DEAR MISS MANNERS: Two disturbing situations have come up in my singles group, which meets for breakfast every Saturday at a local restaurant. When I became a single person, I found that there aren't a whole lot of singles groups in my area.

Firstly, even though the group has elected officers, Mr. X, who founded the group, likes to run things and is often critical of activities being discussed. Secondly, there is an individual, Mr. Y, who likes to discuss his passion with everyone, whether they are interested or not. The situation could be avoided until recently, when our president resigned and Mr. Y took over the office. He now includes his personal life as part of the business meeting.

Also, Mr. Y heard some of us talking during our meal about how to make our group more inviting to visitors. Mr. Y singled out one woman and told her to shut up. After the meeting we tried to tell Mr. Y he was out of line and he got really irrational. Things are to the point where some of us (four of us wrote this letter) are thinking about resigning or starting our own group.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners has the idea that the Messrs. X and Y do not limit their enthusiasm for joining and running organizations to your singles club. Just about every social, charitable, political, school, garden and neighborhood group she knows has a bossy Mr. X and a blabby Mr. Y who heap tedium and annoyance on people who only want to accomplish the business of the group in peace.

This situation will stir some people up to devise a plot to overthrow the offensive regime. If the organization is a venerable one, that may be worth the effort, although it occupies even more time and often obsesses the revolutionaries until they become as bossy and blabby as their opponents.

Others will resign, either quietly or noisily, to join other groups, or forget the whole idea, or, as you suggest, start a new group.

Why do you hesitate to do this? Isn't the whole idea to meet new people? Besides which, it is a stunningly bad idea to be in a singles group with unattractive people.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was invited by a friend for a week's visit, and I was brought up to believe that I was obligated to bring my host a gift or present them with a monetary appreciation of my stay. (When I invite someone, I expect no kind of payment or reward.)

Upon leaving, I presented my friend with a $200 check and her daughter, who lives with her, with a $100 check. I overheard her say to her daughter, "We made out pretty good at this didn't we?"

Since I had paid for every dinner of mine when we went out to eat, I thought this remark rude and crude and not the attitude of a true friend. Since then, I have not visited them.

Do you think I am justified in feeling offended? Is it a usual practice or courtesy to pay for a visit to family or friends?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is very sorry to tell you that it is you who caused the offense. She is even sorrier that she is about to cause some herself by casting aspersions on the rule by which you were brought up. She is emboldened to do so because you already suspect that there is a better way than the one you were taught, which is why you offer your own hospitality freely.

Generosity in offering hospitality is a hallmark of civilization. To pay a friend or relative money as compensation for visiting is an insult, which is why gratitude must be expressed through the indirect means of bringing or sending a present, taking them out (not just paying your own way), and, of course, reciprocating the invitation. You should be relieved that instead of turning huffy, your friend turned it into a joke.

:

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.

: