DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a brunch with a bunch of ladies, I ordered buttered toast, and was served two pieces of toast with the butter on the side. I proceeded to butter both pieces while they were still warm, and return them to the plate. I then broke off small pieces, applied jam, and ate them.

One of the women, who has appointed herself resident guru of manners, told me that what I did was incorrect. We won't go into the rudeness of her correcting people publicly, but what is the accepted procedure? Before people became fat conscious, the toast would have been served buttered, so the question would never have come up. Was I wrong?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners cannot skip over the information that this Guru of Manners had her nose in your butter plate. No doubt that enabled the lady to get her nose buttered all at once, but that is wrong.

Amateurs fail to understand that knowing the rules is not sufficient. As in the legal profession, a judge must also know how to weigh the circumstances and consequences of applying the rules.

A polite person may sometimes be forced to choose between conflicting etiquette rules, in which case the correct one is the one that least inconveniences others. It is true that bread should be buttered in bite-sized pieces, but if you wanted your bread buttered while it was warm, you were right to do it yourself rather than to call over the waiter as you finished each bite and send the next bit of bread back to the kitchen to be reheated.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have quite a 21st-century etiquette question. Like most e-mail users, I periodically receive SPAM -- those annoying, widely distributed pieces of junk email that usually include some sort of plea to "forward the e-mail to everyone you know."

I find these impersonal and rude and usually I simply delete them. Lately, though, I've been wondering if I should do something more. I have learned about various web sites that point out that these e-mails are hoaxes. I have wondered recently if it would be appropriate to point the senders of these e-mail to these sites.

For example, the other day I was one of about 40 recipients who received from my priest a poem purportedly originating from a New York doctor. Supposedly three cents would be donated to the American Cancer Society for each time it was forwarded. Within a minute, I was able to find a message on the American Cancer Society's web site saying the e-mail was a hoax and that no money would be sent if the e-mail was forwarded, as well as a message on the site where the doctor works, saying he authored no such e-mail.

Miss Manners, should I inform my well-meaning priest that the e-mail was a hoax? Should I tell other people who forward similar e-mails? Or would I come across as rude and insensitive?

I somehow want to spare them the time and embarrassment of forwarding what so many people seem to know now are hoaxes, but I also don't want to come across as ungrateful for what I assume is their attempt to spread thoughtful messages.

GENTLE READER: Oh, Miss Manners remembers this problem existing way back in the 20th century. But let us not dwell on the past.

Loath as she is to add to the e-mail junk load, she suggests that you take one more minute to compose a polite message to the well-meaning priest and his mailing list, to spare them further embarrassment. What would make it polite is a tone of appreciation and commiseration: "I am sorry to say that someone is taking advantage of your kind intentions..."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: How soon after a gentleman finishes drinking champagne from a lady's shoe should the lady slip her dainty foot back into her wet shoe?

Reluctantly, Miss Manners admits that no one has actually asked her that. But it is the season for questions about the etiquette of going barefoot and one can hardly blame her for wanting to throw in a glamorous one to make up for the rest.

The usual questions on this subject are querulous and unattractive. People who have been refusing all year to wear every other conventional item of clothing now demand to take off their shoes. Fine. Considering how they've been carrying on about how jackets make them uncomfortable, ties make them uncomfortable, skirts make them uncomfortable, underwear makes them uncomfortable and so on, they should be home in bed anyway.

Carping is equally strenuous on the other side of this issue. If the people who want those complainers to put their shoes back on confined themselves to making the point that barefootedness tramples on most levels of formality, Miss Manners would simply agree. But no, they insist on adding insulting, not to mention unappetizing, speculations about what may be growing on or emanating from exposed feet. Yuck.

Besides, she suspects them of being the very same people who demand that their guests remove their shoes before crossing their thresholds. Having perfected their floors and rugs into an unwalkable state, they feel obliged to contrast this peculiar form of housekeeping with disgusting descriptions of what lies beyond their doors that their guests are bringing along. Some hope to pass themselves off as Japanese, rather than inhospitable westerners, overlooking the fact that it is not a Japanese custom to insult and bully one's guests.

Miss Manners is not taking a stand on either side of this debate, or rather, she has a foot in both camps. (And she is going to stop this kind of talk before she suggests voting with your feet.)

There are indeed places where barefootedness is not only acceptable but practically mandatory. Beach, bed and bath, for example. Contrary to its reputation, etiquette does not always favor formality, and it would be as wrong for Miss Manners to go into your pool wearing high heels (unless she shouted "Whoops" as she entered it involuntarily) as it would be for you to show up barefoot in her drawing room.

Indoor social events require shoes, which is as good a reason as any for declining invitations to parties for which chairs are not provided. Kicking off one's shoes as the evening progresses is a sign of intimacy that should be confined to family and close friends.

Removing one's shoes in public is only permitted it if is undetectable. Those who count on the presence of long tablecloths at dinner and the absence of auditorium lights at performances should remember that they will also require protection when putting those shoes back on. Disappearing under the dinner table or another row in the theater to find them is, Miss Manners regrets to say, noticeable.

As for that question about champagne, Miss Manners supposes that having posed it, she is obliged to answer it. Except that it doesn't really require an answer. By the time the lady is ready to go home the next day, her shoes are dry.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We have been sending our teenage niece gifts since she was born. We have never received a thank-you note or a phone call. Instead, her mother writes "thank you" on the back of the checks. Is this acceptable?

GENTLE READER: Apparently it is acceptable to you, as you keep sending more checks.

If Miss Manners were you, she would worry whether it is the presents that are unacceptable. Offerings for which minimal or no thanks are offered are obviously a burden on the recipient. Your niece must dislike receiving checks, because she is unable to muster any expression of enthusiasm for them. Politeness would suggest that you respect her feelings and relieve her of her embarrassment.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A gentleman with whom I am slightly acquainted recently invited me out to dinner for the first time. Three hours before the date, a friend had a medical emergency and called to ask if I could possibly drive him to the hospital, since he could not reach anyone else.

I agreed without hesitation and called my date immediately with abject apologies and expressed my extreme disappointment that I would not be able to join him that evening. He was very gracious and said that we would simply go another evening.

Two weeks have passed, and I have not heard from him. Is it his place to re-invite me, or should I ask him? Since I barely know him, I would feel awkward doing the latter but am willing to do so if that is the appropriate action.

GENTLE READER: Invite him. Miss Manners' heart aches for the poor gentleman. In the current climate of rudeness, there are a great many people who think nothing of canceling engagements at the last minute, using unlikely excuses and never being heard from again. So there he is, thinking "Friend? What does she mean by friend? Emergency? What does she mean by emergency?"

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I fly quite often, and I seem to find myself 90 percent of the time behind the person who feels the need to keep his seat back during the entire flight (and often also before take off). I know that seats are made that way to be used also in the "lounging" position, but this really bothers me while the meals are served. Some airlines have seats that go back very far, and I have even been in situations where I can barely see my food.

Most of the time, I politely ask if the person can put their seat up during the meal, and they oblige the first time and for the second meal (on international flights) they do not resume the "up-right-position." This time I don't ask. It has also happened that immediately after the meal they turn around and ask me if I am done and if I say yes the seat goes immediately back.

Is there some kind of etiquette about flying and reclining seats, especially during meal time, or am I the one being rude by asking that this dear person not lounge during his dinner?

GENTLE READER: There is a rude party here, all right, but it is neither you, for requesting the space in which to eat your dinner, nor the passenger, for assuming that otherwise, everyone spends the time tilted back like a row of dominoes.

The rude party is the airline that puts people in an untenable position, so to speak, and then allows them to blame one another for their discomfort.

Miss Manners sees nothing wrong with your politely asking the passenger in front of you to adjust his seat during a meal, as long as you do it as a fellow sufferer asking a favor, rather than as an indignant victim of rudeness. If you need to ask during a second meal, it should not be put as a reminder, but as a second request -- "I wonder if I might trouble you again."

: