Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 8:31:59 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Unnecessarily making yourself the object of attention at someone else's wedding is always dreadfully rude. Anyone not pixilated should know that she would be doing just that by flouting convention so thoroughly. It depends on how important it is to the family to have you there, in determining what provocation to endure.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 8:37:56 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm shocked you would be so provocative in 3-D life. You subversive you. <g>

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 9:01:17 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Oh I have always wanted to write this. You set up a false dichotomy. Your alternatives are not mutually exclusive. Oh Oh, I feel just like one of the debaters here. But really: There are so many lovely, flowing, and comfortable clothes available that I see no reason a person can't look AND feel good, and not offend the sensibilities of the wedding party. Since money isn't a problem for our independent heroine, a good silk pants set, with elasticized top and a loose tunic, would not have the groom's mother sobbing, "Who let the homeless person in!" unless she is just incredibly neurotic and in that case, no one will care what she is wailing about. It's all in the material. Indeed, I just bought such a pantsuit recently, and wouldn't hesitate to wear it to a wedding. And believe me, I had Emily Post jammed down my throat growing up in the South. Flat shoes are not a problem. Not sure about socks though. Were they argyle? Did they have inappropriate sayings on them? You know, like "Weddings Suck!" "All men are SCUM". This would be a no-no. Miss Rambi Post or Rambi Goes Postal

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 9:50:45 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

:-) I love your hypo. IMO it's good to let people dress the way they want to- but I can't say that I see a way people "should" react. After all your clothing choices really only affect you- unless you are half naked or something, and then we have the arousal of lust problem. Since the bride and groom both get to invite their own people, and since they know what to expect from you, the groom's family were really out of line for asking that you be bounced. I think that the mother of the groom should be bounced for being so uptight.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 1:39:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The mother of the groom should take a chill pill. But also, one could suggest that you find something that is comfortable to wear but is also a bit dressier than elastic waist pants. Certainly you shouldn't have been bounced, but OTOH, I do think you showed a lack of consideration for the parties and the procedings. It's one reason I will never accept an invitation to the White House -- I am not willing to dress in what would be expected, and am not important enough to believe I deserve an exception to the accepted societal codes of manners.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 2:54:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Lot of shoulds there… to many to make your question simple but here is my take. Purpose: A wedding IS the proper time and place for a couple to make their union a public issue. They vow to hold one another in a certain light and ask the community to witness and support their declaration. A formal affair, such as the one you describe, is typically by invitation only. Should #1: The focus of all participants ‘should’ be to allow and support the public union being declared and witnessed without distracting attempts to grab the light of the occasion to shine on them. Should #2: Participants should be invited who have some stake in witnessing and supporting the occasion, and who intend to support the occasion without drawing attention to their own issues. It would be silly to invite a member of Hammas (who insists on wearing anti-Israeli T-shirts 24/7) to a wedding being held in a synagogue. It’s possible that the host would not have been informed about the conflict at the time of distributing the invitations. It is incumbent upon the Host to make attempts to eliminate or reduce the impact of any conditions that would be counter to the purpose of the wedding. If negotiation with the Hammas member failed, the host should make efforts to rescind the invitation prior to the event. If the t-shirt wearing radical made it to the wedding under the radar of the host it is a different issue. If the purpose of the wedding is being achieved and little or no notice is taken regarding Mr Ham, the Host should view it as a no harm done incident and move on. If Mr. Ham is intent on disrupting the wedding to have his day in the light, he should be removed. Should #3: Your situation is similar to Mr. Ham. You insist on going to the wedding, knowing that you are there beating your own drum over the voice of the objecting Hostess (unless you had no idea until actually in the wedding that there was an issue). You stated that you knew it would be offensive, right? It is quite common for moms to look for ways to grab the lime light during the wedding of their offspring. That is a shouldn’t. You say, say you were acting with the best of intentions … regarding what; the wedding, your political statement about casual dress, or something else? It appears that you are being true to form...you did not do this wedding...you did something else.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 7:10:10 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"I knew that Solon, like the rest of the men, would wear suit and tie and that the women would be wearing dresses and high heels. But I have a deeply held and longstanding belief that comfortable clothing is one of the keys to a happy life and that many a wedding has been ruined by guests acting out because they get cranky when their clothing is uncomfortable." What you did was neither right nor wrong. The above quote makes me aware that you knew you were going to put some noses out of joint. You did so and consequences flowed therefrom. Some of the consequences probably pleased you. Some may not have. Everybody decides for themselves what sort of tracks they wish to leave, and why? People that were disgusted with you were entitled. People who admired your rebelliousness were entitled. And you were entitled to choose and to prioritize the values you believed in. What I don't understand is why everyone was so nice to me when all I wore was a tie? I think that people are just intrigued by having their inner inhibitions publicly aired and metaphorically slain. I really hated your socks.

To: Lane3 who wrote (75489)	9/25/2003 7:23:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Since you asserted conscience in a later post I decided to go back to the source. Read carefully, your post is actually fairly offensive in some parts. Basically, you are saying that because you think the bride and groom would have a better time if they wore casual clothing, you assert the right to go ahead and do so even though you know that they have decided on more formal attire. Thus, you are really going with what I would consider a fairly beligerant attitude; no wonder the groom's mother reacted as she did. As to casual dress in offices, it's actually on the way out. The suit is coming back in, at least in companies that traditionally used traditional dress. And schools that go to a dress code, or even as far as uniforms, are finding that students perform better. Our district just this year went to a dress code. It's too early, obviously, to know what the results here will be, but they had some fairly convincing studies showing that more strict dress standards led to better school performance. The point, though, being, as Rambi pointed out, that formal doesn't have to mean uncomfortable. If you shop properly, you can find comfortable wedding appropriate clothing. That you chose not to do so, when obviously you could have afforded to, shows, as your post suggests, that comfort wasn't your real issue, but that you wanted to use the wedding as a soapbox to make a point. Maybe the bride's family accepted this, but IMO it really was an abuse of the groom's obviously unprepared family.