As the thread became too long for downloading, I suggest that the new postings be inserted in the second thread.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 24, 1998

Answers

Dan,

Agreed. I thank you for this gesture. Hence, I will post my last message (upon returning) from the first thread here.

To all,

I have just returned from a wonderful vacation in Newport, to find an amazing amount of contributions to this section of the message board. I will attempt to answer as many posts as possible, and not be confusing.

Misty,

Yes, cinema is a part of the entertainment industry. However, one must draw a line between entertainment and art. A good film should be Art. Titanic was not art  it was spectacle. When rating it cinematically, I dub it rubbish. Only true art (and good art at that) should win the Academys Best Picture award. There are finer films, even on the subject of the RMS Titanic, than the film at hand.

Dan,

I am afraid I wholly disagree with you. Titanic did not show the Edwardian age in any good light whatsoever. In fact, one of the points of the film was exactly the opposite  Edwardian propriety was awful, stuffy, constraining, and even evil. Of course, this is not true. However, one need only look at one scene to discern this, viz. the scene in which Miss Rose scowls at a mother teaching her daughter the proper feminine way to place a napkin on ones lap.

You state that one should not look at critics opinions of Titanic, as they wish to go against the masses. The actuality is quite the contrary. I can only think of two major film critics who panned Titanic  Mr. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, and Mrs. Pauline Kael.

Mr. Dalton,

I welcome you to this topic. You seem to have made several strong statements against me, which is strange, seeing that you do not know me in the least. Interestingly, you seem to dislike my writing style. I assure you that I am writing casually, as the internet is quite a casual affair. You state, George would do well to adopt a more casual writing style here. Could it be that George is afraid that his comments, distilled of archaism, would seem to carry less weight? What, sir, would you consider to be a more casual writing style. I have not used a formal or analytical style whatsoever here. I write as I speak, and I assume that such is not very different from your method of speech. As I stated to Gilded Age Junkie, I really cannot see the difference between, say, your writing and mine. Please enlighten me as to what you have noticed.

You state that I have written in a pedantic and ostentatious manner. This is quite insulting, and quite incorrect. What, sir, do you have against me? How have I ever harmed you? Again, I write as I speak, and I speak quite normally. What would be the sense otherwise? Lastly, how is my writing archaic? I have only written in modern English here (what would be the sense otherwise?). You havent made the nicest first impression upon me.

Misty,

I do not know of Miss Hearst. However, if she is of any relation to Mr. William Randolph Hearst, I assure you that she was not a member of the Aristocracy. I know of no Hearsts among the Aristocracy, and neither do my parents. My statement was not presumptuous in the least. Amongst the Aristocracy, one has no reason to do what Miss Rose did. My statement is not presumptuous in the least. Verily, such never occurred (especially during that period). I have studied the Edwardian period in detail, and know of no instance of an Aristocratic young lady acting like Miss Rose. Such would have been a full-blown social scandal.

Dan,

Your question is quite interesting, and quite difficult to answer. However, I can say that, had I made Titanic (not that I would have made such a film in the first place), I would have done the following: omitted each fictional character (and placed another, real couple in the place of Miss Bukater and Mr. Dawson), hired accent coaches for the cast, re-written the dialogue, so as to be free of clichis, omitted the historical inaccuracies from the screenplay, given more than one dimension to each major character, presented each group in their actual light, chosen a score of period music, not spent the annual budget of a small country (Mr. Camerons style could be dubbed Reagan-esque filmmaking), given seventy-five percent of the films proceeds (split equally) to survivors and victims families, placed the ships second class somewhere in the film (Mr. Cameron completely omitted them), and changed the films message, so as to be pro-Edwardian and pro-propriety. Certainly, I would have done much more than I have stated here, but your question deserves much thought and much time.

Gilded Age Junkie,

I thank you for your explanation of the Aristocracy, as it was mostly correct. Of course, one must realise that there is yet another portion of the American upper-class that you have forgotten, viz. the bourgeoisie. These are individuals who arent as deplorable or uncaring as the nouveau-riche, but arent quite the Aristocracy. On the whole, I have found these people quite charming.

You state that, Rose was real, alive and kicking back then. If not, where would women of today be? I dare say in an aristocratic household, serving a husband and children and stifling our dreams. Certainly, there were women at that time who rebelled against correct feminine propriety (Ms. Emma Goldman, Miss Margaret Sanger, and all the suffragettes come to mind). However, none of these women was of the Aristocracy. A woman of the Aristocracy need not stifle her dreams (what would be the sense therein?). However, an Aristocratic young lady does not dream of impropriety. There may have been Rose-esque women amongst the American society at the time (although they had not done much good during the Edwardian period  mainly after the First World War), but they were most certainly not amongst the American Aristocracy. Also, you state that if these rabble-rousers had not been around, the women of today would be in an Aristocratic household. It is quite impossible for women of the masses to live an Aristocratic lifestyle  you might have stated proper household.

Mr. Dalton,

Feminism, in its essence, is impropriety. Certainly, men and women are equal. However, they should maintain separate duties, as is natural. We are not an androgynous species. Our roles should also not be as such. The duties of women and of men should be separate, but equal in importance. In Titanic, propriety cannot have constrained all classes, as what one views at the steerage party was quite improper. Freedom is chaos  our nation was not founded upon freedom. Rather, it was founded upon the principle of liberty, and, as Voltaire stated (and both Presidents Jefferson and Madison acknowledged), Liberty is freedom within correct boundaries. Propriety is not constraining, stifling, disheartening, or even boring. It maintains a standard of excellence, dictating what is proper and correct. It walks hand-in-hand with morality.

I agree with your argument against womens suffrage. President Clinton is an awful person. One hundred years hence, he would have been impeached for this, without quibbling or question. If, in the election of 1992, women had not voted, President Bush would have remained in office.

Gilded Age Junkie,

The women of the Edwardian American Aristocracy did not condone or aid in the suffrage movement. Any women of the upper class who did thereby damaged their social standing, and all became members of the nouveau-riche. To this day, Aristocratic women do not vote, as such is improper.

BobG,

Agreed  our current President does bring new meaning to the word impropriety. He spoke of intimacy during a nationally televised address. Such a man is not fit to govern our nation, and should be impeached, court-martialed (as he is the commander-in-chief of the American armed-forces), tried for, and convicted of adultery, perjury, and treason. One hundred years hence, such would have already been accomplished. This is what happens when women are allowed to vote, and impropriety is condoned in popular culture. Had Mrs. Susan B. Anthony known what would occur due to her suffragette movement, she would have ceased such nonsense.

----------

I hope that I have adequately responded to the enormous volume of posts to this thread. I thank you for your patience.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 24, 1998.

George, do you realize just how offensive some of you comments are?

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 24, 1998.

Sorry, that should say "youR".

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 24, 1998.

Allison,

I meant no offense by any of my comments whatsoever. Most certainly, you refer to the comments about so-called "feminism", women's suffrage, and the like. However, you must understand that propriety dictates that women and men have SEPARATE duties, but remain EQUAL (i.e. "separate but equal"). Such should not be offensive toward men or women, as it is not meant to be.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 24, 1998.

I agree with Allison. And not just because of your blows against feminism. You know how I feel about that, George, I see no need in beating a dead horse, BUT I think it unfair of you to term feminism as improper, for that is your opinion, and while it may seem to you that women's traditional roles are quite fair you aren't a women are you? And there were women's issues outside of your aristocracy and it's system, and as that is what you continue to use as evidence I believe it somewhat takes the credibility out of your argument. Also, your statement that had not women been voting, Clinton wouldn't be in office is biased, sexist, and unfounded. Unless you have researched the gender of every voter in that election (which very obviously you couldn't) I don't think it fair or justifiable to make such claims.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

George,

If it is true that 3rd class passengers on the Titanic were prevented (in some cases) from "making a try for it" (i.e., gates being locked down below), while first class passengers seemingly had more opportunity to be saved, would that have the result of what was regarded as "propriety"?

-- Michael (foo@bar.com), August 24, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I am glad to have heard from you once again. I am afraid that feminism is improper is not my opinion - it is factual propriety. No, I am not a woman, but my sister, mother, grandmother, and aunts are. And, as with every other woman of the Aristocracy, they feel, as I do, that feminism promotes improper androgyny, and destroys the correct roles of women in society. Women's roles and men's roles should remain separate, but should be equal in importance.

Lastly, you seem to have something against my factual evidence as presented about the 1992 presidential election. I'm afraid that such is not merely something I "created" - such is true. Data from the 1992 election states that had women not voted, 58% of voting men would have re-elected President Bush. However, an overwhelming majority of women voted President Clinton into power. I would never falsify or create such statements - I researched this topic for a debate.

Michael,

Your question is both insulting and degrading. Certainly, if the gates had remained locked (no reputable RMS Titanic historian believes this nonsense as it is), such would not be "propriety". Such would be stupidity, impropriety, and inconsideration. "Propriety" is not prejudicial, demeaning, or discriminatory - it applies to everyone.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 24, 1998.

George, I stand corrected. But the deeper insult in those statements were with your remarks about how "this is what happens when women are allowed to vote" and such, which is pure sexism, in it's truest and most nauseating form. Susan B. Anthony would not have stopped her "nonsense" as you call her fight for equality, _especially_ because of this affair with Clinton. It's not the country's fault that our leader can't contain his urges, that's his problem. Your blaming it on women is sick. Truly sick. I feel sorry, honestly, for the women of the aristocracy if most of the men are like yourself. I don't see how they put up with it. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I really don't see how you could think that.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

George, where the hell do you get off saying women shouldn't have been given the vote? You say that men and women should have equal rights, yet you say it's improper for women to be able to vote.

And I still don't believe the rot about "women of the Aristocracy never would have acted like Miss Rose did". Come off it, as I mentioned before, there always have been and always will be, good girls and bad girls, from EACH class division.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

Ok, just to rant some more, I really could care less what George thinks women in the aristocracy would and wouldn't do, despite the fact he's basing this on his family and friends, and ONLY his family and friends. If those aristocrats wanna brainwash their children into thinking that about themselves, fine. But it's just scary that they can come out with that kind of absolute drivel about the rest of womankind. The traditional roles were and are wrong. Not all of them, but some. Those some have been rebelled against with good reason, and it's setting society back a few decades to still have narrow minds spewing such insulting garbage. But hey, that's a matter of opinion. You wanna be backwards and sexist, you go ahead. Just don't shove it down my throat.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

George,

I apologize if you found my last question insulting and degrading. There was nothing in the question that was aimed at you personally. In fact, it was only a quest for information, as I was looking to find out more about how the issue of "propriety" might have played into the events of Titanic. I believe this to be a legitimate question, as my understanding is that class discrimination was prevelant during that time. If that is true, then it certainly might have played into one's chances of survival. (i.e, "propriety" might dictate that one who is first class is more deserving of the chance to "make a try for it"). As I recall, the statistics of those saved by class, as well as the persistant rumours of gates being locked lend themselves to this observation. It's a controversy that seems to persist to this day.

-- Michael (foo@bar.com), August 24, 1998.

Wow...glad I checked in today! Kat...again your incredibly wise 12 year old brain amazes me!

George...I agree with Emma, and Kat, and just about every other woman who will read your message and respond on outrage. I agree that there are certain things men can do that women cannot, and vice-versa; but these things are never something as simple (yet as important) as voting. How can you speak out of both sides of your mouth in such a way? In one breath you say, "men and women are equal", in the next you say "women should never vote", and twist the knife further by trying to state that it's our gender's fault that Clinton was elected! As usual, I am spellbound at your thought processes. Insult or not, God help your dictator-like men and your weak-minded women. Thanks God there's barely any of you left.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 24, 1998.

Hello George. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot (the one I so frequently find stuck in my mouth). Interesting that this thread has now devolved into a debate on a final-thought JOKE I made about Clinton being an argument against women's suffrage. I can only hope you are joking as well. Good thing this isn't a discussion of "Gone With The Wind". Then we'd be debating the "impropriety" of the North in freeing Southern slaves, or on how blacks should enjoy "separate but equal" status. For, certainly, antebellum Southern whites had their own "propriety", just as Edwardian society had theirs, which I again argue is a totally different matter from morality. I agree with you on one point though. The "soccer moms" are primarily responsible for the disgrace currently occupying the White House and for maintaining his high poll numbers. Good thing we "Angry White Males" elected a Republican congress in 94 to render Clinton impotent (in matters of government policy only, apparently). I do hope he survives in office though. He is so weakened that he can't do any harm and, to me, the two scariest words in the English language are "President Gore". And this is no joke!

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 24, 1998.

George;

I have two questions. What is it, exactly, that makes you a member of the aristocracy. Of course, I am speaking generally, not "you" specifically. I would assume part of it would be the wealth factor. If that is the case, what would have happened to families, like Rose's, who had lost all their money. Would they still be a part of the aristocracy?

Second, I do take offense to your comments concerning women's rights, but I will assume that is just part of the 17 years of your upbringing and there is nothing I am going to say on a web site to change your opinion. I just want to point out that the women of the aristocracy did not have to put up with being a single parent, being beaten by their husbands, sometimes to death, not knowing where the next meal to feed their children, let alone themselves, was coming from or any of the other hardships women is the lower classes have to deal with on a daily basis. I feel it is safe to say that they believe a "woman's place is in the home", because they don't have to deal with the parts of everyday life that has brought the woman out of the home. There are studies that show children should stay home with a parent until they are school age. However, the problem is that most families can not survive on one income. Some can't survive on two. I do not think this is because of feminism, but because of necessity. Now, my question to you, after all that, is what do you mean by the seperation of rolses? What do you consider to be feminine roles and masculine roles?

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 24, 1998.

I am honored!! I thought you had all forgotten me!!! I was so excited to be considered part of Mr. Showbiz's upper class! If any of you want to find a chat room and talk Titanic again, let me know. (Shall we re-invent Titanic in the 90's again? Someone pass me some Brandy and a cigar while you are thinking it over!!) hahahahaha!!!!

Mystified (Misty)

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 24, 1998.

Hi Mystified! Did you honestly think we'd forgotten about you? Not hardly, how could we? :-) I've been visiting two different chat rooms, their addresses are:

http://chat.mrshowbiz.com/chat/chat.dll?room=holidaychallenge and http://chat.mrshowbiz.com/chat/chat.dll?room=summerchallenge but there aren't any "Titanic" regulars there. We'll have to arrange a time to get everyone over there (don't ask me how) and yak away like we used to.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

What about Thomas' new creation - the Yahoo Club? The link is under "Recent Answers" for August 21st.

-- Courtney (greenlane@sprint.ca), August 25, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I was not blaming the "improper urges" of President Clinton on the women of the United States - I merely stated that he was elected due to their voting. I have not insulted you, and do not deserve your statements as such. Hence, I shan't respond to the remainder of your message.

Emma,

As you used profanity toward me, I shan't respond to your message.

Michael,

I duly apologise for jumping to my conclusions. Let me explain now that the Aristocracy of this country has never discriminated against class or race.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Yes, the duties of men and women are equal in importance. However, one of the masculine duties, which is improper for women, is voting. A woman has duties in which men may not participate. The duties of men and women are separate, but equal in importance. I believe I have made this abundantly clear. No one wishes to be a dictator - as history has shown, totalitarianism is an awful sort of government. Personally, I believe in Constitutional Monarchy, such as that of the United Kingdom. A woman should only involve herself in government if she, like Her Majesty the Queen, is the Monarch. Lastly, there are as many American Aristocrats as there ever were - about 1500-2500 (I cannot be certain on the actual number), living in many states, and coming from many families.

Mr. Dalton,

Do you believe that the emancipation of the negroes was improper? I most certainly do not - such would be evil. If you believe that 'twas just and right, as all good people do, there would be no debate over the matter. I have not stated anything I have in a humourous manner, as such cannot possibly be humourous. I can only assume that, in your latest message, you are speaking sarcastically. Antebellum Southern society may have their own rules and regulations for daily life, but such was not propriety. Propriety has existed in one form, since the early 17th century. Yes, propriety and morality are two very different items, although they walk hand-in-hand. What, if I might ask, is a "soccer mom"? I have never heard this term before. I am not angry, and I did not elect anyone in 1994 - I am not yet of the age to vote (although I will be able to vote in the election of 2000). Although, I agree with you - I would not wish to see Vice President Gore take the oath of office. I propose that he be impeached for campaign finance violations. Such would pose Speaker Gingrich as interim President. I, personally, would like Senator Lott to be the next American President, although I am not quite certain that such will occur.

"Misty",

It takes a few generations for one's family to become a members of the Aristocracy. I wish not to speak of wealth, for such is vulgar. Nevertheless, one must be a member of the upper-class (top third, economically) of our socio-economic system. From there, it is purely social. Of course, one must live solely by what propriety dictates. The question you pose is quite difficult to answer. If you wish to ask any specifics, I will gladly answer them.

I do not believe that I ever stated, "A woman's place is in the home." Apparently, this is some pseudo-neo-Conservative definition of women's roles, that stems from the superficial 1950's. This is not the case whatsoever. No woman I know spends all her time at home - such would be both senseless and stupid. I never even stated that women should not have an occupation. However, proper occupations for women are usually artistic in nature (i.e. authoress, poetess, actress, social critic, visual artist, fashion artist, &c.).

You ask what correct women's and men's roles are. I will attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability. Men's duties bascially stem from financial and governmental care for his family. Women's duties basically stem from social and personal (viz. managing a household, &c.) care for her family. Certainly, these roles can be elaborated upon to the infinite, but the most basic definitions are found in my statement above. I hope this answer is sufficient.

To all,

I do not believe that I have made one item clear - I mean no offense to anyone here, as no statement I make is meant to be offensive. All the women I know would agree with my arguments about feminism. My mother, grandmother, aunts, and other women I know do not vote, as such is thoroughly improper. It is absolutely true that among the Aristocracy, there has never been an instance of someone like Miss Rose, as such would be quite impossible and senseless. Lastly, I wish to clarify that I will not respond to any impropriety I find here. I left the other message board to which I contributed, due to the enormous volume of impropriety and personal insult I received. I have no qualms about performing the same deed here. I wish a pleasant conversation - nothing else. Good day to all.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 25, 1998.

I don't want to start a fight, George. I really don't. But just as you have your opinions, I have mine. I don't ignore things you say merely because they are insulting(and believe me, whether intentional or not, you can be very insulting), and I find it hard to believe you would do that to me. If you are going to present an opinion that you believe in, do it enough justice to defend it instead of maintaining that one argument-propriety. Oh well, I've made enough noise about this issue, and it's still apparently not making an impression. So I see no reason to continue, yet. I'll pick my battles. Never fear, George, I'll find some way to weedle in that hard shell of yours and make you see my point of view, even if you don't agree with it. Even if it takes me a while, I'll do it. But for now, I really, really don't want to start a fight again. So, friends?

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 25, 1998.

Miss Kat,

You have your choice to respond to insulting messages, as I have mine not to do so. I have never - not once - sent a personal insult toward you (such would be both improper and quite mean). However, I do plan to continue my use of propriety in argument, as propriety dictates all. I, too, wish not to start a fight. I assume that by writing, "So, friends?", you mean to say, "So, would you still consider us to be friends?" (if not, please enlighten me as to what that means). In that case, I shall, and am pleased that you wish to continue in a friendly and pleasant manner.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 25, 1998.

George, Yes, that's what I meant. I've got to get you to understand that just because you don't mean to insult dosen't make an insult any better. I would like it if, just once, you would just accept the fact you said something mean and apologize for that and not for my perception of what you said as being wrong. Am I making any sense at all? Oh well, I know I'm not one to talk, but. . . Well, I'll not hound you about it. Like I said, I'm going to pick my battles.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 25, 1998.

George, where, prithee, did I swear at you? Are you referring to when I said "where the hell do you get off"? Well that's nothing compared to what I could have said.

I'm normally not rude like this but when I hear antiquated opinions like yours I've just got to say what's on my mind, and I will not apologise for it, just as you will not apologise for insulting every woman on this board by saying we do not deserve the vote.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 25, 1998.

George,

By "we Angry White Males" I meant me and the others of my ilk, not you, as I DID read several times on this thread that you are not yet of legal voting age (Besides, you have no good reason to be "angry" anyway). Maybe you should move to Chicago, where the motto "Vote early, vote often" still applies. But you'd have to vote Democrat, which you no doubt would find as distasteful as the Chicago weather in November.

"Soccer mom" is a term first used by polsters and reporters in the last election to designate that group of middle-class suburban working mothers who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, believing that he cared more "for the children" than their own husbands (ex-husbands or sperm-donors) did. That, and of course the fact that Clinton was far more charming and handsome than that "grumpy old crippled man" Dole were the "reasons" for their choice at the polls. These are the people that created what Rush Limbaugh (a popular American conservative talk-radio host) calls the "arousal gap" (his take on the real meaning of the "gender gap" as applied to Clinton). The term "soccer mom" is now generally considered to be insulting, although it wasn't first applied as an insult. (But "AWM", used by the media after the 94 election as an epithet for the conservative middle to upper-class men who voted Republican that year, was used to imply racist, sexist, and hate-mongering overtones. And it was clearly meant as an insult from the start.)

BTW: Are you really serious about your views on male/female roles? You're making it very hard for me to "buy" your persona. Are you sure you're not BobG playing an elaborate hoax?

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 25, 1998.

Okay, quick question. George, you say that it's "improper" for women to vote, what I want to know, is why? Are we not supposed to think for ourselves and make any contributions to who we want running our country? Let's not forget that we all have to live here as well.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 25, 1998.

This thread no longer serves any useful purpose. I'm off! Thank you George, for offering a very eloquent justification for radical feminism. And thank you, ladies, for countering with a strong affirmation for male chauvinism. I haven't witnessed such a high caliber treatment of gender issues since I saw "Thelma and Louise".

-- DTD (foo@bar.com), August 26, 1998.

George, while you don't *intend* to be insulting, you really have no idea just how offensive your comments are! To say it's all women's fault that Clinton is in office is totally ridiculous. Even if it was their fault, that doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the right to vote. How exactly is that "improper"? I'd love to sit here and argue with you, but I don't see any point. You obviously aren't going to change your mind, so I'm not going to beat it to death. But I really wish you could see it from a woman's point of view.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 26, 1998.

George,

I was wondering, do you have any women friends? (Just friends, not relations or girlfriends.) I know you say that women in the aristocracy believe the same way about feminism as you do, but the way you speak about women is degrading and derogatory, to say the least. I find it hard to believe that, no matter their stance on feminism, women you know would not be insulted by the things you say about females. Just curious.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 26, 1998.

Dalton, I already told you George is not my creation nor that of any other regular contributor here. I actually take your suspicion as a compliment since his "persona," although unpopular, is well developed. I understand your doubts though, since I too never come across anyone like him, and am also not completely convinced he is who he claims. George..imposter..whoeeever he is, he has put much energy into both this site and the ooooother (P.A.T.H.) I met him on. Apparently s/he has much free time, which conforms with the "summer break" story. I invited "him" over here because, up to a point, he is an interesting conversationist, despite his controversial/offensive opinions. However, toward the end of his stay on the other site, I was one of those encouraging him to leave because of my saturation with his notions of propriety among other things. I invited him here to see if he had become an even slightly changed (i.e., better) person after so many had ridiculed him on the other. He has not. If he's not who he claims, I congratulate the writer for his/her talent. If he is, I pity him because life no doubt has some rude surprises in store; he can't stay among the other 2000 or so "American aristocrats" all his life. On the other site I compared him to Rose, just waiting for a Jack to change her forever. "Close your eyes...put your hand on the rail.." What was his response? You guessed it: something to the effect of, "I would never EVER 'fly' at the bow metaphorically or literally as Miss Rose did, for doing so would be improper." Perhaps George has departed without even a good-bye; he's usually here every day. In short, he was received on the P.A.T.H. at LEAST as poorly as he was here, even though the former is an ANTI-Titanic site, where his hatred of the movie was the common link with most people there. Just one more thing. George, although you no doubt are thrilled to be the center of attention in this thread, I had hoped you would contribute to the numerous interesting other ones regarding the true history and/or movie. Also, if everything you've said is earnest, you need to get a sense of humor pronto. And that's a lot nicer than the summer job and other thing I insisted you get, when we were on the P.A.T.H.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 26, 1998.

Haha. This is becoming one big paranoid who-done-it. For the first time I just entertained the possibility of Dalton being George. After all, I did advertise the P.A.T.H. site on here a couple times a ways back. No, it can't be though, because George contributed to the P.A.T.H. almost 24 hours a day, and Dalton has a job. The day this site dies is the day I die. Neeeeext...

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 26, 1998.

Emma,

You never swore anything to me - you used profanity toward me. It is not matter that you could have stated something "worse" (in the eyes of propriety, all profanity is equally awful). I could not respond to your message, and wished not to, as what you stated was profane.

I will not apologise merely for "insulting all the women on this board", because I did not intend to insult them. However, I will apologise for any comment of mine that sounded like an insult.

Mr. Dalton,

I have visited Chicago, and, although it is a beautiful city, I did not enjoy it very much. Why, if I were to relocate there, would I have to vote for Democratic candidates? Lastly, I am completely serious about my views upon male/female roles - such are dictated by propriety. What would I gain from falsifying views in this manner?

Emma,

Voting is not included in the proper role of women. Government is the domain of the proper male role - not the proper female role. Agreed - women need live in this nation, and they are equally as important as men. Women should most certainly "think for themselves", but, as with men, keep themselves within the boundaries of propriety. It is very simple.

Allison,

I have spoken to many women about this issue, and "seen it from their point of view". Most of the women (i.e. all except those on the internet) to whom I have spoken agree with me. Lastly, you may not like the verity of it, but the fact that women elected President Clinton in 1992 is true and unignorable. No offense is intended herein.

Miss Kat,

Yes, we have many friends who are women, and I, personally, have many friends who are young ladies. I have nothing except respect for women, as they do comprise 49% of the global population, and are equally as important as men. I have never said anything deroggatory about women - what would be the sense therein? Such is the banter of an imbecile. Yes, my friends of the female gender agree with me, and, for the most part, have no interest in government (including that of the vote). Such is improper behaviour for a young lady, and none of my friends were raised to wish impropriety.

"BobG",

I need not defend my identity to you - such bears no importance on anything. I know who I am, and you know who you are. I do not need your pity - why cannot I live my life amongst the Aristocracy, when, for the past six generations in this country, my family has done just that. All my friends, relations, and relatives plan to, and have done the same. Of course, I meet and speak to members of other socio-economic rungs every day. I shan't depart this board (unless necessary) until the first of September, when classes begin once again for me. I was gone, yesterday, to Greenwich, Connecticut, to attend a Polo Club function, and play for a bit (actually, in the end, I played three games, thereby spending the entire day in Greenwich).

If, by, "No doubt...you are thrilled to be the center of attention on this thread," you imply immodesty on my part, I both resent and deny this. I peered at the other threads and tangents, and did not find any to my liking. However, as this thread was created so that I might participate, I have been speaking here.

Lastly, sir, I do have a sense of humour - any friend or relation of mine could most certainly tell you that. However, I have trouble understanding the types of humour encountered here, and, when I do understand them, I do not find them amusing.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 27, 1998.

George,

I am sorry it has been so long since I responded to this thread. I am busy with school and work and some days I simply do not have time. The specific question I had about the American Aristocracy was what would be the impact on a family if they suddenly found themselves below the top third of the nation economically. I am sure their social obligations would have to be limited if they lost their wealth. The Aristocracy is made up of aapproximately 2500-3000 people you said. I am sure the females you have spoken with about what they believe to be proper and improper are from within that social circle. Let me assure you that there is a larger world outside yours, and the women there are eager to have lives of their own doing what makes them happy whether it is art, fashion, or construction. I am sure your family would disapprove of the fact that I am an accountant and I take care of all the financial aspects of the houshold. I enjoy it.

I think what the people visiting this thread want to know is why? You keep giving us vague answers or saying because that is the way it is, but why is it like that? There must be a reason. Nothing is done without a reason. Second, I think you should admit that there is a different world outside of yours that you have not experienced, and therefore, you do not know what it is like. Everyone needs to come to terms with the fact that there is a possibility they are wrong in there beliefs. When you are able to do that, you can accept other peoples beliefs much easier. Being a seventeen year-old aristocrat doesn't make you any better than a 21 year old college student, or a 30 year old housewife, or a 40 year-old homeless veteran. Just different. You never know, you may be able to learn something new from people outside your socio-economic circle. So please, feel free to ask us questions if you so desire.

Sorry, once again, for rambling.

Misty

P.S. I noticed you put my name is quotations. However, Misty is my real and true name, as it appears on my birth certificate. Mystified is my nickname in chat rooms. If you insist on a title, I prefer Ms., however, Misty is fine due to the casual nature.

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 28, 1998.

Misty,

First of all, let me apologise for placing your name in quotations marks for the purposes of address. I have never encountered a name like yours, and thought it to be a sort of "nickname". You state that you could be addressed as Ms. Might I ask why? Are you a divorcee or a widow? You need not answer if you wish - I am merely curious.

I have never, ever stated that I am "better" than anyone else. I am most certainly not. In the eyes of God, all men are equal. Such is true. We are all people - socio-economic class or rung is no matter when it comes to something like that. I have stated this many times before.

When members of the Aristocracy fall upon "hard times" (although this rarely occurs, if ever; Aristocratic families are normally destroyed by the absence of lineage), their friends and relations normally contribute to aid them. The American Aristocracy is a SOCIO-economic rung (I stress the "socio" portion). Within the American socio-economic ladders, there are three overall classes: the upper, middle, and lower. Within each economic class, there are a few social rungs. Within the upper class, one can find the Aristocracy, the rulers (one must be elected to a high government position to become a "ruler"), the bourgoisie (not quite nouveau-riche, and not quite Aristocracy), and the nouveau-riche.

You state that you are an accountant. This is quite interesting. It is not improper for women to study economics: many people quite enjoy it and, as a woman is expected (as any other) to earn a university degree, I know quite a few who have studied economics. My mother, actually, majored in economics and finance at Radcliffe.

You ask, "Why is it like that." I assume this means, "Why is propriety propriety?" I was asked this very same question on the other message board to which I contributed. Propriety was not "created". It evolved from certain rules, regulations, and pieces of etiquette of the middle ages, and was refined by the Renaissance. Various rules and regulations of propriety have been chronicled by many authors, among them President George Washington (who wrote the most basically comprehensive guide in all - 110 basic rules), Mrs. Emily Post, Mrs. Amy Vanderbilt, and Mrs. Judith Martin. If you wish to truly ascertain propriety, I would suggest reading President Washington's "Rules of Civility and Decency in Behaviour" - it is the guide from which many children (including myself) were taught.

Modern propriety was affirmed by the British and French nobilities of the seventeenth century. The roots of President Washington's guide reach back to the early sixteenth century. Propriety dictates an aesthetically pleasing, morally-enlightening "facon d'etre", which encompasses politesse, etiquette, and mere bienseance. It dictates what one should do and how one should act: from the smallest triviality, to the greatest national being. It promotes a better life for all, and an existance of ease.

Madam, I am not wrong in my beliefs or holdings about propriety. Propriety has served my family, ancestors, and those of my relations for countless generations. It promotes true liberty, and stable and structured living. There could be no better life than that prescribed by correct propriety. I thank you for this opportunity to further explain this subject.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 28, 1998.

George,

Ok, if you say so. I, personally, don't see how they wouldn't be insulted by your remarks. But, I suspect it has to do with them being raised in the same way as you. Do you have any friends outside the aristocracy? Do they think differently than you, or if they did would you no longer associate with them? Ok, I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm very interested in finding out the answers.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 28, 1998.

Miss Kat,

No, I do not have any personal friends outside of the Aristocracy. Of course, as my school allows in all who are capable of entering, I know many people of my age who are not members of the Aristocracy, but none of them are actual friends of mine. I do not mind your questions whatsoever.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 28, 1998.

Are they not your friends because they are not in the aristocracy, or is it just their personalities?

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 28, 1998.

Well...I don't know about all of you, but I've definitely had my fill of this! Wake me when it's over...

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 28, 1998.

A challenge to George:

Post just ONE response without using any of the following words: proper, improper, propriety, impropriety, prithee, dramaturgical.

Thanks.

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 28, 1998.

Miss Kat,

Certainly, the reason is not the former. I simply have not spoken very much with said people, and hence do not know them very well - at least, not as well as my friends.

Mr. Dalton,

Actually, I believe that this post, and my previous one, will conform quite well to your "challenge". Also, I have never used the last word on your list whilst posting on this board. I am not quite certain that I have ever had reason to use that word.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 28, 1998.

George,

In answer to your question, I choose Ms., because I am married and therefore Miss is not appropriate. However, against tradition, I do not use Mrs. Rafael Chacon as my name/title. I like having my own identity. I feel that I am more than simply my husband's wife.

Actually, economics and accounting are two different fields. My understanding of economics is fairly strong, but I do not really enjoy it as a field. That is why I choose accounting. Why do you say it is interesting that I am an accountant?

I have a question about rules of propriety. Are there any rules that have been deemed outdated? I do not know the nature of these rules, but most rules or regulations from that long ago are somewhat outdated. Have you, or anyone you know, ever questioned these rules? While my husband was in the military, they found a guidline that stated five people were required to fire a canon, regardless of the fact that the job only called for four people. The reason for the extra person was to hold the horses, which, of course, aren't used today. I am a firm believer that people have a responsibility to question their surroundings and the things that effect their lives. How do you know for certain that the things outlining your life are really what are in your best interests? I think that people must stay aware of their surroundings so they will have a qualified, educated response to whatever is going on around them.

As I said before, I am not going to argue about opinions. You may firmly believe that the life you lead is the best one, but I may firmly believe the life I lead is the best one. I will say, however, that a person can not form a true opinion about a lifestyle until they have experienced more than just one. For how can you say there is no better life than that prescribed by correct propriety, when you have not experienced any other life?

If you could, I would appreciate it if you could give an example of some of the rules of propriety. Also, I am very curious to know what a typical day is like for you, and maybe a little more personal information. I believe you are seventeen, but that is all I know. What are your interests? What college are you planning to attend? What are you going to study? I hope you do not find me too inquisitive.

Thank You, Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 28, 1998.

I am dismayed and shocked that you are unfamiliar with a word which is so integral to discussions of which you claim to be expert. "Dramaturgical" means, according to Webster's (1998), "proper, in a contemporary context." Your unfamiliarity with this term explains your inability to understand accepted norms of behavior today.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 28, 1998.

FYI, Miss Misty, I apologize that my remarks above may seem addressed to you; they were for Master George. Mr. BobG

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 28, 1998.

Dear me, my foot is just stuck in my mouth tonite. MS. Misty, I meant to say!!

-- bobG (bob@bob.bob), August 28, 1998.

George,

Why have you never become friends with any of them? Is it just circumstance? Because I think it would do you good to have friends who think differently than you. Not on everything, but on some things. Maybe you'd open up a bit then, if the person questioning your views were a friend.

Also, since you seem to refer to George Washington's "Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour" (I think you've called it something differently, but the copy which I read was titled that. I know it to be the same book.) I thought it might interest you that you seem, in my observation, to be breaking one of the rules therein. I'm sure I'm not quoting it word for word, since it's been about two years since I read it, but does not one of the rules state: "Be not tedious in discourse unless you find the company pleased therewith". If I'm not mistaken, isn't that what you're doing? Not that I'm calling you on it, mind you. I'm doing the very same thing, I'm sure, and it would be hypocritical of me to scold you for something I myself am doing. I am merely observing. And pointing out that some rules are meant to be broken. Even in propriety.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 28, 1998.

And, to continue playing the tattle, I think number 42 also applies here George. I'm sure you know which one that is. I do not mean to reprimand you in any way, I merely point these out for the sake of the debate. I hope you're not offended, as I mean no insult. I only want to point out that sometimes rules must be broken, and that you yourself are proof of it.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 28, 1998.

Not to worry, Mr.Bob G. I have taken no offense to your impororiety ragarding my wishes to be addressed as Ms., rather than Miss. In fact, it may be easier to simply stick with just simply Misty!! :)

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 29, 1998.

Misty,

Your use of the title "Ms." is quite interesting, as such is only proper for use by a widow or divorcee. You needn't call yourself "Mrs. Rafael Chacon" - you might sign your name as "Mrs. Misty Chacon", the same as my mother signs "Mrs. Marie Jameson-Vanderbilt Haverstrom" instead of "Mrs. George Percival-Symington Haverstrom Jr." However, your name is certainly your choice, although your use of the title "Ms." breaks the etiquette thereof.

Propriety does not become outdated - fashion becomes outdated. One mustn't confuse propriety and fashion, as they are two different items. The propriety which has been in use since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries applies to all people, in and at all times. One may apply propriety to any situation - no matter how modern. For example, an esteemed social critic has yet to write a guide applying propriety to the internet (although I suspect Mrs. Judith Martin will do so before 2002).

I have never stated that, "my life is the best", as such would be both immodest and improper. The "best life" is a utopia, and since utopia means "nowhere", it cannot exist in this world.

You ask for an example of "some of the rules of propriety". I will direct you to President Washington's guide "Rules of Civility and Decency in Behaviour", at the University of Virginia: http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/civility/civ-tran.html. This should suffice.

I do not find you "too inquisitive" whatsoever. I am interested in cinema, baroque music, I am an avid horseman, and I enjoy structured debate. I plan to attend Yale University, as the men of my family (except for a few who have attended Oxford University) have done so for the past five generations. However, I am applying to quite a few other schools, both in this country, and in the United Kingdom. There, I plan to study law and cinema.

My normal summer's day proceeds as follows. I awaken by 10:00 in the morning (if not, I have my valet, Jonathan, awaken me at that time), undergo my daily toilette, and eat a normally light breakfast. At this time, I may do whatever I please. On some days, I decide to use the internet, on some I go to one of our two clubs (the Yale Club or the Heritage Club) to speak with friends, and on others I take a morning walk around our portion of midtown. Sometimes, if I am feeling aesthetic, I go to a museum. It really depends on in what mood I am. At about twelve, I eat a light lunch, either at the Yale Club, Delmonico's, or home. After this, I usually rest for a bit, check up on the Stock markets, and perhaps visit a friend or two. At 4:30 in the afternoon, I have tea (at my choice of quite a few different places). After this, I might do one of many things. I always return home at about 6:00 in the evening (if I have been out), dress for dinner, and then eat with the rest of my family. And, after having a cigar and some sort of light liquor (brandy, cognac, &c.), I discuss various items with my parents and/or sister, before remanding myself to bed anywhere between 10:00 PM and midnight.

You ask for some "personal information". I am a student in my senior year at the Hackley School in Tarrytown, NY (actually, my senior year begins on Tuesday). I live in midtown, Manhattan. I have one sibling - my sister, Eleanor, who is thirteen years of age. We do not keep any pets, although my mother previously owned two welsh Corgis. I hope these tidbits have sufficed.

"BobG",

I never stated that I "do not know the meaning of 'dramaturgical'." Merely, I do not remember having had cause to use the word - certainly not on the internet.

Miss Kat,

Yes, I do suspect that the reason is pure circumstance. Also, none of these individuals live anywhere close to me. My school is located about one half of an hour north of Manhattan, and, for the most part, only the Aristocrats live in New York proper. However, I wish not to associate with individuals who do not follow correct propriety (I have no idea as to these individuals' "stances" on this matter).

You are correct: President Washington's 88th rule reads as such, "Be not tedious in discourse, make not many digressions, nor repeat often the same manner of discourse." However, what you and I have been doing is not "discourse" - we have been involved in "correspondence". "Discourse", as used by President Washington (my parents, valet, and sister agree with me), means "live speech". If you and I were discussing these matters on some sort of "live internet discussion", this rule would hold true. However, I propose that this message board is nothing of the sort - it is more like involving oneself in a correspondence.

On the matter of President Washington's 42nd rule, "Let thy ceremonies in courtesie be proper to the dignity of his place with whom thou conversest, for it is absurd to act the same with a clown and a prince," I have not broken it in the least. If I were to be within the audience of a prince, I would use formal language, and the most formal mannerisms. One does not address a clown as, "Your Royal Highness", just as one does not address Her Majesty the Queen as, "Madam". I do not see how I have broken this rule here, as I have only used casual speech. Formal manners and mannerisms are quite different from anything I have ever used herein.

One should never break a rule of propriety (do not consider President Washington's rules of COURTESY the "complete" rules of propriety, for they are not), as such would imply impropriety: the worst scourge of all.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 29, 1998.

George,

But don't you see? The gist of that rule is that you can't act the same with everybody, and you keep trying to act with us as you would with one of your friends. And very obviously there is a difference. And I wouldn't say you were using casual speech at all, but perhaps in your interpretation of the word you are. But I think other's posts prove that I am not the only one who thinks such.

I never said it was the complete rules of propriety, I referenced it because I happen to have some knowledge of it and you've mentioned it alot, both here and at P.A.T.H.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 29, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I shall post my response on the third thread created for this topic by Mr. Draghici.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 30, 1998.

George, you are a liar. And you drink illegally.

I go to Hackley School, you awful, awful bastard. Right now. This year. I am a freshman. And if the school is at all the same now I know that a) it is very, very middle class and b) if you actually carried out the lifestyle you describe, and showed it off there, you would have been beaten to death by now. There is nothing more gauche than showing off your supposedly impeccable lifestyle. I suppose you think all the women should never have been admitted, and the Asians and blacks should be thrown out also, lest they desecrate your dear overrated school. Hitler would be proud.

--Anna de la Piedra (using a pseudonym), Indian, feminist, tolerant, bourgeois, and happy about it

-- Anna de la Piedra (annadelapiedra@hotmail.com), February 14, 2004.