Exotic Weddings as Means of Filtering Guest List?
Telepath
My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
the guest list.
Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
people will decline.
Is this
a) polite?
b) rude?
Because I understood that location weddings are OK so long as the HC
is prepared for a lot of people to decline. But if the HC is rigging
the terms of the wedding in order to manipulate people into declining,
this is rude, right? [1]
(Yes, I know that gifts[2] come into play, but my question is, this is
rude even *before* considering that many people will feel obligated to
send gifts without even attending. Yeah?)
Regards
Telepath
[1] If so, then would this be an example where intentions *are*
pivotal to the politeness or rudeness of a behaviour, results
notwithstanding?
[2] Obviously, retaliating by sending a gift that is in some way
equally 'virtual' or 'inaccessible' would be GREAT FUN. But not
polite, ergo one would NEVER do this. But for purposes of imaginary
fun, who has suggestions for things one would NEVER, in real life,
send as a gift for this kind of wedding?
Ericka Kammerer
> Morning all,
>
> My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
> HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
> the guest list.
>
> Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
> that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
> people will decline.
>
> Is this
>
> a) polite?
> b) rude?
>
> Because I understood that location weddings are OK so long as the HC
> is prepared for a lot of people to decline. But if the HC is rigging
> the terms of the wedding in order to manipulate people into declining,
> this is rude, right? [1]
Having a destination wedding for any reason whatsoever is
just fine. What was rude was letting it slip that the purpose
of having a destination wedding was to encourage people to decline
the invitation. I don't think their intentions matter so much
as their poor choice to spread the word regarding their intentions
(if, indeed, this is actually true, and not something concocted
by the grapevine ;-)
> (Yes, I know that gifts[2] come into play, but my question is, this is
> rude even *before* considering that many people will feel obligated to
> send gifts without even attending. Yeah?)
As far as gifts go, receipt of an invitation in no way
obligates one to send a gift. A nice letter of congratulations
suffices nicely.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Uncle Mandrake
(Telepath) wrote:
> My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
> HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
> the guest list.
>
> Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite...
Uncle will assert that they aren't obligated to invite anyone in
particular. See last paragraph.
> ...that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
> people will decline.
>
> Is this
>
> a) polite?
> b) rude?
(a)
> Because I understood that location weddings are OK so long as the HC
> is prepared for a lot of people to decline. But if the HC is rigging
> the terms of the wedding in order to manipulate people into declining,
> this is rude, right? [1]
No, it's just stupid. I think you are reading too much into the
situation.
Why do I say this? Because the filtering effect is to exclude
those who are unable or unwilling to travel to the Greek island.
You don't know who among your friends will be excluded.
And there are much simpler, cheaper ways of paring down one's
guest list, namely by not inviting many people. You can still
squeeze gifts out of the population at large, if that's your
goal, by sending out post-wedding announcements of the HC's new
state.
The key issue here is whether the HC is obligated to invite a
certain set of people. If you (or they!) think they are, then
*maybe* your analysis is right, but I have to disagree with the
basic premise.
Sure, there is such a social event as the cocktail party that
takes care of all sorts of outstanding social obligations, but
weddings aren't simple social events; far from it. [insert
standard Uncle-oid sermon on the seriousness of weddings]
So let's focus on that question: is a HC under any social
obligation to invite certain people?
Note that this is quite a different question from "Is there
anyone whose feelings will be hurt if they aren't invited?"
--
Uncle Mandrake
Victoria, BC, Canada
Telepath
> Telepath wrote:
>
> > Morning all,
> >
> > My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
> > HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
> > the guest list.
> >
> > Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
> > that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
> > people will decline.
> >
> > Is this
> >
> > a) polite?
> > b) rude?
> >
> > Because I understood that location weddings are OK so long as the HC
> > is prepared for a lot of people to decline. But if the HC is rigging
> > the terms of the wedding in order to manipulate people into declining,
> > this is rude, right? [1]
>
>
> Having a destination wedding for any reason whatsoever is
> just fine. What was rude was letting it slip that the purpose
> of having a destination wedding was to encourage people to decline
> the invitation. I don't think their intentions matter so much
> as their poor choice to spread the word regarding their intentions
> (if, indeed, this is actually true, and not something concocted
> by the grapevine ;-)
My colleague tells me that the HC themselves took him into their
confidence. It seems they have teeming throngs of friends, so many
that they keep elaborate databases just to tell who's who, and their
Xmas-card list runs into the hundreds. I gather they let my colleague
know about it because he's not the gossiping kind. So I don't think
they're guilty of 'spreading the word'.
>
>
> > (Yes, I know that gifts[2] come into play, but my question is, this is
> > rude even *before* considering that many people will feel obligated to
> > send gifts without even attending. Yeah?)
>
>
> As far as gifts go, receipt of an invitation in no way
> obligates one to send a gift. A nice letter of congratulations
> suffices nicely.
>
Sure. I didn't word this clearly. What I meant was - some people might
object to this on gift-grubbing grounds, but as far as I was
concerned, the important point was that, if the HC are being rude, the
rudeness begins with the invitation, BEFORE moving on to the issue of
gifts.
Apparently, the HC are not being rude about the exclusive nature of
their wedding, ergo there's no rudeness involved, gift-related or
otherwise.
Regards
Telepath
meirman
bogu...@btopenworld.com (Telepath) posted:
>Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3CFE1E86...@comcast.net>...
>> Telepath wrote:
>>
>> > Morning all,
>> >
>> > My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
>> > HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
>> > the guest list.
>> >
>> > Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
>> > that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
>> > people will decline.
....
>>
>> Having a destination wedding for any reason whatsoever is
>> just fine. What was rude was letting it slip that the purpose
>> of having a destination wedding was to encourage people to decline
>> the invitation. I don't think their intentions matter so much
>> as their poor choice to spread the word regarding their intentions
>> (if, indeed, this is actually true, and not something concocted
>> by the grapevine ;-)
>
>My colleague tells me that the HC themselves took him into their
>confidence.
They took him into their confidence and he took you into his
confidence. So much for *their* confidence.
> It seems they have teeming throngs of friends, so many
>that they keep elaborate databases just to tell who's who, and their
>Xmas-card list runs into the hundreds. I gather they let my colleague
>know about it because he's not the gossiping kind.
He's not?
>So I don't think
>they're guilty of 'spreading the word'.
>
...
>Apparently, the HC are not being rude about the exclusive nature of
>their wedding, ergo there's no rudeness involved, gift-related or
>otherwise.
>
>Regards
>
>Telepath
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Diedrich Kohl
> Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
> that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible [by holding
> it on a Greek island] so that most people will decline.
Originally I was going to say something similar to what Ericka and
Uncle said about this being a suspect assumption (i.e., maybe it's
just ungenerous rumour/speculation). However, you say later that you
have it on good authority that it's really true. If you're absolutely
certain about that, let's proceed on that basis ...
It's appallingly rude to invite people to something while at the same
time making it (or allowing it to become) known to them that their
presence is unwanted and that it's hoped that they'll decline.
IMO you have two reasonable options:
1. Assume that you were never meant to become aware of this and that
it was an unintentional accident that you did. As such, proceed as
if you didn't know. Decline the invitation if you're not inclined
to travel to a Greek island for a wedding, or accept if you are. In
either case, do whatever you would do gift-wise according to your
inclinations, budget, and relationship with the HC.
MM does have precedents for Not Having Heard the unhearable (e.g.,
"I don't really want my baby"). It can apply to one's overhearing
accidentally or to one's being told directly, and it can apply to
hearing from either a first-person ("I don't want my baby") or a
third-person ("Myrtle doesn't want her baby") source. However, I'm
not sure whether/how MM would apply it to matters that concern
oneself, such as insults, when not directly told to one from the
first-person source involved (e.g., "I can't stand you"). I think
she'd probably say that in a case where the party involved didn't
tell one him/herself and wouldn't want one to know, one must not
let on to that party that one knows. But I think it's questionable
whether she'd say that one must or even should proceed as if one
doesn't know. As this applies to the case at hand, I think it means
that you must not let on to the HC that you know, but you may if
you wish proceed based on that knowledge -- which is option #2.
2. Assume that what has been communicated to you is the disinvitation
"Please refrain from attending our wedding; we don't want you there".
As such, don't trouble them with either your presence or your gift.
Send them a card saying "Congratulations on your marriage. I hope
your remote Greek-island location was everything you had expected."
===== Rick =====
Telepath
> >
> >My colleague tells me that the HC themselves took him into their
> >confidence.
>
> They took him into their confidence and he took you into his
> confidence. So much for *their* confidence.
Since I've never met his friends, nor am I ever likely to meet them;
and since no-one on this group has ever met his friends, nor is ever
likely to meet them; and since it's statistically unlikely that his
friends read this group - I doubt that any real breach of confidence
has taken place.
>
> > It seems they have teeming throngs of friends, so many
> >that they keep elaborate databases just to tell who's who, and their
> >Xmas-card list runs into the hundreds. I gather they let my colleague
> >know about it because he's not the gossiping kind.
>
> He's not?
>
No - see above. If there were the remotest chance that I would ever
meet these people, he would never have told me.
Regards
Telepath
Telepath
>
> Uncle will assert that they aren't obligated to invite anyone in
> particular. See last paragraph.
Hmmm... If the HC really have *hundreds* of friends each, I have to
ask how close they can really be to each one. The demands of Euclidean
spacetime would suggest to me that most of these people *must* be de
facto acquaintances and not friends as such.
Or perhaps they were very close to, say, 10 people a year between them
for 10 years, that's 100 friends. Hmmm... In that case, I guess they
feel as if they would like to make the gesture of inviting these
people to their wedding, to say "see, we are bona fide friends", but
understandably don't feel able to cope with maximum capacity.
Perhaps no feelings would be hurt as such, but leaving certain people
off the list *would* entail admitting - to oneself or the friends -
that not all of the teeming throng really count as good buddies. If
having lots of friends is important to the HC, and it undoubtedly is,
I can see how this would be a wrench.
Regards
Telepath
Noe Spaemme
wrote:
>Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3CFE1E86...@comcast.net>...
>> Telepath wrote:
>>
>> > Morning all,
>> >
>> > My colleague has just been invited to a wedding on a Greek island. The
>> > HC do not, themselves, live on that island, and neither does anyone on
>> > the guest list.
>> >
>> > Apparently the HC have so many people they're obligated to invite,
>> > that they've deliberately made the wedding inaccessible so that most
>> > people will decline.
>> >
>> > Is this
>> >
>> > a) polite?
>> > b) rude?
A). Invitations are generally polite, unless they come with strings,
like "don't show up unless you bring the baklava."
>> >
>> > Because I understood that location weddings are OK so long as the HC
>> > is prepared for a lot of people to decline. But if the HC is rigging
>> > the terms of the wedding in order to manipulate people into declining,
>> > this is rude, right? [1]
Nope.
>>
>>
>> Having a destination wedding for any reason whatsoever is
>> just fine. What was rude was letting it slip that the purpose
>> of having a destination wedding was to encourage people to decline
>> the invitation. I don't think their intentions matter so much
>> as their poor choice to spread the word regarding their intentions
>> (if, indeed, this is actually true, and not something concocted
>> by the grapevine ;-)
>
>My colleague tells me that the HC themselves took him into their
>confidence. It seems they have teeming throngs of friends, so many
>that they keep elaborate databases just to tell who's who, and their
>Xmas-card list runs into the hundreds. I gather they let my colleague
>know about it because he's not the gossiping kind. So I don't think
>they're guilty of 'spreading the word'.
Mentioning it to even one person is indeed spreading the word. Your
friend having told you is in fact the gossiping kind. There was no
reason whatsoever to tell *anyone* of this plan. The only way to keep
a secret is not to tell. When people tell secrets it's usually because
they want others to know without saying something themselves.
However, what we have here is old-fashioned gossip. If you don't hear
it from the horse's mouth personally, don't believe it, especially
when it involves something which may be perceived to be rude or is
being told as to portray the persons as ill-mannered.
>> > (Yes, I know that gifts[2] come into play, but my question is, this is
>> > rude even *before* considering that many people will feel obligated to
>> > send gifts without even attending. Yeah?)
>>
>>
>> As far as gifts go, receipt of an invitation in no way
>> obligates one to send a gift. A nice letter of congratulations
>> suffices nicely.
>>
>
>Sure. I didn't word this clearly. What I meant was - some people might
>object to this on gift-grubbing grounds, but as far as I was
>concerned, the important point was that, if the HC are being rude, the
>rudeness begins with the invitation, BEFORE moving on to the issue of
>gifts.
There is no rudeness here at all. People who decline invitations are
not under any obligation to send a gift. If these people really and
truly didn't want a lot of guests, then they're also not going to get
a lot of gifts. Ergo, where's the grub?
>Apparently, the HC are not being rude about the exclusive nature of
>their wedding, ergo there's no rudeness involved, gift-related or
>otherwise.
That is correct. The only rudeness going on is by the "friend" who's
blabbing about his friends in such a way that they're sure to be
shocked when (and it's when, not if) they find out he's a gossip.
Hope this helps,
Noe
Ericka Kammerer
> Apparently, the HC are not being rude about the exclusive nature of
> their wedding, ergo there's no rudeness involved, gift-related or
> otherwise.
Oh, I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily. Even
if they only told one close friend they felt was circumspect,
it was still horribly rude to breathe even the smallest hint
that they were planning their wedding specifically to make
themselves unavailable to their friends.
Best wishes,
Ericka
meirman
bogu...@btopenworld.com (Telepath) posted:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<qh3tfu88ng5degqit...@4ax.com>...
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on 5 Jun 2002 10:33:53 -0700
>> bogu...@btopenworld.com (Telepath) posted:
>>
>
>> >
>> >My colleague tells me that the HC themselves took him into their
>> >confidence.
>>
>> They took him into their confidence and he took you into his
>> confidence. So much for *their* confidence.
>
>Since I've never met his friends, nor am I ever likely to meet them;
>and since no-one on this group has ever met his friends, nor is ever
>likely to meet them; and since it's statistically unlikely that his
>friends read this group - I doubt that any real breach of confidence
>has taken place.
>
I'll buy that.
>>
>> > It seems they have teeming throngs of friends, so many
>> >that they keep elaborate databases just to tell who's who, and their
>> >Xmas-card list runs into the hundreds. I gather they let my colleague
>> >know about it because he's not the gossiping kind.
>>
>> He's not?
>>
>
>No - see above. If there were the remotest chance that I would ever
>meet these people, he would never have told me.
OK. I'll buy that. I have a friend too who will never meet anyone
that I talk about that I tell things to.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: A). Invitations are generally polite, unless they come with strings,
: like "don't show up unless you bring the baklava."
Darn! There go my party plans... <grin, duck, and run>
E. Levin, who could really cope with some baklava, now.
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.