To Miss Manners' chagrin, miscreants who don't write the duty letters they owe have seized upon a plausible excuse.

As usual, their letters of thanks are unwritten and likely to remain so. The possibility of writing them rarely even makes it onto a New Year's resolutions list. Previously owed letters, such as condolences or congratulations, tend to be granted an unauthorized New Year's amnesty by the very people who owed them. They reason that some weeks already having gone by, the intended recipients will have long since forgotten losing a relative or getting married, and wouldn't want to be reminded.

This year, however, epistolary delinquents are hardly bothering to declare that they never write letters, in that wonderfully superior tone that suggests that yielding to the expectation would constitute a violation of their ethics. They don't even feel the need to turn on their benefactors, accusing them of being hypocrites for feigning generosity, when it now appears that the sole motive for their investment of time, thought and money was self-gratification, through the glory of receiving written thanks.

Rather they are preening themselves on their consideration for others. They wouldn't want to frighten the donors, figuring that they must be nervous about receiving mail. So much mail is being thrown out unopened, that it is thoughtful to refrain from adding to it.

Besides, how can Miss Manners (who doesn't care for the facial expression she pictures as they make this claim) be sure they didn't write these letters, promptly and thoughtfully, and that because of the disruptions in service, they haven't yet, or may never arrive?

Nice try. If she granted the excuse, how would they express their proper sentiments? Never thought of that, did they? That if they didn't write letters they would have to find another way to express their putative gratitude?

Some did. They offered to send e-mail. This is a reasonable offer that Miss Manners cannot refuse. But she can insert enough conditions as to make it hardly worthwhile.

First, e-mail thanks must acknowledge that handwritten thanks were due, and contain an explanation, an apology and the declaration that one is also sending a letter in the hopes that it will get through.

Next, it must be even more individual in style than a letter to show that it wasn't mass produced. Rote letters are bad enough, and Miss Manners has a rule that letters of thanks must never open with "Thank you for..." and must name the item rather than referring to "your gift."

Miss Manners isn't trying to be punitive here, although she can't say she isn't tempted. She is inspired by the surprising reaction of those who had derided traditional mail when they found theirs missing or menacing.

It turns out that everybody liked receiving letters on paper. She was amazed at all those who were waxing sentimental about the joy of gathering in the mail, the pleasure of seeing familiar handwriting and the romantic and historical rewards of saving letters. The catch is that for that to happen, someone has to write them.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the federal office where I work, two co-workers refuse to return or acknowledge a simple "Good morning." One simply says nothing; the other may growl "What's good about it?" and keep walking on her way.

My inclination is to exchange pleasantries only with those colleagues who will at least mumble or nod in return. Hostility is not something I actively solicit, after all.

My supervisor says we should keep saying good morning to those sullen creatures, because by stopping the practice we would be signaling that they "have won."

GENTLE READER: As a taxpayer, Miss Manners thanks you and your supervisor for performing two services for the federal government.

One is attempting to nudge snarlers into pleasant behavior. It is her hope that if you keep quietly at it, it may influence them for the better.

The other is wresting back from the terrorists the expression about others having won if we change our behavior. Miss Manners was beginning to resent hearing that only a relentless commitment to frivolity would prove that we had not swerved from our principles.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Ten years ago, I got married for the second time, four years after the death of my first wife of 38 years. Everything is fine and dandy except when it comes to Christmas cards.

My second wife has a lot of friends of longstanding that I may have met casually, briefly, or not at all, as well as a lot who have also become my friends. Some of the Christmas cards are addressed to Mr. and Mrs., some are addressed to my wife in her previous married name, some in her previous married name hyphenated with my last name, and some with her first name and my last name.

I don't open any letter that does not clearly have my name on it. A Mr. will do. Occasionally a letter to the other one of us may get opened by mistake, but neither of us is concerned by that and may even ask, "What did they say?" or say, sincerely, or in humor, "Thanks for opening it." We have no problems with mail secrecy.

However, my nosy sister, who we invite over at Christmas and tell to look through the beautiful cards we have received, has discovered that most of the cards to my wife do not mention or acknowledge my name or my existence. My sister feels that I am being intentionally slighted and ignored by my wife's snobby friends. My sister feels that my wife should make a point of smoothly but definitely letting every card writer know that she is married to a wonderful man and she expects them to acknowledge us as a couple!

I tell dear sister to keep her mouth shut because I feel Christmas cards are basically informal and personal salutations that only involve the writer and the recipient. It is completely asinine, illogical and of no consequence to worry about whether I was included or addressed on a Christmas card to my wife. Even if it is intentional, that is a problem for the writer and not for me. If the writers are just ignorant (?) of the "laws" of etiquette I am quite willing to let the perpetrators go free (without a ticket) and not say "ignorance of the law is not an excuse."

I've got my mind made up, but sister insists she knows the etiquette of the Christmas card and is trying to make my wife feel that perhaps my wife is letting me down. Would you please comment?

GENTLE READER: Why your sister is doing this, and why you don't just brush it off after presumably a lifetime of knowing that she likes to stir up trouble are things Miss Manners doesn't feel up to spoiling the holiday week by discussing. There is much to be said for solving problems superficially.

Before you show your sister your Christmas cards, remove the envelopes and any personal notes addressed only to your wife. And don't let Miss Manners catch your sister going around passing herself off as knowledgeable about etiquette.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: This holiday I purchased chargers for my Christmas dinner table. I thought you left them on the table, placed the entree plates on top, and then picked them up before dessert. After the first course was cleared, my husband removed the chargers, saying that they are only to be on the table for the first course and not the entree. Please let me know how to use them properly.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners could complicate this situation hopelessly by pointing out that although American restaurants have spread the use of the word "entree" to mean the main course, it actually is an in-between course, but let's not go there. Your husband is correct that the charger, also known as a service plate, is removed with the soup plate or the plate for another opening course, and replaced with the plate for the main course.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I need to know if it is appropriate for a guest (especially family) to give money to help with food, bills, or what have you after they visit for a weekend or a couple of weeks. My mom always feels that you should give the homeowners something to help make up for the extra electricity or food bills.

I don't agree. I have had 16 family members at once in my house, and I don't expect them to buy anything. It is a once-a-year visit, and I just get prepared.

As a daughter visiting some weekends, should I pay? Even if I visit an aunt with my husband and our three children and help buy groceries because she is a single parent of two, should I leave her money when I leave?

GENTLE READER: Of course you shouldn't be paying your mother, or any other hostess, to visit her. But Miss Manners is wondering whether you should be helping to support her.

Considerate guests, even if they are the hostess' children, have plenty to do without insulting their hosts by indicating that their precious gift of hospitality has a price tag on it. They should clean up after themselves, help with the additional chores, provide treats and, for extended stays, take over the responsibility for an occasional meal, either by taking their hosts out or by doing the shopping and cooking. They must also reciprocate, preferably without checking to see whether the electricity their guests use is no greater an amount than they used at that person's house.

However, if your relatives are in need, you should find a way to help them financially, without tying it to any visits you may make.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: As a child, I was taught never to applaud in church. Now it is very common in my church and others I have attended. It seems that everything -- singing, speeches or any time of performance -- is following by someone saying, "Let's give them a big hand." Everybody applauds except me. Is this right or wrong?

GENTLE READER: You are right, but brace yourself. A lot of angry churchgoers are going to come at you with that quote about making a joyful noise unto the Lord.

Miss Manners is delighted that they have the joyful noise idea, and is all for music, speaking and other decently appropriate forms of worship. But she is afraid the good people missed that part about its being directed unto the Lord, and not unto themselves. Their pleasure may be great, but it is incidental to the purpose of worship, and they should not attempt to usurp the Lord's power of passing judgment on those who are worshipping Him.

: