Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:27:41 -0400
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: We have a small restaurant
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

ronkean at juno.com wrote:

>  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.

Hear, hear!  I've tried to tell Keith much the same, but not as well as
you have.  Misunderstandings, not malice.

--Ted White