DEAR MISS MANNERS: Several months ago I read in some food magazine that when one finishes the entree while dining in a restaurant, it is considered good manners and considerate to the server or busboy to use your napkin to wipe clean a small area at the edge of the plate so the fingers won't be "soiled" when the plate is picked up for removal.

As I recall, the article I read said it mattered not if the napkin was cloth or paper or whether the restaurant was "high class" or a greasy spoon.

My wife and daughters rebuke me for doing this every time we eat out, and they believe I never really read such a "stupid" item. Now I'm beginning to wonder if I did myself, as none of our friends or associates have ever heard of such a "courtesy." How does Miss Manners feel about this?

GENTLE READER: Both more and less delicately than your wife and daughters. She would never call such a well-meaning idea stupid, but -- oh, yuck!

Here is why this renegade "rule" is stupid. Whoops. What Miss Manners means to say was, here is why this supposedly thoughtful notion is actually thoughtless:

It assumes that the server doesn't know how to do the job properly, which requires gripping the plate from beneath, with a steadying thumb touching only the rim. Anyone who carries a plate with thumb planted into its surface is not going far in the restaurant business, where people do not care to eat from a plate that has received that personal touch.

It assumes that you don't know how to eat without leaving your plate entirely smeared to its edges.

It shows a callous disregard for the person who must pick up or launder a napkin that has been used as a cleaning rag.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A friend who will be retiring soon has worked 30 years for a major company. The company will be giving a retirement celebration for him.

Is it ethical for his wife and daughter-in-law also to give a retirement party? I have never heard of individuals giving retirement parties. Normally it is the company that gives the party.

We live several thousand miles from them and will not be able to attend either event. Other than sending a nice card, should we also include a gift?

GENTLE READER: Ethical? Unless there were threats used in a shake-down to suggest that sending a present would be prudent, Miss Manners sees nothing unethical about a family party celebrating retirement. Many companies have skipped doing this, and colleagues or relatives have marked the occasion so that a worker doesn't simply slip out unnoticed.

Even in this case, where there is also a company event, she doesn't object to a private celebration, although it is odd to endow it with such importance as to assume that guests would be willing to travel to attend. A parting gift for faithful service is, however, the sole responsibility of the employer. You need send only your congratulations.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: About half of all those free return-address labels I get have my name preceded by "Mr." If someone wants to call me mister, that's fine, but I don't believe it's right to call myself that. Even if I did want to give myself an honorific, it wouldn't be mister, because I'm not a mister. I'm a Lt. Col., USAF-RET.

As a practicing conservationist who hates waste, it pains me to think of all the doctors, military people, women whose first names sound like men's, etc., (as well as real misters who don't believe it's right to give themselves a title) who are receiving and discarding millions of labels that call them mister.

It seems to me that if these large organizations don't have people on their staffs who know the proper forms of address, their printers should.

GENTLE READER: Indeed they should, because it is complicated, and Miss Manners is afraid that even you don't have it quite right. Please wait a moment while she struggles with herself about whether she should just let the point go, because you are erring on the right side and because she doesn't have a lot of emotion invested in address stickers.

As you point out, it is frightfully pretentious to call oneself mister, or, for that matter, colonel, in speech, as one's signature and (for everyone except Miss Manners) in any spoken or written reference one might make to oneself.

However, this does not apply to one's name as it is engraved or printed on personal cards or writing paper, where the convention is to use the formal name complete with honorific. Miss Manners makes a point of this because of the current error of issuing formal invitations, such as wedding invitations, with the honorifics omitted.

In your case, the question is moot, as your correct title was not used. Consider that it saves you the effort required to think of those little stickers aspiring to formality.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a co-worker's wedding, a brief note was included in the program given to all guests, saying, "In lieu of party favors, a donation has been made to St. Mary's Hospital in the name of the bride's grandmother."

I, of course, said nothing about this to anyone at the wedding, but I privately mentioned later to some friends who also attended the wedding that I thought this note was tacky. Party favors are something you give to your guests to thank them for attending your special day. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to give a donation in lieu of asking guests to bring gifts?

My friends all gave the same reply: "Did you really want a stupid little party favor?" That, of course, is not the point. Your thoughts?

GENTLE READER: Your friends are not asking you the right question. Miss Manners' question is, Why do you feel stupid when your friends are telling you that they did you a favor?

The answer: Because you were surely not clamoring for party favors, which are more associated with children's birthday parties than with weddings, when they dangled one in front of you, whipped it away, and then preened themselves about being charitable for doing so.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Please tell me if I have been a bad girl. I was ordering lunch at the counter of a local deli when a woman I had not noticed came up behind me after having left her sunglasses on a table on the way in to "claim" it for herself. I obtained my lunch and went to find a table to sit at.

There was only one empty one, and it had a pair of sunglasses laying on it. I sat down anyhow and started to eat. (Am I a bad girl yet?)

After a while, the woman came over and said, "Excuse me, but those are MY glasses!" So I said, "Oh, here," and handed them to her. (Now am I bad?)

Then she said, "Oh, I was saving this table for my party." And I said, "Oh, I would be glad to share the space with you, why don't you join me?" I was pretty nice in my tone and expression. Really. (Now am I bad?)

She insisted that the table was "hers," and I was not welcome there; I don't recall the exact words. At that point, I was suddenly angry, and I gave her a "look." (I was thinking that I would really enjoy beating her to a bloody pulp with my bare hands, and I feel that I am capable of doing so.) The "look" said it all. (Now I know I am bad!)

But she did leave after that, without any further argument. Was I rude, or just assertive?

GENTLE READER: Let's take another look at that look.

OK, your tongue seems to have stayed in your mouth, and your thumb was not resting against your nose. Your words and tone were civil, and your violent fantasies were kept under control. Miss Manners is sorry to disappoint your hopes of being a bad girl, but she only bans people from being rude, not from defending themselves.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a 50-year-old woman getting married for the second time in a fairly small ceremony (80) on a boat, but still in the traditional style. My father gave me away 31 years ago, at my first wedding, but I was thinking of having my eldest nephew give me away this time. He and I have always been very close, and I have no children.

Would this be proper? I don't want to hurt my father's feelings, and my mother thinks this is my father's job. I think that if he gave me gave me away once, I have already been given! Help!

GENTLE READER: Did he give you to your nephew? If not, what do you have in mind here? Giving everyone a turn?

Miss Manners is actually quite lenient about retaining the archaic custom that symbolizes the bride's leaving the protection of her father or guardian for that of her husband, now that the chances of its applying to today's bride are slight. Sentiment is sentiment, even if the bride left home long ago, already maintains a household with the bridegroom, and makes more money that he and her father do together.

Once given indeed ought to be enough, but if a second-time bride wishes to repeat it, under the guise of doing it right this time, Miss Manners will not be a spoiler. However, to keep the custom yet fire your father when he is prepared to try again is as silly as it is mean.

: