To the desperate housewives all glitzed and glamoured, who so rudely cut in line at Fri Oct 18th, in front of 20+ hungry and very tired commoners who had already been waiting in that very long line at least a half hour… who do you think you are? Your manners are atrocious. The senior lady who waited almost 40 mins to reach 2nd in line had to wait an extra 10 mins because you self-righteous bitches had the audicty to saunter up to the front of the line right in front of her. Get some manners, or get out of NS. That kind of disgusting behaviour is unacceptable around here. —NS Commoner
This article appears in Oct 17-23, 2013.
Well, the important thing is that you stood up against these terribly-mannered women, demanded they get in line like everyone else, and made sure that the long-waiting senior lady didn’t have to put up with that nonsense.
Oh. Wait. So you didn’t do that? You just kvetched anonymously on the internet? My hero.
Ja, Haus, du ist korrekt.
Is there some reason that their appalling rudeness was not greeted with howls of vituperation and angry demands that they assume their proper place in the queue. And why didn’t the proprietors of the establishment ensure proper behavior on their part.
Full story please.
Also, -10 points for attempting to define this in terms of class struggle. Shouldn’t you be squatting in a yurt in the Grand Parade, or is that just sooo 2011?
A flailing, impotent bitch. Fail.
I was expecting to see in the bitch that you or someone else or even better, all of you, yelling “What the fuck do you think you’re doing, get to the back of the line”, then maybe a “fucking cougars”
The volunteers at the soup kitchen should have told them to go home so you all could get your eat on …. did their GPS fuck up again?
Thanks for saying something. Anonymously. And online. I wish more people would step up to the plate like you did..
Where was this line going anyway?
it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
we instantly learn of atrocities, heroism, appeals for help and aid. wonderful & inspiring events.
and people believe that clicking ‘like’ makes them an eco warrior, social activist, dog rescuer.
WHAT ARE MANNERS?
“Your manners are atrocious.” NS Commoner
: manners, n. good or bad behaviour in social intercourse; habits indicative of good breeding.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)
NS Commoner’s remark indicates that there are degrees of bad manners ranging from the mildly offensive to what he calls “atrocious” but how is the distinction to be made? The interesting thing about manners is that, unlike the rules in baseball for example, they are not explicit but rather matters of convention and convention changes over time and place. So how is was NS Commoner’s determination made? This calls for a little conceptual analysis.
To say that one’s manners are “atrocious” presupposes prior possession of the concept itself in respect to which the question, “What are manners?” has direct import. Clearly, there is good or bad behaviour in social intercourse and such behaviour is the outcome of good or bad breeding, but is that the end of it? No it isn’t. If manners are matters of convention and convention changes over time then an understanding of what constitutes good or bad manners is a fluid concept which itself changes over time. How then can one be relatively sure that one is exhibiting good manners rather than bad? It’s not an easy question.
For example, when men wore hats it was considered good manners to tip them when meeting a lady but, as a result of the change in the nature of social intercourse between the sexes, such “good” manners have become little more than an object of ridicule. But that does not mean that manners have no place in current social intercourse. On the contrary, an argument might be made that, as a result of the collapse of the formal rules of manners or etiquette, good manners have assumed even greater importance.
Take table manners, surely a sign of good (or bad) breeding. Does the person know how to hold a knife and fork? This is often not the case. Some don’t even use the knife at all but simply scoop up the food with their fork from the plate. Disgusting. Others hold the knife like a pencil, thinking that by doing so they are exhibiting good manners. Ridiculous. Does the diner talk with their mouths full of food? Revolting. Are their elbows on the table? Ignorant. Do they throw their napkin – assuming that they use one at all – on the table during the meal? Offensive. And so on.
We must remember the motto over the entrance to the quad at New College, Oxford: “Manners Mayketh Man.” You’re damned right they do.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
You don’t have a mouth, OB? This is the society we live in today? A bunch of timid mutes, that can’t say shit if they had a mouthful!!! Then complain here where the object of your bitch will learn absolutely nothing, except you and everyone in that line are a bunch of pussies. Bravo for letting them win, Idiot!!!
Perhaps they’d given free blow jobs to the crowd controllers, either that or ‘roids?
The Captain is placing SHIT-D on the leading edge of the battlefront in the upcoming war
We need a good attitude like his on the front lines is we hope to ever achieve victory!
He’ll let the enemy know what’s up!
The worst part of this story is if you even confronted her she wouldn’t even understand because she thinks she has a trump card because she’s a mother,
WHAT ARE MANNERS? (II): DOES CUNNILINGUS HAVE AN AUTONOMOUS CODE OF ETIQUETTE?
In my previous post (10/20, 11:15AM) I attempted to give a conceptual analysis of manners and how the good were to be distinguished from the bad. I pointed out that the concept of manners is fluid, that it is dependent upon convention which, in turn, changes over time and place. Indeed, what counts as good manners may well become objects of ridicule as a result of changes in the patterns of social intercourse. This renders any definitive concept of good manners in general ambivalent at best and irrelevant at worst.
However, I gave the example of “table manners” to illustrate that certain behaviours are still considered bad manners over time, things like the improper use of knife and fork, talking with ones mouth full, and so on. The question before us now is whether or not the concept of table manners has a logical connection with manners governing the practice of cunnilingus which might, one supposes, also be considered to be a form of dining. In other words, could a case be made whereby the criteria marking off table manners have equal application to the activity of cunnilingus?
The question, of course, resolves itself into a further question, whether or not cunnilingus has an autonomous code of etiquette. Can that code of etiquette governing cunnilingus be coherently distinguished from the code of etiquette governing table manners? A moment’s reflection, however, is sufficient to resolve the dilemma.
A central criterion of good table manners involves the correct use of the knife and fork which, of course, have no visible function in the practice of cunnilingus. Normally speaking, one does not use a knife and fork while so engaged. There may be exceptions, of course, but these lie outside the province of cunnilingus as commonly practiced. A second point relates to talking with one’s mouth full, certainly a lapse of good table manners. Is it similarly a violation of the code of etiquette governing cunnilingus? I find this difficult to believe on a number of grounds. First, since one’s tongue is otherwise engaged, how would the practitioner of cunnilingus manage to say anything at all? Of course, the practitioner of cunnilingus might disengage his tongue in order to say something but his head in a poor position to engage in normal conversation – his words might be muffled – and what could he possibly want to say? A comment on the weather perhaps? That is doubtful.
Based on the foregoing I believe that the dilemma can be quickly resolved. The practice of cunnilingus clearly has its own autonomous code of etiquette and is not just a special case of table manners.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!