VENT - Why do people make things difficult?

In article , Anne says...

On 18 Mar 2005 12:45:42 -0800, Banty wrote:

Wealthy or not, does not mean anyone can suggest any amount, even $10, and they
should just hand it over. Nobody is anybody else's walking candy store.

If the amount is normal for the thing they agreed to pay for, then
they should pay for it and not let somebody else pay for their share.
If I had to pay for somebody, whom I don't especially care for and who
is at least as wealthy as I am, I would for sure let him know!
Anne

In this case, no one had agreed to pay for anything. One parent took it upon
herself to do a gift, and rather randomly suggested ten dollars to another
parent. If this were the Troop yearly dues, it would be another matter. (But
still, the response you suggested would be very rude.)

Banty

Banty wrote:

In article , Anne says...

On 18 Mar 2005 12:45:42 -0800, Banty wrote:

Wealthy or not, does not mean anyone can suggest any amount, even $10, and they
should just hand it over. Nobody is anybody else's walking candy store.

If the amount is normal for the thing they agreed to pay for, then
they should pay for it and not let somebody else pay for their share.
If I had to pay for somebody, whom I don't especially care for and who
is at least as wealthy as I am, I would for sure let him know!
Anne

In this case, no one had agreed to pay for anything. One parent took it upon
herself to do a gift, and rather randomly suggested ten dollars to another
parent. If this were the Troop yearly dues, it would be another matter. (But
still, the response you suggested would be very rude.)

The response isn't as rude if the people are NOT poor as it is if they
are poor.

If the folks have agreed to pay for something (not the OPs picture
frame, but something where they really have agreed on it - like dues
for a sports team where you know the cost when you sign up or someone
mentioned the B&G dinner), and just don't pay it then it is rude of
them not to pay, or to have made it clear at the BEGINNING that they
weren't interested in doing that and don't want a part of it (as you
suggested), then it is rude of them not to pay, and such a comment is
a rather 'Miss Manners' way of indicating that you think they have
been rude.

Admittedly, it takes some guts to say to the organizing person - no I
don't want to contribute to that, and some people may not want to do
that for whatever reason. But it is really more polite to opt out at
the beginning.
grandma Rosalie

bizby40 wrote:
People who use there e-mail addresses willy-nilly all over the
internet
thus getting their mailboxes full of spam is a fourth peeve of
mine!!!
(no matter how you look at it, I'm gonna be peeved if I can't e-mail
someone about something legit.)

Not everybody spends their life on the computer, like, well, I do. :-)

Heck, I can't even trust my own sister to respond to me via email. She
is a sales rep and always in her car, not in an office, and she has a
young child so when she's at home, she's not online. She has a computer
in her kitchen but checks her home email maybe once every three
months!! I have a *lot* of friends that are like that. You quickly
learn who prefers email and who prefers a phone call.

jen

jojo wrote:
find it may be over $100.00 if the frame shop does the
matting and
framing.

Very true. Framing is costly.

Okay, call me a total unsentimental scrooge, but if it were me, I
wouldn't want a framed photo. I would then feel obligated to hang it
somewhere in my house, and frankly, it's not the sort of thing I'd
choose to hang.

I'd *much* greatly prefer a simple gift certificate that I could use
for a night out at a restaurant. Doesn't matter how much - it's the
thought that counts. Just collect what you can collect (including
allowance pennies from the girls), put it all together and get a dining
gift certificate in that amount. Even $10 collected from the girls
(enough to cover a cocktail) would be a nice gesture. And so much
easier on the coordinator. :-)

jen

In article .com, shinypenny
says...


bizby40 wrote:
People who use there e-mail addresses willy-nilly all over the
internet
thus getting their mailboxes full of spam is a fourth peeve of
mine!!!
(no matter how you look at it, I'm gonna be peeved if I can't e-mail
someone about something legit.)

Not everybody spends their life on the computer, like, well, I do. :-)

Heck, I can't even trust my own sister to respond to me via email. She
is a sales rep and always in her car, not in an office, and she has a
young child so when she's at home, she's not online. She has a computer
in her kitchen but checks her home email maybe once every three
months!! I have a *lot* of friends that are like that. You quickly
learn who prefers email and who prefers a phone call.

Yes - it's a matter preference, and the preferences can be strong.

I don't like the phone much, and I don't like to have to chatter 10 minutes with
a chattery person just to find out the scouts need to meet at 9 for the weekend
camp instead of 8. On the other hand, that's exactly why some people like the
phone so much.

Many people can't keyboard very easily; they find it tedious. And others find
email impersonal.

It also depends on how much or how little folks mind or like being interrupted.

Banty

In article , Rosalie B. says...

Banty wrote:

In article , Anne says...

On 18 Mar 2005 12:45:42 -0800, Banty wrote:

Wealthy or not, does not mean anyone can suggest any amount, even $10, and they
should just hand it over. Nobody is anybody else's walking candy store.

If the amount is normal for the thing they agreed to pay for, then
they should pay for it and not let somebody else pay for their share.
If I had to pay for somebody, whom I don't especially care for and who
is at least as wealthy as I am, I would for sure let him know!
Anne

In this case, no one had agreed to pay for anything. One parent took it upon
herself to do a gift, and rather randomly suggested ten dollars to another
parent. If this were the Troop yearly dues, it would be another matter. (But
still, the response you suggested would be very rude.)

The response isn't as rude if the people are NOT poor as it is if they
are poor.

If the folks have agreed to pay for something (not the OPs picture
frame, but something where they really have agreed on it - like dues
for a sports team where you know the cost when you sign up or someone
mentioned the B&G dinner), and just don't pay it then it is rude of
them not to pay, or to have made it clear at the BEGINNING that they
weren't interested in doing that and don't want a part of it (as you
suggested), then it is rude of them not to pay, and such a comment is
a rather 'Miss Manners' way of indicating that you think they have
been rude.

Admittedly, it takes some guts to say to the organizing person - no I
don't want to contribute to that, and some people may not want to do
that for whatever reason. But it is really more polite to opt out at
the beginning.
grandma Rosalie

These things are either voluntary or required.

If they're voluntary, and gifts, even group-gifts are most certainly voluntary,
there is no reason to badger, cajole, or shame. In that case, its downright
arrogant.

If they're required, like troop dues, it still doesn't make send to badger,
cajole, or shame. In that case, it's unecessary and often counter-productive as
people get resistant. Things like that are handled by making clear that
participation beyond a certain date requires that the fees or dues be paid, then
issuing a few reminders leading up to that date to the *group*. (newsletter
and/or announcements) And following through should it happen that someone show
up past that date without having paid dues. But in all my years of
volunteering, I've never seen that having to be done - given clear expectations
and a few reminders, the complainers, avoiders, and procrastinators *do* get
their dues paid. And without a bunch of hard feelings and rudeness.

There's just no reason for that sort of response.

Banty

Banty wrote:
Yes - it's a matter preference, and the preferences can be strong.

I don't like the phone much, and I don't like to have to chatter 10
minutes with
a chattery person just to find out the scouts need to meet at 9 for
the weekend
camp instead of 8. On the other hand, that's exactly why some people
like the
phone so much.

I can be chatty, but I have to be in the mood to chat on the phone, or
forget it. I'd much prefer calling my friend when the mood hits, than
having my friend call me.

With my sister, I've learned over time the best way to keep in touch is
to call her on her cell during the day, when she is usually driving to
her next appointment and open to a chat to fend off traffic boredom.
I'll have her undivided attention and won't have to compete with her
husband, her daughter, or the chores and cooking she is tackling in the
background.

My brother is also not the greatest at responding to email, since he's
so busy during the day. He will usually at least respond back by end of
day with a brief one-liner. Phoning is equally a challenge with my
brother - the best time to chat with him is after the kids are in bed -
and frankly, by that point, I'm exhausted and/or sound asleep myself.

Many people can't keyboard very easily; they find it tedious. And
others find
email impersonal.

I think for my sister it's because she's dyslexic and has always
struggled with her writing. For my brother, in his profession email use
is strictly monitored. He is not supposed to be using company email to
chat with people. I have several friends who are also in a similar
company situation, and you quickly learn which ones object if you send
spam, jokes, or (heaven forbid) a risque subject line! He does have
email at home, but like my sister, prefers not to jump on the 'puter
after a long day.

Meanwhile, my mother is a total computer nut like myself! She just got
a new computer and is always plugged in like me. We both follow usenet.
We also talk a lot on the phone, but she'll also email me. Just sent me
a bunch of photos.

jen

Actually, it just occurred to me that if Bizby sent out her email
notices to everyone all at once, with all the addresses in the "TO"
line, then it is highly likely that the emails never made it through
the company spam filters. Many companies automatically boot email
coming from the outside that is addressed to multiple people.

jen

Anne fazbeta at free dot fr wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:29:56 +0100, Barbara Bomberger
wrote:

It is often impossible to tell who is "walthy" and who is not. You
ahve no idea of someones financial status. Maybe they have a lot of
debt, or are living over their means. By the same token I know lots
of folkswho live modestly in small homes who have a fair amount of
wealth
I think that it is very easy to tell if somebody will have to
reconsider its budget for 10 bucks, we are not speaking about hundred
here. If they were living over their means, maybe it would be a wake
up call! In any ways they agreed to do it, they should pay for it or
they should have proposed a cheaper route.

They agreed to contributing to a photo for the leaders, but I thought
the money wasn't mentioned to begin with. So they haven't declined
to pay, but they have expressed surprise that the commitment they made was
larger then seemed reasonable for a picture and frame.

In addition, the OP does *not* know whether any of these parents had
been making other contributions. For instance, when each of my kids
left playgroup, I gave a moderately generous cheque to the playgroup
as a thank you, but I didn't discuss it with any of the other parents.
When one of my kids left, some of the other parents organised a similar
photo event, and asked for a similar amount of money: I might have seemed
stingy by not upping my contribution (I'm sure some of the other parents
would have done), but that was because I had made another seperate
contribution, and I certainly was *not* going to discuss it with the
particular group of photo organisers.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Banty wrote:

In article , Rosalie B. says...

Banty wrote:

In article , Anne says...

On 18 Mar 2005 12:45:42 -0800, Banty wrote:

Wealthy or not, does not mean anyone can suggest any amount, even $10, and they
should just hand it over. Nobody is anybody else's walking candy store.

If the amount is normal for the thing they agreed to pay for, then
they should pay for it and not let somebody else pay for their share.
If I had to pay for somebody, whom I don't especially care for and who
is at least as wealthy as I am, I would for sure let him know!
Anne

In this case, no one had agreed to pay for anything. One parent took it upon
herself to do a gift, and rather randomly suggested ten dollars to another
parent. If this were the Troop yearly dues, it would be another matter. (But
still, the response you suggested would be very rude.)

The response isn't as rude if the people are NOT poor as it is if they
are poor.

If the folks have agreed to pay for something (not the OPs picture
frame, but something where they really have agreed on it - like dues
for a sports team where you know the cost when you sign up or someone
mentioned the B&G dinner), and just don't pay it then it is rude of
them not to pay, or to have made it clear at the BEGINNING that they
weren't interested in doing that and don't want a part of it (as you
suggested), then it is rude of them not to pay, and such a comment is
a rather 'Miss Manners' way of indicating that you think they have
been rude.

Admittedly, it takes some guts to say to the organizing person - no I
don't want to contribute to that, and some people may not want to do
that for whatever reason. But it is really more polite to opt out at
the beginning.
grandma Rosalie

These things are either voluntary or required.

If they're voluntary, and gifts, even group-gifts are most certainly voluntary,
there is no reason to badger, cajole, or shame. In that case, its downright
arrogant.

If they're required, like troop dues, it still doesn't make send to badger,
cajole, or shame. In that case, it's unecessary and often counter-productive as
people get resistant. Things like that are handled by making clear that
participation beyond a certain date requires that the fees or dues be paid, then
issuing a few reminders leading up to that date to the *group*. (newsletter
and/or announcements) And following through should it happen that someone show
up past that date without having paid dues. But in all my years of
volunteering, I've never seen that having to be done - given clear expectations
and a few reminders, the complainers, avoiders, and procrastinators *do* get
their dues paid. And without a bunch of hard feelings and rudeness.

There's just no reason for that sort of response.

Unless the person HAS agreed to the voluntary contribution and just
never has the money. Kind of like the person that never pays for
their lunch in a group, or leaves only enough for what they actually
ate without thinking about tax or tip.



grandma Rosalie