disregarded completely because it is not tangible. The constitution is changed all the time with amendments. It is changed to conform to the needs of society, not the other way around. Propriety should be the same. Your opinion on propriety is different than mine, and that is fine. I can accept that, and perhaps we should agree to disagree as you stated when this thread first began. Just please do not tell me that I am wrong, because one is not wrong in their opinions.

Thank You, Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 05, 1998.

Well said, Misty!

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 05, 1998.

Good job, Misty.

George...you've really pushed my buttons this time. Native Americans were thousands of times more productive before your sorry excuse for a race invaded THEIR COUNTRY and ruined THEIR LIVES. They lived off the land, put back what they took, and were thankful for it. Now, they have been forced onto reservations, live in destitution and poverty, and are struggling to find a way out. This is how we repay the keepers of our country? Disrespect and degradation? If the English hadn't been so greedy, maybe the Native Americans would be more productive now. It was thinking exactly like yours (calling them "barbaric" and considering them "not normal") that has made them into what they are today. They are wasting away as we speak. They have more right to be here than you and your family ever will. I am gravely insulted by your prejudice, George, and stunned by your frigidity, and I refuse to reply to any more of your assanine posts as a result.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 05, 1998.

George,

I agree fully with Gilded. You and you racist attitude digust me beyond words. That, and your inability to open your mind to anything that dosen't agree with you exactly, are great cause for me to abandon this thread. But I'd like to see you respond to my last post before I go. And resond to it not with the drivel you have been spewing in my direction for so long, but with a thought of your own. And god help us if more people like you populate this world. Good day, sir.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 05, 1998.

That should have been "respond".

And before I'm done, I have a question for your father, George: You said your son had turned out exactly as you had hoped? If he had turned out with, say, a mind of his own would you have been dissapointed?

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 05, 1998.

Welcome, Mr. Havestrom (father of George). After reading your son's comments for the last several weeks, I suspect most Aristocrats dislike the movie largely because it shows rebellion against "propriety", while most non-Aristocrats like it. Your work must be interesting. Various career tests have indicated I would do well in law, but I've chosen the marketing route, which I enjoy. I'm curious, are your clients only fellow Aristocrats? Regarding our favorite topic, I consulted Webster's, and here are the definitions:

propriety: (1) the standard of what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech. (2) pl: the customs of polite society.

proper: (1) marked by suitability or rightness (~punishment). (2) referring to one individual only (3) belonging characteristically to a species or individual: peculiar (4) very satisfactory: excellent. (5) strictly limited to a specified thing (the city ~) (6) correct (the ~ way to proceed) (7) strictly decorous: genteel.

SYN: meet, appropriate, fitting, seemly

Although one of several definitions for "genteel" is "Aristocratic", no where in the definitions above is it stated "according to the chronicles of [XYZ person(s)]." Similarly, I do not infer that "polite society" or "socially acceptable" refer to a specified code of behavior elaborated upon by an 18th century philosopher. I therefore question your view that propriety is not subject to interpretation. As a lawyer, you are no doubt an expert at language, so if you disagree with my understanding of the above definitions, please elaborate. Thanks, BobG

-- Bob Gregorio (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 05, 1998.

To all,

I was going to save the following until this coming Monday, but, with the turmoil at hand, I have decided to present it now. My mother, Mrs. Judith Martin (the social critic), Mrs. Henry Cabot-Lodge, III (the social institution), and our good friends, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Hanover-Jameson do not think it good for me to be involved with continued use of the internet, and continued associations with the proletariat. My mother spoke to Mrs. Cabot-Lodge (who lives in Boston) this morning, and she has assured us that, if this were to become common knowledge among the Aristocracy (that is, if I were not to cease by Monday), it could have the potential to cause a social scandal. Hence, I shall cease all contributions herein, all correspondences with the proletariat, and all arguments today. However, I will give last responses to each topic. My father had also wished to continue, but, by the advice of the aforementioned people, that is no longer possible - although he has given me his response to BobG's reply. It seems that the main chroniclers of propriety have spoken, and that the Internet is not a proper medium for communication whatsoever.

Misty,

Mrs. Cabot-Lodge was read a few of my postings, and applauded my defense of correct propriety, and the Aristocracy as a whole. Indeed, propriety cannot change or be changed, as such would imply impropriety. I do not think I need to say any more on this subject.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

You may deny the facts all you wish, but the indigenous peoples of this hemisphere were most certainly not civilised. The basis of civilisation is the existence of cities, and the technology and infrastructure to support those cities. The natives most certainly did not fit this definition. And, if one is not civilised, one is inherently a barbarian - or savage, as one might also say. These terms are not meant to be offensive - they are merely antropological terms to describe different types of societies. Indeed, a culture that practises human sacrifice is not a civilised culture whatsoever.

One must realise that, if societies did not migrate and conquer other societies, the world would never progress. If the Normans had not conquered Britain in 1066, Latin would never have been infused into English (a similar occurrence happened with the Danish invasions of Britain in the tenth century). If the Romans had not invaded the regions which they did, those regions would not have gained the civilsed values of the Roman Empire. One must understand that, throughout history, man has progressed by one nation conquering and aiding another. If this had never occurred - if Sumeria, Rome, Greece, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Mongolia, the Mahometans, China, and the United States of America had never conquered another country (one might as well forget the latter seven), nation, or region, society would never have progressed, and globalisation would be unheard.

One must sympathise with conquered peoples, and attempt to civilise barbarians to the best of their abilities. You state that you are a Native American - you seem to be managing quite well. Indeed, the British, French, and Spanish have done their job well - civilising the Native Americans. Again, I have nothing but respect for today's Native Americans, and their assimilation into civlisation. My message was not one of hate or prejudice whatsoever, but one of respect.

Miss Kat,

'Tis not I that have insulted you - you have insulted me. I will state again that I have nothing but respect for Native Americans, but one must realise that they were (literally) savages, cannibals, and barbarians before civlisation. I know not how much you know about the history of these indigenous peoples, but you ought to learn more. I have no "racist attitude" - I merely hold compassion for those who have not been civilised. However, this description no longer fits Native Americans, (it has been shown here) as you are now productive members of civilised society. You seem to be doing quite well, Miss Kat. I assure you, I will someday have offspring - as will they. The Aristocracy will not be destroyed, Miss Kat, and propriety will still be followed. I bid you the best in all future endeavours.

Miss "Kat",

Indeed, my son has turned out as I had hoped. He most certainly has "a mind of his own", which he uses constantly. I do not know if he has told you, but he is the author of two sold (yet unproduced) screenplays, exploring theories of both Voltaire and Mr. J.J. Rousseau. He is also most correct about the Indians - they have been civilised.

Mr. Gregorio,

In all actuality, the only two Aristocrats who I know to have seen "Titanic" are my son and daughter. Indeed, I do find my work interesting - I have been practising law for the past sixteen years. Yes, I only practise it amongst the Aristocracy, as we prefer to have our advocates be of our own.

One should not trust "Webster's American Dictionary", as Noah Webster was merely a puppet of the Federalists. One must be advised that "American English" is not English at all, but an incorrect derivation. I have found that the most proper dictionary is the multi-volumed "Oxford English Dictionary" or "Oxford Dictionary of the English Language".

Polite society relies on social critics to chronicle propriety, translating it from older documents, and informing us of etiquette, politesse, and bienseance. Whenever a work cites "polite society" in the United States, this refers to the American Aristocracy. As my children's governess used to tell them, "If Her Majesty the Queen would not do it, it is not proper." Of course, this is a bit childish, and perhaps too broad, but it is essentially correct. One must pay constant attention to one's actions, and make for certain that they correspond with propriety. I regret that we could not continue this discussion, but the reasons therefor are aforementioned.

All,

I do hope this has been an adequate parting. I was wrong to have posted comments on the internet from the start - I now recognise that. The internet is most certainly not a domain for polite society, as it does not include social boundaries. I wish all of you the best in your lives ahead, and do hope that you consider all I have said about correct propriety. I hope that you have a restful and happy Labour Day week-end.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

On this day,

September the Fifth,

MCMXCVIII

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), September 05, 1998.

Bull. A bunch of frickin' bull. I'm outta here. . .

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 05, 1998.

Hahaha. This was the best scam yet. I can't wait to find out who "George" was! As Molly Brown asked in the movie, "Was it you Thomas?" If not, since you have the user logs, could you figure it out, as you did with the "Is Leo gay or bi?" thread? Thanks.

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 05, 1998.

Would someone please email the links of all 4 "chapters" of this discussion to all major English language newspapers? It's only fair that Aristocratic and non-Aristocratic society benefit from all the Havestroms have taught us. First item on the agenda for me is to throw out that silly Webster's dictionary. Anyone available for a book-burning party?

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 05, 1998.

I only feel the urge to post three sentences here:

"They've got you trapped, George!"

"You're not to see that Internet board again, George..."

"This is totally unacceptable behavior..."

Sounds somewhat familiar? Who said history does not repeat?

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), September 05, 1998.

One thing about the "barbarians" and cannibals: how come that just a little bit south of the present US border the mayas, incas, aztecs etc could build huge cities with full infrastructure and use of hot water, not to mention their advancement in building technology and astronomy, something the modern human could not match until our century? Those sacrificies were religious, to please the gods. Isn't the Old Testament full of scarifices, including whole nations simply doomed and considered "wicked?" Was the Spanish desease that was to be cured only with gold civilising?! And the slaughtering of the Natives? And because I'm from Romania, how civilising were the Romans for the local barbarians, when all they did was to plunder Dacia of its gold and have an imperial party that lasted for 123 days, while every citizen of Rome did not have to pay taxes in the year 117 or 118 AD, but was granted a sum of money (like a negative tax) while "barbarians" fought as gladiators to their death to the pleasure of the civilized? I wonder who collected the benefit of the civilising efforts? Was it the elite, perhaps? Why was the Irish famine? And so one...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), September 05, 1998.

Ok, yeah, I said I was outta here, but I just can't seem to shut up. That, and I have a quote that might describe George's situation somewhat. In context, it makes no sense here, but out of context it is perfect.

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

That's from George Orwell's "1984". And the truly interesting thing is that it was used by Winston regarding the "proles", the exact opposite of the person who it describes so beautifully.

Oh yeah, and one more thing: It's gonna cause a social scandal? Do these people have nothing better to do than worry about some 17 year-old on a computer? Geez. This world is absurd.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 06, 1998.

We should send all four chapters of this thread to the newspapers to see if we can cause a social scandal!! That would be fun!!!

I have two questions: Why does George all of a sudden have to leave, when he has obviously been visiting chat rooms and such for some time?

and

Why does his e-mail address say Emma81?

Just curious

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), September 06, 1998.

Dan Draghici...beautifully said, and so right you are.

Kat...perfect! I am copying that quote right now...

To George and his father, I have little to say. I pity you, I really do. Stay in your little cages and out of touch with the rest of the world; for if you do, then you can do nothing to stop us from growing and changing and questioning until we eventually wipe your kind off the face of this planet.

Ok...I am calm...I am cool...where's my blood pressure pills???

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 06, 1998.

Misty...regarding George's email address: "Emma" was a movie his siter Eleanor enjoyed, and if I remember correctly, "81" is the year of her birth.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 06, 1998.

Sorry, that should read "sister"...and now that I think of it, "81" would be the year of George's birth.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 06, 1998.

To all,

Good day. I will only post here once, unless I have need to do so another time. I am Jonathan L. Williams, the personal valet to Mr. George P. Haverstrom, Jr., and Mr. George P. Haverstrom, III. I have been directed by the Haverstrom family to right any misconceptions that might have been stated after their departure from the World Wide Web.

A Mr. Dan Dalton states that he, "Can't wait to find out who 'George' was." You should look at the "user logs", as you will uncover that Mr. Haverstrom and his son were exactly who they stated they were.

A Mr. Bob Gregorio wishes all these chapters given to the major English-language newspapers. The Haverstroms are certainly in the position to keep a thing like that from ever happening. They could easily block it in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Also, as they are not public figures, a libel suit could be brought against either the newspapers or the source. Last of all, I doubt the newspapers would care.

A Mr. Dan Draghici states lines from "Titanic" (I saw the picture, so I know what you mean), in a form he considers "fitting" for this situation. I assure you, these phrases were not stated to Mr. Haverstrom. As I have worked for the Haverstrom family for some seven years, I have learned much about the Aristocracy. They are kind, subtle people, and would not say things like this. Also, I assure you that Mr. Haverstrom had no qualms about departing from the World Wide Web. He leads quite a happy life, and has no need to use it. Also, sir, I must point out two bits of information that you might not know - "Titanic" was a film, not history; especially the parts you're referring to, and the Irish Potato Famine was caused by a natural parasite infestation of the potato plants - nothing else.

A "Miss Kat" applies a line from a book to Mr. Haverstrom, stating that he will rebel. I assure you that Mr. Haverstrom has no reason or wish to rebel against his family or against the Aristocracy. I know him very well. Also, he is quite conscious, having written and sold two screenplays.

The possible social scandal could result if the Haverstroms had not heeded the words of Mrs. Cabot-Lodge or Mrs. Martin. If word were to get out that they had let their son associate with the proletariat, after being advised against it by the two above women, it could cause as great a social shock as any before. Realise that Mr. Haverstrom is not just "some 17 year-old on a computer": he is George Percival-Symington Haverstrom, III.

A Misty Chacon states the same as Mr. Dan Dalton. I direct you to my above statement about this. It would be pretty impossible for you to cause a social scandal, as the Haverstroms have heeded the word of Mrs. Cabot-Lodge, and have her full support. The reason Mr. Haverstrom had to leave so suddenlly was that his mother had brought his and his father's contributions to the attention of Mrs. Cabot-Lodge and Mrs. Martin. Their e-mail address is "Emma81" because Mr. Haverstrom's mother and sister had chosen the name. His sister enjoyed Jane Austen's novel, "Emma", at the time, and Mr. Haverstrom was born in the year 1981 (the internet service required six numbers or letters).

"Gilded Age Junkie" states her pity for the Haverstroms and the Aristocracy, and that she wishes the Aristocracy wiped off the face of the Earth. I assure you that they do not need your pity, and that you should have no reason to pity them. They are very kind, nice people, that you do not seem to understand. Read my next paragraph for this. It would be very hard to wipe the Aristocracy away, as they control much of the finance in this country. I am a Proletarian as well, although I am in the service of the Haverstroms. I agree - the Proletariat will always change, but there will always be an Aristocracy. Why do you want them dead? How have they physically harmed you? Aristocrats do not live in cages. They are very free and very happy people.

No one here really seems to understand the Aristocracy. So, because I, like you, am not one of them, I think I can explain it well. The American Aristocracy is a group that separates itself from "mainstream society", but is involved in every important aspect of our lives. They live according to a very old and wise social code, and adhere to traidional morality. They are very kind people, and view the world as having "slid downward" since the Edwardian era ended in 1913. They aren't incorrect at all. I have lived amongst the Aristocracy for nine years, and it has been amazing. They exist in a wonderful world of beauty and splendour. It is difficult to describe. They do not like others intruding upon their world. They are socially, economically, and aesthetically better than you or I. Propriety (of which I am happily a part) guides their every move, action, and breath. And, they are all happy. Their lives are not boring or rough. I only wish you could know them as well as I do. I only want to stress that they are very kind, stable, and calm people. They are correct: if only the mainstream world would respect and follow propriety, all social problems would be destroyed. I hope you can take all I have said to heart.

If you have any questions for me, I would be glad to answer them, as Mr. and Mrs. Haverstrom have asked me to right all misconceptions you might have about them, their lives, and their being. I thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Jonathan L. Williams

New York, NY

PS: The Haverstroms will not see anything you write. I am directed to take care of all this, as I see we have quite a mess on our hands.

-- Jonathan L. Williams (foo@bar.com), September 06, 1998.

I don't think I will ever be able to stop laughing at this whole absurd affair. A social scandal over a message board? How incredibly comedic.

I have just one question: Why, whenever I say that George is not concious or does not have a mind of his own this screenplay argument comes up? You don't need a mind of your own to write a screenplay. Especially since I believe these screen plays were dealing with OTHER PEOPLE'S philosiphies (I know I can't spell, so sue me.). All you need to write a screenplay is a basic command of words and perhaps a computer or typewriter. That argument makes no sense at all, and I have no idea why they keep using it.

Also, the aristocracy scares me. I've said why before, but I'm going to say it again, darn it! A system which restricts the thoughts of it's participants terrifies me. Absolutely terrifies me.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 06, 1998.

This whole thing is just plain ridiculous. So they're better than us, huh?? I hate to say it, but I think that "Aristocrat" is just a fancy word for "snob".

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), September 06, 1998.

Mr. Williams, you are wasting your breath here. None of us at this board (I don't believe) wish for you to "correct any misconceptions" George may have given us. His attitude, his opinions, his racism, his immodesty, etc., stand on its own. I am sad that you have been brainwashed by the people you work for, so far as to think that they are "better than you or I". NO ONE may make that claim. It's quite a nice little cult they have going there, isn't it? And may I remind you, sir, that you are simply "the help", born a proletariat, and you are foolish to think that your opinions matter to these people as a result. Also...I never said I wished anyone dead; but I do wish the aristocratic socio-economic rung to disappear. They contribute nothing to our society but pomp and prejudice.

I've said enough. I wish for this "mess" to end here, so we proletarians can go on with our happy lives and forget we ever met the Haverstroms and their ilk.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 06, 1998.

Jonathan,

I am only going to make one response to your above comments.

Your opinions, like your employers, have no basis. There is no objective evidence that has been provided proving that the life they lead is the best life. I guess they believe "Ignorance is bliss". The life you choose to lead is your own. If you choose to be a mindless robot serving them, so be it. I, however, will continue to question any group of people who claim that they are better than another group, and I will never be satisfied with their opinions, only facts, for i do not find ignorance blissful at all. That is the life I choose to lead.

I have had the unique experience of being on both ends of the spectrum. I was the spoiled little rich girl growing up, and now I am the struggling, married student who is working for everything I get. I can assure you, I wouldn't have it any other way. I am much happier in life and with my accomplishments now, because they are my accomplishments. I dreamed them, I worked towards them, and I made them happen. Nothing came from my parents or my grandparents. I feel pity for George and his sister, because they will never truly know what that feels like.

I am insulted that you would make assumptions about the people on this board. George never made any attempt to get to know the people on this board, but did give us a very good insight into his life. Therefore, you have no basis for saying they are better than anyone, particularly when you do not know us.

If, as you say, George and his father have no second thoughts about leaving this message board, why are you here? Let me assure you that the people here are just as firm in their convictions as your employers, so you may as well save your time. The impression George left is long lasting, and it is not a good one.

As I stated before, this is my last posting to this thread, because any other pointless and unfounded arguments made by yourself, George, or his father should not be dignified with a response.

-- Misty Chacon (HiRver@concentric.net), September 06, 1998.

One other thing: I can't believe George and his father have to get the guy who buttons their shirts to fight their battles for them!

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 06, 1998.

Once again Misty, I applaud you.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), September 06, 1998.

To all,

This will be my last posting here, as we all wish this mess behind us. You don't have to respond, because I won't be able to read them.

Miss Kat,

Mr. Haverstrom's screenplays were not "other people's philosophies" - they were imaginative explorations of theories given by Voltaire and J.J. Rousseau - a form of elaboration and addition, if you will. Mr. Haverstrom is free to think whatever he wishes - you can think anything you wish, but you can't act on it or speak of it if it doesn't conform: that's propriety.

Allison,

I assure you that the Haverstroms are not "snobs" - the Aristocracy frowns upon snobbery. I did not state that they were better "in all" than we, but that they are SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, and AESTHETICALLY better (the former two are very evident, I think - for the last one, you have to know them personally).

"Gilded Age Junkie",

If you do not want to listen to me, or change your opinion (no matter how misconceived it is) of Mr. Haverstrom, you don't have to. As I stated above, this will be my last post. Again, they are socially, economically, and aesthetically better than you or I - no one has ever said that, in the eyes of God, they are better. They aren't even superior - they don't believe that. I haven't been brainwashed by anyone. After nine years of working among the Aristocracy, I've just realised a few things. I am not here to give them my opinions about anything (except clothing, food, and personal effects - I am an expert in the propriety of material items). I am in their service to do certain duties for them. And, as I said, they are very kind and happy people. Yes, I am "the help", and I am proud of it, just as you are proud of being a Native American. I doubt you'll ever meet an Aristocrat again in your life, so you can be sure you won't have any problems to this end. Lastly, I assure you the Aristocracy will be here for a long, long time.

Ms. Misty Chacon,

No one ever said their life was "the best" - I know for a fact that Mr. Haverstrom (the younger) doesn't believe this. He is quite fascinated with utopias. I'm not a mindless robot. I have my own life, my own being, and my own priorities. I am not an Aristocrat (although, after knowing them personally, I can't say I wouldn't wish to be one). How can you say this about me, when you don't even know me? Mr. Haverstrom and Miss Eleanor are not spoiled in any way. As you were not an Aristocrat (at least, I doubt it), you have not been at their end of the spectrum. You are happy, and the Haverstroms are happy - that is all that matters.

If I recally, Mr. Haverstrom was invited here. He didn't have to come. If you wanted him to leave, you could have said so. If you didn't want him here, you could have chosen not to invite him. You haven't given any objective evidence that your life is the best. Don't criticise Mr. Haverstrom until you have attained a higher position in that end. The Haverstroms have no second thoughts about leaving, but I am here to right any misconceptions.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

One shouldn't speak of toilette, so I won't respond directly to what you said about my position. But I manage much more than clothing - not as much as the butler, mind you, but enough. A valet should be an expert in more than clothing - he should be a personal adviser to the person he serves. If you wish to know my qualifications, I will list them. I was born and raised in Philadelphia, PA (my father was a maritime-customs official), but I was educated for five years as an apprentice-valet in the service of Prince Michael the Duke of Kent, I went on to work three years in the household of the Marquess of Cornwall, at which time I moved back to the United States, to serve as a valet for two years for Mr. Albert G. Elleman (my first experience with the American Aristocracy) in Baltimore, Maryland, after which I began my seven-year service for the Haverstrom family (serving both Mr. Haverstrom and his son beginning two years ago). I am not "some guy who buttons their shirts" - I am very well-qualified as a personal adviser.

To all,

I am sorry you all have such a low opinion of Mr. Haverstrom. I would dub this "reverse-classism", or "reverse-snobbery". Mr. Haverstrom never said he was "better than you", but you persist in calling yourselves "better than he". Let this end now. Good evening.

Jonathan L. Williams

New York, NY

-- Jonathan L. Williams (foo@bar.com), September 06, 1998.

Jonathon, there is no question in my mind that one motivator for further contributions from your household, after George had apparently signed off on behalf of anyone there, was damage control - with the media. Anyone in the world with access to the Internet can read every comment made by George, his father, and yourself, and I wouldn't be surprised if a publication could go so far as to quote from your remarks, without fear of libel suit. I was once told, "Don't write in an email or on the Internet anything you would mind getting published"; it's a public forum. (Kip O'Henry, a regular contributor to this site, if you are a lawyer as I have heard, please comment here!) Also, you would be unsuccessful in a libel claim against "the source"; it is not against the law for someone to email to a publication a weblink. This is the beauty of our country and the information age: freedom of speech. If you challenge me on this topic further, and Kip has not contradicted me, I will personally email major publications shortly thereafter. Enjoy what's left of the Labor Day weekend!

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), September 06, 1998.

This is classic stuff! I wonder who's coming next. Jonathan's mother? You KNOW this guy (or gal) is going to come back as someone - I've been trying to leave since March and this guy is even more psychotic than I am!

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 06, 1998.

Dalton, of course his mother won't come. It's improper for ladies to use the internet, remember?

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), September 06, 1998.

Conform? CONFORM??? If you knew me at ALL you would know that the farthest thing from my mind is conforming to anything. Anything at all. What a load of bull! I would never want to conform, especially not something so ludicrice as this whole propriety (aka, "I am better than you, now let me tell you why") thing. Conform, my foot! Conforming is what's wrong with this frickin' country. Good lord, this thread never fails to offend me. I've had quite an enjoyable romp with Georgie boy and Co., but before I pop a blood vessel, I better leave.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), September 06, 1998.

Jonathan (I might write this in your absence),

If you really believe that the Irish Famine "was caused by a natural parasite infestation of the potato plants," that is the same as saying that the Natives were destroyed by a deficiency in their immune system to European "civilised" diseases and not by the white man's gun and greed.

As for George's comment about "barbarians" and "cannibals," I do admit that civilizations always clash and the better equiped (usually techologically) and not necessarily the morally better wins. Spaniards and British alike did not come to America to civilise but to plunder. It's simple like that. The theory of "civilising" was used as an excuse for the conquest and plunder. I do realize that the Natives, at that time, were no angels, either. They could kill as well, and they did. But at least they were defending their common property. We still have those "No tresspass" signs today, don't we?

Life taught me that history is a very complex science. There is no single reason or motive for things to happen, yet one should distuinguish between discourse and logic.

As for our entire debate over these threads, we are obviously in a position of a stubborn clash between two (unfortunately not synergic) societies. Each has its own values, ideals and behavior. All we need is to respect each other, although I do not believe in the "separate but equal" doctrine. IMHO, it failed miserably in the US and South Africa, just to give a few examples. And it will fail, "it's a mathematical certainty." If some people like, for subjective or objective reasons, to live separate from the mainstream society, they should be allowed to do so. America is a free country because the majority of its population wishes so. We are entitled to live our lives as we want, based on whatever principles or rules we choose. Be they old or new. Even if that life means living in a utopia. We, the citizens of this board, are probably living in a utopia, as well. But it is as sweet as the life lived by aristocrats. We just agree to disagree, that's all. As for myself, I care more for deeds than forms and rules. Because deeds can be simple, presented in a raw or rough form, yet be more valuable that empty forms. But of course, that's me... Above all, I can judge not, for I will be judged. And I will not attempt to throw the first stone...Good luck Jonathan, whatever pursuit you might follow! As long as you'll never forget your heart and instincts, you will be safe. Always try to be a better man, whatever you might need to do that, a better man in the face of God and not that of a social class. Good day!

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), September 06, 1998.

Allison: Jonathan's mother would not be a member of the Aristocracy. She would presumably (if she showed up) not feel bound by this particularly arcane rule of "propriety".

-- Dalton (brrrr@Winnipeg.com), September 07, 1998.

Oops, that's right. Nice email address.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), September 07, 1998.

Hello Bob: I wonder if Kip knows that there is a candy bar named after him (O'Henry) and I wonder if he knows he's Irish (or Sottish). Sorry, I couldn't resist. :>)

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), September 07, 1998.

That should be "Scottish" not "Sottish"!

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), September 07, 1998.

Thanks for clarifying that Peter. "Irish or Sottish" would be redundant. I can say this because I'm half Irish. But not the better half.

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), September 07, 1998.

Jonathan...WHATEVER!!!!!! I can't believe you posted your damn resume in reply to my statement. Blow, hot air, blow...

BobG...you go, baby!!! THAT right there, folks, is why I virtually married him...

Thank you Dan Draghici for your insightful prose regarding the potato famine and native Americans. I agree wholeheartedly...every last savagely uncivilised bit of it!

God, I hope this is over now. I hope Kat hasn't had a coronary. And I hope (though I highly doubt) that George has learned something...and that no one has the displeasure of running into him on the net (or in life) again. As a side note...he stopped by the chat room address I had posted to bid me "a final farewell". In that room...impropriety is king...I wish I had been there to see it!

Thank you all for your brilliance on these threads. I am so glad to know all of you and be a part of your little family. Peace, love, and everything that goes with it!!!

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), September 07, 1998.

To Whom it May Concern:

Why is it that most of the contributors of this board seemed to try so hard to convince George to see and accept a perspective different from his own while refusing to allow him the same courtesy? His views, his lifestyle, his manner of speech were insulted on a consistent basis here, as it seems that most resorted to insult when challenged with George's perspective. What purpose does insult serve? Think about that, PLEASE.

-- Bethany (4spanky@bigfoot.com), September 09, 1998.

All,

My, my, my... this became pretty intense there, at the end. I had no idea. I just read the entire thing - all four threads. I wish I could have contributed a few things, being an unbiased observer to the "aristocracy" (unlike the valet and the sociologist). I've never been to their functions and I've never spent much time with them or visited their houses, but I know many of them.

One of the reasons they're so secluded is that they reserve some buildings in NYC for themselves. The New York Times Magazine did an expose two years ago on how the aristocracy keeps "undesirables" out of their buildings. They've thrown out all kinds of celebrities, such as Jerry Seinfeld and Madonna. To get into their buildings, you have to fill out a very long application; it's about as hard as getting into their clubs (I've never been). At school, they outnumber the rest of us, and although they're very nice and polite people, they're just a bit weird. I don't know...

Niles

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 13, 1998.

I've refrained from commenting on this thread up until now because it was written months ago, but I can't let "George"'s comment about the barbarous, uncivilized Indians go unheeded (I, too, am part Native American).

"George" commented that the Native Americans were not civilized because they had no cities, etc. This is entirely UNTRUE. Yes, some tribes/bands were nomadic and it is these groups that are depicted in westerns (film). But many Native American groups had extended civiliztions. Just look at South American natives such as the Inca, Aztecs, and Mayas. The Inca had a complex religion and a government taht not only made the majority of its citizens happy but also did away with poverty (the coming of "civilized" Europe brough misery and death to these people). The Maya were scientists and astronomers-- they developed a calender more accurate than any other at that time!!

The Native Americans of North America were quite impressive with their civilizations as well. The Mound Builders had large cities and extended trade routes. Their capital, Cahokia, is still a wondrous site to see!! The Iroquois had five different tribes joined together in a confederacy. Their constitution is the basis for the United States Constitution!

As for the comments about Native Americans being "quite barbaric in their ways": I find that statement completely ludicrous considering that "George" is comparing them with Old World civilizations. Europe and Asia were just as "barbaric"--the Spanish Inquisition, witch burning in England, the guillotine, war, slavery, etc. One group in Asia cut off heads and displayed them at home to prove how good they were as warriors! The Euorpeans came to the Americas and slaughtered the Native Americans and treated the survivors brutally.

Let me assure all of you--the terms "savage", "barbaric", etc. ARE NOT ANTHROPOLOGICAL TERMS. "George" misleading you in this way is quite improper (so much for your precious propriety, "George"). I've studied anthropology and the first thing every anthropologist and professor will stress to you is that people are NOT savage or barbaric or backward simply because they're different than you. Every culture, every civilization, has its own unique custums and cultures. An anthropologist who calls a people savage or barbaric because their customs are different is a poor antropologist indeed. You will find that anthropologists are attempting to understand people without making judgements based upon their own society--hence, they would never say native groups are savage or barbaric.

-- Nonnie (x96smock@wmich.edu), April 26, 1999.

Nonnie, I don't think he was misleading anyone. I think he meant the indians in what is now the US around the time that Columbus discovered america. They didn't have cities. Read something by Georg W.F. Hegel, Oswald Spengler, or Arnold Toynbee. They're noted anthropologists. The indians living in what is now the US around the time that Columbus discovered america weren't civilized. And what's not civilized is barbaric. Look the words up.

-- Scott J. (foo@bar.com), April 27, 1999.

George may also have read V. Gordon Childe, an extremely noted british archaeologist who defined civilization as including certain elements. According to Childe, a culture needed all these elements to be called a civilization. They were: invention of writing, metallurgy, standard units of weights and measures, mathematics, monumental architecture, long-distance trade, wheeled carts, specialized artisans, irrigation technology, surplus production, and the use of the plough. So, we can see that no indian culture possessed all these elements. No indian culture had standard units of weights and measures, wheeled carts, or the use of the plough. So, if George is going by Dr. Childe's definitions, the indians were not civilized. And according to Dr. Childe, if a culture is not civilized, it is barbaric. Things aren't so simple, Nonnie. George is so stuck in the past that he might just use V. Gordon Childe as his source for his information. That's not being mean or misleading or "improper," just stuck in the past. I think he deserves our pity, not our insults. Whatever. It's long over.

-- Scott J. (foo@bar.com), April 27, 1999.

Native Americans in North America before Columbus came did have cities and complex societies--many of them were destroyed by the arrival of the Europeans. Archaeologists today are excavating sites and learning more about these cultures.

Using a British definition to define "civilized" does not mean that Native Americans were not civilized--they may not have had all of Childe's criteria, but they did still have unique, complex cultures. And there's been a change in anthropology--once all was defined in terms of European norms & culture. But now there is an understanding that all cultures have value and should be respected as such. Perhaps it was "O.K." to use such terms in the past, but in today's world it is not--we should see the value of other's ways of life and not demean a people's past by labeling it "barbaric"

BTW: civilization is defined as "1) A state of human society characterized by a high level of intellectual, social, and cultural development 2) The countries and peoples considered to have reached this stage" Even the most elementary, nomadic band of Native Americans had complex social & cultural & artistic/intellectual rituals.

-- Nonnie (x96smock@wmich.edu), April 27, 1999.

Nonnie, I'm not saying that you're not right about the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas, but you don't seem to realize that George is living in the past. So, he wasn't misleading anyone. He might follow Dr. Childe's definition, by which the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas weren't civilized. Also, you're not right about your definition of civilization. It's not "the" definition. There are LOTS of definitions, Dr. Childe's included. But tribes like the Iriquois, Sioux, Comanche, Apache, etc. did NOT have cities. They may have been complex cultures. All cultures are complex. But the U.S. Indians at the time of columbus weren't civilized. If you truly have a beef with this George guy, write him a letter. I don't want to argue.

-- Scott J. (foo@bar.com), April 29, 1999.

I love it when people start an arguement, are refuted, and then claim they don't want to argue and think they have the last word in saying so. Scott, you're not persuasive about what you consider civilized. You yourself concede there are several definitions but then claim only one applies to the Indians in the U.S. area at the time of Columbus. It's obvious that the term civilized is not clear cut, so why don't you quit your insults, get off your high horse, and not say anything more about it. How about we say something derogatory about your ancestors (who no doubt were always civilized)? According to the dictionary the Serbs are civilized, but just read any article on their activities against the Kosovars. If you have a beef with my wife Nonnie, write her a letter directly. I don't want to argue.

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), April 29, 1999.

I don't want to argue either, and I will be honest. As I have told Dalton, everytime I see this thread updated, my stomach gets queazy, so could we find a different thread to post under, Please? We can agree to disagree, or we can have duel at dawn, but can we do it under a different thread?

Nauseously Yours,
Misty

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), April 29, 1999.

BobG, the US indians at the time of columbus were obviously not civilized. The word "civilization" comes from the latin root for "city." Those indians didn't even have cities. That's all I'm saying. I don't know this George guy, and I don't know who his sources are. All I'm saying is that he wasn't misleading. Also, I wasn't insulting anyone. Who did I insult? Where?

Misty, why do you get nauseous? I see you were involved with the thread, but why do you get nauseous?

-- Scott J. (foo@bar.com), April 30, 1999.

Oh, and BobG, I'm part Serb. Did you know that in the mid '80's, when the Albanians had autonomy in Kosovo, they massacred Serbs? That's what caused President Milosevic (not a dictator, if you're interested, because he has a unicameral house to listen to) to revoke their autonomy in 1989. And if it was ethnic cleansing, he'd want to get rid of all the albanians all over serbia, right? Well, then how come they haven't touched any albanians in any other part of serbia? I'll tell you why. President Milosevic is fighting a civil war. And in that civil war, the rebels (KLA) aren't only made up of burly men with guns. Women and children fight too. In the US civil war, we displaced confederate sympathizers in the places that the union took, and we burned atlanta to the ground, killing women and children. That's civil war. So don't attack the Serbians or their government. They didn't do anything wrong. And it's not BAD to be uncivilized or bar be barbarians. I wasn't saying that. I have plenty of indian friends.

-- Scott J. (foo@bar.com), April 30, 1999.

The site of this thread's title bring back bad memories of arguments that went haywire. All the time wasted arguing a point with a person who chose not to be reasonable. It's this the TITANICShack????? Can we possibly get back to the subject?

Please don't misunderstand, my uneasy feeling is not caused by you, or even the discussion that is going on right now. When I see that title, I begin to have cold sweats and nightmares about the rules of propriety. I begin to have flashes of valets and their mothers, the women's movement, being barefoot and pregnant (?), and George Washington reading from his book while chopping down a cherry tree. You may think I am overexagerating, but the people who argued with George over that very long period of time know that my pain is real.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), April 30, 1999.

Scott, thank you for your interpretation of history. I have neither the energy nor time to address most of it, but I recommend you share your ideas at another greenspun discussion thread entitled "The US Government." It's a hotter thread than Titanicshack right now. I'm glad you have indian friends. I have Serb friends, but it doesn't change the fact that Milosivic, his soldier thugs, and their supporting Serb population are responsible for the slaughter and displacement of thousands of innocent civilians and will rank up there with the Nazis for war crimes this century.

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), May 07, 1999.