Condolences and National Card and Letter Writing Month, Vol. 14, Issue 19

Dear Etiquetteer: Is the term, "I'm sorry" an appropriate response upon hearing of a death in the family of a friend? I see so much of that on Facebook, while I had thought that extending sympathy or condolences would be a more proper response.

Dear Condoling:

Your query shows a discerning attitude about how we use language, which Etiquetteer can only admire and wish more people would adopt. This led Etiquetteer to examine more closely the definition of "sorry." For a moment Etiquetteer thought the word might imply personal responsibility for what one was sorry for. As it turns out, one definition is ""Feeling regret, compunction, sympathy . . . " and another is "suggestive of grief or suffering," so Etiquetteer can say that "I'm sorry" is an appropriate response to the news of a death. I'm sorry.

Now, is it the most appropriate response? Like you, Etiquetteer would rather see "My condolences" or "My sympathies" used instead, because those words are more specific to the occasion. "I'm sorry" is used every time an apology is made. One cannot say "My condolences for forgetting to attend your birthday dinner," for instance. And online, "I'm sorry" looks rather like a throwaway comment, which (Etiquetteer must hasten to add before the brickbats fly) is surely not the intent of those commenting.

Etiquetteer remains ambivalent about online condolences, whether on social media or through the online guest books of funeral homes. This is not to say that such things aren't, or can't be, Proper; this only reflects Etiquetteer's ambivalence. Condolences serve two purposes: to express sympathy to the bereaved by sharing positive thoughts and memories of the deceased; and, through the act of thoughtful writing, to assist oneself through the grieving process. What is attractive about expressing sympathy online is its immediacy, and the swift expression of condolences remains a very important part of expressing them. But the pitfalls of Immediate Online Expression are thoughtlessness and indiscretion on one side, and the consciousness of writing for a larger audience than the bereaved on the other. This last can sometimes lead to - how to say it? - an Escalation of Histrionics that becomes less about the impact of the deceased and more about the individual grief of each commenter. Just as it is improper to steal the spotlight from the bride at a wedding, so is it improper to steal the spotlight from the deceased. Often that form of writing is best left to one's personal, offline journal.

 

Etiquetteer learned only recently that April is National Card and Letter Writing Month. Considering the query above, it's essential to note that online comments on a message board do not replace the need for a handwritten condolence note. Nor will Etiquetteer accept the complaint that this is stuffy and old-fashioned. If anything, the understandable rush to adopt online communications has made handwritten letters and notes that much more significant and special to the recipients! The Lovely Note of Thanks (especially for wedding gifts), the Get Well Card, and even the Letter for No Reason give us opportunities for creativity and thoughtfulness unavailable online, because the audience is the Recipient Alone. And the thrill of seeing an envelope in one's mailbox that isn't a bill or junk mail remains fresh.

Unfortunately Etiquetteer has mailed exactly two handwritten pieces of correspondence this month. Let's all do better than that in the remaining week of National Card and Letter Writing Month, and in the months beyond!

Today is the last official day to vote in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, and my goodness, what is to come afterward . . . This round determines the champion pet peeve in each division. NEXT week we'll see the divisions compete against each other: Weddings vs. Driving and Traffic, and Dining Out/Table Manners vs. General Peeves! So far these look like difficult choices. Please vote today!

Grieving Online, Vol. 13, Issue 58

Dear Etiquetteer: Recently a friend of mine passed away unexpectedly at a young age (under 50). You can imagine people’s shock and distress and sorrow. What are the rules for posting about one’s grief over the passing of a loved one in the era of social media? It seems that letting the family announce the death first on social media would be important. Also, it seems that many people had to outdo each other with stories of how horrible it was to them that this person passed away. Also there were speculations and rumors about the cause of death and all sorts of gossip out in the public. What advice could Etiquetteer provide?

Dear Bereaved:

First, let Etiquetteer offer condolences on the death of your friend. It's expected that the death of a friend, regardless of age or circumstances, will bring up many memories along with feelings of sadness - indeed, many emotions. And it's understandable that the bereaved will be drawn closer to others who knew the deceased to grieve together. But how we express ourselves in person doesn't always translate the same way online, especially when grieving.

The ways we communicate in the 21st century haven't necessarily adapted well to Perfect Propriety. For instance, social media now creates a public (or at least highly visible) record of information that used to be shared by whispering behind one's fan or privately in a letter to only one person. (Do you remember letters? While Etiquetteer does enjoy the convenience of email, the intimacy of letters is missed. Etiquetteer misses them even more than he misses fans for those gossiping old biddies . . . um, Great Ladies.)

It is understandable that people want to share their grief, but many don't always understand that respecting the feelings of others, especially the family, is even more important. It's necessarily thoughtful to wait until the family has made a death announcement before sharing the news (and one's reactions to it) oneself online. Imagine learning about the death of your son or daughter from Facebook! Etiquetteer would like to see everyone spared this sort of shock. One complication is that the family can't always be assumed to be using the same social media. Before expressing one's grief publicly in a social media post, it's best to confirm the news with the family or someone closer to the family than oneself.

Freedom of Speech is the most valuable American freedom, and as such, it needs to be used responsibly. Etiquetteer deplores the Grief Sweepstakes you describe - "I'm the most grief-stricken!" "No, I'M the most grief-stricken!" - which is the mark of a Vulgar Exhibitionist. While not wishing to pooh-pooh anyone's grief at the death of a friend or family member, Etiquetteer must gently remind everyone that it's the deceased that is the proper focus of attention, not one's own emotions at the death of the deceased.

Etiquetteer would vastly prefer to see dialogue about the deceased focus on personal acts of kindness and happy memories rather than (most vulgar of all) speculation on the cause of death. Nothing that might damage the reputation of the deceased should be shared so publicly, online or in person. Etiquetteer still hasn't forgotten attending a small funeral several years ago during which one of the mourners shared many Jolly Recollections of illegal activities committed by the deceased.

In short, "Least said, soonest mended" is the best advice. And don't let the immediacy of the Internet keep you from writing a Lovely Note of Condolence by hand and mailing it to the family.

Would you rather Etiquetteer discuss something more pleasant during the holiday season? It's up to you! Send Etiquetteer a query at <queries> at etiquetteer.com.

Reacting to Offensive Comments, Vol. 13, Issue 39

Dear Etiquetteer: What do you say when someone makes inappropriate comments without creating a scene?

Dear Etiquetteer:

How does one politely yet emphatically interrupt conversation to deal with other participants who have dropped rude, crass, ignorant, racist or homophobic remarks?

Dear Offended Auditor(s):

We are blessed to live in a land that affords Freedom of Speech. The surprising advantage to this is learning how hateful people can be through what they say, which gives you the freedom to avoid them ever afterward. Etiquetteer wishes dearly that the memory of who said "I think if a man has opinions like that he should keep them to himself" in what movie would come back, but it is nevertheless good advice when one has Controversial Opinions about Other People, Beliefs, Practices, Behaviors, or Places.

Before getting involved, it's very important that you ask yourself honestly what outcome you expect. Do you expect to change this person's point of view? Do you want to warn them that someone who belongs to one of the groups being disparaged is nearby and could be offended? Do you want merely to change the topic? Do you just want to explain why your beliefs are different? Do you want to be sure they know that you think they are a Bad Person Unfit for Polite Society? Because let Etiquetteer tell you, if the answer to that last question is Yes, the most Perfectly Proper thing for you to do is to Remove Yourself from that person at once. Etiquetteer's Dear Mother wisely said "When you lose your temper, you lose your point." If you let anger overmaster you, you defend your point of view poorly.

As a general rule, it is safest not to respond to total strangers. With acquaintances and friends, there is slightly more leeway to offer Gentle Correction. With family . . . well, family dynamics are most challenging. While bound together by blood, differences in generation, region, and education do make themselves felt. Proceed with caution.

Let's establish the situation, which affects in part if and how you should react:

• Are you in public, and are the offenders total strangers? If so, say nothing. That will surely create a scene.
• Is this person just a Provocative Contrarian waving a red cape at a bull for his or her own entertainment? Stay away. You will always lose an argument with such people, who live only to humiliate others.
• Are you a guest at a party overhearing a stranger? Say nothing, or speak to your host or hostess quietly.
• Are you in a group of friends or acquaintances enjoying conversation? If it's necessary to prevent a scene, take the person aside - "Adolf, there's something I particularly want to ask you about" - and suggest Ever So Gently that they're making a bad impression and that more neutral topics are better for the occasion.
• Are you in your own home or are you the host of a gathering at which these remarks are made? If so, it may be necessary for you to say a Quiet Word that the topic in question is forbidden in your house.

Irrepressible Elsa Maxwell recorded a Perfectly Proper example of the latter in her book I Married the World when the woman most known to History as Consuelo Vanderbilt had to react to an insult at her dinner table. It seems that the Earl of Carnarvon, her houseguest along with La Maxwell, suddenly popped out with "the French were a lot of frogs, anyway" in a discussion about postwar Europe. Alas for him, he had forgotten that his hostess was no longer Duchess of Marlborough but had been Madame Jacques Balsan for several years! La Maxwell related: "As Madame Balsan is married to a Frenchman and devoted to France the fat was in the fire. Icily, firmly and irrevocably the ultimatum was delivered to [the Earl]: 'Will you kindly leave my table and my house this instant,' Mme. Balsan demanded. Whereupon, his dinner half eaten, he left the room, went upstairs and had his bags packed and left the house.'"* Which just goes to show that it isn't Perfectly Proper to bite the hand that feeds you. Etiquetteer at least gives the Earl credit for recognizing his Stupendous Blunder and actually leaving the house without trying to have a Tedious Discussion about Feelings.

Etiquetteer will conclude by observing that sometimes Icy Silence communicates more effectively than any words.

Dear Etiquetteer:

When a friends posts something on a social network that you find offensive, is it proper to say anything? Is it simply proper to tell them they have offended you and why?

Dear Internetworked:

It is astonishing how people will toss off the most offensive comments online that they'd at least think twice about before uttering in person. To avoid making a scene (see above), Etiquetteer prefers sending a private message via the Social Media Being Used to explain, in as neutral and brief a way as possible, how what was communicated offended you. Depending on the Offensive Comment, you might include the possibility that they weren't aware their comment could be intepreted in an offensive way. You might also encourage them to delete it. But a flame war should be avoided.

Etiquetteer recommends NOT leaving a comment under the offensive post, which would be likely to prompt a public Airing of Dirty Laundry. Your goal is not to embarrass the other person (Etiquetteer hopes) but to express your own offense.

* Elsa Maxwell, quoted in Consuelo and Alva Vanderbilt, but Amanda Mackenzie Stuart, p. 479.

Baby Gifts and Baby Names, Vol 12, Issue 14

This week's birth of the Prince of Cambridge has afflicted monarchists and royal-watchers with a bad case of the Goo-Goo Gagas. As Etiquetteer pointed out on his Facebook page, there are an awful lot of people who want to know what to do to celebrate the Royal Birth in terms of gift-giving, celebrating, etc. While Etiquetteer is rarely averse to lifting a glass of Champagne (the most Perfectly Proper beverage with which to celebrate a birth), Etiquetteer is obliged to remind you all that, unless you're already personally acquainted with the Royal Family, and as lovely and kind a family as they are supposed to be, they don't know you and probably won't be paying any attention to anything you happen to send their way, whether a tangible gift or a Lovely Note.

Etiquetteer would like to suggest that those who are not personal friends of the Family, or current Heads of State, acknowledge the Prince of Cambridge's birth by doing something for a newborn in their own community. Plenty of babies come into this world with nothing, including responsible parents. Whether making a donation of money, handmade Little Garments, or other Things Infants Need, you'll make a greater difference where it counts. And you may always send with your donation a Little Note indicating that your gift is made "in honor of the birth of the Prince of Cambridge." Search the Web or call your local hospital for specific organizations and guidelines.

You may then reward yourself with a glass of Champagne (use your nicest crystal) and a slice of white cake iced in white with the royal monogram.

Some expectant parents are a little too eager to suggest gifts for Baby, but Etiquetteer always believes that a copy of that essential volume Pat the Bunny is appropriate. (Come to think of it, Etiquetteer still has the two-volume Winnie-the-Pooh he received at birth from an uncle.) There are many novelty onesies in the shops; choose wisely and tastefully from among them. Pride in schools and sports teams rates high, and you would not, for instance, send a Yale onesie to a Harvard family, or Boston Red Sox booties to those who hold season tickets to Yankee Stadium. Godparents should give a piece of sterling silver engraved with Baby's initials. No, not an epergne or candelabra! (One Liberace was enough, thank you.) A sterling silver rattle or teething ring is most Perfectly Proper, and practical, too. When teething, chilled silver is soothing to Baby's hot gums.

Perhaps motivated by the birth of the Prince, GQ has joined the fun with this list of rules for how not to name a baby. Etiquetteer has deplored the vogue in recent years to alter the spelling of established names, which will only condemn the Poor Child to endless spellings and reminders of "No, it's with a Y" or something of that sort. The GQ rule #7 is well taken. It would be interesting to hear from the many men and women born in the mid-1970s named "Kunta Kinte" or "Kizzy" after Alex Haley's blockbuster Roots was published and televised. How have they used, adapted, or rejected their names that were fashionable when they were born but almost unfamiliar now?

And yet Fashion has affected the naming of babies as it affects everything, and the popularity of certain names comes and goes. In the 17th and 18th centuries Biblical and allegorical names were popular. Indeed, Etiquetteer can count four Obadiahs, three Shubaels, two Pentecosts, a Freedom, and a Desire in his own family tree. But the best advice is the simplest, and comes from the world of clothes shopping: you can never go wrong with a classic.

Reflections on Wedding Invitations, Gifts, and Attitudes, Vol. 12, Issue 13

Etiquetteer has been relieved of the burden of wedding invitations this summer. Consider that sentence for a moment. Isn't it a pity that so many people consider an invitation to a wedding a burden, rather than a Happy Occasion to celebrate a Joyous Marriage with friends and relations? Etiquetteer is of the completely subjective and entirely unresearched opinion that there are two causes: the expense of attending a wedding for a guest (especially travel, which is not only expensive but inconvenient) and the selfish behavior of brides that led to the coining of the term "bridezilla" several years ago. These two causes combine in the selection of a gift for the Happy Couple. Etiquetteer was deeply sorry to read last week about a bride who was sufficiently unbalanced to call out her friends on social media for what she perceived as their inadequate generosity. First of all it's vulgar in the extreme to mention how much money was spent to entertain your guests. You invite friends (or the friends of your parents) to a wedding for the pleasure of their company, not because you expect them to cover the costs of their own entertainment*. Second, your wedding is not as important to your friends as it is to you; no doubt there are other, more important claims on their resources than your Gaping Maw of Bridal Need. And third, criticizing someone so bluntly on social media about their behavior is just as bad as, if not worse than, doing so to their faces. Brides who follow this example deserve to lose a lot of friends.

With the advent of social media, some confusion has also spread over how to interpret how one receives knowledge of a wedding -- or, to be completely candid, when to suspect that the only reason you're hearing is that the Happy Couple expects a gift. Over at Etiquetteer's Facebook page (speaking of social media), Etiquetteer recalled learning of the wedding of a Friend of Etiquetteer's Youth from Dear Mother; the invitation had been addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. [Parents of Etiquetteer] and Etiquetteer," which is far from Perfectly Proper. Why, you ask? Because at the time the invitation was sent, Etiquetteer was not only well over the Age of Consent, but also not living under the parental roof. Anyone over the age of 21 deserves his or her own engraved invitation sent to his or her own address; attempting to economize by doubling up invitations to parents and grown children makes you look shabby. Saying you can't find that person's address no longer serves as an excuse, thanks to the Internet.

This led to the question of how to respond to wedding invitations from Long Unheard-of Schoolfellows who haven't been heard from in so long that their motives are suspect. Back before the Internet (and before brides expected everyone to Travel the Earth on Command), wedding announcements were sent instead of invitations, something along the lines of

Mr. and Mrs. Fairleigh Freshness

announce the marriage of their daughter

Miss Dewy Freshness

to Mr. Manley Firmness

on [Insert Date Here].

Frequently a little address card would be included so that recipients would know where the Happy Couple would be living. You must remember that this was before the days of "Live Together First:"

Mr. and Mrs. Manley Firmness

After [Insert Date After Honeymoon Here]

5456 Cottage Lane, Apartment Six

Verdant Greens, New Jersey

Receipt of a wedding announcement was taken as information that the Happy Couple felt you should know, but not with the expectation of a gift. As much as Etiquetteer enjoys social media and other electronic communications, Etiquetteer would rather like to see engraved wedding announcements come back.

Should you receive a wedding invitation from someone you haven't heard of in many years, put pen to paper at once and send a Lovely Note of Congratulations along with your Infinite Regret that you cannot attend in person. And that concludes your obligation.

*If the costs are really bothering you, have a simpler wedding and invite fewer people.

Introductions for the Absent-Minded, Vol. 11, Issue 15

Awhile back, on Etiquetteer's Facebook page (did you know Etiquetteer had a presence on Facebook? Etiquetteer uses it mostly to post relevant media articles about manners, or the lack of them, and the occasional one-line etiquette tip. Please stop by.) Etiquetteer posted a handy tip on social introductions: "When out in public with friends or acquaintances and encountering other friends or acquaintances, always introduce everyone to everyone else. No one likes to be overlooked." To which a reader replied "I would love a suggestion on what to do when I can't recall someone's name and I need to introduce them." And which led another reader to query "A problem arises when the friends you meet know you and you cannot remember ever having seen them before! Etiquetteer, what does one do then? I am quite serious."

This column endeavors to answer these questions. As Ellen Maury Slayden once said (about another situation entirely, but it still applies here): "Keep cool. This is a test of breeding."

Naturally it's very embarrassing to realize that you can't remember someone's name, or even whether or not you know them, or how. Three courses are open to you, once the flames of panic have been suppressed: introduce the other person first (though this may be out of precedence*, Etiquetteer will give you a dispensation), buy time by drawing the out the conversation hoping that a clue will jog your memory, or frankly admit that your memory has failed you. Believe it or not, the latter course is often the better one. A simple "My goodness, this is so embarrassing. I have completely forgotten your name! Please forgive me." ought to win everyone over to your side. It's such a direct appeal for sympathy, and you'll underscore it by maintaining eye contact with that person, and not looking away shamefacedly. You must then, if you can, follow it up with the memory of some kindness that person did for you, to prove that your temporary mental lapse was only the person's name, and not their value to you.

On a more comic note, you could also try the Scarlett O'Hara Approach -- "Every time I have on a new bonnet all the names I ever knew go right slap out of my head!" -- or the Tallulah Bankhead Approach -- "I don't really care what your name is, I just want to call you all Dahling, especially when you come to make love to me at five o'clock. If I'm late, start without me." The latter should startle everyone enough that you can make a clean getaway swooping off to the bar.

Whatever you do, don't try to con them into saying their own names by saying "And I've had so much trouble pronouncing your name you'd better introduce yourself." The name you've had "so much trouble pronouncing" might be "Joe Smith."

When you can't even remember who those people are, much less their names, often the best course is to ask "My goodness, I can't even remember the last time I saw you! Where was it? And what have you been up to since?" This puts the onus of the conversation on them, which should lead to many clues.

The real test of breeding is, when you discover that your own name has been forgotten by someone else, passing it off lightly and not taking it to heart. This sort of lapse happens to everyone.

*Precedence for social introductions used to be much more complicated than it is today. Etiquetteer boils it down to these:

• Gentlemen are introduced to ladies. "Mrs. Oldwitch, may I present Mr. Randy Wicket."
• Younger people are introduced to older people. "Miss Dewy Freshness, may I introduce you to Mrs. Raddled Oldwitch?"
• Junior employees are introduced to senior employees or executives, regardless of gender. "Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to meet Jeremy Filing, from the Accounting Department. Jeremy, this is Gerald Chairman."
• Everyone is introduced to elected officials, regardless of gender, age, or rank. "Mr. President, may I present Mrs. Raddled Oldwitch."

It's almost October, which means that the Perfectly Proper are already thinking about their address lists for Christmas, New Year's, or other seasonal greeting cards. Should you have queries on this or other subjects, don't hesitate to reach out to Etiquetteer at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com!

George Washington 2.0, Vol. 11, Issue 5

In honor of Presidents Day, and the Father of our Country's birthday on February 22, Etiquetteer is going to update parts of George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation. Etiquetteer bets you didn't even know George Washington wrote an etiquette book! He copied 110 maxims when he was only 14. Several of these have to do with precedence and are, shall we say, overly exaggerated for the 21st century. But others remain classic at the core, and need to be restated. For instance:

GW 1.0: "7th, Put not off your clothes in the presence of others, nor go out of your chamber half-dressed.

GW 2.0: The idea is, you show respect for others by looking put together in public. Don't leave the house until you're completely dressed; for ladies this means completely made up, too. No one should have to see these things in action: mascara wands, buttons, belts, and especially underwear. Say no to the fashion of sagging! Say no to gaposis! And, as Etiquetteer mentioned earlier this year, don't wear your pajamas in public!

GW 1.0: "18th, Read no letters, books, or papers in company; but when there is necessity for the doing of it, you must ask leave."

GW 2.0: George's essential truth is still sound, that the person with you in person is more important than the person with you through another medium. Do not text or take or make phone calls in the presence of others, especially at the table, unless you ask permission first. This is especially difficult at table, or in a car, when your prisoners - um, Etiquetteer means companions - might be unable to continue talking themselves while waiting on you.

GW 1.0: "22nd, Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy" and "23rd, When you see a crime punished, you may be inwardly pleased, but always show pity to the suffering offender."

GW 2.0: Refrain from flaming on online comment boards, especially anonymously. It's no surprise that people give in to their baser instincts when their identities are concealed. Such behavior does, however, brand one a coward.This is only one reason you'll never see a comment board here at etiquetteer.com (not that readers of Etiquetteer behave that way, of course.)

GW 1.0: "48th, Wherein you reprove another be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precept."

GW 2.0: Simply put, "Practice what you preach." It is very bad form, for instance, to advocate for the sanctity of marriage when one has been divorced, and certainly when one has been divorced more than once.

GW 1.0: "50th, Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any" and "79th, Be not apt to relate news if you know not the truth thereof."

GW 2.0: Don't trust what you read on the Internet and do your own research. Sad to say, partisans on every side of the political spectrum, in their eagerness to paint as dark a picture as possible of their opponents, do not adhere as zealously to Truth as they ought. Inflammatory email that gets circulated and recirculated, charts and graphs that appear on social media such as Facebook, more often than not contain errors of fact, bald or nuanced. All this has led Etiquetteer to take refuge in the pages of The Economist.

GW 1.0: "110th, Labour to keep alive in your breast the little celestial fire called conscience."

GW 2.0: No change needed for GW 2.0. This little phrase still summarizes the entire book perfectly.

Friending on Facebook, Vol. 8, Issue 3

Dear Etiquetteer: I got onto Facebook recently and was really surprised when someone I used to go to school with friended me. This person was a real jerk to me and I still get angry about how I was treated. Is there some way out of this situation? 

Dear Friended:

Facebook and other social networking sites get used carelessly through some of their "convenient" services. Etiquetteer has received many friend requests from a Sworn Enemy who habitually finds friends by downloading all his e-mail contacts into these sites. No matter how clear Etiquetteer makes it that this is unwelcome, it's easily explained as a technical glitch (and Etiquetteer's fraying benefit of the doubt).

It's also possible that this person doesn't remember your shared history the way you do. Regardless, all you have to do is click "Ignore" and that should put an end to it.

Etiquetteer has a new address!

Please send your etiquette problems of all descriptions to queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Random Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 4

Dear Etiquetteer: I work at a non-profit with a group of volunteers who are old enough to be my parents. We all have a strong professional relationship, but that’s all it is, professional. We don’t socialize in any way outside meetings. A few months ago I got started on Facebook. It’s been great finding friends from old jobs and high school. But over the last week two of my volunteers have sent me friend requests. It may not sound very nice to say this, but I don’t want to be friends with them! Besides, there are parts of my life that are strictly social on Facebook and which don’t look at all professional. And I’d rather keep how I relate to my volunteers professional. How can I ignore their friend requests without hurting their feelings? Dear Faced Book: No one should have to socialize with business colleagues if they don’t want to. On the other hand, that’s more and more difficult with everyone putting comprehensive personal dossiers on social networking websites open to the world. Etiquetteer frequently wonders how surprised George Orwell would be that civilization has taken so willingly to the telescreen of "1984." Because no matter how much you think you control the access,nothing is private on the Internet. Etiquetteer can think of two solutions, neither of which seems ideal, but still workable. You could ignore the friend requests from your volunteers and hope they don’t say anything about to you. If they do (which Etiquetteer would find very rude) simply explain that you use Facebook for social networking and that you prefer to keep your relationship professional. Indeed, Etiquetteer sent a friend request to someone he knows both professionally and socially and was a little hurt when he realized that the Person In Question had blocked Etiquetteer from their profile. This made Etiquetteer realize that the professional relationship carried more weight than the social one, but Etiquetteer knew enough Perfect Propriety to Leave It At That. You could also make your volunteers friends using the "Limited Profile" option, which means you could control which aspects of your profile they get to see. For instance, Etiquetteer has no idea what sort of "social" photos you’re posting on Facebook. But the ability to tell someone has a piercing under their clothes is one thing; to be able to see the piercing in photos on line with lots of surrounding flesh is quite another! Etiquetteer highly recommends browsing through the Proper Facebook Etiquette Blog for even more information. Dear Etiquetteer: An acquaintance who formerly has been in trouble with the law for drugs has been incarcerated for several months but has not revealed what he was convicted of. If he was an accessory for a murder, for example, I might not want to stay friends with him! What is the diplomatic way to find out what he's been serving time for? Dear Innocent Bystander: The most diplomatic way would not be through your friend or his/her legal representative. Etiquetteer suspects that this would be a matter of public record. Check with the Department of Public Records or the police to see what they have on your friend. Only you can decide whether or not to retain the friendship after you discover the crime of which your friend was convicted. Etiquette does not compel one to maintain friendships when one no longer wishes to maintain them. Should you decide to sever all contact, stop contacting him/her, and don’t respond. Back in December  Etiquetteer was privileged to be invited to a Hanukkah party for the very  first time. It was a beautiful occasion (Etiquetteer was delighted to discover  that fried foods are an important part of this holiday) and it was also the  first time Etiquetteer had heard anyone refer to a yarmulke as a "lid." Reflecting  on that today recalled a scene from Etiquetteer’s early career when he was  called upon to attend a funeral at a Jewish funeral home. Etiquetteer will  confess to having been puzzled when the usher handed him a yarmulke; after  all, Etiquetteer looks unmistakably like goyim. But not wanting to show disrespect,  Etiquetteer slipped it on and took a seat. Later during the service, Etiquetteer  was nonplussed to find himself the subject of snickering from the back of  the room. Two colleagues, who later confessed that they were "herbally enhanced," found it hilarious to see such an obvious non-Jew wearing a yarmulke.From this memory of his twenties, Etiquetteer derives two lessons in Perfect Propriety:  1) If you’re not Jewish, don’t wear a yarmulke, and 2) don't get stoned out of your mind before the funeral.

Free Speech vs. Perfect Propriety, Vol. 6, Issue 7

FREE SPEECH vs. PERFECT PROPRIETY Vol. 6, Issue 7, February 19, 2007
		"Cousin Marie says politicians aren’t gentlemen," may be Etiquetteer’s favorite quotation from all Agatha Christie’s mysteries. Then there’s Henry Fonda in Jezebel, who said, "I believe it was Voltaire who said ‘I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’" These two quotations come to the heart of a living civics lesson that took place in Massachusetts this month, bringing together a state senator, a high school, Facebook, American Idol, and differing political ideologies. The result has been less about the ideologies and more about Free Speech vs. Perfect Propriety. Both have taken a beating. In brief, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, was scheduled to make an appearance at a high school in his district to discuss his conservative positions. A student with more liberal positions than Senator Brown created a page on Facebook.com, the popular social networking website, in the days or weeks before the senator’s appearance. Students posted profane comments on the page, some very personal, about both the senator and his daughter, a former American Idol contestant. Photos of the senator with devil horns and pitchfork added were posted as well. Senator Brown became aware of these comments before his appearance at the high school. He brought a copy with him and proceeded to read, word for four-letter word, many of the profane comments written about him and his daughter to the eighty sophomores present. Teachers were horrified that a state senator was swearing in front of an entire high school. One student was quoted as saying, "He was doing it loudly and pretty angrily." There has been some hand wringing about childishness and just how a state senator ought to act. Senator Brown’s response: "If the kids are old enough to write it, they’re old enough to hear it." Etiquetteer sides with Senator Brown. This may surprise you. Free speech is one of the most precious cornerstones of our Great Nation. We should all be able to say what we want without fear of government surveillance, whether it’s "I love the war," "I hate the war," or even "You’re wearing that?" But Etiquetteer also believes that, if you’re going to exercise this right, you might at least have something to say. Profanity is easy, unoriginal, and distracting. What kind of a person are you if that's the best you can do with free speech? And it certainly has not escaped Etiquetteer’s notice that no one is talking about the issues anymore, only the profanity. It’s not surprising to see adolescents behave like, well, adolescents. Etiquetteer does not condemn the kids who made the profane postings. But it is important for adolescents (and all of us) to know that actions have consequences. Comments made in the public square, whether on the Internet, the newspaper, or anywhere, may be heard by anyone. When you say something, you’re responsible for what you said. You shouldn’t be surprised if someone calls you on it, especially if it’s personal. Senator Brown did that in a very dramatic and public way. Etiquetteer hopes that it impressed on these students these lessons: Personal attacks don’t further a discussion of issues. Post something on the Web and anyone can read it, even people you don’t want to read it. Profanity still has the ability to shock. That makes it the lowest common denominator when trying to get attention. Use more class and think of another way to make your point. Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify <at> etiquetteer.com.