DEAR MISS MANNERS: I recently began working for a small law firm consisting of four attorneys. One of the attorneys for whom I work likes to share people's lunches. Sometimes he will take something out of the fridge; other times he will take a little "nibble" while the person is eating lunch from their desk. Sometimes he is courteous enough to ask first; other times he will simply help himself if the person has walked away for a moment. Quite often, I eat lunch in my office, and he will frequently ask me if I brought enough for two, or if I need "help."

I'm on a diet, so I am very meticulous about counting calories, and I rarely bring extra food. I'm afraid that I'm just not as used to his behavior as everyone else in the office seems to be.

Once, his secretary asked me to guard her lunch while she stepped away for a moment. Despite my efforts, he did come by and eat all the chicken off of her chef salad. After he ate my lunch a week ago, I started labeling my food. This made me feel like I was 5. Worst of all, he tries to justify his behavior by saying that if someone leaves their lunch in the fridge for too long, it is "fair game." (I'm talking about a canned item that had been in the fridge for two days.)

I'm really not a stingy person, but I don't feel that I should have to share my lunch with an attorney who is more than successful enough to provide for himself. Should I just stop bringing food to work and eat out? Should I avoid eating lunch at my desk so that I won't have to fend him off? Would it be tacky to invest in a lunch box with a lock? What do you say?

GENTLE READER: He likes "to share" other people's property without their permission, especially when they aren't guarding it? And he deems it "fair game" to appropriate anything that is, in his opinion, left around "too long"?

Are these the terms your firm uses to defend clients who like to share other people's money that they leave lying around in the bank for too long?

Miss Manners is afraid that what you have there is a thief, although it would be kinder to state this in terms of psychological illness. Whether you condemn him for helping himself or take the position that he needs help, your lunch will disappear unless you protect it. And you and your colleagues need to keep up your strength so that you can deal with the worse trouble this person is bound to get into.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the register line at my local supermarket or restaurant, many of my fellow patrons stand so close to the person in front of them that their breath ruffles his or her hair. I usually try to inch away from the person, but sometimes they take it to mean that the line is moving and inch up as well.

Is it correct to turn around and ask the person not to stand so close? I am hesitant to do this because I don't want to cause a scene, but it makes me very uncomfortable.

GENTLE READER: Some things are better said silently, and Miss Manners believes that one of them is "Hey, back off, will you?" The turning around part will do it; you needn't say anything.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have what I suspect may be a rather simple question with a complicated answer. I hope I'm wrong.

It seems to happen with increasing frequency that I receive wedding invitations that state the time at which the ceremony will begin, but not the time at which guests are welcome or expected to arrive. I would like to ask when it is appropriate to arrive to a wedding -- or any other event -- when there is no arrival time on the invitation.

Common sense would seem to say that arriving 30 minutes to one hour before the ceremony would be reasonable so that one may give their best wishes to the couple or host (if they are available) and to greet other guests whom one knows. But what does etiquette say on the matter?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners hopes you will not be disappointed to hear that you are wrong about asking a simple question with a complicated answer. You have made a complicated question out of a simple matter.

Common sense would say that when you know the hour a ceremony is supposed to begin, you arrive in time to be seated and ready at that time. It might even add that people who are about to participate in a wedding do not have the leisure to entertain their guests beforehand.

:

Here is a vacation bargain: You get free accommodations that are more or less as comfy as what you have at home, only set in a refreshingly different location. Plus you get a trustworthy house-sitter for the time that you are away.

Here is the catch: People will notice little telltale things about your habits and tastes, much beyond the impression your visitors usually have of your quarters. Instead of going about murmuring, "Oh, how lovely," Miss Manners is afraid that (lovely as your place really is, she hastens to assure you) they will be going about enjoying an occasional snicker, and calling out "Hey, come look at this!" to one another.

But here is the saving grace: You won't have to hear them. You will hear nothing but compliments from them in the way of commentary about the way you live.

And here is the guarantee: You know as much about their telltale habits and tastes as they know about yours.

This is the basic deal in a vacation-house exchange. Whether between friends or acquaintances who made the arrangements themselves, or strangers who were matched by a third party or agency, the relationship is a peculiar mixture, and therefore so are the manners.

The situation is not that of host and house-guest, because the hosts are not there to provide those small attentions that please their guests and prevent them from poking around. Yet neither is it exactly that of landlord and tenant, where each righteously registers the shortcomings of the other, untroubled by misgivings about one's self.

The usual niceties and precautions of both situations apply, and Miss Manners trusts that everyone leaves everything clean for the other party, waters the plants and replaces them in kind when they die, provides instructions on how to operate the appliances and whom to call to fix them after you figure you don't need the instructions, takes messages, leaves extra pillows, checks in, and issues warnings about the toilet that is tricky to flush.

In a house exchange, the feeling of closeness you get from living in someone else's house ought to inspire a few extras:

Yes, the owners were supposed to clear out or lock up anything that they didn't want you to see, but don't read the diary and examine the mail anyway, and after you have finished, don't use the information, let alone tell anyone you did. It's a betrayal of people who would be too honorable to do this to you, and they now know an awful lot about you.

It is a bad idea to share your amusement at the decor with your new friends in the neighborhood.

Take out all the trash before you go, even though technically leaving it in the wastebaskets ought to count. One's own trash is revealing, and other people's trash is disgusting.

Finally, when you break something, it is a good idea to confess, if possible before you return to your respective homes. That way, you are less likely to find something of yours set up delicately so that it falls over with the first breath you take.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was informed that engagements should not last longer than six months, ideally, or a year at the most, due to the strain it might cause.

Has this ever been a rule of etiquette? My fiance and I will not be married until after I get my doctorate, which may take four more years, and I don't think this will be more stressful than simply dating for that time.

GENTLE READER: What about the strain on your relatives and friends? Do you think they can bear four years of listening to you talk about your wedding color scheme and which band you should hire? (That's a rule Miss Manners just made up, but she is happy to grant you an exception if you promise to show some exceptional bridal restraint.)

There have been times that society has encouraged short engagements, so that the couple would not have to exercise a different sort of restraint for a prolonged time, and other times in which it has encouraged long engagements so the couple could get to know each other better. We no longer presume either problem, and therefore leave the length of your engagement for you and your fiance to decide.

:

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).

: