?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

Curiosity

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

Curiosity

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
quitcherbitchen
Dear Ms. Manners:
Something cropped up in my mind recently in a social setting, and I had hoped that you or your readers might have a suggestion as to how to handle it.

The scenario is: Jack decides to have a party. In the process of inviting folks over, Jack specifically sets out to not invite half of a couple into his home. First question is: were you to be the not-invited party (or the uninvited person's other half), would you just strut yourself (or your SO) into that person's home during a party? If you would, why would you?

Second question: if you were to have chutzpah in that amount, how do you think that Jack, your unintentional host, should handle the rather sticky wicket of reminding you that you (or your SO) weren't asked to join the party, and then asking you (and/or SO) to leave?

I hope that you or your readers can help, Miss Manners. This is a rather difficult conundrum, and I'm simply not sure what etiquette suggests as the best means of handling it.

Yours,
colubra

Comments are screened, but will go visible should I comment back- if you don't want them going visible, please let me know in that comment- I can certainly reply via e-mail or whatnot.


UPDATE:
mamamoira found, in fact, a Miss Manners article which hit the exact question on the nose: that article is here.
Additionally, some people have expressed concerns or inquiries about the similarity between the above hypothetical and events that occured last night. Yes, the question came to mind because of last night's events; however, this is not an indictment or slam on anybody whom I dealt with last night. This was me building a hypothetical situation out of what I knew, and then going '...chripes, what the hey could one do with this messy hypothetical situation?' I was basically imagining myself in the exact situation above and trying to estimate what the properly mannerly action/response was.
  • question for clarity

    is this a party where people invited are expected to bring guests?
    was only one half invited with the assumption that the other half would be automatically coming to the party?
    sometimes i only have one email address or phone number for a couple and only invite one of them with the understanding that the other half will be automatically coming along.
    • Re: question for clarity

      If I understand the situation correctly, then one half of the couple was invited and also was specifically asked to not bring the other half. I might be mistaken, though: I've been trying to keep as far away from this as I can.
  • (no subject) -
    • When I set out to stir shit, I don't tend to go for half-assed efforts as this would be: I go for the jugular. If I were going to stir shit in a situation which brought the above-mentioned hypothetical to mind, it'd be far easier to be blunt as hell about it instead of pussy-footing around with pseudo-hypothetical questions, characterizing and/or slandering individuals, &c.

      As I mentioned in the modified post above:
      This was me building a hypothetical situation out of what I knew, and then going '...chripes, what the hey could one do with this messy hypothetical situation?' I was basically imagining myself in the exact situation above and trying to estimate what the properly mannerly action/response was.
      Discussion with all parties involved in the situation defused any perception on my part of negative motive, which is a lot of why the original entry's behind an <strike> tag now. I had my attention called to Ms. Manners' suggestions for such a matter, and soliciting external perspectives on the matter got me a fair bit of perspective as to what was going on- and caused me to realize that, quite apparently, I didn't know everything.

      If I would be correct in assuming that the accusation of shit-stirring is an effort to protect those one values or cherishes as friends, there's no need to do so. Again: if I wanted to go after harming someone, I'd go after harming someone. I've been back and forth with the parties involved in the actual chain of events which prompted the above hypothetical chain of events (please to note the adjectives that are italicized: the differentiation is sort of important), and now understand that what I built out of what little I could see was almost completely out of congruence with what actually had happened.
      • (no subject) -
        • Albert is pointing at me, in the icon on this comment.

          I know this is belated, definitely. I'd planned to just mention it to you in person when we ran into each other next, but I'm throwing this comment in mostly just so as to avoid having the last word on the topic of what you thought.
          Please don't feel chastened about the prior: 'corrected' would be the hope on this end. It occurred to me while skimming through entries and adding tags on this one that it seemed awfully tacky of me to leave it with me having the final say, and not to give you a publically-legible say on your thoughts / opinions on the matter.
          No worries, I promise: the prior reply was just a concern that you were doing something I tend to do- coming off half-cocked because someone voiced something offhandedly.
          ...in fact, hell, my initial mistaken opinion on it was entirely because of me going off half-cocked on an offhanded statement.
          Projection much, colubra?
          Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Powered by LiveJournal.com