[email protected]

In a message dated 6/15/2003 5:24:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:

> But wouldn't the Pope be the party to do
> introductions, being the Vatican is his home, and unless Holly already knew
> the Pope, shouldn't he introduce himself to both Holly and Gudrun?

No. Someone else would introduce her to the pope.

When Kirby brings a new friend over, he introduces them to me and his dad.
Just always has. We do the same. If we have new people over, we introduce the
kids, and them, and tell them something about each other.

<<if Holly and the Pope were acquaintances, shouldn't Holly introduce the dog

to the Pope?>>



Yes, she would address the Pope and tell him her dogs name, rather than the
other way around.

<<Maybe it's the idea of "rank" that also bothers me, in real life
as opposed to play. >>

Why? Do you not believe in social rank and relative importance of different
people in particular situations?

If not, how you decide how to manage introductions?

<< But is this rank
thing an everyday issue or more to do with SCA, where I would fully imagine
it to be of importance?>>

SCA probably helps them be more aware, but there is real rank.
Your CEO gave you access. You couldn't have taken it without his
cooperation. It was his option, because he ranked.

I didn't invent it, I just see it.

Sanda


Sandra











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/15/03 6:00:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> <<Maybe it's the idea of "rank" that also bothers me, in real life
> as opposed to play. >>
>
> Why? Do you not believe in social rank and relative importance of different
>
> people in particular situations?


I will have to think on that more, although my gut reaction is no. But then I
think about what if I met the President. I mean once any one reaches the
status of being an United States President, that rank and title stay forever. Yet
then I pause because I wonder if I truly had access to such a person, would my
personal biases or distain for particular Presidents change my feeling about
their rank or title? I will definately think on this portion harder. Does rank
and title necessarily make one deserved of good manners. i.e. If I were to
meet Sadam Hussein, the president of Iraq, who I'm pretty sure thinks of himself
as ranking and worthy of said title, would I be polite or use proper
etiquette, simply because he holds such? Or would my disdain for the individual
override the general politeness during introductions.
>
> If not, how you decide how to manage introductions?
>

So at this point having not contemplated further, I can only explain that
thus far I have managed intros by simply doing them, not basing them on who holds
a higher social status than another. If I know both parties, yet they do not
know each other, I would probably choose whoever I knew more as the one to
introduce first, but not exclusively.

> <<But is this rank
> thing an everyday issue or more to do with SCA, where I would fully imagine
> it to be of importance?>>
>
> SCA probably helps them be more aware, but there is real rank.
>
But who is responsible for declaring such rank and who must follow suit or is
there one?

Your CEO gave you access. You couldn't have taken it without his >
> cooperation. It was his option, because he ranked.

OMG I finally found a statement to disagree with Sandra Dodd on. LOL No ever
gave me access, I took it as I usually do, if such thing exists. From day
one, company policy was everyone was addressed by first name, regardless of
title. Lucky for me cuz I probably never would taken the job otherwise. But for
some reason when it came to the CEO & CIO, everyone called them Mr. Surname. Well
that just wasn't my thing, so I called them by their first names just as they
would call me by mine. Had they preferred to be called by their surnames,
several things would have to follow. First, I'd expect to be referred to as Mrs.
Hill, not Rhonda and secondly I'd expect company policy to change also, in
writing so that such an infraction would have to be written down somewhere for
any cause of action to take place. Lastly, I would want clear definitions of
what ranks them worthy of change in dialogue venue.

Perhaps, for me, that has to do with something more on a soul/spiritual
level. For in my view, money never makes one human more worthy of my kindness than
another. I know this is in general the "American Way", just not how it works
for me. Again I will have to dwell on it.

>
> I didn't invent it, I just see it.
>
> Sanda
>
Well this I know, but being the insightful individual you are, I knew you
would share with us, what that sight was. For this I thank you.

Rhonda - with a lot to think about



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/15/03 8:44:47 PM, RJHill241@... writes:

<< Does rank
and title necessarily make one deserved of good manners. i.e. If I were to
meet Sadam Hussein, the president of Iraq, who I'm pretty sure thinks of
himself
as ranking and worthy of said title, would I be polite or use proper
etiquette, simply because he holds such? Or would my disdain for the
individual
override the general politeness during introductions. >>

Think of a wedding. Brides rank HUGELY at their own weddings. If you didn't
like her, you wouldn't be at her wedding. But during and surrounding
weddings, brides are like queens. They get to sit where they want, and what they
don't like doesn't go.

That example came to mind because a friend who is usually very quiet and very
"non-ranking" in any of MANY different situations I've known her in, social
and professional, was married recently (second marriage, but BIG damned deal)
and I was a musician. Musicians rank very low in weddings, and I played my
part for sure. When I needed anything, I talked to the maid of honor, and I
waited as long as it took for an answer.

<<there is real rank.
>
<<But who is responsible for declaring such rank and who must follow suit or
is
there one?>>

Any person who doesn't know how to find out or figure it out can choose not
to "follow suit" but will risk paying a social price. "Follow suite" is a
ranking term. <g> How do you decide who to follow? (Even in cards, there's a
heirarchy of card values. Ace of hearts outranks ace of diamonds.)

<< No ever gave me access, I took it as I usually do, if such thing exists. >>
<<Had they preferred to be called by their surnames,
several things would have to follow.....>>

Well... One thing that could have followed would have been you losing your
job.
Because people who had the power and authority to let you stay or send you
away allowed you to take the liberties you chose to take, you were in a safe
position. Not because YOUR choices could guarantee it, but because they gave it
to you.

<<Perhaps, for me, that has to do with something more on a soul/spiritual
level. For in my view, money never makes one human more worthy of my kindness
than
another. I know this is in general the "American Way", just not how it works
for me. Again I will have to dwell on it.>>

I expect that when you're thinking of it, you'll find that even in soul and
spiritual matters, there are ranks.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 9:37:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> Well... One thing that could have followed would have been you losing your
> job.
> Because people who had the power and authority to let you stay or send you
> away allowed you to take the liberties you chose to take, you were in a safe
>
> position. Not because YOUR choices could guarantee it, but because they
> gave it
> to you.
>

I thought this may come up, and is why I stated that company poilcy dictated
the first name intead of surname or title. Therefore, I could not have been
fired for such an infraction, since policy in writing supercedes verbal
precedence, at least in a court of law. And considering a foundation for wrongful
termination, campanies are much more carefull in this age of litigation. So, in
this case, I still believe, I was not "given" any liberties, as the policy
pertained to all individuals working for the company. I simply acted upon the
policies as was any other employee availed to.

I like the thought of a bride having rank on her wedding day, though. Perhaps
my quibble is with the word rank, though. My sister and I had a conversation
just Saturday evening about her wedding should she ever have one. Her concern
for feelings of betrayal over Matron of Honor/Maid of Honor/Bridesmaids, I
found so disturbing. My view was it's her day, her wedding and things are done
her way, period. That includes me. I'm sure my mom would have a fit if I wasn't
Matron of Honor, but


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelly Lenhart

<< No ever gave me access, I took it as I usually do, if such thing exists.
>>
><<Had they preferred to be called by their surnames,
>>several things would have to follow.....>>

>Well... One thing that could have followed would have been you losing your
>job.
>Because people who had the power and authority to let you stay or send you
>away allowed you to take the liberties you chose to take, you were in a
safe
>position. Not because YOUR choices could guarantee it, but because they
gave it
>to you.

And this to me is one of the major dangers of assuming other people's "rank"
or blindly operating on a "rank" system.

I worked in the university world for many years. And there are few places
where rank is more important. You have staff, then undergrads, then grad
students, then faculty, then administrators. Although some faculty outrank
some admins.

BUT if the faculty isn't in YOUR department, then they rank lower than your
faculty, even if they are faculty. And you better stand up to them and say
no (if neccessary,) even if you are just lowly staff.

I was forever having to point out to people that I worked for the
university's LIBRARY and not for the department which our branch happened to
live in or serve. AND I was forever having to point out to MY superiors
that our job was to serve the entire system, not just them or our local
faculty.

It was a lose/lose situation. And it sucked royally. But the reality was
that none of those people "gave me" the right to fight those fights. It was
inherent in doing the JOB correctly. Serving who we were supposed to serve
and doing it well.

It sounds to me like in the original example, the whole "rank" issue had
NOTHING to do with doing the job. It was part of an assumed hierarchy--like
parents are assumed to be in charge and thus treated differently. Someone
treated the "big" boss like a collegue and confused the hell out of her
boss. Much like us treating our children like actual members fo the family
and not "just the kids."

>I expect that when you're thinking of it, you'll find that even in soul and
>spiritual matters, there are ranks.

I don't. I find differences and variations. But not ranks.

Kelly

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 12:03:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mina@...
writes:

> It sounds to me like in the original example, the whole "rank" issue had
> NOTHING to do with doing the job. It was part of an assumed hierarchy--like
> parents are assumed to be in charge and thus treated differently. Someone
> treated the "big" boss like a collegue and confused the hell out of her
> boss. Much like us treating our children like actual members fo the family
> and not "just the kids."
>
> >I expect that when you're thinking of it, you'll find that even in soul and
> >spiritual matters, there are ranks.
>
> I don't. I find differences and variations. But not ranks.
>
> Kelly
>

Yes Kelly, you hit the nail on the head, as far as my own posts were
concerned. As far as the soul/spiritual matters go, I must have missed that part. For
me there are still no ranks even in that realm. I know that in itself may be
hard to conceptualize, but that is how I see it.

Rhonda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 1:02:48 PM, mina@... writes:

<< It was a lose/lose situation. And it sucked royally. >>

So its sucking outranked the sucking of OTHER situations? <bwg>

<<Someone

treated the "big" boss like a collegue and confused the hell out of her

boss. >>

No, out of a co-worker.

<<Much like us treating our children like actual members fo the family

and not "just the kids.">>

We can MAKE them actual members of the family, not just treat them that way.
But because we dont' have the legal obligation to do so, it's still a
privilege granted by someone who had the power to grant it.

<<>I expect that when you're thinking of it, you'll find that even in soul and

>spiritual matters, there are ranks.


<<I don't. I find differences and variations. But not ranks.>>

If any variation or differenc seems better to you, you have ranked them.
If you say NONE of the variations or differences are better or worse, you
turn to philosophical dust.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 1:28:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> <<Someone
>
> treated the "big" boss like a collegue and confused the hell out of her
>
> boss. >>
>
> No, out of a co-worker.
>
Actually the statement that the boss was confused is correct. Neither the big
boss nor myself, apparently the lowly worker bee, found anything odd about
our conversation.

>
> <<>I expect that when you're thinking of it, you'll find that even in soul
> and
>
> >spiritual matters, there are ranks.
>
> If any variation or differenc seems better to you, you have ranked them.
> If you say NONE of the variations or differences are better or worse, you
> turn to philosophical dust.
>
> Sandra
>
But if one does not see variations or differences and therefore no rank
exists, wouldn't that be an actual Philisophical stance, therefore not yet dust?

Rhonda



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 2:42:20 PM, RJHill241@... writes:

<< But if one does not see variations or differences and therefore no rank
exists, wouldn't that be an actual Philisophical stance, therefore not yet
dust? >>

No, it would mean they didn't see very well.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 1:52:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> <<But if one does not see variations or differences and therefore no rank
> exists, wouldn't that be an actual Philisophical stance, therefore not yet
> dust? >>
>
> No, it would mean they didn't see very well.
>
> Sandra
>

Oh my dear Sandra, I am having too much fun with you. Seriously, all this
reflection is wonderful. Yet again I have pause over your statement > No, it
would mean they didn't see very well.< Because I think that all philosophies are
based on perspective and not being able to see another persons perspective does
not mean that either party lacks sight, but rather they do not share the same
view.


Rhonda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

SandraDodd@... writes:

<< <>

If any variation or differenc seems better to you, you have ranked them.
If you say NONE of the variations or differences are better or worse, you
turn to philosophical dust.

Sandra >>

It is as an illogical assumption on your part to make distinctions of
better or worse the same as acknowledging differences or variation. There is a
difference between discernment, and judgement. You can discern without judging
something as bad or good, better or worse. Discerning for yourself what is
appropriate is not at all the same thing as assigning value.

~Aimee

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/16/03 3:05:02 PM, RJHill241@... writes:

<< Because I think that all philosophies are
based on perspective and not being able to see another persons perspective
does
not mean that either party lacks sight, but rather they do not share the same
view. >>

I don't even begin to think that all points of view are equally valid.

Sandra