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: The Philosopher who wrote (75572)	9/25/2003 8:01:27 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The point, though, being, as Rambi pointed out, that formal doesn't have to mean uncomfortable. Well, yes, it sort of was--For our heroine, whom I know to be a thoughtful and considerate person and probably owns perfectly suitable clothes and was tweaking us somewhat. And who hates those false dichotomies. But I think even more than this, my point would be that we are so eager to find offenses in others we constantly bring pain on ourselves and everyone else when a smile either to ourselves for our first impatient reaction, or even better, to the "offending" party would make so much of this crap unnecessary. I have found that I can afford to hand out a lot of passes painlessly. And I hope others do the same for me for my gaffes. I feel sorry for people who would get so caught up in having a society wedding that they couldn't take a little deviance in their guests. While I strongly agree with you about ritual, the real meaning of the wedding ritual lies in the public declaration before caring, supportive friends and family-- and not in their attire. So if slightly wacky Aunt K loves us enough to attend wearing her elasticized pants, it is more than fine with me. And all the money she's saved not buying clothes, maybe she'll will to me.