> To sum up, I'm distinguishing between rules that
>seem geared towards a level of formality rather
>than lateral constraints within levels of
>formality.

Uh. Hey, one time I ate a bug!

(In other words, WTF is a "lateral constraint within levels of formality" ??? I'm pretty sure you're just making stuff up now...)

> And I'm also distinguishing between rules that
>apply to
>a place and occasion (dinnertime at an upscale
>hotel, classes at school) and rules that apply to
>everybody, all the time, regardless of
>circumstance or company.

See, I agree with some of what you're trying to say, but I can't even see how you relate it to other things. I wouldn't show up at a wedding wearing shorts unless the invitation clearly said I could or should. Weddings, while they don't usually have a formal one, have an understood dress code. I would wear a tie to dinner at a resort that required that (if I had any mind to stay at such a silly place to begin with). But if there's no dress code at a school, what's wrong with torn jeans? Perhaps in some more "dignified" day there was an "understood" dress code for school, but those days are long gone. Unless a school has a formal dress code, I can't see what the issue with baggy pants and ripped jeans could possibly be. If *you* have an issue with it, it's subjective.

As for "no white after Labor Day" it's a silly rule, I agree. But I find no difference between declaring "no white after Labor Day" and "no baggy pants with underoos showing at school" given that the school in question has no dress code. Both are proclamations about what people should do at all times at a given place or time. How are they different?

-- Dave