Remember the human
The golden rule your parents and your kindergarten teacher taught you was pretty simple: Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you. Imagine how you'd feel if you were in the other person's shoes. Stand up for yourself, but try not to hurt people's feelings.

In cyberspace, we state this in an even more basic manner: Remember the human.

When you communicate electronically, all you see is a computer screen. You don't have the opportunity to use facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice to communicate your meaning; words -- lonely written words -- are all you've got. And that goes for your correspondent as well.

When you're holding a conversation online -- whether it's an email exchange or a response to a discussion group posting -- it's easy to misinterpret your correspondent's meaning. And it's frighteningly easy to forget that your correspondent is a person with feelings more or less like your own.

It's ironic, really. Computer networks bring people together who'd otherwise never meet. But the impersonality of the medium changes that meeting to something less -- well, less personal. Humans exchanging email often behave the way some people behind the wheel of a car do: They curse at other drivers, make obscene gestures, and generally behave like savages. Most of them would never act that way at work or at home. But the interposition of the machine seems to make it acceptable.

The message of Netiquette is that it's not acceptable. Yes, use your network connections to express yourself freely, explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where you've never gone before. But remember the Prime Directive of Netiquette: Those are real people out there.

Would you say it to the person's face?

Writer and Macintosh evangelist Guy Kawasaki tells a story about getting email from some fellow he's never met. Online, this fellow tells Guy that he's a bad writer with nothing interesting to say.

Unbelievably rude? Yes, but unfortunately, it happens all the time in cyberspace.

Maybe it's the awesome power of being able to send mail directly to a well-known writer like Guy. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see his face crumple in misery as he reads your cruel words. Whatever the reason, it's incredibly common.

Guy proposes a useful test for anything you're about to post or mail: Ask yourself, "Would I say this to the person's face?" If the answer is no, rewrite and reread. Repeat the process till you feel sure that you'd feel as comfortable saying these words to the live person as you do sending them through cyberspace.

Of course, it's possible that you'd feel great about saying something extremely rude to the person's face. In that case, Netiquette can't help you. Go get a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.

Another reason not to be offensive online

When you communicate through cyberspace -- via email or on discussion groups -- your words are written. And chances are they're stored somewhere where you have no control over them. In other words, there's a good chance they can come back to haunt you.

Never forget the story of famous email user Oliver North. Ollie, you'll remember, was a great devotee of the White House email system, PROFS. He diligently deleted all incriminating notes he sent or received. What he didn't realize was that, somewhere else in the White House, computer room staff were equally diligently backing up the mainframe where his messages were stored. When he went on trial, all those handy backup tapes were readily available as evidence against him.

You don't have to be engaged in criminal activity to want to be careful. Any message you send could be saved or forwarded by its recipient. You have no control over where it goes.


-

Several years ago I was flying home from the Super Bowl and had to fly with alot of sad Giant fans...I was wearing lots of purple! My husband was tucked by the window and I was in the middle seat watching as a HUGE man wearing Giants gear made his way to the aisle seat . My husband groaned, not sure why since he was at the window. The man seemed quite shy and very self conscious. He said he always traveled with his wife and he would try to move if there was room. I said not to worry (I was in a purple haze). we chatted about his family ..a 4 year old (whom I hoped would have a Dad at his high school graduation). When the attendant came around with drinks he said he wanted to buy us a round because we (really me) had been so kind to him. He did his best to give me some room. I will always remember that flight because I hope he has been able to lose weight and be there for his boy (and wife)

((f)) to you, baylady!

Faina: Good one! "horizontally challenged"! :) Doubly good since English is your third or fourth language!!

Now, this suggestion of making some tri-seats into two-seaters to accommodate the larger folk among us, this suggestion deserves some serious thought.

Where should these two seaters be placed? If they are placed at the rear of the plane, the plane tail will drag. If these two seaters are placed up front, the plane nose will dive. If these two seaters are placed over the wings, the wings will buckle and we wouldn't be able to take off. :)

jetset 1,

Funny...traveling through the Southern US. If anyone on this post has been to Disney World, that would be enough evidence. 20 years ago, when I was a teenager, we moved to Atlanta from the SF Bay Area. We visited DWorld for the first time, and my father was so amazed at the abundance of...well...FAT people, that he actually started taking photos of them. Why does this country's weight tilt southwards...The Men's Fitness mag report in January 2004 listed the US's "fattest" cities: 8 southern cities in the worst fifteen, 1 coastal city (Philly) on it.

Wow, lots of issues on this thread!

Anyone seen "Super Size Me" yet? One of the interviewed health professionals argues that the US was doomed as soon as the stigma against obesity got thrown out the door . . .

How can we get our nation to respect our bodies as the temples they truly are??? There's a lot of money to be made (and saved, looking at the costs of this health epidemic) if only we could crack the problem of how to translate nutrition+fitness knowledge into action.

Yes, I am one of those 125lb. women with a BMI of 19. Yes, I get pissed off when my regulation size carry-on gets weighed (just moved house, so schlepped my cast iron pots/skillets in my backpack). Why should I get dinged, when my weight allowance still comes in under an OL person?

BTW I have witnessed United flight crews behaving with immense tact and efficiency rejigging pax on transatlantic flights. Every LHR and AMS flight I've been on has been full or nearly, & they rock when it comes to shuffling couples who were separated, pp prefering aisle seats, etc.

Rant over!

Thanks, Mimi, for the words of wisdom. I'm appalled by many of the comments here--whatever happened to compassion?

Compassion is very important.. but in these days of cutbacks and all the necessary drama before being allowed on the darn plane, it is understandable why some people would resent having to share their miniscule persoanl space with someone whose dimensions exceeded the seat limits.
As I noted previously, I have overweight relatives(some don't care to fly), and my mom was pleasantly plump, but we can either blame the airlines, or try to prevent "seat rage" when faced with the frustration. I hope for the best, use upgrades, free or paid, and try to be as polite as possible. Who knows, maybe the airlines will start to accomodate the majority of "normal" as we have come to see in the US.
I do feel for those who struggle with their size, and must endure the stares or contempt when they are trying to live like anyone else.
I have heard proposals about a possible junk food tax- is that discrimination? I don't know, but the whole situation sure stirs up a hornets' nest worth of opinion.

Great response Elle!

Compassion should not be reserved only for the sunny, happy, rich days when everything is going well for us. Everyone (especially me) should work harder to cut everyone around us a little slack. Here is the alternative - Fat people, families, perfume wearers, allergics, snorers, people who chew with their mouths open, flirts, talkers, winkers, fidgeters, big shoulders, leg spreaders, sinners, and those without sin get their own airlines. People fitting in more than one category will pay extra. No complaining allowed. I will be on the without sin plane since that should have the most room.

I have just been informed by those who know me best that I don't qualify for the without sin plane. I guess I am destined to travel steerage.

shaz60- I am quite certain the without sin plane would be empty!

O:)

You are probably right Atilla and I hadn't considered that it is also very likely to be one-way.

Is anyone actually so foolish as to believe that the very real problem of seating comfort on planes is going to be solved by railing at people to lose weight? I think, along with sweetdreams and Underhill and some others who have spoken out in the later part of this thread, that there is an undertone of something much different and a whole lot less attractive than problemsolving in many of the posts above.

And who is so otherworldly as to think that the airlines are going to resolve the problem by telling people who spend a substantial minority of air travel dollars that they aren't as welcome as others? That they ought to pay more than other people because the majority thinks it is right they should pay extra for "not controlling their behavior" in past years? How many airlines will decide that this will help them sell tickets?

About as many as think that all the people above who say "it's only fair that people pay for the amount of space they take up" would be willing to reserve on the first airline to charge separately for baggage, by the cubic inch. Yes, some of those people would, if it meant the base fare per person was sufficiently lower; many would not; some of those would be outraged by the very idea, oblivious to how they're contradicting themselves. You could make a case that it would be a fair policy, but it would be cumbersome and unpopular. Most airlines will choose to continue to sell tickets by the person rather than by the space taken up on the plane.

Would you fly an airline on which you knew you risked finding out, at flight time, that you would have to pay way more than you expected? That would influence the airline choice of many more people than would actually be made to pay more because of their size--anyone who felt that some airline employee might even think them borderline-as well as that of many others planning to travel with them. If another airline did not have such policies, it would get those reservations.

It may happen that Southwest, at this time, is in the position of having customers to burn, but it is probably the only airline which does. I predict that even for Southwest, eventually, the policies they now follow will prove a competitive impossibility.

Business enterprises which survive and prosper serving a mass market do so not by just trying to cater to majority tastes and judgements, but by figuring out how to serve a wide variety of different people and different needs simultaneously.

Remember how not long ago, nothing was bilingual? Remember that then and still now, the overwhelming majority view is that everyone in this society should learn and use English, and the English-speaking majority should be in no way inconvenienced for those who do not choose to do so? Then remember how many times businesses have made you "press 1 for English" recently? The majority does not always have it as it thinks it should be, when the minority has money to spend.

It's the market, not diet, exercise or the ACLU, which will eventually ease the seating problem. Some smarter airline will realize that it needs to have a small section of larger seats in coach, because everyone will be more comfortable, and more likely to reserve on the airline next time, if the people who need such seats get to have them.

These seats will not cost more, and their presence will not be advertized, probably. People will not be able to reserve them on their own initiative. They will just be there for flight crews to be able to assign some people to in the course of switching people around so everyone's comfortable. Flight crews can identify some people they choose for these seats for profiling so that they are automatically assigned such seats when they reserve on the airline again.

Some people, especially those selected for the seats, will figure out what is going on and most of them will be happy that an awkward situation has been resolved. Yet these people will be large enough that these seats won't be luxuriously wide for them, so they won't be envied by other passengers for getting them.

This airline will get a reputation for more comfortable seating arrangements amongst both groups, which will outweigh the loss of the sale, when the plane is full, of the very small number of seats eliminated by making a few others larger. Competitive pressures will cause other airlines to follow suit.

My dystopic view of the above post is that plane seats will continue to get narrower and the population of people who spill over them will get wider. Southwest will hire Dr. Greg Cynamon as their spokesperson.

in resonse to shaz60 - the market has already rejected attempts to make airline space bigger. remember american's "most legroom in coach" thing in late 90's? well, that went by wayside as people just want the cheapest fares.

If you cannot fit into the seat, you should buy another one...regardless of why you are fat. Not fair...well what about the other person sitting next to you that now only has 1/2 the room . Tos say that a normal sized person usus up 2/3 of the seat and should get a refund is a joke, I'm sure. The seats are standatd sized, but maybe a bit tight in legroom. If you cannot fit into it, you should buy another seat.

I do not like flying coach...my husband and I are both tall...so not to ruin our trip we fly first. We fit into coach seats but cannot move our legs. I have found it is just easier to upgrade than to complain. So if you are fat...and you know who you are, be a little considerate and buy that second seat. At least you will build up miles faster.

Vacationdreamer, you are incorrect that the "market has rejected" more seat space as a marketing tool. While American did add seats back and decrease space on some of its planes, a move that got a lot of publicity, they continue their more spece policy, and continue to promote it, on many other of their planes:

http://www.americanairlines.com/cont...horEvent=false

And meanwhile, a travel writer notes JetBlue is having great success while promoting itself as the airline that took seats out of their planes to give people more space:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/elliott/160.asp

Now JetBlue is not yet doing quite what I predicted above is going to happen, that is offering a few wider seats in the same class of service as narrower ones, but they're already established the precedent of seats with different amounts of space at the same fare and in the same class of service as a marketing tool, in case anyone thinks airlines wouldn't do that. In their case, the seats nearer the front have less room, for those who want to get on and off faster as a priority. The seats farther back, less convenient in that respect, offer more space, for those for whom that's a priority. Smart marketing, differentiated services for different people's needs.

http://www.jetblue.com/

It's nice for Annabel above that she finds it "easier" to pay for first class space than to "complain," but in the world most people inhabit, it is not so "easy" for them to pay double or more to travel in order to be "considerate." Everyone who is talking about "fairness" on this issue (on both sides!) is barking up a tree that will not be relevant in the end. Economics will determine what happens. The system will adjust to serve people who need larger seats as well as those who have other priorities, and the airline who will get the money of people whose priority needs to be a larger seat will not be the airline which requires them to pay double (two seats) or more (almost all first class.)

I certainly hope Annabel is not in marketing or customer service in any company I own stock in. She is saying in effect: If you don't find the product and price offered satisfactory, just conform to what businesses want to give you and pay what they ask for it, don't look for or demand what meets your needs. That's not how competition is supposed to work for consumers, or how businesses achieve success.

Yesterday the Southwest Airlines head resigned, after it was announced that earnings had plummeted. Interesting in light of Southwest's decision to inspect passengers for size--perhaps that wasn't such a wise idea after all.

TGIF...I am now relaxing on my overly large patio, sipping an overly large mai tai and admiring my lush garden full of overly large flowers.
Oh yeah, I am from the overly large state of Alaska! Happy weekend everyone. Cheers!

How many of you who are so concerned about your personal space would be so adamant about keeping the armrest down if it was a physically challenged individual seated next to you?

Somehow you (and you know who you are) can justify being rude to someone who is overweight, yet I am thoroughly convinced you would be the first one to blow your own horn and let others know what a valiant effort you made to accommodate the disabled person seated next to you. Big hero. It is not the fact that your space is being infringed upon that bothers many of you, it is the fact that these people are fat, and that, IMO, is discriminatory.