Jump to content

The Etiquette Thread


Recommended Posts

I have an etiquette question related to kindness toward people with handicaps.

In a parking lot, I know that it is never okay for a non handicapped person to park in a handicap-marked spot. In New York State, at least, you need a permit to do so or you get a ticket.

But what about in a public restroom, where there is one handicap stall, and one or more smaller stalls? Is it ever okay for a non-handicapped person to use a handicap stall? I have gone by the rule that if all the other stalls are in use, and there is no handicapped person waiting in line, the stall is fair game for the next person in line. Is that true?

Miss Manners, help me!

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the UK, you're running into trouble as soon as you use the word 'handicapped'; the acceptable word is 'disabled' - which is something done to you by society by not providing the facilities, environment or social context in which everyone can function as equals. 'Handicapped' suggests an inadequacy in the person themselves.

Having got that out of the way, I would say that facilities for the disabled should not be used out of convenience but are entirely legitimate to use when necessary. I have no problem using them with my younger children, nor myself if others are unusable for some reason.

Focus: The Art and Soul of Cinema now published - www.damaris.org/focus

Damaris: www.damaris.org CultureWatch: www.culturewatch.org Personal site: www.tonywatkins.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the handicapped stall, but feel that I would have to pull my pants up and leave immediately if someone in a wheelchair entered the restroom while I was using that stall.

My etiquette question: What

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm young and still feel weird if I get a call on the toilet on my cell, and if I do answer I brace myself for the question: "Are you on THE TOILET?" What about the etiquette about using a cordless phone in your home washroom?

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My etiquette question: What’s the deal with people talking on their cell phones while in the stall? Is the matter really that urgent? Do they think the person on the other end of the line can’t hear the sounds signifying the release of bodily fluids and waste (sorry for that), or the flushing of the toilet? Maybe the people on the other end of the line don’t care that the other person saw fit to do their business while talking to them?

This happened to me yesterday. I walked into the bathroom, a dude in a stall was talking on his cellphone, and I walked right back out. In addition to finding it rude (for both the person on the other end of the phonecall and your stall neighbors), I also find it a wee bit disturbing.

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the phone in the stall, it is definitely one place where one can expect privacy (for purposes of not irritating others) by reason of being in a closed cubicle. While I understand that it might seem creepy to walk into a restroom and hear a phone conversation, I consider it way more creepy to happen upon someone totally forgetting where he is and clearly struggling with or enjoying his evacuation (No! Not that kind.). Worse, when the above example seems to be the case and there is mumbling.

Now, about the fact of a phone conversation in the restroom. Sadly, there is no escape from another's phone conversations (as the store receiver, this even applies to my situation where I don't even have a vendor's undivided attention when he is serving ME, the CUSTOMER, on some rare occasions). Why should a restroom be any different? Let me reiterate, at least there is the appearance of undisturbed privacy in a closed stall.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people feel they always need to answer the phone, period? Sometimes it rings ant home and, if I don't feel like it, I don't answer it. There's absolutely no reason you have to be "disturbable" at all times. (Most cell phones will stop ringing if you press the "end" key...)

Heh, this drives Dena crazy. Despite the fact that I could, technically, be disciplined for picking up while at work (even though I have a distribution rollodex among my stored numbers for eay reference and calling), she can take it personally when i don't pick up.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea to pin this thread as a catch-all discussion of etiquette.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like Guiliani.

Hee hee!

I have a friend who sees Giuliani's phone antics as a play to the family-values voters. I just see it as rude.

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people feel they always need to answer the phone, period? Sometimes it rings ant home and, if I don't feel like it, I don't answer it. There's absolutely no reason you have to be "disturbable" at all times. (Most cell phones will stop ringing if you press the "end" key...)

I've noticed the same phenomenon for texting and IMing... people will not ignore their pages, they will respond right away. I think because the messages are shorter than e-mail the brain views this as an interactive conversation and it feels as though it's in the middle of something and needs to finish. The phone thing I think is just a different phenomena... I'd imagine some people have as much trouble ignoring a ringing phone as they would a crying baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people that don't wash their hands after they're used the restroom?

This still happens more than I think it should (which should be never). On more than one occasion, if I'm also in the restroom I want to shout, "Hey, come back!" Or follow the person and say things like, "Don't shake his hand" or "Make sure he doesn't eat any finger foods."

Link to post
Share on other sites

: Original Question

It's probably not good ettiquette to use the disabled loo if all of the others are free, but I say ettiquette-schmettiquette. The loo's not sacrosanct, and if someone comes long whilst you're using then there's no reason why you should have to wait rather than them - that's discrimination surely

: Handicapped vs Disabled

Actually the politically correct way to say it is differently abled, or reduced mobility...

: People on the loo on the cell phone

Never had it happen next to me, but if it did I think I'd find it hard to pretend, very vocally, that I was trying very, very hard to overcome constipation, but finally, thankfully, blissfully, and, of course, nosily, succeeding.

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

So, a person connected with my congregation died on Sunday. Calling hours were last night, the funeral is today. I didn't know the man, though he was a member of my church long ago, for a long time. I've met his wife three times; she is a gem, but she does not remember things well, and has no memory of me.

I cleared my schedule and went to the calling hours last night, but I can't make it to the funeral today - it will be done by the pastor of their current church.

My question is, what is the role of calling hours vs. the funeral? Which is more important to go to, if you can only go to one? Which one is for closer family, which one is for those more distant?

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is, what is the role of calling hours vs. the funeral? Which is more important to go to, if you can only go to one? Which one is for closer family, which one is for those more distant?

I'd say that the funeral is clearly the more important if you are family or close friend. Calling hours or viewing as it is called here is more informal and almost a praty atmosphere. A wake. I can never make funerals unless I take a personal day. Heh, this past year, I'd have run out of personal days for neighbors, older members of my church, etc and not had anything left for my immediate neighbor's father this Fall. No one even seemed to expect me at the funeral, but were very gracious and pleased that Dena and I stopped by the Viewings the night before in each case. If that helps any.

Another thing. I didn't go to my neighbor's father's funeral, but there was a lot of family from out of town. I made a large amount of three main dishes that were easy to do and was almost made an honorary member of the Yavello family despite not attending the funeral. I'd met Mr. Yavello maybe three times.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After losing both my parents and several other family members, I've had my fill of funerals. I hope that the next one I have to attend is mine. I almost always, now, come completely unhinged at funerals, especially at Christian funerals. I know many think that Christian funerals should be joyful, but I just can't get there. Death is the worst thing there is, save Hell itself, and we were created for neither, even though Jesus has triumphed over both. I nearly collapsed at the funeral of a good friend, whose saintly father's passing was mourned by thousands, and whose funeral was one of the most joyful services I've ever seen. I can only imagine a fraction of the deep, deep grief, sadness, and mourning that our Lord feels. How large the heart of God is.

Alan, That is just beautiful. I usually behave in the exact opposite unless overwhelmed by the emotions of all in attendance. Still, you help me understand this opposite reaction as I've never been able to. Well put, sir.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...