You can be gracious to those who seek to use you. You can graciously say no.

Of course, there are always those users who can't take a gracious "no" for an answer, and think the object of the game is to wear you down by persistently asking. In which case, I would say all obligation to be gracious is ended, and you may need a verbal 2x4 to the side of the head is what's need in these cases.

But only in cases in which removing yourself from the situation is not an option.

Sorry, I got off track. My only point is that I take issue with Barbara Oakley's implied suggestion that being gracious to those that use you means saying "Yes" to unreasonable requests.

Being gracious does not mean saying capitulating to every request. It simply means that whatever your answer is, you do it politely.

I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up those golf clubs I wanted...

I'm as fond of the snarky slam as anyone, but there's a courteous but firm middle ground between being a pushover and being a jerk.

I've finally gotten over having to say 'yes' to things I want to say 'no' to. But Patrick is right about people being persistent. One time when I said 'no' to someone, he called me a bitch, and I said, 'I'm not usually, but I can be. And if saying no to you makes me a bitch, pushing the issue makes you an asshole.' He stopped but we haven't spoken since. No big loss on my part, I assure you.

One of Amy's predecessors in the advice field wrote: "Noone can take advantage of you without your permission." Parasites deserve only such courtesy as we choose to grant.

To adapt a (non-musical) line from songwriter George Cohan ("Yankee Doodle Dandy" & "Over There"):

"I thought you were a gentleman and you thought I was an ATM. We were both mistaken."

Or, if you prefer:

"I thought you were a gentleman and you thought I was a toilet for your problems."

I hate Kickstarters, Indidgogos and GoFundMe projects that exist oly for the poster's benefit--like the woman who wants 50K to hire a surrogate so she can spawn again. It's just self-aggrandizing and attention and cash on demand. Work hard, save your money.

"sounds like you need a lesson in manners" sounds to me like fighting words. The only suitable response would be, "And I suppose you're the sonofabitch to teach it?"

And keep in mind that people who see to use you are clever fucks -- they count on your feeling compelled to stick to social conventions appropriate to a less userish person's request that you simply can't fulfill.

Absolutely true, and many of them will seek "consent" on a tiny social convention before proceeding to attempt to use you.

Ever been approached by a beggar whose first move is to stick out his hand to be shaken?

A total stranger sending mail asking for money is owed no social convention whatsoever. I'm with Amy.

That mooch sounds like any junkie you'll meet on the street. Or at work. Or at a family dinner. Or at the altar.

"Noone can take advantage of you without your permission."

I hate it when Noone takes advantage of me without my permission. That's how I ended up with so many Herman's Hermits CDs.

No one should be able to do that to a person.

;-)

Patrick, I have to disagree in this case. The request itself is so crass that the requestor is not owed a polite response.

I see no need to be polite to the jerks who ignore the do not call list. Anyone want the cruise I just won?

My housing complex has clearly visible signs at both entrances saying "No Soliciting."

Yet, I'm beset every weekend by someone coming to my door to sell my cable/dish television service, appliances, insurance, pest control, etc.

And they won't go away if I say "No, thank you."

The guy the other day selling something television-related reacted to repeatedly saying "no, thank you" by asking "don't you want to save money?" I closed the door on him.

"Polite" is a two-way street. Venture into oncoming traffic and you might get run over.

...sell "me" cable and appliances, not sell "my" cable and appliances.

Cousin Dave: Patrick, I have to disagree in this case. The request itself is so crass that the requestor is not owed a polite response.

I am going to send out primers in reading comprehension to each and every one of you, and force you at gunpoint to complete them.

I never said anyone was owed anything. Never.

And, no, I reject the notion that I implied anything.

Amy's opening entry ended with this statement, by Barbara Oakley: "Graciousness to those who seek to use you isn't manners, it's 'pathological altruism.'"

Oakley's statement seems to suggest that being gracious to someone who seeks to use you, means that you are consenting to being used. Otherwise, it wouldn't be altruistic.

I am merely rejecting the idea that being gracious to someone who seeks to take advantage of you means that you're allowing yourself to be taken advantage of. No, that is absolutely not true! You can refuse an obviously presumptuous and unfair request without being ungracious.

Now, did I say that Amy should have been gracious when she refused the boorish oaf's request for 200 dollars? No, I did not. On the contrary, I think her response was quite consistent with the level of manners extended to her.

My quarrel in this case is not with Amy. I made no comment on whether Amy acted appropriately. I certainly never suggested that Amy owed this person a polite response.

My only quarrel in this case is with Barbara Oakley's statement. She seems to think that it's not possible to be gracious in a refusal. I wholeheartedly reject that notion.

You can be polite in a refusal. Being polite does not mean allowing yourself to be taken advantage of. This does not mean that you have to be polite in a refusal, or even that we should always try to be polite in our refusals. Or even that impolite refusals are never appropriate.

This does not mean that I feel that Amy (or Conan, as he is beset by solicitors despite the signs he has on both entrances to his home), should tender polite refusals.

On the contrary, there is a time when directness, firmness and perhaps ungraciousness, are quite appropriate.

My only point is, Barbara states that being gracious to those who seek to take advantage of us is altruistic. Which suggests that being gracious means saying "yes." And that it's utterly impossible to say no graciously.

I reject this idea that we either allow ourselves to be taken advantage of, or we're being ungracious. That is absolutely not true. You can be gracious in your refusal. It's possible to be gracious in refusing presumptuous requests. Not that we have to, or that Amy should have. But merely that, contrary to what Barbara Oakley seems to believe, it's entirely possible to be gracious, and still say no.

Please, please, please, understand this. I never said that Amy was wrong in replying with her characteristic direct and no holds barred refusal to a rather impolite, presumptuous and arrogant request for money. I am not attempting to school Amy in manners. I see nothing wrong with her response.

Barbara Oakley seems to believe that we either allow ourselves to be taken advantage of, or we're being ungracious. That is absolutely not true.

And finally, now that I've beaten my point to death, I reject any and all suggestions that I "implied" anything, as if this misunderstanding is any fault of mine.

Flynne seemed to understand what I was saying perfectly and without any trouble.

"Noone can take advantage of you without your permission."

Whoever originated this idiotic statement has obviously never heard of rape.

And I hope those goddamned wet pirates drive their cars right into dry telephone poles, spreading horrible carnage all over the street! AAAAAAAARGH!

"Noone can take advantage of you without your permission."

That was Ann Landers, and I think she was trying to paraphrase what Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

But yeah, something got lost in the translation.

Flynne seemed to understand what I was saying perfectly and without any trouble.

Thank you, Patrick.

The request itself is so crass that the requestor is not owed a polite response.

I respond to them politely not because they deserve it, but because I do.

That said, I'd agree with Patrick that the persistent panhandler and manipulative mooch rapidly pass to the "forceful suppression" stage.

Found in comments on Jonathan Turley's blog:

(http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/13/prospective-law-student-posts-vile-video-attacking-dunkin-donut-employees/)

TWO WOLVES….Cherokee parable

“An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice,”Let me tell you a story: I have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do. But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times.”

He continued, “It is as if there are two wolves inside me; one is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will send him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger, for his anger will change nothing. Sometimes it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit.”

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather’s eyes and asked, “Which one wins, Grandfather?”

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, “The one I feed.” ”

I hate Kickstarters, Indidgogos and GoFundMe projects that exist oly for the poster's benefit

Wait, what? people will give you money? for free?

Huh...

Patrick: My use of the word "owed" in that sense was colloquial, and maybe a poor word choice. Your point is, I think, that it's a matter of maintaining one's own dignity, plus maintaing the standard of behavior necessary for a civilization to function smoothly. I get that.

My counter-argument is that, when people are behaving rudely, if no one ever calls them out on their behavior, then they will never get the message. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to get on their cases. It just means that there are only so many hours in a day, so when someone has called your home for the Nth time today begging for money or trying to sell you some fly-by-night product or service you have absolutely no need for, simply saying "No" and hanging up (or better yet, employing some method of call screening) is the most expeditious way of disposing of the problem. The lack of pleasantry might tell the requestor something, eventually.