Online Discretion Offline, Vol. 14, Issue 32

Dear Etiquetteer: I was recently on vacation with my husband. We were at a local bar in [Insert Name of Resort Town Popular With Those Who Have Achieved Equal Marriage Here] when a guy walked by, turned around, looked at me and said "[Insert Name of Social Media Platform* Here]!" I was quite uncomfortable. While my husband knows I'm using this social media, he assumes the worst about being on it. For social media etiquette when recognizing someone from here, I would assume it would be alright to say hello to someone if they were by themselves, but if not, you may not want to bring something up about their online life. Your thoughts?

Dear Online:

Oddly enough, Etiquetteer had a somewhat similar experience earlier this year while rushing through an art exhibition to be Perfectly Punctual for a friend's presentation. In Etiquetteer's path appeared a handsome, vaguely familiar man. Only later did Etiquetteer recognize him as an online contact. The response Etiquetteer received to a private message apologizing for any perception of a snub reinforced how wise it was not to have approached him, because he wasn't alone and claimed Social Awkwardness when Caught Off Guard.

Etiquetteer is fond of quoting "Discretion is the better part of valor," and it really is a pity that your Social Media Contact  didn't consider that. At the very least he could've said "Excuse me, but haven't I seen your photo on [Insert Name of Social Media Platform Here]?" But a discreet bow or nod is best, or even no contact at all. Etiquetteer is reminded that, in the days before World War I when mistresses were much more established in the daily life of France, no man stepping out with his demimondaine would be acknowledged by his friends, and certainly not by the friends of his wife.

Still, in a barroom, where one's Internal Monologue may have escaped with the help of Spiritous Liquors, that is a risk. Etiquetteer rather wonders if, when your online "friend" hailed with the name of your Shared Social Media, you responded "No, I pronounce my name Smith."

Etiquetteer hopes that you experience no recurrence of this exposure of your Inner Life. But you may wish to make such a recurrence less embarrassing by reassuring your husband about the best aspects of being part of this Social Media Platform.

*Etiquetteer must hasten to add that this Social Media Platform in question was not - how shall Etiquetteer say this? - created for facilitating the most casual of encounters.

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.

What a Gentleman Does, Vol. 13, Issue 55

It takes courage to own up to a mistake, especially one that has had a negative impact on others, and very especially one that has exploded on social media to mark one a Very Bad Person. But that's what a gentleman is, someone who has the courage to admit a mistake and to do what's possible to make up for it. So Etiquetteer has to salute Jeff Conklin, the resident of the South End of Boston who parked his BMW next to a fire hydrant last week, rendering it useless in fighting a house fire. Unlike the generally accepted stereotype of BMW owners as simply not caring about the consequences to others of their actions, Mr. Conklin has taken the trouble to visit the neighborhood firehouse to apologize personally to the firefighters whose essential work was jeopardized. Etiquetteer can only imagine the strength of character that took, and can only express admiration.

Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham writes "The social media that connect us also make it distressingly easy to be vicious. Emboldened by anonymity, we pounce on people, convicting them with scant evidence." Mr. Conklin may now have to find within himself the strength to forgive hundreds of complete strangers who convicted, tarred, and feathered him before. And you may be sure that Etiquetteer shared that column with That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much, well known for his bitter tongue on many subjects.

In short, Mr. Conklin, through a grievous error, has proved what a gentleman he really is through his response to it - and many others have proved what ladies and gentlemen they are not.

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.

Hacked Hand-Me-Downs, Vol. 10, Issue 5

Dear Etiqueteer: I have a question about hand-me-downs - a particularly thorny issue to begin with.

In my family, infant clothing is passed down. It is commonly understood and practiced without discussion. My daughter, Effie, is currently in line between two of my cousins who are sisters. We will call them Abby and BeBe. Their daughters are Cici and Deedee, respectively. Cici is a year old, Effie is four months old, and Deedee is currently wearing newborn sizes. In theory, this works very well.

In practice, to be short, it does not. Cici's clothing is generally off-season. Whether the print is sunflowers or snowmen matters less than whether it is a sundress or snowsuit. More importantly, the clothing is not wearable. It is stained, tattered, threadbare, and paint is peeling off of snaps. Goodwill and Salvation Army would not sell clothing so worn. I do not use this clothing. Currently, everything Abby has given me is in a box in the closet.

On one occasion, Abby borrowed a bib from me. She had it for only a few hours and returned it stained.

To further complicate things, Abby is pregnant. This child would very reasonably follow Deedee. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe would be passed on to Abby again within a matter of months.

BeBe and I take very good care of our things. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe is nearly new. When I see Deedee, I can tell that BeBe is treating these hand-me-downs as well as if they were freshly store-bought. We have also both received very nice gifts, and so our daughters each have beautiful clothing.

I get rags from Abby. Because the only hand-me-downs Effie gets are those previously worn by Cici, she effectively does not have hand-me-downs. Therefore, everything passed from Effie to Deedee is new. Everything BeBe passes down after Deedee has outgrown it, I'm sure, will still be in very good condition.

There is a social issue with Abby as well, in that she constantly requests my professional services without hesitating to point out that they are not worth what I am asking. When I stopped discounting, she stopped patronizing- but not requesting.

I am not at all comfortable with that clothing being passed on to Abby, who clearly lacks appreciation for a variety of things. I am also sad to know that anything she gets will be ruined.

I have another friend who is pregnant, but passing clothing to her would mean that BeBe would not get my hand-me-downs. Deedee would instead only get Cici's clothing. I would not wish on BeBe what I am I trying to escape.

It is important to note that my husband and I have decided that Effie will be our only child.

Question One: What to do with the box.

Question Two: How to avoid receiving more.

Question Three: What to do with my hand-me-downs.

I have been struggling with this for weeks now. Thank you.

Dear Gigi:

Let's see if Etiquetteer can untangle the path of the baby clothes through your Family of Alphabetical Pseudonyms. Three cousins share hand-me-downs as needed. Currently they begin with Abby, for her year-old daughter Cici; then to you, Gigi, for your four-month-old daughter Effie; and then to BeBe for her newborn daughter Deedee. They will then return to Abby for her expected newborn (probably Heeheeheeheehee).

Because the hand-me-downs you're receiving from Abby are no longer fit to wear, Etiquetteer assumes that you are having to buy new baby clothes and/or acquire hand-me-downs from another source which will then go into the family's collective bassinet. You resent the expense and the necessity for this, and would like to spare BeBe your troubles by eliminating Abby from this silently operating Family Tradition.

Etiquetteer suggests ending this Family Tradition because it is not equally respected by all the participants. Since you and your husband are not planning to have any more children, pass on the box to BeBe (Question One) and declare to all that you are Out of the Loop (Question Two). This then becomes BeBe's problem, to manage with her sister Abby in any way she sees fit. Which means that you should say nothing about it evermore unless BeBe asks you.

As for your own hand-me-downs (Question Three), since they're yours, direct them where you think they will be most appreciated and cared for: either to BeBe or to your friend, or divide the lot and send some to each.

And should you and your husband end up having another child - which has been known to happen - make it clear from the beginning that you won't resume the Family Tradition.

Houseguests/Current Events, Vol. 7, Issue 13

Dear Etiquetteer:

On a recent vacation trip to a far away place, I stayed in the home of a good friend and colleague.  While I was there, another professional colleague called my host and insisted on knowing with whom I was traveling and what the sleeping arrangements were.  My host was, of course, perfectly proper, and we all had a good laugh about it.  My question is, am I entitled to include this story when recounting my travels either to friends or to colleagues?  May I tell the story in the inquiring colleague's presence if I don't actually name him?

Dear Traveling Man: 

Etiquetteer commends the discretion of your host in not divulging any of his domestic details; clearly it was None of a Busybody’s Business. 

No one loves a good story more than Etiquetteer, and this does indeed sound like a very good one! But even so, it’s more Perfectly Proper to keep this one to yourself. Good stories have a way of traveling on their own, picking up extra embellishments along the way. Should the original Busybody ever hear of it, which is more of a Possibility than most people care to consider, it would only reflect badly on your host having divulged a confidential conversation.

Stories of This Sort are best Filed for Future Reference. Thanks to your host, you’ve just learned an important characteristic of your Busybody professional colleague that can help you evaluate his reactions in professional settings. 

Etiquetteer has been doing his best not to get too involved in the 2008 political campaigns and resulting candidate faux pas. Etiquetteer feels sure that Barack Obama hasn’t done much to court the Militant Feminist Vote, but he made a SERIOUS misstep last week by referring to WXYZ-TV reporter Peggy Agar as “sweetie.” Terms of Endearment are, by definition, those we use with people who are close to us. And while we all know how close politicians like to be to the press during campaigns, “sweetie” is TOO close. Another way for men to gauge their behavior: if you wouldn’t say it to a man, you cannot say it to a woman. 

Etiquetteer was horrified to read in the Duluth News Tribune on May 10 about an insensitive lawsuit. Jeffery Ely hit a dog with his car, killing it. He then sued the dog’s owners, Niki and Daniel Munthe, for damages to his car. No matter how wronged one feels in such a situation, no matter how justified, one’s own sense of Perfect Propriety should prevent one from filing such a lawsuit. Honestly! What was he thinking? “Your dog dented my car as I was running it over so you should pay to fix my car?” Clearly Mr. Ely cares more about money than his reputation OR the feelings of others.

From the “Children Must Be Seen and Not Heard” Department, Etiquetteer was delighted to hear that the Red Thai Restaurant of Portland, Oregon, has begun banning children younger than six years of age from its establishment. If more parents knew how to control their “precious snowflakes” in public such a ban might not be necessary. After hearing from a colleague that she saw a woman breast-feeding* her infant at a theatre performance (!) Etiquettteer understands that parents don’t understand where their children are welcome and where they are not. It is insensitive to others in the audience to bring a babe in arms to a live concert or performance where they could start howling any moment. It is equally rude to dine at a “grown-up” restaurant with young children who haven’t yet been taught to use inside voices, silverware, or to keep their seats. Parents of Young Children, take note! 

*You may be surprised to learn that Etiquetteer has no trouble at all with breastfeeding in public. This necessary function can be handled discreetly and modestly in restaurants, vehicles, and other public places. But in places of assembly, such as theatres, concert halls, or churches, it distracts too much from the program one is supposed to be watching.

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.

Random Questions, Vol. 5, Issue 4

Dear Etiquetteer:Isn't "flipping someone off" a very strong gesture? Let's take it one step further: flipping off a total stranger who has done nothing to you. I'm a big guy and it makes me want to beat the crap out of the gesturer.A recent entry in one of my favorite blogs relates how the writer gleefully flips off Hummers. Just because the writer has misconceptions about that automobile and probably knows nothing about the environmental activities of the Hummer driver, what gives the writer the right to flip off an innocent stranger? The writer is under the misconception that his gesturing is protected under the "First Amendment" (he really should study the Constitution before writing about it). I truly believe the blog writer is a nice person, but needs to learn that polite manners are for useeverywhere.Dear Flipped:Etiquetteer is fascinated by bird life, but not this kind! Perfectly Proper ladies and gentlemen know what this "splendid gesture" means, but it is not a part of their body language vocabulary. When Etiquetteer wags an Admonitory Digit, you may be sure it isn't the middle finger.But what you're really interested to learn is how you can guide this digitally profane blogger into the paths of Perfect Propriety, yes? Etiquetteer will observe that true cretins frequently try to use the law or the Holy Bible to justify bad behavior. They may indeed have the right to offend in any way they wish; they ALSO have the right to suffer the consequences. So if this blogger is mowed down in a fit of road rage by a raving-mad Hummer driver, so be it.The roadways of the world are tense enough as it is. Please encourage your friend to promote Highway Harmony, Road Safety, and Perfect Propriety by refraining from shooting the finger. He really ought to channel his anger more constructively in other ways, perhaps by joining the Sierra Club or something. Dear Etiquetteer:When is it OK to call a colleague honey, sweetie, sweetheart or sweetpea? I thought I could use it if I am intimate with someone, no? I am so confused!Ooh, honey:You just might have come to the wrong person with this question. Etiquetteer will admit to being very free -- perhaps too free -- with terms of endearment in the workplace -- shucks, just about everyplace! Etiquetteer once nicknamed a particular boss "BooBoo" to the delight of all, including the boss in question.But let's face it -- that's not really Perfectly Proper. Oh no.In the Politically Correct New Millennium, it's unwise to use terms Lecherous Old Men used to use for Beautiful Young Women when referring to anyone, especially of the opposite gender. Some overly sensitive person could sue you and you'd end up in front of Judge Judy. And this is especially true in the workplace.That said, a nickname can cement a close working relationship with a colleague. Long story short, save the terms of endearment for close colleagues. Dear Etiquetteer:It's almost the end of January, and I'm sorry to say that I still have a box of Christmas presents at home that I have to give to people. Most of them are for friends, but one or two are for family members. Obviously I don't want to save these for next Christmas, but I also don't want to make people feel like an afterthought. We just couldn't find time to get together in December. Is it bad to give them their Christmas presents now?Dear Gifting:Yes Virginia, there is a problem here. What you're telling Etiquetteer is that you're too busy at Christmas for Christmas. You could take a tip from a group of friends Etiquetteer knows and have your Christmas celebration after Christmasand New Year's festivities. This group usually gets together for a meal around Twelfth Night (also known as Epiphany, when the Three Kings finally showed up with their gifts) and exchange gifts then. No reason you couldn't host such a gathering with modest refreshments and good cheer, and you could hand people their gifts as they leave.But trust Etiquetteer, if you're still hanging on to those gifts by Valentine's Day, you need to evaluate why you're still buying these folks presents in the first place. They may need to graduate to your card list.Dear Etiquetteer:I think some people in my office talk way too much in group meetings. I don't know if it's because they like hearing themselves, or whether they actually believe they are the only ones amongst us who work hard; either way they are loud, annoying meeting hijackers. The thing is, what they usually say in meetings is often not new because most have been either communicated via e-mail, reported at other meetings, or you've overheard it through the thin office walls. To those of us who work just as hard as these loud domineering colleagues, but are respectful of other people's time and space, we have passed the Advil and Tylenol way too many times to count. Is there a school these people can be sent to to learn that with a little bit of consideration they can actually save us a lot of time by keeping their mouths shut! Any advice you can give will be most appreciated.Dear Fuming:Etiquetteer is very familiar with this type of gasbag, and they can be fun toneedle in large meetings. Start questioning their basic assumptions and seethem lose their control. Try it . . . it's fun!Seriously, though, the person to whom you should speak is the person running themeeting. Large group meetings need to be particularly focused so that everyone'stime is most efficiently used. If you're able to approach this person (andEtiquetteer thinks you should before you lose your cool), work with them tocreate a more specific and tightly focused agenda that will dramatically reducethe bloviation of your colleague.Etiquetteer, who these days has more trouble disguising his impatience intime-wasting meetings, has also taken to announcing a "time check." "I'm very sorry to interrupt you Ermentrude, but it's now 1:37 PM and we have 13 more agenda items before our meeting ends at 2:00 PM." This can be a risky strategy in an organization with a complicated hierarchy, but it's better than blowing up at someone . . . or going out for a drink with gossipy colleagues after work and spilling all your frustrations so they can tell everyone how much you hate Ermentrude the next day. 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.

Weddings and Revolving Doors, Vol. 4, Issue 32

Dear Etiquetteer:I always thought that a bride and groom went to all the wedding functions, including the day-after breakfast. Isn’t this the case? Attending a recent wedding breakfast, I saw a few disappointed faces when the bride and groom weren’t there. Dear Rubbernecker: Etiquetteer remembers an old joke (but not its source, so please let Etiquetteer know if you know) about the Victorian wedding tintype in which the groom is seated and the bride standing behind him. "Shouldn’t the lady be seated?" asked someone. "On the day after the wedding," came the reply, "she was probably too sore to sit down and he was probably too tired to stand up!" You may take from this little anecdote that Etiquetteer doesn’t think a bridal couple should be seen at all after they leave the reception, mostly because everyone knows what they were supposed to be up to the night before. You can also bet that the wedding guests still present for any day-after festivities will want to continue speculating on whether the bride was really entitled to wear white. No bride should have to be present through that . . . Dear Etiquetteer: Two friends of mine are getting married. Since they’ve been living together for over ten years, they really don’t need all the usual household gifts people usually give at weddings. They’ve decided to take a really adventurous honeymoon and would like to ask their friends to contribute to the travel expenses. Isn’t there a tactful way for them to do this? Dear Gifted Guest: Argh! For the last time, it’s the height of rudeness to tell people how to spend (or not spend) money on you, unless they ask and then they deserve what they get. For those who ask, the idea of a honeymoon registry (like other bridal registries for household goods) seems to appeal to many. Etiquetteer is alternately fascinated and appalled that such registries already exist, such as www.thehoneymoon.com, www.sendusoff.com, and www.thebigday.com, among others. Now Etiquetteer suspects some wedding guests will continue to balk at such a thing, preferring to present a gift of a thing rather than an experience. That is their right, and if so, the Happy Couple will just have to lump it. Dear Etiquetteer:I work in a fairly large office building, with a very heavy revolving door at the entrance. I take pride in being a gentleman, and always hold open a regular door when I'm in the company of a member of the opposite sex, however, I don't know the rules about revolving doors. Am I being chivalrous by letting my colleague enter first, even though it forces her to push the heavy door herself to get it started, or do I enter before her so that I can do the heavy pushing instead of her? Thanks ever so much for your advice. Dear Floored in the Doorway: Thank goodness Chivalry is not yet dead! Etiquetteer is so glad that you wrote with this question, which proves that someone out there still cares about other people. You have just made Etiquetteer’s day! Etiquetteer thinks that gentlemen may gallantly precede ladies in revolving doors or exiting buses, but for different reasons. In a revolving door, gentlemen may not only do the "heavy lifting" as it were, but also regulate the speed of the door. This is more important than you may think. Etiquetteer has seen elderly ladies propelled to the floor by thoughtless collegians carelessly zipping through revolving doors. On a bus (or a flight of stairs), the gentlemen is always closest to the ground. So if you’re going up, the lady goes first and if you’re going down, the gentleman does. This got started back in the day when ladies wore huge gowns with 14-inch platform shoes (no, Etiquetteer is not kidding) and it was much easier for them to stumble. Gentlemen were there to break their fall. Happily, ladies’ fashions are less risky these days, but the function continues since the elderly or infirm sometime need extra assistance boarding the bus or getting upstairs. 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.