DEAR MISS MANNERS: On a recent flight across the country I was able to enjoy the luxury of a first class seat, which included the amenities of a gourmet meal served with linen, silver and a plastic knife. The stranger in the next seat shared with me his obvious enjoyment of the meal through his loud smacking of lips and open-mouthed chewing of the food.

During the time I lived in Asia, I discovered that there are entire worlds of people who feel there is nothing wrong with such an auditory delight in the food they are eating. The noise can stand my hair on end, but my overseas experiences have taught me to focus instead on my own food, and to appreciate the wide variety of dining mores we humans have created.

Perhaps the tedium of the flight amplified my annoyance, but several times I found myself looking over at my seat mate, who outwardly appeared to share my ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic background, with the words forming in my mouth, "Will you please close your mouth when you eat?"

This is not the first time I have found myself in such a situation while eating in public, and I would like your support to make sure I eschew temptation the next time it arises. Am I correct in my belief that it is the responsibility of my seat mate's family to guide him in his table manners, and that I should keep my mouth closed, or would you offer a gentle correction?

GENTLE READER: By all means, eschew temptation. Miss Manners is afraid that should you request him to keep his mouth shut, you would encourage him to suggest that you keep yours shut.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband's family have some customs that are different from those I grew up with. My father-in-law says these are the "classier" way of doing things (his word, not mine). I think they're etiquette misdemeanors. Please let me know who's right:

1. When someone in the family names a baby boy after his father, the child becomes Christopher Mosely Trenton II. Not Jr. I think he should be Jr. so II is reserved for boys named after uncles, grandfathers, etc.

2. Everyone on my husband's side of the family cuts their meat into bite-size pieces before eating. I think the proper thing to do is cut one bite at a time. (This is particularly sticky issue because I am now trying to teach my young children proper table manners.)

3. My large extended family is blessed with many living elders. Over the years, the grandparents among us have taken on affectionate names such as "Nana," "Papa," "Gram," "PopPop," etc. My husband's family contends that the only proper name for a grandparent is Grandma or Grandpa. Anything else is rude and insulting, they say. In order to differentiate between them, we must use last names: "Grandma Trenton" "Grandpa Redding", etc. Does Miss Manners agree?

GENTLE READER: That you should be wary of people who talk about the "classy" way of doing things?

No use thinking about that. It's too late. You've married into the family. And yes, they are wrong on all counts, but presumably they have redeeming qualities or you wouldn't have married their son. (Miss Manners can't believe she said that, and hopes it will not be used as an invitation for open season on denouncing in-laws.) You will have a happier life if you refer to the differences in a tone of respect as "your way of doing things" and "my family's way," rather than arguing right (which you are) and wrong (which they are).

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it ever possible to suggest a change of clothes to a lady without impugning her character?

A certain lady and I who work at the same company had been noticing each other and finally agreed to meet outside of work. As it happened, the wedding of close friends was immediately upcoming, and my planned date had canceled due to illness. The lady in question and I agreed that the wedding would be a fun chance to get to know each other.

The wedding was the typical Saturday evening dinner/dance black tie thing, and I wore the standard dinner jacket get-up. When I arrived to pick up my friend (who, I should mention, dresses beautifully for work, on the chic side of proper business formal), I was startled to see her step off the elevator, looking radiant and very (let's face it) sexy, in a revealing red cocktail dress. I couldn't have been more eager to have such a lovely lady on my arm at just about any other social function, excepting the wedding of close friends.

I'm afraid my moment's hesitation in telling her how beautiful she looked was noticed and seemed to cast a pall over her attitude toward me the rest of the evening. Nonetheless, we had a nice time and, notwithstanding a few sly remarks from the bridesmaids, that was the end of it -- literally.

The lady is civil to me when we meet in the office, but she declined another date, and I can't help but think that my reaction to her attire is being held against me. I asked my friends their opinions, and it seems to break down along gender lines. My male friends think my noticing her dress, rather than what it revealed, probably indicates that I am gay. The ladies think I set myself up by asking a woman who was interested in me to a wedding among intimates -- that by definition, she was going to dress to compete. I don't think this speaks well for women in general.

Miss Manners, was I a cad? Your input is appreciated.

GENTLE READER: Maybe not; you might want to reserve judgment. Not about the dress. If you only hesitated before telling the lady that she looked beautiful, rather than registering any disapproval, you cannot be convicted of caddish behavior on that account. Inviting someone out does not entitle you to critique her clothes, but your thoughts are your own.

Nor does it entitle you to submit the lady to be critiqued by your friends. To the extent that she can make a guess as to what went wrong, Miss Manners would say that the lady had gotten wind of your doing this. Or maybe she just didn't like your dinner jacket.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife's near-uncle (extremely close family friend), who lives in another state, just passed away.

This weekend is my niece's Bat Mitzvah. I have not been close to my brother recently, but my other brother, who I am very close with, is coming in from another state with his entire family to attend the affair. This last line may not even be relevant. Does my wife fly to attend the funeral or stay and attend the Bat Mitzvah?

GENTLE READER: The funeral. While Miss Manners appreciates the importance of the young lady's Bat Mitzvah, funerals do take precedence. It is true that one can only turn 13 once, but your niece will have other milestones in her life, while your wife's near-uncle will not.

As you do not seem to plan accompanying your wife, you should bring her abject apologies when you attend the Bat Mitzvah. It would be graceful of your wife to augment these with a letter of her own, explaining the circumstances and expressing her regret, along with her congratulations.

:

Although Miss Manners is not a member of that vast population described by the telemarketing industry as grateful to be rescued from her own reverie by a cozy voice addressing her as an intimate friend and surprising her by anticipating her wishes as a consumer, she has to agree with one point an industry spokesman has made.

In opposition to the possibility of Congress's passing legislation to establish a national registry of people whom they are forbidden to call, a representative of the telemarketers' trade association pointed out that all such restrictions amount to using the law to deal with actions that do not constitute wrong-doing, but are merely annoying.

Miss Manners also believes that the law should not have to regulate mere annoyances, as opposed to actions that do serious damage. The law has more important things to do, and, anyway, it is not very effective in discouraging petty annoyances. It is helpless to prevent your uncle from smoking in your living room and the neighbors' children from cutting across your lawn. You may dream about your uncle's being condemned as a public health hazard and suing the neighbors' children for property damage to your lawn or mental health damage to yourself, but it is not going to happen.

Annoying behavior is supposed to be regulated by the etiquette system, which can't fine or jail violators, but uses the threat and punishment of social disapproval. Your uncle should respect your house rules because he doesn't want to upset you -- or someone he is more wary about angering, such as your aunt or your mother. The neighbors' children should keep off the grass because they'll get into trouble with their parents, and their parents should respond to your request because they don't want hostile neighbors -- and are seizing the chance to make you make your children turn down their music.

But Miss Manners is forced to admit that the law has had to start regulating petty annoyances over the last few decades in instances where etiquette regulation has failed.

The reason etiquette has failed is that it depends on summoning the good will of the annoyer, or someone with moral authority over the annoyer, to refrain from creating annoyance. This is why its first defense is to assume that the annoyance was unintentional ("Uncle, dear, I'm so sorry, we don't have smoke in the house, but you could have a smoke on the porch") and its second defense is to summon creditable help ("Ma! He's your brother, make him stop!").

When no one cares, or is smart enough to realize that a society where no one cares quickly becomes as unbearable for scofflaws as for their victims, the system doesn't work.

So yes, she is afraid that the telemarketing system is never going to be controlled through etiquette. The industry's position is that it doesn't care if it annoys some people as long as it can make a profit getting to others. Etiquette cannot operate where there is no good will or moral sense or community concern to reach.

Gadgets to stop the calls are proliferating, and all Miss Manners can do is to assure the timid that although she has a total ban on retaliatory rudeness, politeness does not require them to take such calls or, if caught, to hear them through. She has to concede that a national registry of people who want protection from such calls is needed, but also that it will not solve the problem. If you resent the annoyance of these calls, you are not likely to want to interrupt your life even more in order to take legal action against violators.

But if it works, she has another request. She wants her name on a national register that would protect her from having to listen to the clever ploys people have developed to use on telemarketers.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My fiance and I are both in our 40s and have never been married, and so we have nearly all of the things needed to form a household. In fact, we have more than a single house can hold, since we both own our homes.

The problem is how to tactfully say in the invitations that we prefer the Wishing Well Wedding, since we really don't need or want a bunch of gifts.

GENTLE READER: Just now, Miss Manners has another unpleasant message she would like to put tactfully. Hers is: If you have more than you need, perhaps twice over, why aren't you thinking of giving things away to people who are in need, rather than wishing for more?

Oh, dear, she is afraid that some things don't lend themselves to being said gently. A prime example would be: "When you come to our wedding, we're planning to collect money from you."

: