DEAR MISS MANNERS: So far, the only point of contention for my daughter's wedding is the seating arrangement for the dinner reception. Instead of sitting with her attendants at the parents' table, she insists on a "sweetheart table," one where just the bride and groom sit.

I've been at a few weddings where this was done. Frankly the bride and groom looked silly sitting by themselves. However, my daughter thinks this is "romantic."

Speaking of trends, almost every bride these days, even at high noon, wears a strapless gown. My daughter is getting married in the evening, but she wanted something with sleeves. She found something, but not without difficulty.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is constantly amazed at the amount of creative effort people put into weddings. She wishes they would stop.

Isolation and straplessness are both bad ideas. Ignoring the guests the couple invited to their wedding to be alone together is rude. Dressing for the ceremony as if it were a ball (as opposed to wearing a modest wedding dress and shedding the sleeved part for the party) is frivolous. A wedding is romantic, not to say sexy, by definition, and crude attempts to emphasize this have the effect of detracting from it.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Of all the gewgaws invented in our modern language that people readily take into their daily usage, I don't think any competes with the words many use to conclude a phone conversation: "I'll have to let you go now."

Invariably, this is said by the person instigating the call, so the person called has the option of various interpretations, i.e.:

1. "I'm sick and tired of listening to you so hang up!"

2. "I've spent quite enough money on this phone call, so shut up!"

3. "Stop talking for heaven's sake, and let me do something worthwhile."

Almost any words to end a phone conversation would be more palatable. "There's someone at the door," "My timer just went off on the oven," or "I have to let my dog out" would all be kinder. Anything you can say to get this phrase erased from phone lines would improve the air. "I'm gonna let you go now" is just like a slap in the face.

GENTLE READER: Could Miss Manners persuade you to go back to picking on the misuse of "hopefully"? Or "loan" used as a verb instead of "lend"?

It so happens that she finds "I'll let you go now" to be a rare example of a new conventional phrase -- a fresh clichC if you will -- that serves a hitherto neglected polite purpose.

What she hears in it are not the insults you suggest, but an acknowledgment that one has chattered long enough at someone whose time is important.

This is in contrast to the I Think I Hear My Mother Calling Me sort of excuse you recommend, in which the emphasis is on one's own commitments. Besides, those may bring on an even more dreaded phrase: "Then I'll call you back later."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My problem may be of interest to other childless women who date divorced fathers.

We'd all agree, I suppose, that children should not have to meet and greet their dad's Flavor of the Week. The couple should wait until the relationship stabilizes. My problem is trying to keep a distance from these kids during the nonserious era, without being rude.

Situations often arise where the kids and I will be thrown together unless someone moves away. My dad-dates appear offended by my doing so, as if I am rejecting their kids, or perhaps them by extension.

And I certainly get offended by orders to back off, as if given half a chance I'd sneak in and audition for the role of stepmother. Whether I say, "I don't think I should be meeting them yet," or he says it, someone will feel hurt. Should I just try to flee the situation without saying why?

Frankly, I think it is kinder for me to offer to absent myself than for him to tell me to get lost, but I am trying to focus on people other than the grown-ups and their self-protective measures.

GENTLE READER: Somewhere around here, Miss Manners must still have the manners for meeting the parents of one's, ah, honey. If she changes "honey" to "flavor," will those do?

She supposes not. The circumstances are too different. People actually give some weight to the opinions their children form about their romantic prospects.

Miss Manners is glad that you do, too, and urges you to assume that so do the fathers -- who are in a better position to know what is best for these particular children at this particular time than a lady who has never met them.

If they are in the stage of fearing that every lady their father meets is going to take him away from them, his reluctance would be understandable and you should not take it personally. Nor should you over-interpret a suggestion that you should meet. Perhaps the children are more afraid of a mystery lady and would feel reassured to meet her.

Miss Manners agrees that children should not be involved in a parent's romance until it is likely to affect their daily lives, but she believes they should get to know their parents' friends. And a friend is what you are (Miss Manners prefers to skip the ice cream category) and should insist on appearing to be in front of the children. True, children are no fools, but you need not provide evidence to the contrary.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I sometimes need to telephone a "support staff" for assistance on the operation of my computer and other technologically advanced pieces of equipment in my home. The person taking my call invariably requires, before serving me, that I give my first name, which is then used in an apparent attempt to create a sense of intimacy between us.

Although put off by such a request from an individual utterly unknown to me, as well as often two generations younger than I, I feel pressured to acquiesce for fear that I will be denied the information which only that company can provide me. I would appreciate advice on handling this situation.

GENTLE READER: Let us imagine that the young person who helps you has been doing so for years, carefully addressing you as Mister and Sir. Implausible, Miss Manners knows, but bear with her for the sake of argument.

One day, overcome by the bond that has grown, you might say impulsively, "I'd be very pleased if you would call me Horace." Your tone of voice would show that you meant it as a compliment.

Okay, now use that tone to say, "I would be very pleased if you would call me Mr. Sleeks."

:

When the Surgeon General tells us what we're doing wrong, it's a lot easier to take than when friends, relations and passersby feel called upon to do so. Miss Manners does not attribute the difference to a public official's exerting more authority, but to his exercising more tact and refraining from doing it to our faces.

Still, Miss Manners worries about the speed with which one method leads to the other.

Obesity is a serious health problem, the Surgeon General has now informed us, as indeed it was his duty to do. It must be right up there with the serious health problem of voluntary malnourishment, which is attributed to our admiration for thinness. It would appear that everybody in America is too fat, except for those who are too thin; everybody is eating too much, except for those who are eating too little, and nobody is exercising enough, except for those who are exercising too much.

Something must be done. Fortunately, not by Miss Manners.

She is far too polite to notice what other people are or are not eating. She doesn't bother to lift her lorgnette to peer at who is using which fork, disillusioning as that must be to people who believe that scouting for cutlery errors provides her with unimaginable thrills. So she would hardly notice how often they use whichever fork they choose.

The only thing that concerns her about such a public health announcement is the unintended effect it may have on the public well-being. Health matters seem to be peculiarly susceptible to developing the unintended side effect of contributing to an epidemic that is already a great danger to the public, namely rudeness.

What makes her especially wary in this case is that that reference was made to another health announcement by another Surgeon General. It is being said that illnesses caused or exacerbated by obesity may soon constitute the chief cause of preventable deaths, overtaking the current scourge, which is tobacco.

Here again, Miss Manners must excuse herself (but not to indulge in that vice, which happens to be one of which she is innocent). In no way does she fail to appreciate the great service done to the public by alerting it to the danger of smoking, and the amazing turnabout in behavior that was the result.

This also produced an advance in etiquette, for which she is thankful. Smoke being intrusive, the custom of smoking without regard to those present who might find smoke objectionable was inherently rude, and the fact that this is now recognized is progress. It was progress backward, to a few decades previously, when smoking had been quarantined to back rooms so as not to offend presumably nonsmoking ladies, but progress all the same.

Then came the plague, not just of smoking scofflaws, but of righteous busybodies. Newly empowered with public support, nonsmokers started polluting the atmosphere with unsolicited and insulting healthcare. Nor have they been intimidated from doing this in regard to the eating habits of those whom they deem to be overweight by not knowing whether there are other contributing factors.

And they certainly haven't been inhibited by politeness. Miss Manners hopes they will not consider the obesity warning encouragement to point out to the obese that they are obese and that this is not good for them. On the contrary, it should relieve them of the job. There can be no doubt that they already know (as if they didn't before), because the Surgeon General has now told them.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When my niece was married in a morning ceremony at a small suburban church, her father (who divorced my sister a few years ago after 37 years of marriage) attended with his bride, an educated professional Japanese woman who was clad in a beautiful kimono. I thought it was an inappropriate choice of dress. Several of my family members disagreed.

GENTLE READER: The formal dress of one's own country is considered appropriate at formal gatherings in America. Miss Manners suspects that she may need to point out that this applies to the trophy wives of cads as much as to anyone else.

: