Invitations to Fund-Raisers, Vol. 14, Issue 33

Dear Etiquetteer: I understand that replying to invitations is Perfectly Proper. But I receive a number of invitations to fund-raising events, some from organizations I strongly support and some from organizations I rarely or never support. Do I need to RSVP when I'm not going to an event?

Dear Invited:

There's a difference between a strictly social invitation and an invitation to a fund-raiser. One is invited to the first solely for the pleasure of one's company, but to the latter for the potential of one's largesse. Other etiquette writers have suggested that one need not respond to invitations for gallery openings or for Home Retail Opportunities - to buy, for instance, jewelry or kitchen supplies - from a friend who facilitates buying parties in private homes. No matter how sociable the event, its real purpose is for one to spend money. Etiquetteer would suggest that this, too, applies to fund-raising events, though their sociability becomes more and more impacted with the accretion of speeches and live auctions.

But as with everything else, there are exceptions. If you are invited personally by a friend to buy tickets to fill a table at some big affair, a Gentle Decline after the first appeal will save you from second, third, and fourth appeals.

You may wish to use the reply card to send a request to be dropped from their invitation lists (as opposed to their mailing lists altogether), writing "I prefer to support your organization in absentia."

How to Respond to Hospitality, Vol. 14, Issue 25

Dear Etiquetteer: Can you tell me whether you think people who have been good guests at a dinner party or cocktail party (separate answers I think) - brought a hostess gift, behaved well, etc. - should also email or call the next day to say thanks? If they don't, were they unhappy with the party?

Dear Hosting:

When a Lovely Note of Thanks has not been received, it's always more charitable to assume Incompetence rather than Malice. Possibly your guests were taken ill, swept up in current events, anxious at the thought of finding something original to say about your party (which is completely unnecessary), or just too lazy to find your zip code. Regardless, their failure to express gratitude for your hospitality is no reflection on the hospitality you provided.

Etiquetteer may be the Lone Holdout in considering the Lovely Note more important than the hostess gift, but the expression of thanks afterward means ten times as much as the "payment for services rendered" sometimes implied by that bottle of wine. Few things reassure a host or hostess as much as the confirmation from guests of a "job well done," that one's efforts have not only been recognized, but appreciated. Too many people, Etiquetteer would suggest, feel daunted by the need to express themselves originally. But writing a Lovely Note certainly doesn't take as much effort as picking out a bottle of wine. (Etiquetteer can just hear the oenophiles shuddering as they read this.)

You are more accommodating than Etiquetteer is in terms of how you'd allow these Lovely Notes to be delivered, suggesting email and telephone as options without even considering a handwritten note - which even today Etiquetteer is loath to refer to as "old-fashioned." Communications unavoidably evolve with technology; this is not necessarily bad, but it's made many people careless. While it was once the only way to communicate at all, now - with the near-universal adoption of the Internet - handwritten correspondence now signifies a special effort to express sincerity and appreciation. This is why Etiquetteer continues to think it's the best way to convey thanks for hospitality received.

Etiquetteer hopes that you will not let the neglect of your guests cause you further anxiety, and that you'll set them a good example with your own Lovely Notes after they entertain you in turn.

Suggested New Year's Resolutions, Vol. 13, Issue 63

"Fast away the Old Year passes," as the carol goes, and let Etiquetteer be the first to speed its passing! It's a time-honored custom to make resolutions to improve oneself in the New Year, usually with diet and exercise. Etiquetteer would like to suggest some resolutions to improve the Perfect Propriety of the nation:

1. Resolve not to forward articles from satire news websites as though they were real news*. Etiquetteer is getting mighty tired of pieces from the Daily Currant, Empire News, the Borowitz Report over at the New Yorker, and the grandfather of them all, the Onion, being sent about with Righteous Outrage or Fierce Glee as the Gospel Truth, when they're just an elaborate joke. This concerns Etiquetteer most because of the damage it does to public figures. Public figures are already judged harshly enough - and deservedly - on what they have actually said. Let's not obscure the Truth with this patina of Satire any longer.
2. Resolve to disconnect at the table. When you sit down to share a meal with a group of people, especially in a private home, you have a sacred obligation to to be fully present and contribute to the general merriment. It is not possible for you to do this if you're always glancing into your lap, and it is hurtful to your companions because you give the impression that you would rather be someplace else. Turn your device gently but firmly OFF before you get to the table, and don't make Etiquetteer come after you.
3. Resolve to give a dinner party. These days the phrase "dinner party" sounds much more intimidating than it really is, which is having a total of four to 12 people around your table for an evening meal. Start with a maximum of four, which is easier to prepare for, and design a menu in which one course may be prepared a day or so ahead. The hospitality of the home is too little celebrated these days, but it remains a cornerstone of Perfect Propriety. Please join Etiquetteer in bringing it back.
4. Resolve not to be so insistent about your diet when you're away from home. Etiquetteer suspects one reason for the decline of the dinner party is the ever-increasing number of people who insist on their food preferences wherever they go, as if they were more important that the spirit of Hospitality. No one has the right to expect their friends and relatives to be professional-grade chefs who can keep straight the infinite, and infinitely changing, diets of so many people all at once. The best illustration is what has happened to coffee service in the last 20 years. Once one only had to serve coffee, cream, and sugar. Now one must offer coffee, decaffeinated coffee, tea, cream, skim milk, 2% milk, soy milk, powdered creamer, sugar, at least three kinds of artificial sweetener, honey, and agave nectar just to keep everyone happy. This is ridiculous!** When someone invites you into their home, it doesn't make them a slave to your preferences. Be kind to your hosts and just say "No, thank you" if offered something you can't eat.***
5. Resolve to correspond more by hand. Yes, Etiquetteer remains a devotée of the Lovely Note of Thanks, not only because it is more Perfectly Proper than any electronic communication, but also because it makes the recipient feel special. Also, in our Society of Increasing Surveillance, fewer eyes can intercept a handwritten letter than an email or text message. (And how sad it is that Etiquetteer even has to mention that.) Do it!
6. Resolve to R.s.v.p. on time, honor your original response, and arrive on time. If someone invites you to something, whether it's in their home or not, they need time to prepare to entertain you. A prompt and definite response from you is essential to this. "I'll have to see how I feel" is never Perfectly Proper! And if someone has invited you to the theatre and you suddenly decide on the day that you can't go, your host is left scrambling to use your ticket. Cancelling is only Perfectly Proper in circumstances of death or illness, but professional crisis is becoming more accepted as a valid excuse. If you pull a Bunbury too often, you'll find that invitations come to you less frequently.
7. Resolve not to monopolize reservations. Etiquetteer deplores the growing practice of making multiple restaurant reservations for the same time to keep one's options open depending on one's whim. This is not only rude to other diners, but fatal to the restaurant's bottom line. Stop it at once!

For tonight, of course Etiquetteer exhorts you to celebrate responsibly by not drinking to riotous excess and not drinking and driving - and by remembering a Lovely Note to your hosts.

Etiquetteer wishes you a Perfectly Proper New Year!

*Etiquetteer will provide an exemption from this on April Fool's Day.

**And please get off Etiquetteer's lawn, too!

***Of course those with fatal allergies need to be vigilant at all times, and wise hosts remember these and take them into account.

Broken Gifts, Vol. 13, Issue 48

Dear Etiquetteer: A wedding gift arrived in the mail today from a seller on [Insert Name of Popular Craft Website Here], a charming vintage martini set. One of the martini glasses arrived broken. Do I tell the gift giver that this happened, do I contact the seller with this information, or do I just write a lovely thank you note and forget about it. One pitcher and two glasses, so the set is mostly useless. Unless one is making martinis for oneself only.

Dear Shaken and Shattered:

Etiquetteer certainly hopes that your fledgling marriage hasn't already arrived at the state where you find it necessary to make martinis for one! Usually it takes a few years to get to that unhappy state of affairs . . . and often it's an unhappy affair that gets one to that state.

Receiving a gift that's broken is different from receiving a gift that's unwanted. In the latter case, as Etiquetteer has said so often, no one cares what you want or how you feel. Send a Lovely Note anyway and then put it in your next yard sale, regift outside your Circle of Mutual Acquaintance, or contribute it to a Worthy Tax-Deductible Cause.

But surely it was not the intention of your Benefactor to send you a broken gift to celebrate your wedding. In this case Etiquetteer recommends that you contact your Benefactor with this information right away so that he or she may resolve the situation; this means by phone or email, not a Lovely Note. You should not be asked to do more than repackage the gift to be returned and to receive the apologies of your Benefactor for the inconvenience. Etiquetteer recommends this approach since your Benefactor already has a customer/vendor relationship with the Online Vendor. For all Etiquetteer knows, your Benefactor orders frequently from this Online Vendor. News of deficient service (as well as how satisfactorily the Online Vendor responds) could impact that relationship. Indeed, you may be sufficiently satisfied to become a customer yourself.

At all times you should reassure your Benefactor of how much you appreciate his or her thoughtfulness and generosity, and then send a Lovely Note as soon as an (unbroken) substitute gift is received.

Modern Technology, Vol. 13, Issue 28

Dear Etiquetteer: If Etiquetteer would do away with one aspect of modern technology, what would it be?

Dear Teched:

It would be the way people give precedence to people interacting with them via modern technology over people interacting with them in person. (Etiquetteer supposes this is really an aspect of the usage of modern technology rather than an aspect of technology itself, but will leave that to the hair-splitters.)

How many times have any of us been out and about with others only to have them actively engaged on their devices communicating with Those Dear and Far Away as opposed to us, the Near and Dear?

How many friends have we tried to talk with while they fail at surreptitiously glancing in their laps to read and send text messages?

How many dinner companions have we watched not just photograph their dinner (a relatively harmless trend borne of digital photography), but then post the photo to social media, and then wait for and interact with those commenting on the photo?

How many dinner parties have been derailed by focusing on a "phonestack" while everyone waits for (and perhaps bets on) a guest to weaken and respond to one's device?

How many quiet moments on public transportation have been shattered by fellow passengers with Music Loud Enough to Distinguish Lyrics blasting from earbuds firmly lodged in their ears?

How many times has one's view been blocked at a concert or performance by someone holding up their smartphone to record the whole thing, regardless of those seated in back?

How many checkout lines have been delayed by a customer calling a friend or family member to confirm something hasn't been forgotten - or just by being on the phone?

To all this, Etiquetteer can only say, stop it at once! Be with the people you're with! Show them the consideration of your attention and engagement. Not just your friends, family, and companions, but also the working people you interact with during the day: bus drivers, waiters and waitresses, cashiers, receptionists, ushers, bakers, clerks, salespeople, missionaries, tourists, law enforcement, house cleaners - everyone!

In other words, HANG UP AND LIVE! And don't make Etiquetteer come after you . . .

Perfect Propriety at a Time of Tragedy, Vol. 12, Issue 10

The City of Boston, Massachusetts, has just undergone one of the worst weeks in its almost-400-year history, the bombing of the Boston Marathon and subsequent manhunt for its two suspects. Five people, including one of the suspects, were killed, and dozens more injured, some grievously. The bravery of many men and women has led Etiquetteer to reflect on how best to react in such situations:

• Aid the wounded or get out of the way. Etiquetteer admires the unbounded courage of the first responders who rushed into the smoke not knowing what they would find, or even able to see where they were going. Those unable to follow their example, for whatever reason, do best to clear the way for first responders. The standard fire-escape announcement in theatres comes to mind: "Exit the building from the nearest available exit and move away from the building quickly."
• Comfort the afflicted. Everyone reacts to tragedy differently. Some internalize their reactions and manifest them later; others exhibit emotions right away. Etiquetteer was deeply moved by the generosity of Brent Cunningham, who gave his medal to another runner, Laura Wellington. Ms. Wellington, a runner who was deeply distressed at not being able to find her family after the bombing, was discovered weeping by Mr. Cunningham and his wife. He gave her his medal - what magnificent sportsmanship! - and has now received hers, since she was able to receive her own only a few hours later. Boston saw many such encounters throughout the week. They are an example to all of us.
• Be patient with the network, however frustrating. Telecommunications went haywire after the bombing, leaving many people unable to connect reliably with loved ones. This underscores the need to select a meeting place in advance, as many runners did with their families, perhaps even an alternate location in case the first is inaccessible. It's also a good reminder to stay calm enough to speak slowly and distinctly with good diction, so that you'll definitely be understood over static and background noise on the line.
• Reach out to those you love. Everyone knows Etiquetteer's fondness for Lovely Notes, and those may come later. But telephone and electronic communications - brief, concise, and specific - mean a great deal. Etiquetteer, though never in danger, greatly appreciated expressions of concern via text message, email, and voicemail.
• Use the arts to heal. Etiquetteer took heart reading that several museums and other arts organizations in Boston waived their admission fees in the days after the tragedy. In the words of MFA director Malcolm Rogers, “It’s doing something positive. You’ve just seen a horrible example of what a perverted human mind can do. What the works of art in our care show is what the human mind and the human hands can do at their greatest and their most inspired.” In the days after the bombing, people came together to sing - not only the National Anthem, from which many draw comfort at such times, at the Boston Red Sox game - but also in the streets to sing hymns, and to raise money for the victims. And let us not forget those who came prepared to sing hymns over picketers from the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (who, to the relief of all, did not appear). All these expressions of Beauty are necessary for healing.
• Restrain your greed. Etiquetteer was incensed to read that not long after the tragedy, 2013 Boston Marathon medals appeared for sale on eBay. Etiquetteer is not going to speculate on whether or not those medals were obtained ethically in the first place. But even if they were, this is too soon.
• Think before you speak. Etiquetteer was deeply disappointed when the FBI had to chastise the media about its inaccurate reporting that a suspect was in custody and en route to the Moakley Courthouse. This led not only to a convergence of the curious on the courthouse, but also its evacuation. Nor was the situation helped by individuals spreading rumors or incorrectly reported facts via the many forms of social media. "Least said, soonest mended" and "Loose lips sink ships" are still good maxims. Get your facts straight and, if you can't, pipe down until someone else does.
• Or don't speak at all. Unfortunately several people tried to take political advantage of the tragedy to further their own particular views, which is cynical at best and downright offensive at worst. The instance that seems to have provoked the most backlash was undoubtedly Arkansas state representative Nate Bell's comments via Twitter to work in the national debate on gun control. To which Etiquetteer can only quote the character Cornelia Robson in Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile, who says "Cousin Marie says politicians aren't gentlemen."

Now that the surviving suspect is in custody and daily life in the city returns to its expected rhythms, Etiquetteer encourages everyone to use Patience and Kindness with those you meet, both in person and online.

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.

Random Correspondence Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 22

Dear Etiquetteer:I am putting together my wedding invitation wording and have hit a roadblock. As the bride, my parents are hosting the wedding. My mom, being the closet feminist that she is, does not want me to address them as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." I find this rather archaic myself, but what is the alternative while still using honorifics and not offending any one else? These are the options I have come up with: "Mr. And Mrs. Smith," "Mrs. Mary and Mr. John Smith," and "Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Smith." Which one would be the most proper etiquette? Please help me! 

Dear Bride to Be: 

The honorific "Mrs." is used with Perfect Propriety only with the name of the husband, e.g. "Mrs. Stephen Haines." If your mother does not wish to be referred to as "Mrs. John Smith," then the form your wedding invitation should take is:

 Mr. John Smith and Ms. Mary Smith

request the honour of your presence

at the marriage of their daughter

Miss Perfectly Proper Smith

to Mr. Manley Firmness

Feminists everywhere claimed the honorific "Ms." in the 1970s, and it has only grown in acceptance since then. It's high time, in Etiquetteer's opinion, for your mother to come out of the closet.

 

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have recently gone through an interview, and sent both parties a thank-you note, via email. They mentioned they would be interviewing for the next 2-3 weeks. Since I have sent the thank-you notice, how long should I wait till I contact them again? How should I contact them, phone or email? How often should I attempt to contact them?Dear Interviewed:

Since you have already initiated correspondence with your interviewers via email, Etiquetteer suggests that you continue to correspond with them this way. So as not to appear impatient, you might wait to check in with your interviewer after 3.5 weeks have passed, making a gentle inquiry to see if you can provide additional information.

Etiquetteer wishes you well in your job search, and encourages you, after subsequent job interviews, to send a letter of thanks through the mail on crisp white stationery. It still makes a positive impression, and it also gives you more of an opportunity to proofread.

Electronic Thanksgiving Invitations, Vol. 7, Issue 21

Dear Etiquetteer: My husband and I decided  to throw a potluck Thanksgiving Day Open House to best accommodate our expanded family, including mothers-in-law, babies, cousins, and their busy schedules. We thought it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want rather than having one fixed formal mealtime -- and we all know how long those last during holidays! 

We posted an invitation on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] that included the line "Family and friends welcome." To my surprise, a distant cousin responded that he and his wife would not be able to attend because they were going to Thanksgiving at her family's house. I don't know either of them terribly well, but invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better. However, even though he responded that they could not attend, he added six other people to our guest list (this was before I thought to disable that function!), none of whom I know -- I think one or two may be his children. 

I would have had no problem if he and his wife had attended and brought their adult children and spouses with them. But to send them along to a party (only 20 or so people were invited in total) that they would not attend seemed inappropriate. And it seemed a large number of guests to invite without checking with us first. 

I wound up deleting them from the guest list and "hiding" the replies. I am not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect any complications. But what would be the appropriate response in the future? And am I correct in assuming that he crossed a courtesy line? 

Dear Perplexed Potluck: To answer your last question first, Etiquetteer gets the impression the courtesy line was so blurry here that it was difficult for your cousin to know just what he was crossing.  With statements like "Open House" and "Family and friends welcome," you led him to believe that all were welcome.  

Plus your use of [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] makes it FAR too easy to add as many additional guests as one wishes without contacting the host or hostess. This is one of several reasons Etiquetteer dislikes such services. [Secretly, Etiquetteer's Evil Fraternal Twin, Madame Manners (the Etiquette Dominatrix) wants to invite hundreds of strangers to someone's wedding on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here.] It would serve them right.] When Etiquetteer issues invitations electronically, they are sent e-mail to e-mail without an electronic intermediary. For those who insist on using an Electronic Invitation Service, Etiquetteer highly recommends suppressing the guest list (to respect the privacy of guests) and disabling any function that permits the guests too much control over YOUR party (such as the ability to invite their own guests). 

Etiquetteer does agree with you that, if a party guest is going to invite more guests to a party, he should accompany them to the party. But without realizing it, you created two opportunities for your cousin to invite his entire family to your home: first, by not disabling the "Invite additional guests" feature on your electronic invitation; and second, by saying "Family and friends welcome." It's also an open house, which you said you were giving because "it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want . . . " Even if your cousin and his wife WERE coming to the party, perhaps it might have been "more fun and convenient" for his six guests to come or go at times different from theirs. You'll infer from all this that Etiquetteer really prefers a set mealtime for holiday gatherings, whether formal or informal.

Etiquetteer remembers with great pleasure the many Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Easter Sunday meals of childhood. At the homes of different family members in the 1960s and 1970s, Etiquetteer could expect long lines of card tables in every room set with snowy linen just like the dining room, the good china and silver, and a buffet in the kitchen groaning with turkey and all the trimmings. Having everyone together to break bread at the same time remains special. And of course early arrivals with fully laden plates would always use the Bible verse "When two or three are gathered in My name" to begin eating before everyone was seated. Ah, those halcyon days . . . 

Etiquetteer also calls to your attention a little but significant contradiction. You begin by saying you "invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better," but later that you are "not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect this will cause any complications." You can't get to know them better without starting some sort of regular contact.  Etiquetteer encourages you to consider another open house, for New Year's Day, and to make a special point of inviting this cousin and all his family to join you. You might end up starting the New Year by making new friends within your own family. 

Hell Is Other People, Vol. 6, Issue 33

Jean-Paul Sartre once famously opined (Etiquetteer thinks it was in No Exit) that "Hell is other people." Etiquetteer cordially invites you to share what behavior of other people irritates you. Please drop a line to query <at> etiquetteer.com Dear Etiquetteer: What do you think about people who use their cell phones to carry on long and very loudconversations in public places, such as on trains and buses, or in restaurants? Or even on airlines when they are allowed. And there is the public HEALTH risk of drivers so preoccupied with their calls that they run over pedestrians and bicyclists. It’s referred to as DWD: driving while distracted. Dear Tintinnabulaphobic: People like these, Etiquetteer has decided, must have low self-esteem and feel the need to call attention to themselves, and therefore making themselves more important. That the attention is negative doesn’t seem to make a difference. It would be easy to peg this behavior as lower-class, but many offenders have graduated from the finest business schools (AHEM!). Etiquetteer remembers, from the dim past of 1994, his first trip to Los Angeles. Cell phones were just beginning to become available to the public, and Etiquetteer and his friends were agog to see peopleactually talking on the phone right there on the street! Let’s just say the honeymoon is over. You have the power to disconcert public cell phone yakkers by asking them personal questions about their phone calls. Proceed with caution; Etiquetteer disclaims all responsibility if they beat you up. DWD is certainly becoming more of a problem. Last year Etiquetteer referred to a young woman in the Midwest who killed a man while she was simultaneously driving and downloading ringtones. And Etiquetteer will never forget riding in a car driven by a friend who was operating the car, the phone, and a personal digital assistance at the same time. Please drivers, hang up and drive! Dear Etiquetteer: For almost 50 years I've been friends with a man from my home state. We email infrequently, but I always manage to see him on the rare occasions when I return for a visit. My situation is that he keeps sending me email of a religious nature, long silly stories about how prayer has saved a grieving family, etc, or how the rainbows will come out if you just believe. He is a devout Baptist; I am an atheist, though he doesn't actually know this. Not only have I jettisoned my faith, I consider religion a pernicious deception of the gullible and an obstacle to the general love of mankind. As one can imagine, his emails make me acutely uncomfortable. My problem is: do I (gently and tactfully) request that he stop sending me these ludicrous messages, stressing the fact that I would rather hear about what he's doing and thinking, or do I remain silent and simply erase the damned things? Dear Persecuted and Scornful: You can finesse the whole thing without even mentioning your change of religious beliefs. Ask your friend to take you off his distribution list (Etiquetteer assumes that he is sending his e-mail messages to more friends than yourself) because you find your mailbox so full of general communications such as this that you can’t keep up with specific e-mail from friends. (Once upon a time such specific communications were known as "letters" and they came in the mailbox.) Tell your friend that you still want to hear from him, but enjoy much more e-mail messages that he’s written himself. This is a good place for Etiquetteer to remind everyone that the best way to forward humor, religious, or political posts (once referred to as "chain mail" when the postman delivered it) is to bcc: all the recipients and put your own e-mail address in the To: field. You not only preserve the privacy of your correspondents, but you also eliminate the possibility of annoying flame wars. 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

More Random Issues, Vol. 6, Issue 15

Dear Etiquetteer: I need your guidance. A cousin of mine, with triplets, works two jobs (one of which is as a waiter at a local restaurant) while his wife stays at home with the kids. Money is tight for them. I just received from them a gift certificate large enough to cover a lovely dinner for two at my cousin's restaurant with a little note that he is always there waiting on table on Saturday nights. I have no trouble with the hint that I should dine on a Saturday night. My quandary is, if he is my waiter that evening, does one tip the waiter/donor when the account is tallied? Dear Diner: How does one tip one’s host? Such an interesting query. If your cousin was entertaining you in his own home, tipping would be out of the question. Were your cousin the owner of the restaurant, and waiting on your table, tipping would again be unthinkable. But in this case – in which one’s benefactor is also an employee – Etiquetteer thinks one would tip as one ordinarily does when the service has been exceptionally good. Etiquetteer knows how very much waiters depend on tips to supplement their meager salaries, and Etiquetteer finds it too great an extension of your "host’s" hospitality to omit a gratuity. And if you really found everything to your liking, you could send a little basket of edible treats to your cousin’s home the next day, to return the hospitality of their gift certificate . . . and make a reservation at the restaurant for another Saturday night. Dear Etiquetteer:My mother, who works at a local college, has an antisocial boss who turns around when he sees her coming in his direction, so he doesn't have to say hello. Last week, she and her colleagues received this missive. I'd love to have your expert take on this latest social anomaly. By the way, he is loathe to meet face-to-face. As to handwritten notes, do octopi fly?P.S. Grammatical errors and typos in letter (sic). In an effort to reduce the amount of e-mail I generate, effective today, I'mgoing to experiment eliminating most, if not all, "thank you" messages.In lieu of these, I'll try:* assuming you understand that I always appreciate your good work* picking up the phone and thanking you* thanking you in person as we meet face-to-face in a meeting or on campus* sending you a handwritten thank-you note Basically, I wanted to to know that I appreciate all you're doing for [Insert Name of Local College Here] despite you're not necessarily receiving a "well done" e-mail message from me to clog your inbox. Dear Skeptical: At first glance, Etiquetteer has to wonder why this man was put into a supervisory position. So often in academia, and even in large corporations, the only way talented people can advance is by becoming supervisors. But talented people are not always effective supervisors, which leads to communications problems like this. Surprisingly, Etiquetteer likes the idea of reducing the amount of e-mail going around, but it is never good form to assume that one’s employees "know" one thinks highly of their work. Etiquetteer wishes your mother’s employer had just started writing Lovely Notes to thank employees without this clumsy e-mail announcement. As it is, those Lovely Notes had better be extra lovely and he’d better not be seen dodging his staff, as your mother has witnessed, to keep from talking to them. 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.

Mourning and Help Wanteds, Vol. 6, Issue 13

Dear Etiquetteer:Last week my mother called me to tell me the child of neighborhood acquaintances had died. It was a baby, and I guess it was sudden and unexpected. I haven’t seen these people in awhile, and I wasn’t sure if I should have gone to the funeral or not. I haven’t seen these folks in a very long time, and I wouldn’t want them to think I was intruding. We also, I know, have different opinions about gay marriage; would they think I was rubbing it in their faces? Dear Sympathizing: Conventional wisdom has always been "When in doubt, don’t." But whenever attending a funeral is in question, Etiquetteer says DO. The bereaved are more likely to be grateful for any effort taken to console them, rather than think of slights and disagreements. And if they WERE to think of slights and disagreements, then they wouldn’t be very worthy of consolation, would they? But that would be their fault for thinking it, and not yours for going to the funeral. Etiquetteer hopes you will at least send a letter of condolence (not an e-mail) to let them know you’re thinking of them. Dear Etiquetteer: An elderly cousin in North Carolina died last month. She was an eighty-year-old first cousin who had not married, but had a large town full of friends. While she had cousins on the other side of her family, my wife and I were the closest next of kin. We were the ones to make funeral arrangements. While she had already prearranged her funeral, there are those final details to take care of: getting proper clothes for her to be buried in, arranging a time for the funeral service that would fit the church, minister and family that had to make travel arrangements. Finding the cousins on the other side of the family was a problem. We had to be escorted into her apartment by the security man at her group residence to look for her address book. Looking up the phone number of the cousins on the other side along with other friends and finding out who is the custodian for her mentally retarded god child in New Orleans. After recording all the addresses and phone numbers of people we recognized as being our cousin’s close friends, the address book was turned back to the security man. Our cousin had been very generous in helping just about every good cause in town and out. I was informed by the administrator of the county school system that she had given over 90 scholarships. This did not include the city school system.Writing the obituary was really a joy as we included facts about her life. The funeral home had their web site or e-mail address included at the end of the obituary. Yesterday, I received from the funeral home several copies of e-mails from some of those who had received college education due to her scholarships. These are people that could not make the funeral due to time or may not have known until days later. And, if they had come to the funeral, I would not have the email to read again in my mourning time or to share with those other cousins. Dear Next of Kin:Permit Etiquetteer to offer you sincere sympathy on your bereavement, and also congratulate you on handling all the arrangements with such organization. But Etiquetteer must take issue with you over one tiny item. Whether mourners attend the funeral or not, they still must write a Perfectly Proper letter of condolence to the family. So if everyone was pulling their weight, you’d have these stories to read later anyway, whether you’d met the people at the funeral or not. Dear Etiquetteer:I put an ad for a Medical Assistant on [Insert Name of No-Cost On-line Community Here] last week, outlining job responsibilities with instructions to call and speak with the office manager, leaving her name and office number. Almost immediately, I started to receive e-mails with résumé attachments!I deleted the first ten or so, thinking that, if they cannot read and follow instructions, then they could never work for me.But dozens of responses kept coming in via e-mail. And we did eventually start to review them - thinking maybe we are not keeping up with the times. Who doesn't want to be au courant? But, we did get a near equal number responding in the manner suggested.While reviewing the applications I also noted one e-mail address in particular, because it included the word "sexy." My first impulse was to e-mail them and tell them if they were to ever be taken seriously for a position as a Medical Assistant (and not a call girl) they should change the e-mail address! But, I didn't.So my questions for you are:1. Is this what society has come to? If so, do I have to accept this?2. Should I have expected this 50/50 split in responses - i.e. those who can follow instructions versus those who cannot - considering the medium I chose to advertise the position?3. Why do I seem to notice (and then have to relay) all the oddities I observe daily - like sexy's e-mail address? Or is that a question for the shrink? You don't have to answer that last one! Dear Ad Doctor: Etiquetteer very much fears that this is what society has come to, but you do not have to accept it. You will aid and abet Perfect Propriety by not advertising on [Insert Name of No-Cost On-line Community Here]. Etiquetteer promises you’ll get better responses by going directly to medical communities on-line. The first rule of any advertising is "target your market!" As to the even split between responsible applicants and ignorant doofuses unable to read what’s put before them, Etiquetteer isn’t really surprised. While it’s common now to expect to respond to something seen on-line via e-mail, that’s no excuse for missing the instructions not to do so altogether. Really, Etiquetteer doesn’t see why you shouldn’t reply to them via e-mail that their applications will not be considered because they were sent improperly. As for your last question, Etiquetteer’s Polite Explanation is that you notice these sexual references because they are Absolutely Improper in the workplace. 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 etiquetteer.com.

Invitations and Condolences, Vol. 6, Issue 10

INVITATIONS and CONDOLENCES Vol. 6, Issue 10, March 11, 2007
		Dear Etiquetteer: Please tell me whether I was right in a dispute about how an invitation was to be worded. At a school where I’m involved a new dining hall was to be dedicated at a catered dinner for major donors. The invitation used the phrase "the honour of your presence." I saidno, that the term should be "the pleasure of your company." "The honour of your presence" is only for marriages held in a house of worship, isn’t that so? Using that phrase for a dinner to dedicate a dining hall was ludicrous to me. Happily the school staff listened to me and changed the invitation in time. But if I’m not correct I’ll take you to dinner. Dear Honored Guest: You are correct, but Etiquetteer has to tell you what a great deal of fun it’s been researching "chapter and verse" on this. While no one’s ever specifically said "‘the honour of your presence’ may only be used on wedding invitations for church weddings," examples for invitations of charity balls and other such functions (with which Etiquetteer would group invitations to university dining hall dedications) always use the form "the pleasure of your company." And from that Etiquetteer infers that you are correct. While checking up on this issue Etiquetteer has been vastly entertained reading about relics of bygone days like train cards for country weddings (when a private train is engaged for guests), cards of admittance to church weddings (for weddings when the general public is not allowed into the church), and invitations to the weddings of young widows issued by her parents. Dear Etiquetteer: I received an e-mail, sprayed to a number of members of an informal group to which I belong, that someone we all knew had a death in his family. I've seen this person off and on for a few minutes or so at a time, here and there over the years as part of this group. Otherwise we never socialized. We’ve never been to each other’s homes. I've always enjoyed his company whenever our paths have crossed. To contact him, all I have is one of his e-mail addresses. I was raised that when one heard of a death one dropped everything, made food if possible, and immediately went to the house of the bereaved to offer any and all assistance: cook, make beds for arriving family, mow the lawn, whatever they asked. If the bereaved were more distant one called them on the phone but, under all circumstances, send them a contemporaneous, handwritten notice of condolence. This ran into an iceberg a number of years ago when, after having sent my handwritten note of condolence, I overheard at the wake that the family thought I was cheap not to have purchased a sympathy card. Further, although my ancestors on my father’s side are Protestant, my mother’s side is devout Catholic, and I have been often faulted for not bringing a Mass card to the wake. To further compound my confusion, in this case, the only way I have to communicate is this person’s e-mail address, and I don't even know if that is his main e-mail address. I've e-mailed a mutual friend asking if he could provide a street address and any particulars as to the arrangements since I feel that condolences by e-mail are far below par and that the more proper course is to send a sympathy card with a personal note of condolence. In this new strange world, what is the proper etiquette? A sudden death, especially of anyone other than the elderly is a horrid, emotionally wrenching situation whatever the relationship between the survivor and the deceased. I feel that an e-mail is so de minimis in the face of such heartbreaking circumstances. Can Etiquetteer help? Dear Condoling: First of all, Etiquetteer has to say that a bereaved person who is going to criticize the way a condolence is sent does not deserve to be condoled. Etiquetteer can only identify these people as Trash Pure and Simple if they can’t realize that correspondence on one’s own stationery is much more meaningful and intimate than on some pre-printed sympathy card (especially the kind with some treacly poem inside). Etiquetteer bets they didn’t even bother to write you back the mandatory Note of Thanks . . . Second, if you’re not a practicing Catholic yourself, Etiquetteer sees no reason for you to send a Mass to the bereaved, even if they themselves are practicing Catholics. As your acquaintance with the bereaved is slight, in spite of its long standing, Etiquetteer doesn’t think it necessary for you to provide food or attend the funeral, as you already well know. Tracking down the street address, through mutual friends, or even an on-line directory, really is the best plan of action to send a Perfectly Proper Condolence Note. If you know the name of the deceased, check for the death announcements in the relevant newpaper (again, frequently on-line), and the church or funeral home might be able to assist you. Should all these avenues still leave you without the information you need, Etiquetteer would allow you to e-mail your acquaintance with your condolences and a request for his street address (without of course, implying that you want it handy for the next time he has a death in the family). 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.

Netiquette, Vol. 5, Issue 25

Dear Etiquetteer: How should we communicate professionalism through our e-mail since almost all online communication is so informal? And how much should we read into the online communication we receive? Once upon a time, people would have different stationery appropriate for different types of communication: simple and formal for business and something more expressive or whimsical for personal. Nowadays, people seem to think that one size fits all for e-mail communication. For example, one of my friends uses the e-mail userid "Sally6969" for much of her communication (although she does have a separate e-mail address for work). Now I happen to know that Sally was born in 1969, but don't you think her e-mail address might communicate something, well, different? In addition, I have seen resumes from people with e-mail addresses like "krazykat" or "fancynancy." Maybe these folks were named "Katherine" and "Nancy," but what are the guidelines here? And how do we remind our friends and colleagues about such things if they are, indeed, giving the wrong impression? Dear Impressionable in Cyberspace: First impressions last, even on the Internet . . . especially on the Internet, one might say. The use of a whimsical userid, which probably would not excite comment with social correspondence, doesn’t always make the right impression when used professionally. The women behind "krazykat" or "fancynancy," who Etiquetteer is sure are perfectly capable in their careers, would have made a better impression with a more neutral-sounding userid on a resume. Most people create one based on their names, such as "kjones" or "katharinej" or "fnancy." Etiquetteer knows this from personal experience. At the start of his professional career, when Etiquetteer was in his mid-twenties and e-mail was not yet an international communcations phenomenon, Etiquetteer chose the userid "fun." That gave rise to much amusement over the years, but didn’t really convince people that Etiquetteer was very reliable, capable, or, yes, professional. Now Etiquetteer uses a userid based on Etiquetteer’s proper name, and gets along much better. It’s also possible to give offense. Etiquetteer knows one woman who left an online discussion group she helped found because one man’s userid expressed his fondness for a specific sex act. Now that it’s possible for people to have an infinite number of e-mail addresses, Etiquetteer encourages everyone to tailor their userids for their communications. Beyond userids – to get back to your original question – one conveys professionalism in e-mail by using all the rules of professional correspondence. These include proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation, no heavy-handed use of bold or italic type, and absolutely no animated .gifs! To be Perfectly Professional one shouldn’t even use those smiley icons, like :-) (though Etiquetteer will confess to using them occasionally if it’s necessary to emphasize that something is supposed to be funny). Etiquetteer’s Dear Mother used to say, "A word to the wise is sufficient." When you see friends or colleagues conveying less than a professional impression in professional correspondence, gently suggest that they edit their correspondence a little more before hitting the Send button. Etiquetteer’s Dear Mother also used to say, "Less is more."

Family E-mail, Vol. 5, Issue 2

Dear Etiquetteer:Over the past two years, my family has finally caught up with the 20th century and embraced e-mail as an easy way to negotiate functions, such as party planning and babysitting. I set up a list, in fact, for posting such information. It worked very well until six months ago, when I realized I wasn't receiving messages that everyone else said they had seen.I was forwarded two or three, all from my sister-in-law, who sent details about her children's birthday parties and Christmas to everyone (including her husband) except me. I found it particularly strange when she sent out an e-mail asking everyone if they had a list of gift-exchange partners that I had sent out last year, instead of asking me directly or including me on the mass e-mail.The final straw came when I was forwarded a lengthy e-mail exchange between both my sisters-in-law (who cc:d everyone in my family except my mother and me) discussing where to hold my mother’s birthday dinner. The two of them had come to the conclusion that their own houses were too small for the affair, and they were going to hold the dinner in a rented hall.My brother (who forwarded the e-mail to me) said, "I don't know why you weren't included in this." I thanked him for sending me the message, and sent an e-mail to the entire family list letting them know that renting a hall was not only the last thing Mother would want, and if their places were too small to hold a family get-together, her own house has always been perfectly roomy, and I would make her favorite dinner for everyone to celebrate.My question is: Should I leave it at that? Would sending this message to the whole family, letting the culprits know that I am privy to this hidden information whisking around the Web be enough to alert them to the fact that I want and need to be included in family business? My sister-in-law and I have a history of getting along and not getting along, but we don't speak very often alone. Should I take a more direct approach and have a face-to-face conversation with her, letting her know that I, too, am part of the family, and I consider being left out to be hurtful and rude? Is there another, more polite path I can take?Dear e-Pariah:Etiquetteer doesn’t really understand why people try to pull this stuff. It’s so easy to trace!From your letter, it certainly sounds as though all the suspect e-mail has its roots with your sister-in-law. And if this has really been going on for six documented months, we can no longer assume that it’s just a mistake. Etiquetteer sees your sister-in-law actively excluding you from family affairs.While Etiquetteer loathes direct confrontation, this situation has reached the stage where you must speak with her face to face. Tell your sister-in-law, calmly and patiently, that you’ve noticed her excluding you from e-mail communication with the rest of the family for an extended period, that you think she’s leaving you out deliberately, and ask her to stop. You could also ask her why she’s leaving you out, but be careful: she could tell you, and you may not want to hear.Moving forward, for as long as your sister-in-law is part of your family, you will need to head her off at the pass. You yourself now need to start future discussions of your mother’s birthday and other family business in which you expect to take part. When you send e-mail, Etiquetteer recommends including a footer along the lines of "Please reply to the list at [Insert List E-mail Here] so that no one is left out of this discussion."Now Etiquetteer is going to talk about your mother’s birthday and the position of daughters-in-law in a family. The old Biblical stereotype of the daughter-in-law who moves in with her husband’s family essentially to serve as kitchen help to her mother-in-law no longer applies, thank goodness, but the residue of it clings when big family events arise. Daughters-in-law (and daughters, too) frequently get left "holding the bag," as it were, having to do a whole lot of cooking and cleaning and much less enjoying than anyone else at the party. Perhaps this is the root of your sisters-in-law’s planning, bypassing someone who’s, ahem, rather forceful? Etiquetteer has no way of knowing this, but offers it for your consideration. 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@etiquetteer.com.

How to Set Limits, Vol. 4, Issue 43

Dear Etiquetteer: How do you deal with e-mail sarcasm? The other day I got an e-mail with the subject "This is really not good" from a client. Aside from being really vague, it really put my back up. Turns out the matter at hand was something that was his fault in the first place! Dear Offended: Whether in person or on-line, it’s best to behave like cream: rise to the top. In your case, Etiquetteer would have changed the subject line when you replied to relate specifically to the matter at hand. (Etiquetteer gets more e-mail headed "Etiquette Question" or "Query" than he knows what to do with.)This feels more difficult in person when Snidely Whiplash is standing right in front of you. At least you have the distance of the Internet between you. Most important, don’t respond to the red flag they are waving in front of you. Express concern ("I’m sorry you’re having such a difficult time") and fix the problem when possible. When it’s not, apologize and suggest alternatives (and no, "go jump in the lake" is not an alternative.) Dear Etiquetteer: In our world of instant gratification what is the acceptable time frame for responding to someone if they have contacted you? I work with someone who will send me an e-mail and if I do not respond within an hour they will call me and ask why I haven't e-mailed them back. If someone e-mails you how long do you have to e-mail them back and if they call how long do you have to return their call? Dear Besieged: Sounds like someone could use a little Prozac to deal with separation anxiety, and Etiquetteer doesn’t mean you. Of course drugging all your colleagues won’t really get you very far.This person is expecting WAY too much attention from you. We all know people who are excited about their work, but this is over the top. Etiquetteer hopes you have a phone with a display screen so you can at least screen his or her calls. A Perfectly Proper standard should be to respond to phone or e-mail messages within the span of a business day. Etiquetteer knows one person, an architect, who includes a time limit in his voicemail, saying "I commit to returning your call within 24 hours."The multi-media barrage you’re facing from this person, however, is unacceptable. A non-immediate response does not mean you’re avoiding the issue at hand. Explain graciously what the standard of your office is, and also that part of your job requires you to be in places other than your office during the workday. If this behavior continues, Etiquetteer gives you permission to explain that your duties also require you to devote your attention to more than one person. Dear Etiquetteer: Like most people today I have a very full schedule. My husband and I both have divorced parents which means we have four families to contend with, not just two. I also work full time and try to spend time with my friends as well as (heaven forbid) my husband. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I'm very lucky to have so many people in my life, but recently some of these people have been less understanding regarding my busy schedule. I have a friend who insists on calling me daily and if she doesn't see me at least once a week she tells me that I'm ignoring her. I don't want to lose her as a friend, but I need to scale things back. How do I do this without hurting her feelings? Dear Asphyxiated by Affection:If Etiquetteer was less Perfectly Proper than he actually is, he would advise you to suggest tartly to your friend that she is ignoring you by failing to recognize how overwhelmed you are. But this is not really Perfectly Proper, as we all know . . .You should take the initiative in scheduling together time with your importunate friend at appropriate intervals, say every two or three weeks. She should be flattered that you are making the effort, but if she asks to meet sooner, kindly but candidly tell her that you need to spend time with your husband. As for the phone calls, screen them when you don’t want to talk and take them when you do. One would think people would be more sensitive about pestering a friend with social calls at the workplace, but too often these situations come up because one isn’t thinking. 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@etiquetteer.com.

The Etiquette of Death, Vol. 4, Issue 42

Dear Etiquetteer:My son died 13 days ago and I am feeling horrible heart-wrenching pain and grief. The funeral was last week and it was wonderful and touching to see so many of his friends there. I was amazed and comforted by the number of people that came to show their respect.The problem is, I was made fun of from my mother and her friend because I didn't stand by the casket and "receive" from 3:00 pm to 8:00pm. I didn't know I was supposed to do that! There wasn't a "line of people". It was a huge amount of people and the funeral home opened up two more rooms to hold people. I went from person to person and I was being introduced to people. I just remember hugging and crying and meeting and thanking countless people.So, in addition to the insurmountable grief I have, I also feel that I did something wrong! What should I have done? Dear Bereaved: Etiquetteer’s heart bled reading your letter, and not just because of your grief. What vicious jackals your mother and her friend are, to "make fun of" you at such a vulnerable moment! Such wickedness, such absence of compassion! Etiquetteer cannot condemn them enough and is so sorry you had to put up with this taunting along with everything else. It is usual for stated times for the family to receive to be published in funeral announcements, and Etiquetteer is assuming that your family did so. The world knows that Etiquetteer loves a receiving line. But after extensive research, Etiquetteer cannot find chapter and verse in any of the standard American etiquette books requiring the family to receive by the coffin. The tradition is there, but it’s local custom or religious requirement more than anything that dictates what to do. Etiquetteer vividly remembers his grandfather’s funeral in 1974, which took place in the South, when the family received at the funeral home, but not in the same room with the casket. But Etiquetteer has also attended New England funerals of Catholic families who have received next to deceased in an open casket.So Etiquetteer really cannot fault you for receiving your son’s mourners as you did, but it is not an approach Etiquetteer would permit at a wedding. All that remains to be said is that you and your family have Etiquetteer’s sympathy on the death of your son, and Etiquetteer’s sorrow that your mother has expressed her own grief by criticizing you. Dear Etiquetteer: Today I received a tragic e-mail message from a cousin. Her husband was a career military man so they have lived in many countries as well as U.S. cities; hence, the message she was sending was forwarded to 65 people. This made her use of e-mail quite understandable.The message was to inform all of her husband's death. She told of his final illness and that he is to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Due to the many deaths of past and present service people, however, the next available time for a military funeral won't be for twelve weeks. Since they have adult children as well as many friends on base, I understand why she didn't have time to write notes or make personal calls, and I feel that she doesn't have time to handle so many incoming calls and notes. So, though I have never e-mailed a sympathy note, today I did just that because I wanted to extend condolences immediately.Later, I will call and write a note, as well as make a memorial contribution, but I'm puzzled as to when. I have never experienced this situation and wonder if Etiquetteer can suggest ways to ease the burden of families facing this long wait for closure. Sad duties are the most difficult. Dear Mourning: You raise an issue with which Etiquetteer has had to wrestle for some time: e-mail notification of death. Two or three years ago Etiquetteer got three such notices in five weeks. Needless to say they were each quite a jolt, and made Etiquetteer a little grumpy about how casual things were becoming.But then Etiquetteer changed his mind. Previous innovations in technology all were used to announce one’s death, like the telephone and the telegram, so much so that earlier etiquette books included instructions for the giving and receiving of these communications. Etiquetteer, after some initial reluctance, sees no reason to keep e-mail from replacing the telegram, but encourages the same unadorned style of the telegram in composing it, such as: I regret to inform you of the death of Catherine Elizabeth Schulz on Sunday, March 4, after a long illness. A private funeral service will take place on Friday, March 9, at All Saints Church. A memorial service will be scheduled later. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to [Insert Bereaved’s Choice of Charity Here]. Smith Funeral Home, 15 Main Street, Anytown, handling all arrangements.   Note the specific elements that are included here: Identity of the deceased. This should be obvious, but the griefstricken sometimes forget the most obvious things. Date and cause of death. This may be as specific or vague as the family wishes, e.g. "after a long battle with tuberculosis" or "died suddenly." Funeral arrangements. If the general public was to be invited to the funeral, more information would be provided, as in "A funeral service will take place on Friday, March 9 at 11:00 AM, All Saints Church, 112 11th Street, Anytown." Information about flowers and contributions. People always want to know. Information about the funeral home. Hopefully that will keep people from pestering the bereaved directly with questions about parking. Assuming that the person sending the e-mail is a member of the family, Etiquetteer recommends closing with something like "Your thoughts and prayers at this sad time are most appreciated."The subject line of the e-mail should let people know that it’s the news of someone’s death, as in "Death of Catherine Elizabeth Schulz." It should NOT be something as ambiguous or neutral as "Sad News" or "I’m Sorry to Tell You," which provide more of a shock to the reader or could be mistaken for spam. Etiquetteer also thinks this is not the place to include photos of the deceased or decorative graphics. In some subsequent e-mail, perhaps, but not the first one.Now back to your question. Your e-mail condolence on receiving the news substitutes your need to telephone the bereaved, but not the condolence note. Take care of that and the memorial contribution you want to make now. In the months leading up to the memorial service, check in with the family once or twice, or as often as you would usually. If you live nearby, invite them to dinner at your home, or bring food to them at their home. After the services, continue to be in touch. 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@etiquetteer.com.

Random Issues, Vol. 4, Issue 19

Dear Etiquetteer: When going out as a group for lunch, how much do you pay when you know you only ordered a small salad but everyone else had drinks and appetizers, too? And how do you politely, firmly refuse to pay more? Sometimes avoiding the lunch is not an option. Dear Lunched: What Etiquetteer does like to avoid, especially in a group larger than six people, is the bickering of the who-ordered-what variety, which can keep people at table longer than the lunch itself and get accountants whipping out their cell-phone calculators. Dividing the bill equally does solve that problem, but if you always eat sparingly at lunch, that plan won’t work for you in the long haul. When you find yourself in a group and the last person with the check announces that everyone needs to put in more money to cover the bill, and you’ve calculated that you’ve already put in your share and a little bit more perhaps, you need only say "I’ve already covered my portion of the bill; I just had a small salad." It would be ill-bred of anyone at the table to contradict. But if the difference is only one or two dollars, Etiquetteer encourages you to overlook it. Otherwise, it will help you to be the first person to get your hands on the bill, quickly total what you owe (always including tax and tip), insert your contribution into that little leather portfolio thing, and hand it to the next person saying "I’ve included what I owe for my lunch." Dear Etiquetteer: Is it possible to thank someone TOO much? Dear Grateful: When someone either a) comes to expect your gratitude or b) believes you’re insincere, you’ve thanked someone too much. Dear Etiquetteer: What precautions can one take to make sure e-mail--whether its tone or content--will not be misconstrued? Dear Misunderstood: Proofread! When composing an e-mail, Etiquetteer frequently finds it helpful to read the first draft as a recipient. Put yourself in their desktop, as it were. Etiquetteer tends to include more explicitly words like "Please" and "thank you," and to write in complete sentences rather than shorthand. Reviewing your e-mail is also helpful as you don’t want anyone to misconstrue you as a dolt or an idiot. This is the time to proofread from a spelling and grammar point of view as well as tone and content. The difference between "We will not be meeting at 2 PM" and "We will now be meeting at 2 PM" says it all.Including a specific subject line will help your recipients enormously. For instance Etiquetteer receives a lot of e-mail with the subject line "Etiquetteer," or "Question for you." It would be more helpful to write "Question About Invitations" "Tipping Dilemma" or "Gift-Giving Advice Needed" instead. Etiquetteer is sure that we all have rafts of e-mail messages headed "Hi," "Hello," or the very helpful "<no subject>". What more need be said? Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com! 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@etiquetteer.com.

Office Etiquette I, Vol. 4, Issue 14

Dear Etiquetteer: I hate when people hit reply to all when someone has e-mailed the office to say that they are going to be out of the office and then you get sucked into a warp of e-mails that have nothing to do with you. Dear Communicated: Etiquetteer could not agree with you more that people should pay more attention to whom they are e-mailing, and will illustrate with a true story – reported as part of a story on e-mail in court cases reported by the Boston Globe in 1997 – that involves video messaging, carelessness, and adultery. It seems two mid-level managers at a Great Big Company were having an affair, and had also been given laptops with built-in video cameras (along with all the other mid-level managers). Well, the female of the couple checked into a hotel for a conference, set up her laptop and, shall we say, made a very explicit invitation to her lover. She then sent it to 400 people employed by the Great Big Company, including her boss, her employees, and total strangers.This little story ought to prove that one should ALWAYS check the To: line of one's e-mail when replying to be sure one isn’t talking to the Whole Entire World. Your workplace may have a particular policy about communicating when you will be out of the office, but Etiquetteer continues to believe that the best way is to set an automatic e-mail response and to update your voicemail message Dear Etiquetteer: Is it ok to be grumpy in the office? Let's face it, we are humans and have bad days, but how can we deal with people who are consistently grumpy, negative, stressed or difficult in which to interact? Dear Grumpy: One of Etiquetteer’s guiding principles about everyday manners is that no one cares about how you feel or what you want. They just don’t care. And yes, we all have bad days. But bad days come in degrees. You can have a bad day because the bus was late and overcrowded, because you lost a six-figure contract, or because a family emergency brought you to the hospital at 2:00 AM. The more we can realize that no one else cares about our troubles, the more we can keep them in perspective. This doesn’t mean we all have to be perky little Stepford wives, but it does mean we need to be professionally conscious of the emotions and atmosphere we project at the office.Dealing with grumpy colleagues – well, brevity is the soul of productivity. As much as possible, transact your business in the shortest amount of time. In meetings, you might neutralize someone’s Black Cloud of Need by brainstorming positive aspects or solutions to the issues at hand, or directing the conversation to other, more upbeat colleagues. Dear Etiquetteer: When working at my desk, nice, amiable co-workers often approach me to stop by to chat for a few minutes. Normally this wouldn't seem like a problem; after all I love a good chat. However, because my desk is in a high-traffic zone this happens multiple times a day, and pretty soon those five-minute chats add up to some serious time that I could have used to get my work done. How can I politely let people know that although I enjoy a good chat I don't have the band-width to chat so frequently, and that it's not just them stopping by – it’s everyone?Dear Chatted:Always apologize that you don’t have the time to talk – not because your slave-driver boss is monitoring your workplace activities for slacking, but that you simply must complete your task at hand in a short period of time. Then turn back to your computer or pick up the phone. Thinking colleagues will realize that it’s not about them. Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com! 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@etiquetteer.com.