To: WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:51:20 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] We have a small restaurant
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

As the story goes, a group of Canadian backpackers were travelling in
Japan, and stopped at a small restaurant for lunch.  After they had
finished eating, they began consulting a map and guidebook, to plan the
afternoon's activities.  Soon, the restaurant's proprietor approached
their table, and smiling said "We have a small restaurant".  The
Canadians looked around, smiled, nodded in agreement, and resumed their
planning session.  A while later, the proprietor returned, and said "We
have a very small restaurant".  The Canadians were a bit puzzled, and
looked around again, doubtful that the restaurant had somehow gotten even
smaller, and then realized that the proprietor, in an oblique,
non-confrontational Japanese way, was suggesting that they leave the
restaurant to make room for more diners.  Once this was understood, the
Canadians thanked the Japanese man and left the restaurant.

The point of the story may have been to illustrate the cultural
difference between Westerners who tend to be forthright and plain-spoken,
and Japanese who will resort to circumlocution to avoid saying something
which may sound negative or confrontational, if put plainly.  It may also
illustrate how a misunderstanding may arise from innocent conversation.

Keith has apparently been accused of not leaving one or more social
events when asked, and/or arguing about it with the host.  I know Keith
well enough to believe him when he says he would not try to stay beyond
the ending time of a party, so I wonder if perhaps the starting point of
the controversy was just different people having different
interpretations of the same events, compounded by possibly hazy
recollection and mixing together more than one incident.  For example, a
host may have said that "the party seems to be really winding down now"
intending give a hint that it now time for the remaining attendees to
conclude their conversations and leave.  Keith may have heard the
statement, taken it at face value, and remarked to the effect that no, it
seems people are still going strong and enjoying the party.  Or perhaps
Keith just looked quizzical and said something skeptical.  The host might
remember such an exchange as Keith being asked to leave and arguing about
it, whereas Keith, if he remembers the exchange at all, does not remember
it as argumentative of a request that him and others should begin to
leave.

It is a small step from having a simple disagreement over the facts of an
event, to a belief that the other party may be intentionally
misrepresenting the facts - lying.  Once people accuse each other of
lying, positions harden and it becomes difficult or impossible to
reconcile.

Ron Kean

.