Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:06:40 -0400 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Basic Courtesy

Good gentles,

Nicholas van Leyden suggests that I am confusing courtesy with content.
His posting and my reply follow.

    >>Bertram of Bearington (David Schroeder) writes:

       >>>Thanks...  This may be useful in convincing people why Filk
       >>>has no place in the SCA.

       >>>Stephen of the Grove

    >>Might I suggest that Stephen's missive may be useful in convincing 
    >>people that courtesy (of even the most basic sort) _does_ have a 
    >>place in the S.C.A. and the Rialto?

    >>By the way, where do our _modern_ notions of courtesy come from?
    >>(Since I feel that the problem cited above is with breaking 
    >> modern notions of courtesy, not necessarily period models.)

 >Good question.  I, personally, can't see what rule of modern courtesy
 >Stephen failed to observe.  He even said "thanks."  What you probably
 >object to is the *content* of Stephen's message rather than the form.
 >But disagreeing with someone is not a breech of courtesy.  Amy Vanderbilt
 >or one of the other experts on modern courtesy once wrote that if you 
 >want to insult someone, you can do so quite effectively without violating
 >the rules of courtesy -- more effectively than if you choose to ignore 
 >them.  Now, that having been said, what exactly was your problem with
 >Stephen's "missive?"

 > -- Nicholas van Leyden

My deskside dictionary defines 'courtesy' as:

    1 a : courteous behavior
      b : a courteous act or expression
    2 a : a generous allowance despite facts
      b : consideration and generousity in providing <some service>

and further, 'courteous' is defined as:

    1   : marked by polished manners, gallantry, or ceremonial
          usage of a court
    2   : marked by respect for and consideration of others

Nicolas says that one can disagree with someone in a courteous way,
using the first definition of the term.  I completely agree.  But
even by that definition Stephen's post, for all that it included
the word "thanks," was -- in my opinion -- far from mannered or
gallant.  It's "manner" was mean spirited -- the "thanks" actually
made things worse by adding an ironic twist, as in "thanks for nothing."

Still, there's no need to debate the posting on that basis,
considering that it more clearly breaks the second definition
of 'courtesy' since it is disrespectful and inconsiderate of
the person who posted the original song. That individual, as
far as I can tell from his messages so far, seems to be an
enthusiastic newcomer -- to the Rialto if not the Society.
The relative merits of his song could have been discussed
on or off line -- and suggestions for improvement, if one
had them to give -- could be offered.  Instead, he got an
electronic slap in the face.  Not a kind welcome or a very
helpful one.  (My apologies to Christian von Jauregg, the
author of the song, for dragging this matter out...)

Modern notions of courtesy are more than manners and Amy Vanderbilt.

Courtesy is also respect and consideration for the feelings of others.

I have no problems with vehement disagreements -- but gratuitous
put-downs, in my opinion, have no place on the Rialto.

When folks like Aryk and Hossein and Nicolas decide to go after each
other -- I don't necessarily consider that gratuitous.  It's not hard
to imagine their large smiles and the joy in the stroke and counter as
they spar in our forum.  

Much obliged for your patience, good friends...

  Oh -- why the quotes around "missives" Nicolas?
  Please let me know.  Am I misusing a term?  My dictionary
  says it's "a letter intended to be sent : a written communication."
  I'd like to learn a more appropriate word if you would suggest one.

Take care, one and all -- Bertram

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
------------------------- PREME * Press On * PREME ----------------------
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."      






Newsgroups: rec.org.sca