Recently Henry Alford caught my attention in a piece he wrote for the New York Times: When the Manners Police Knock.

In it he writes about the propensity we have for policing other’s foibles. When a woman initiated a cell phone call as a play was about to start, the gentleman seated in front of her gave her a dirty look and when that didn’t work he “reached around and yanked the phone from her hand, hung it up, and handed it back.” Or, on a more mellow note, consider Jenny Douglas the article continues, “who runs the Brooklyn Cottage, an arts salon in Prospect Heights, (who) takes a softer approach, and emphasizes compassion. When waiters sidle up to her at the end of a meal and ask the dreaded question, “Are you still working on that? she will either smilingly say, ‘Actually I’m still enjoying this,’ or she will look baffled and ask, ‘Might you be so kind as to bring me another glass of wine, please, so I can continue to labor?’” Ouch!

The snappy comebacks and quick put-downs are really such a temptation, especially when someone else commits a seemingly unpardonable faux pas. We become the manners police, our self-righteous goal to stop the offending behavior without regard for the effect our rejoinder might have on the relationship. And therein lies the danger of being the manners police: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The biting sarcasm of Jenny’s comment to the waiter may not really matter to her because she'll probably never see that waiter again. Or maybe she will and service will be just a little slower. But what happens when Jenny finds she can’t turn the sarcasm on for strangers but turn it off for people she knows and cares for? That same sarcasm directed at a friend, significant other or child could mar her relationship with that person.

My daughter Anna, who works as a spokesperson for the Emily Post Institute, was recently interviewed on the Today Show. In one simply phrase she articulated the etiquette alternative to being a manners cop: “The best etiquette absorbs someone else’s mistakes.”

Today is January 1, 2013, the day we traditionally make resolutions for the coming year. This year we could all help foster a more civil, polite and positive society if we all made a grater effort to “absorb someone else’s mistakes.”

Happy New Year!

Technology really is amazing. Just the other day I met a young man. who recently moved to the United States from Baghdad. He’s alone here, all his family remains in Baghdad. We talked about the experience of leaving one’s home to begin living in a new country. I asked if he ever uses Skype or iChat or Google Talk to talk with his family.

“I Skype my mother every morning,” he told me. The pleasure at this small touch he has with home and family was palpable. I couldn’t help thinking how amazing technology is, how it let’s people stay in touch with family and friends in a way that simply never was possible before.

I recently spent a week in Dubai. Yet, every evening I was able to iChat with my wife. What a pleasure it was not only to be able to hear her voice but to be able to see her as well, even if she was in yesterday when I was in today.

Now, today, Christmas day, think how many people are going to be able to touch each other as they video call throughout the day. It wasn’t that long ago that even a phone call overseas was an expensive and almost exotic thing. Not today. Fire up the computer, log onto your preferred video-call program, and you’re connected: You hear and you see, and it’s free. Simply awesome!

The problem with technology is when we abuse it, when it controls us rather than us controlling it. This holiday day as countless people sit down to special meals with family and friends, do everyone at the table a favor: Turn off your phone. Focus on the people you are with. No calls, no IMing, no texting, no surfing, no social media just for an hour or two. It’s one of the best presents you can give to the people you are with: Your undivided attention.

Happy Holidays!

"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of ‘disaster,’ I remember my mother's words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world." Fred Rogers.

When Fred Rogers spoke of helpers, he was speaking of all of us. Being that helper today, now, in this time of tragedy, is one way we can all comfort the people of Newtown, Connecticut and the families that have suffered so much. Many of us aren’t in a position to help directly, but as a society, refocusing on helping each other in any way we can matters.

During his speech on Sunday in Newtown, President Obama addressed the issue of how we can all be helpers. We can help comfort the people of Newtown by the prayers and shared sense of grief that people across the nation and the world feel. “And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown — you are not alone.”

While being the helper Mr. Rogers and President Obama spoke of is one step we all can take, what of the longer-term future?

President Obama addressed that as well, saying we as a nation are challenged to try to take steps to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future: “If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.”

That challenge is to engage in conversation about what have been difficult issues for us to address in the past, to be willing to listen to all points of view and to find common ground that will help reduce the risk of future Newtowns. That conversation cannot be productive if it is grounded in anger. It can only be productive if it is grounded in the principles that also underlie etiquette–being considerate, respectful, and honest. As President Obama said, surely we have an obligation to try.

Every now and then people ask if I ever make an etiquette mistake.

Well, I do, and I made one just yesterday. Actually, I made three.

I’m in Dubai.

I came here to teach business etiquette, partnering with the Human Relations Institute. While I’ve met with the clients and spent time acclimating to the nine-hour time change, that’s not what this blog is about.

It’s about tipping. Before I left the United States, I did some basic web research about Dubai. But I noticed as I surfed that I wasn’t reading anything about tipping. So I boarded my plane and arrived without a clear idea of to whom or what exactly I should tip. That was mistake number one.

Before venturing out on the first day, I stopped at the reception desk at my hotel and asked what was appropriate to tip the cab driver. The response was a quizzical look and then an unconvincing, “Well it could be a little or nothing.” And so I got into the cab with the still unresolved issue of what to tip. That was mistake number two.

When the cab arrived at our destination, the meter indicated 28.5 dirhams, so I chose to follow the advice from the reception desk and simply let him keep the change from the three ten-dirham notes I gave him. And off he drove. And that was mistake number three.

Later that day I did some more web browsing at my hotel, and found a website titled Expat Echo Dubai, and it had what seemed to be the best and most complete information on Dubai tipping.

That’s where I discovered that tipping in the range of 10-15% is the norm. I appreciated the additional piece of advice, which recommended not just figuring the exact tip but then rounding up to next nearest 5 dirhams. I quickly calculated that my cabbie’s tip should have been about four dirhams. Add that to the 28.5 dirhams for the fare would make 32.5 dirhams. Round up to the nearest five and I should have given him a total of 35 dirhams for the ride, not just the 30 dirhams I gave him.

So, mistake one was not coming prepared. Do your homework before you arrive about customs, expectations and etiquette for the country you are visiting.

Mistake number two was to venture out with poor information. I could have made more of an effort to seek the definitive answer I found later to my question.

Finally, mistake number three was not figuring a full 10-15% tip and then not rounding up. Basing my choice on weak information of “just a little” from a receptionist was the wrong decision.

Traveling abroad is fun and exciting. But it also carries responsibility to be prepared and to know customs and cultural norms before you arrive.

Yes, I make mistakes, and I did this time. And to that cabbie wherever he is, I apologize.

On Saturday, December 1, Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, shot and killed his girlfriend and then committed suicide.

On Sunday, December 2, the Kansas City Chiefs won their game against the Carolina Panthers in what Panthers coach Ron Rivera called “an inspired game.” After the game Brady Quinn, the Kansas City quarterback, spoke to the press about the game and this horrible tragedy. Specifically, he was asked to talk about the emotion he felt after the game.

Here’s how he answered that question:

“It was tough. I think it was an eerie feeling after a win because you don’t think that you can win in this situation. The one thing people can hopefully try to take away, I guess, is the relationships they have with people. I know when it happened, I was sitting and, in my head, thinking what I could have done differently. When you ask someone how they are doing, do you really mean it? When you answer someone back how you are doing, are you really telling the truth? We live in a society of social networks, with Twitter pages and Facebook, and that’s fine, but we have contact with our work associates, our family, our friends, and it seems like half the time we are more preoccupied with our phone and other things going on instead of the actual relationships that we have right in front of us. Hopefully people can learn from this and try to actually help if someone is battling something deeper on the inside than what they are revealing on a day-to-day basis.”

Quinn’s comments are a powerful reminder of the importance of focusing on the people in our lives. That’s not to say that social networking and using devices such as smartphones, tablets and computers to be connected don’t have a place in our lives. They do, and they help us stay connected. But they can’t, shouldn’t and don’t replace the in-person interactions that are so valuable to the relationships in our lives. That’s what Quinn reminded us about.

We should take the time to turn off and put down those devices and focus on the people in our lives sincerely. When he asks: “When you ask someone how they are doing, do you really mean it?” he challenges each of us to examine the sincerity with which we engage people. His horror and shock at what has happened with a teammate and friend has caused him to ask us all to reassess what is important in our own relationships.

Thank you, Brady Quinn.

The holiday season is fast approaching; and that means gift giving; and that, in turn, brings up the issue of thank-you notes. Each year I get asked, “Do I have to…?” and “To whom do I have to send one?”

The book on when a thank-you note should be sent is: Send one when you don’t have the opportunity to thank the giver in person. (The one exception is wedding gifts; a thank-you note should be sent for each wedding gift received whether or not it is opened in front of the giver.) One important reason for sending a note is to let the giver know you received it. In this day and age of on-line shopping and shipping of packages across the country, the gift may never have arrived. Yet without some acknowledgement, the giver is left in the quandary of wondering whether it arrived or if the recipient is just unappreciative.

There is also nothing wrong with following up the in-person “thank you” with a note. That’s where the difference between thinking of a thank you note as an obligation or as an opportunity comes in. As an obligation it’s something you have to do and therefore will be done only as absolutely necessary. But when thought of as an opportunity, the thank-you note becomes a way to build relationships through showing appreciation.

They’re not hard to do. Just three or four sentences written neatly on a note card and sent in the mail. Why mail them rather than email them? Because when the mailed note is received, it’s opened, read and then placed on a counter or desk or attached to a refrigerator with a magnet where the person sees it repeatedly and is reminded of you each time he or she sees it. But when emailed, it’s opened (if it’s not spam blocked), read, and then deleted. Ask yourself: “Would you rather be deleted or remembered?”

The mighty has fallen, yet again. This time it’s General David Petraeus. And email, again, is the tool that did him in.

I’ve written before about the bulletin board rule: Don’t put anything into an email that you wouldn’t put on a bulletin board for anyone to read. Inevitably and at the worst possible time, the most private of messages are the ones that become public.

Petraeus’ case illuminates two corollary rules to the bulletin board rule.

Corollary #1: Trying to hide your emails doesn’t work. Petraeus and his lover, Paula Broadwell, understood that their emails were potentially damaging so instead they tried to make it impossible for anyone to find them by not actually sending them. In its November 19 online edition The Telegraph explained what Petraeus and Broadwell did. In short they set up a Gmail account which they both could access. They wrote their salacious emails as drafts, and saved them to the draft folder. Then the partner could open the same email account, read the draft, and believe it was safe from discovery because the email had never been sent. They knew what they were writing was something they never wanted to be read by anyone else.

Corollary #2: You can’t control what other people might do. In a pique of jealousy, Broadwell took it upon herself to send some anonymous “cat-fight stuff” emails to Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite who was an unpaid social liaison at MacDill Air Force Base and a perceived rival for Petraeus. Kelley didn’t like those emails, so she contacted an FBI friend and asked him to look into who was sending them. It didn’t take the FBI long to identify Broadwell and find the Petraeus emails as well.

End result: Everybody gets outed, Petraeus resigns, and the USA loses a person who is eminently qualified for his position.

Email: It’s great for communicating the who, what, when, and where—just the public facts. But for anything truly private, find another way to send your message—using your secret decoder ring. Even the head of the CIA couldn’t keep his private emails private.

November 8 heralded a new era across America—the silencing of the political ad machine and the quieting of conversations which always seemed to turn to politics and the election for the last umpteen months.

With the media, it was a simple rising of the sun on November 8 with no election in sight that silenced the interminable ads. In our everyday lives I began to notice something else: pregnant pauses—periods of time when people actually had to think of something else to talk about. Suddenly, they were confronted with the challenge of small talk.

Small talk is an art. I’m constantly amazed by people who can engage in it seamlessly. They meet a stranger and somehow manage to strike up a conversation effortlessly, while others are frightened by engaging in even the most innocuous conversation. Yet, small talk itself isn’t that difficult to master.

It begins long before you meet a stranger. The first step is to become knowledgeable about a variety of topics. To do that you need to read the newspaper, not just for the big headline but also for the smaller stories buried on page 7 and beyond. Watch TV; not necessarily the news but some of the shows you hear about. Then, when you read that newspaper or magazine or watch those shows, think for a moment what could be a question you could ask someone. “Have you watched “Homeland”? I understand it’s even one of the few shows the President watches.” Or “Do like watching hockey? Do you think they’ll ever settle the strike and start playing?”

Just last night I attended a party with a band that played 60’s, 70’s and 80’s music. Instead of talking presidential politics we talked about 60 and 70 year-old rock stars still making it on the concert tour circuit. It was plain fun to see how quickly you could identify the song and the artist as the band began to play.

And every now and then the conversation would die down, and people would just look around the table and smile at each other. The silence was golden.

Our check arrived at the end of dinner, and there it was. That little line right under the sub-total: Service Charge.

The establishment has seen fit to include a tip on the bill for me. Now, I'm used to seeing that line when I'm in a group of more than six people. Almost every restaurant prints a disclosure on the menu indicating a gratuity will automatically be added on bills for large groups (usually defined as more than six people). Usually, that gratuity is 18%. What's not usual is when a gratuity is added to a bill no matter how many people are served.

That happened to me two nights ago when my wife and I went out to dinner. The bill was for $80+ dollars and then a service charge for $16+ dollars appeared right below the sub-total. "Okay," I thought to myself. "That's 20%. That takes care of the tip." But then I saw that gut-wrenching, confidence-sapping line below the total: Additional tip.

Additional tip? I've been writing and teaching about the etiquette of tipping for a long time. One of the questions I ask groups I'm speaking to is how much they tip on a restaurant bill. The answer is almost always the same: 20%. A smattering of people indicate 15%, but rarely, if ever, does anyone indicate more than 20%.

So what to do? If I put an extra $5 on the "Additional tip" line, I'm now tipping 26.25%. That seems excessive by any convention of tipping today. Yet, if I put nothing on the line, I wonder if that makes me appear to be a cheapskate. Ultimately, I decided that while the server had been pleasant, nothing out of the expected norm had occurred that would have prompted me to tip more, so I left the check at the printed amount with the 20% gratuity.

I was sitting with a friend the next day at lunch, and when the checks arrived, I pointed out the 20% tip, commented on the "Additional tip" line, and asked her what she does. She said it seemed awkward not to put anything on the line so she always added a "little something."

So, my question to you: If a check arrives with a 20% gratuity figured in, what do you do?

I had the pleasurable experience last week of speaking before the Junior League of Larchmont, New York. Close to 100 women were in the audience as I talked about etiquette in America today. The polite positive reception I enjoyed was turned upside down when I asked the group whether they ever experience any problems getting people to respond to invitations -- the R.S.V.P. issue.

It was like sending a jolt of electricity through the room. Hands went up. The background chatter suddenly became very noticeable. Women twisted and turned in their seats. Clearly, I had hit a hot-button issue.

"What is it with people who won't respond to an invitation?" one woman implored. "Why won't they make the effort?"

Lazy or forgetful? Yes, those are certainly reasons. The invitation is put down, and the invitee either doesn't bother to do anything about it, or it gets buried in the mail pile.

Not sure if they can make it? That's another reason, although I pointed out to the group that even if you're not sure, you should have the decency to call and let your host know you received the invitation and will get back by such-and-such a date with your answer. That takes the mystery out of the situation for the host.

Looking for a better invitation? Always a possibility, but clearly, that's not an appropriate way to think about invitations.

One woman in the audience is a caterer, and she pointed out how difficult it is to plan an event or a party when you don’t know how many are coming. A "guest-imate" means you may suddenly be stuck with a catering bill for more meals than are actually served. It certainly isn't reasonable for the caterer to take the hit for people who don't respond to your invitation.

After a heated discussion, the ladies were in accord with my advice: The only remedy is to pick up the phone and call the recalcitrant non-responders and ask if they received the invitation and are they going to attend.

I can't help but wonder why you'd want to send another invitation to a person who can't even take the time to R.S.V.P.

I remember the first day I got my new smartphone. I was in my car, and my phone beeped at me. I was in the vicinity of a wireless network in one of the houses fronting Route 7 in Burlington, Vermont, and my phone was asking me if I wanted to join "F*@# You" wireless network. Whoa! That surprised me.

After my momentary wonder at the necessity someone felt to swear at people who might see and/or try to log onto his network, I discarded the event and hadn't thought about it much until I read an article In BBC NEWS Magazine: The rise of passive-aggressive Wi-Fi network names.

It seems some people are now using their Wi-Fi network names to send a message to neighbors. Think of it as the anonymous Post-It Note stuck to someone's door complaining about the barking dog, the loud television, or the noisy sex. "We can hear you having sex" is apparently a popular Wi-Fi network name in Britain and Ireland. Others mentioned in the article include one person frustrated with people using his Wi-Fi network: "Covet not thy neighbour's wi-fi." (A simple password would probably work better.) Or the person whose print newspaper kept disappearing created the name: "Stop stealing my paper!"

The problem with an anonymous note is that, well, it's anonymous. By using your Wi-Fi network name to deliver a message, you are reducing the chances for any meaningful change. As satisfying as you may think it is to deliver the message, the reality is it's unlikely it will ever actually bring a resolution to the problem…if it even reaches the right eyes.

Bottom line: If you have an issue you want to address with a neighbor, ask to see her, talk to her calmly and non-confrontationally, explain your concern, ask her for her thoughts, and try to come to a reasonable resolution to the situation. If the problem actually is wi-fi mooching, the answer is simple: Put a password on it.

On the flip side, there isn't much you can do about someone else's rude Wi-Fi name. You could have the above-mentioned chat if you know who owns it, but chances are you don’t. If you have kids who might see it on a daily basis, talk to them about why these names are inappropriate.

Oh, and finally, maybe it's not your neighbors having loud sex; maybe it's their TV.

When we go out in public, we expect to be treated civilly and fairly by those with whom we interact. We enter into an unspoken contract: we form lines, we wait our turn, we give those in need a hand, we respect accommodations that give equal access. For example, when I'm waiting to place my order at the deli, I like to think the person taking orders will take mine before the person's who arrived after me. Likewise, I appreciate it if the person who arrives after me makes sure I get to place my order before theirs.

But when people butt in line, try to take advantage of the situation to get ahead more quickly, or try to game the situation to their advantage at the expense of others, that's unacceptable.

Consider the following:

I was waiting to board an airplane recently. The waiting area was packed with people in wheelchairs. In fact, I counted 15 wheelchairs. Fifteen people with their attendants waiting to roll down the jetway. The announcement came calling all those who needed assistance to board the plane first. When I boarded the plane all 15 were comfortably settled in their seats near the front with their bags stowed in the overhead bins. "Nice," I thought. "That's a considerate way to do things."

When the plane landed and pulled up to the jetway for deplaning, the flight attendant came on the intercom: "Welcome to New York City. If you need assistance, please remain seated until the other passengers have deplaned so we can better assist you."

As I walked down the aisle to exit, I couldn't help but notice that only one of the 15 people who had needed assistance boarding the plane was waiting for assistance to deplane. That meant the other 14 had more than enough mobility to walk off the plane, up the jetway, and into the terminal. They had been faking it, gaming the system so they could board before the rest of us. And they may well have faked it so they could cut the line at the security clearance as well.

People claim there are too many rules today, and perhaps that's true. But in many cases the rules are made in response to rude behavior to prevent people from taking advantage of each other. If the airlines figure out that people are abusing the wheelchair service to get on a plane first, airlines might end up requiring some proof of need before making a wheelchair available. There's a rule I wouldn't want to see, but it sure is galling to watch those people game the system to their advantage over the rest of the passengers.

Of course, these people are compounding their egregious behavior. By faking the need for a wheelchair, they are doing a disservice to the people who legitimately do need one.

It's the same old story. We've heard it over and over again. Person utters a reprehensible comment. Person tries to deny it: "They misquoted me" or "They took me out of context" or "It was inelegantly stated." And then the white-washing starts as supporters try to explain it away. And the American public doesn't buy it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, own your mistakes right away. Apologize. Sincerely. You'll limit the damage and move back to that all-important task of building relationships. This is true for you and me just as much as it is true in the most recent case for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

On October 5, USA Today reported that Romney had finally issued a mea culpa for his infamous declaration negatively characterizing the 47% of the American public who would never vote for him. Specifically, he said: "Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."

Congratulations Mitt. That acceptance of responsibility for what you said will go a long way toward putting the issue behind you. Too bad for you and all the surrogates who actually tried to put a positive spin on your comment that you didn't step up to the plate the day your speech to that donor group hit the news. You could have/would have saved yourself and them a lot of trouble.

Campaigning for president is difficult and done over a long period of time. Inevitably, poor choices of words or bumbling explanations or outright wrong comments will be made. When that happens, the candidate can do him or herself an immense favor. Acknowledge what was said, accept responsibility for it and apologize. The story will disappear from the headlines quickly, and damage will be limited. Deny it, try to explain it away, or blame others for it and the story will gain traction and hurt far more than it ever should have.

Don’t be late. I know I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If I only had one piece of etiquette advice I could give you, that would be it. Or, said more positively: Be on time.

A perfect example of the value of this advice occurred this weekend at the Ryder Cup matches. As the clock ticked closer and closer to Rory McIlroy’s 11:25AM tee-time, there was no McIloy to be found. With ten minutes remaining, McIlroy finally arrived courtesy of a state trooper who kindly gave him a quick ride from his hotel to Medinah Country Club in Medinah, IL. Good thing he got the siren-wailing, lights-flashing ride, because the roads were packed with spectators trying to get to the venue. A couple of energy bars, a few putts, and he arrived on the tee at 11:22 with a mere three minutes to spare.

Professional golfers have to be on time. If McIlroy had been no more than five minutes late, he would have lost the hole. More than five minutes and he would have been disqualified.

Would it have really mattered if he had missed his tee-time and been disqualified? It sure would have. Incredibly, after leading the tournament 10-6 after day two, the Americans lost this year’s competition by one point: 14½ to 13½. All things being equal, without that trooper’s intervention, the Americans could have been hoisting the cup instead of the Europeans.

In that case, being late would have been a real bummer for McIlroy, and he knows it. “It’s my own fault, but if I let down these 11 other boys and vice captains and captains this week I would never forgive myself,” McIlroy said.

I realize it’s not often that you’ll have a Ryder Cup tournament hanging in the balance on whether you’re late or not, but make it a habit to be on time every time and avoid the negative consequences of being late—appearing disorganized and disrespectful and having to say, “I’m sorry.” They may not always say so, but people will appreciate and respect you for being on time.

I asked the people around the lunch table at Emily Post today, “What’s your pet peeve?” Interestingly, it was one of our interns whose answer surprised me.

“The clothes people wear to class,” she said without hesitation.

I picked my jaw back up off the floor and asked, “What kind of clothes?”

“Baggy grey sweatshirts and sweatpants and pajamas” she replied.

Interesting. Now that I think about it, pajamas have moved out of the bedroom and into everyday life as basic clothing. The way the TSA scans you and has you remove layers of clothing, my wife often comments that it would be easier if she simply wore her flannel pajamas. Board a plane and inevitably you’ll see someone dressed in what can only be termed pajamas. Seems more people act like my wife thinks than I ever would have guessed.

“Well,” I queried the intern, “what kind of clothes would be acceptable?”

“You should look presentable, like you would for work.” She was clearly thinking of a business casual workplace like The Emily Post Institute, not a business formal place. As the conversation progressed, the gold standard became clear: Your clothes should reflect positively on you.

And that’s not a bad way to think about your clothes and your image every time you step out. Like it or not, your clothes clearly impact the image people have of you.

I’ll never forget the Saturday I wore a wrinkled linen shirt. I couldn’t be bothered ironing, and it was Saturday after all. As I was out and about, I ran into a fellow who is on the board of a company I did business with. He didn’t waste a second before he wondered how I could be dressed in such a wrinkled shirt. Regardless of my opinion of that shirt or of him for saying something about it, his image of me as an etiquette expert took a small hit.

You may not really care what you look like when you’re boarding an airplane on a personal trip, so maybe the pajama-type outfit works even if you are in public. But, when the opinion of the people around you matters to you, then the image you convey by the clothes you choose will make a difference.

That was the point the intern was making about what people wear to class. How you see yourself certainly matters. But the perception of the professor or teacher matters, the perception of a fellow classmate matters. And, perhaps most important of all, those opinions could matter not just today but maybe even in your future, too.

I deposited a check today from the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD). That action closed a chapter for me that, at its heart, threatened to ruin my gardening for the summer.

My vegetable garden is one of the highlights of summer and fall–from first planting to tending the young plants and weeding, tying up the tomatoes, harvesting the first lettuce, picking beans, thinning beets and carrots, and picking tiny two-inch pickling cucumbers to turn into cornichons.

Only this year I was in for a rude surprise. I planted beans, thin small delicious haricot verts. But, not much happened. A few plants came up and then withered away but most never broke ground. So, I replanted and tried again. Tried a third time. I also noticed the peas doing the same thing. And the cucumbers I use to make those fabulous cornichons grew to about one inch and then stopped.

On June 27 the cause of these anomalies was reported on WCAX news–compost from CSWD was contaminated with pesticides. On July 7, The Burlington Free Press reported that tests confirmed herbicides had been found in the compost samples from the CSWD and warned that certain vegetables would likely be affected including beans, peas, and tomatoes: They wouldn’t grow at all, or they might germinate but not produce vegetables, or the yield could be severely diminished.

Quickly, the CSWD had information on their website and asked people who might be affected to contact them, preferably with photos showing the symptoms. By August they were doing site visits to the affected gardens. The young woman who showed up at my place could not have been nicer. She took pictures and made notes on her iPad. It turned out that only two of my four raised beds had been affected—the ones with the peas, beans and cukes—and fortunately my tomatoes weren’t in either of those beds. But they were showing signs of late blight, and she took photos and notes of that as well.

Next I heard from the CSWD asking when specifically I bought the affected compost. Miracle of miracles I found the receipt, scanned it and sent it in. Soon after, I received a letter with a description of my situation and their offer to reimburse me for the cost of the compost plus an additional $100 for seeds and lost produce.

Now, $130 doesn’t cover my cost, certainly not when you factor in my time. But that mattered not a whit. Right from the start CSWD took responsibility, kept me informed, followed through on each promise made, took responsibility for the problem, and showed genuine concern. Their customer service was exemplary.

Sure, they had a problem – a huge one. But they also showed compassion for the difficulties they caused, and they were honorable in their dealing with me. That is great customer service. Thank you, CSWD.

My wife and I pulled into a parking space yesterday and noticed that something was not quite right. The vehicle in front of us wasn't lined up with us. So I pulled back a little to see if perhaps I had not parked within the lines of my space. It turns out I wasn't the culprit; the truck in front of me was. He had managed to park with the left line of his space pretty near the middle of his truck. As I looked a little closer, I realized that half the truck was encroaching on a handicapped space.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a once in a blue moon type of thing. I see cars taking two spaces in a crowded parking lot on a regular basis. And I find myself wondering, “Why does that person think he/she deserve two spaces. Why can’t he/she park within the lines of one space like everyone else?” Worse yet, it seems I see more of these cars when the lot is crowded and finding a space is difficult.

Excuses abound. For instance, “The guy next to me was over the line so I am, too.” At least that’s what I suspect the truck driver would say, and if you look closely he would be right. Still, two wrongs don’t make a right. And that doesn’t absolve him of the fact that by parking the way he did, he still blocked a handicapped space from being used. Anyway, I often see a parked car taking up two spaces, and the cars on either side are appropriately within their spaces. So much for that excuse.

Are spaces too narrow in parking garages as owners try to eek out every last dollar? Probably. The parking garage in downtown Burlington, Vermont where I shop clearly has spaces that are narrow, but many people in cars of many sizes manage to park within the lines. And the car that is taking two spaces is just as often a smaller car. So much for that excuse.

The solution? There really is none. Some issues we encounter as we deal with each other are simply better ignored. So I drive on to find a space elsewhere, I hope. And wish that we all would be a little more aware of how our actions affect other people, even strangers.

A friend of mine had an accident recently while riding her bike. End result was broken bones, which necessitated casts on both of her hands. Fortunately, her thumb and forefinger on her right hand and her thumb forefinger and middle finger on her left hand are free so she can grip things, sort of.

I explain all this because she described how she has had some interesting and unique experiences greeting people as a result of her hands being in the casts. In spite of her situation, she finds that people still try to shake hands with her. They extend their hand to greet her, and she awkwardly raises her hand to show the cast. Instead of backing off people have reached out and taken hold of her forefinger or awkwardly but gently grasped her whole hand, cast and all.

Other people have chosen not to shake at all, out of concern for her condition: “I’d shake your hand, but…” Funny enough, it is those people’s choice that has been most difficult for her. When the handshake doesn’t happen, even awkwardly, the ensuing interaction with the person, be it personal or business in nature, gets off on the wrong foot. She’s found that the physical connection—the touching of skin to skin and the grasping of hand with hand— we have with another as we shake hands is very important in establishing a connection with that person. When that connection happens the start of the interaction seems complete. When that connection doesn’t happen, she feels the resulting meeting or get-together is missing something, that it leaves a hole. So even with her casts, she prefers to attempt a handshake than not to have that connection at all.

I often get asked about whether it is necessary to shake hands when greeting people. Yes, it’s important not to leave someone standing there with his hand outstretched in empty space. But perhaps in the final analysis, it is my friend’s realization of how important that physical connection is in greeting someone that is the real reason the handshake is still an integral and important part of any greeting today.

When you are eating with other people, how you eat your food affects the way the people think about you.

I learned this lesson when I talked to a group of women about things men do that are really gross, especially at the dinner table. I asked them specifically, ”What could a man do that would guarantee he wouldn’t get second date?” They were unanimous: “Chew his food with his mouth open.” Ugh. Disgusting. Right up there with chewing with an open mouth was talking with a mouth full of food. Not only are both these behaviors gross, worse yet they’re memorable—and not in a good way.

That’s one of the interesting things about etiquette. Some manners are simply things we do or don’t do, but they aren’t deal breakers. Eating with the wrong fork is a perfect example. Honestly, it really doesn’t matter which fork you use. No one is really going to notice if you use a salad fork instead of a dinner fork. And if they do, they wouldn’t (shouldn't) make a fuss about it.

However, a major faux pas like chewing with your mouth open really is a deal breaker. Do that on a date with any of the ladies in my focus group and you won’t get a second date. Now imagine you are at a lunch that is part of a job interview. (No, they’re not taking you to lunch just to be nice.) The interviewer will be assessing your dining skills, and how you will represent the company when you are with clients, prospects or suppliers. Yes, you might get dinged a few points for using the wrong fork; but chew with your mouth open and the interview’s over. Guaranteed, you won’t get the job.

Here are seven deal breakers to watch out for when eating with others:

1. Chewing with you mouth open.
2. Talking with your mouth full of food.
3. Shoveling your food into your mouth as though you are in a race.
4. Sneezing without turning away and covering up.
5. Ignoring others at the table or not taking part in the conversation.
6. Dominating the conversation.
7. Not thanking your host at the end of the meal.

Recently, I was interviewed on a radio show about the importance of words purportedly taught us by our mothers: “please,” “thank you” and “you’re welcome.” Please and thank you are no-brainers. We know we should say them, although there are times we don’t, and that’s when we come across as demanding, self-centered, or downright rude. “You’re welcome” on the other hand isn’t a regular part of discourse today.

When we say please, we are asking someone to do something; but if we fail to say please, then we’re demanding it: “Please, Bob, would you get me the newspaper?” as opposed to, “Bob, get me the newspaper.” Just reading those words conveys two very different attitudes—one pleasant and considerate, the other strident.

When we fail to say thank you, we demonstrate that we simply expected the other person to do what was asked. Saying nothing, or grunting an acknowledgment, tells Bob that his effort isn’t worthy of your attention. Conversely, saying thank you shows appreciation for what another person has done for us. “Bob, thank you for getting the paper for me,” is the best way to acknowledge Bob’s effort on your behalf. There’s a world of difference between appreciating a person’s effort on your behalf and simply expecting them to do something without making the acknowledgment effort.

The place most of us fall down is in the use of “You’re welcome.” Most times when someone says “Thank you,” we automatically say “Thank you” in reply, or, even worse, “Oh, no, thank you.” Both these responses trump a person’s thank you. An alternative you hear a lot is, “No problem” or “It was nothing.” At least in these cases the response isn’t an attempt to one-up the thank you, but it doesn’t acknowledge it, either.

The best response of all is a simple, sincere, “You’re welcome.” It expresses that we heard what was said, and we appreciate it. Once said, then feel free to follow with your own thank you.

Of course, all this is easier said than done, especially getting into the habit of saying, “You’re welcome.” At the end of that radio show, the host thanked me for being on, and before I could stop myself, I replied, “Thank you.” I should have listened to my own advice and said, “You’re welcome; and thank you for having me on.” Next time.

In July I posted a survey asking people their opinion about cell/smart phone use in public restrooms. As expected, when asked, “Should people refrain from using cell/smart phones in public restrooms,” a whopping 85.5% of you frowned on the practice. Commenters to the column were quite frustrated by the disregard shown them by the person on the phone at a private, personal moment.

What was interesting was the split opinion about the next question: “If you are uncomfortable with a person near you using a cell/smart phone in a public restroom, is it okay to ask them to put it away?” 56.5% of you said “No” while 43.5% said, “Yes.”

So, while people expressed near unanimity about their dislike of cell/smart phone usage in a public restroom, when it comes to pointing out the behavior, there's more of a split decision. Even so, a majority did think that asking the perpetrator to stop is not the right approach.

As we interact with people every day, we must decide what kind of issue becomes important enough to point out another person’s questionable behavior and ask them to change it. Generally speaking, I am in agreement with the majority on this question. While I abhor the practice, I probably am not going to say something directly to a person talking on a phone in a public restroom.

And what about those ambient noises? Some commenters felt that trying to quiet restroom noises wasn’t necessary. Certainly, I think you should still flush, and you should still wash your hands. If those noises are heard by the person on the other end of the call, that is not your problem. On the other hand, I would not recommend going out of your way to be excessively noisy, but going about your business in your usual fashion is perfectly reasonable.

Thank you for answering the poll.

I’m sitting on my porch in Vermont on an absolutely beautiful summer’s eve. Everything seemed perfect until my friend says, “By the way I have an etiquette question for you.”

My antenna went up as the tranquility of the perfect evening was threatened.

“I have this friend, the sweetest friend,” she went on, “but he keeps sending me emails—you know, scenic pictures, stories, jokes. I keep deleting them, but I feel guilty. What do I do? How can I stop him from sending them to me?”

Clearly, she was between a rock and a hard place: continue to deal with the numerous unsolicited emails or risk saying something to her friend that would make him feel unappreciated and hurt the friendship.

Realistically, she has two choices, say something and stop the emails, or put up with the emails, delete them, and learn to accept her guilt. Taking the first path, she could say something like, “Tom, I really enjoy you but would you mind taking me off your distribution list? I’d really appreciate it.” There’s no telling for sure how Tom will feel about the request. He may not be bothered at all or he may be peeved that his friend doesn’t like what he is sharing. Unfortunately, my friend simply has no way of knowing what he will feel. So, I told her she needs to assess how important it is to her that the emails stop, because no matter how gentle she might be in communicating with him, the result might be a hurt relationship.

In the final analysis we settled on choice number two: keep deleting the emails. He’s a friend, and it’s really not that painful to look at and delete these emails and who knows, maybe every once in a while there will be one that brings a smile to her face. That’s a much better result than potentially damaging a dear friendship.

While in this situation saying nothing is the right choice for my friend, that may not always be the case. For instance, the emails may be offensive or push a belief you don’t share or the person really isn’t a friend, and you’d prefer not to be receiving those emails. In that case asking the person to take you off their distribution list may be the right thing to do. Just be gentle in your request. You don’t have to explain that you find the emails offensive or that you disagree with the person; just ask.

We’ve passed the 100-day mark—less than 100 days until the presidential election that is. I’m of mixed mind about this news. On the one hand we’re getting closer to the election, but on the other hand, before we get through these next 100 days, the rhetoric and the advertising are sure to skyrocket. Along with that increase in noise and hype is the tendency to ask others about their opinion and to engage in political conversation.

I often advise people to avoid certain topics when at social gatherings or during downtime at business, specifically sex, religion and, yes, politics. But somehow during this 100-day season, I suspect completely avoiding politics when questions get asked or comments get made is not a very realistic piece of advice.

I was reminded of all this on the golf course just the other day. Inadvertently, one of the members of my foursome made a political comment. Quickly a few other opinions went back and forth, and then one member said, “Maybe we better not talk about this here.” Just like that all four of us realized that the topic was better shut down. Not another word was spoken about it. Back to golf and another beautiful afternoon in summertime Vermont.

The way the situation was handled was a perfect example of how to deal with a political discussion that may be better not engaged in. The phrase the golfer used did not point a finger at anyone or presume that one point of view had precedence over another. That’s how to disengage when you are uncomfortable with the direction of any conversation. Speak up without being judgmental, and suggest to change the subject If in the unlikely event that the others don’t agree and you’re still uncomfortable, then you may need to remove yourself from the group.

Conversely, join in when you are comfortable. But also show consideration for everyone involved. If someone is uncomfortable or the discussion is getting personal, then be willing to assist in moving the conversation off topic. Their friendship is more important and more long lasting than the 100 days that surely will pass.

Ernie Els won the British Open golf championship and, true to form, the hearts of the golfing world as well. He demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt what it means to be a great champion and a graceful winner.

Adam Scott was suffering through a monumental collapse after having enjoyed a commanding lead in the fourth round. Starting on the fifteenth hole, Adam proceeded to bogey the last four holes. When he just missed his eight-foot putt for par on the eighteenth hole, he fell one stroke behind, and the Claret Jug and the British Open championship were Ernie’s.

Meanwhile, Ernie was on the practice putting green preparing himself for a possible four-hole sudden death play-off with Adam Scott. When he heard the news of his victory, he didn't jump for joy or pump his fist in the air. No whooping or hollering. Instead he hugged his caddie. Gently. No big grin or laughter. Just relief and disbelief.

That disbelief was more for what had happened to Adam in those last four holes than it was for the realization he had won. In his on-air interview, and again at the award ceremony on the eighteenth hole, Ernie focused on Adam and how Adam would feel and deal with the disappointment that is sure to accompany such a complete collapse. The first words out of Ernie’s mouth weren't how excited he was to have won. Instead, the first words out of his mouth were: "I feel for him. I'm numb. Later on it will set in that I won this tournament. But right now I really feel for my buddy. He's such a great guy. He's so close to being such a great superstar. I know that's not the way he wanted to lose a tournament. I feel very fortunate. But I feel very bad for Adam today."

Later, Ernie would celebrate and let the joy of the victory engulf him, but in that first moment, he demonstrated a beautiful compassion, understanding, consideration and respect for his good friend. And in that moment he demonstrated what a true champion he is.

I remember the first time I heard my mother swear. That expletive came out of her mouth, and it was like a bomb exploded in my head. As a teenager, I knew better than to comment. The funny thing is, I have absolutely no idea what caused the cursing. But I remember the moment like it was yesterday.

That’s the problem with swearing. My daughter, Lizzie, a spokesperson for the Emily Post Institute, recently did an interview about swearing, an issue raising eyebrows yet again in public life. She correctly pointed out: “The words we’re focusing on are probably not the ones they want us to.”

Take the case of former vice president Dick Cheney who famously tossed the f-word at Vermont senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate. I doubt if anyone remembers why Cheney felt the need to curse, but whenever there’s a story about swearing in public that story is often cited.

Recently New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg started reading a speech from notes at a hot-dog eating contest, when he asked the rhetorical question, “Who wrote this s***?” Interestingly, the crowd seemed understanding and accepting of his swearing rather than insulted by it.

On network television we hear words that would not have made it by censors a few year ago; surf the cable and paid channels and anything goes. Yes, we seem to be more accepting of cursing in our language. But that doesn’t change the fact that swearing is still jarring. But, if you want people to remember what you actually have to say, less profanity and more content will help make your case.