You have to hand it to the greedy. They keep managing to come up with novel ways to help themselves to other people's money.

Specifically, Miss Manners is impressed with what they have done with the ancient concept of hospitality. Sharing one's meager (or rich and fattening) crumbs with others is a defining element of civilization and cited as a test of character in many religions. That is, until the gimme folks got hold of it.

First they turned potluck upside down. This fine old term used to mean that guests were always welcome, while acknowledging that it was not always possible to welcome them in proper style -- meaning when the hosts had had time to prepare something especially for their delight. The conceit of potluck was that the pot was merrily boiling away with a domestic dinner, and if friends didn't mind eating whatever happened to be in it, there would always be a place for them.

In the revised version, it is the guests who have to fill the host's pots. No, wait, then the host would have to wash those pots after the guests had left. If they not only do the cooking but bring their own pots, then they can do the scrubbing.

Pot luck has become a hybrid of the dinner party, where the host does all the work, and the covered dish supper, where everyone does some of the work. And while it may be held in one person's house, that person is not a host in the sense of choosing the guests and setting the terms.

The next step was to charge money. The spirit of hospitality has been reversed, so that guests may be asked to "contribute to the costs." To enlarge the host's profit on special occasions, guests may be told to bring tangible offerings as well, in the form of "gifts" chosen from a shopping list that the host has registered at his Web site.

Miss Manners had thought that was rock bottom until she began to receive word of the newest twist. Demands are now being made for people to pay for the events that others are putting on anyway, for reasons unrelated to whether the sponsors may attend. Two examples from Gentle Readers:

1. "Please tell me who should pay for the brunch the day after the wedding. My sister wants my mother and father, my husband and I, who are also out-of towners, and two uncles from her husband's side to pay. My husband is retired, and I am on disability, so I'd rather just put that money into a gift for my nephew, but I don't want to get into a fight with my sister, and I thought of just giving $100 toward the brunch so we wouldn't look bad to the other relatives. My parents don't want to pay, either, but they don't want to cause problems with my sister. What should I do?"

2. "When a gentleman of my acquaintance died recently after a long illness, I received a heartfelt letter about his last days from his family, by mass e-mail. (I had known the gentleman primarily through the Internet, so learning about his death via e-mail didn't bother me.) However, the note included a request that, in lieu of flowers or charitable giving, donations be made to a fund which would pay for a 'grand memorial celebration,' which the gentleman himself planned in the weeks before his death.

"I want to respect his final wishes, but I confess that I find the idea of honoring a deceased friend by contributing to a glorified party fund more than a little off-putting. If I were planning to attend the memorial (the distance prevents it), I would feel as if I were being charged admission. Should I swallow my discomfort and send a check to the memorial fund? Or ignore the request and make a donation to a charity related to my friend's illness?"

Miss Manners cannot prevent extortionists from plying their trade, but she will not allow them to claim that etiquette is in on the racket. There is no reason to feel rude when refusing to comply with an outrageously rude request, and whatever wedding presents or memorial donations people chose to make has nothing to do with it.

You don't have to hand it to the greedy, as it happens.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Just this week I saw my therapist. As I sat, I brushed off my leg what I took to be a dust mote or speck of something from the outdoors.

When I saw it leaping around the carpet, I realized it was a flea from the grass near the parking lot. As my therapist and I talked, the flea jumped onto my leg and under my skirt, where it stayed for five or 10 minutes, biting my thighs. I didn't say anything to my therapist, and it seemed inappropriate to follow my instinct to jump up and begin brushing my thighs to get rid of the flea.

Granted, it is unlikely this will occur again, but what ought I to have done?

GENTLE READER: Deal with your real problems?

Miss Manners is sorry to entertain suspicions about whether this occurred even once. But if you conceal from your therapist what is bothering you, why are you undergoing treatment?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My fiance has given me a very large diamond ring. It is beautiful, indeed, but I dislike the idea of wearing such a large stone for the rest of my life. I dislike the types of people who wear all of their jewelry at once for the sole purpose of showing it off.

I also work at a nonprofit that helps low-income families, so I can think of many occasions when it would be tacky for me, who is rather well off comparatively, to be waving my jewels around.

My mother told me that it is perfectly acceptable to wear only the wedding band, and the engagement ring at grander occasions when fancy jewelry would not be out of place, but everyone else I have told this to is horrified at the thought of ever taking the engagement ring off.

To make matters worse, I have offended my fiance with this business! Please tell me if I have indeed committed a terrible gaffe, or if it is all right for me not to wear my engagement ring daily after marriage.

GENTLE READER: Two gaffes, by Miss Manners' count, much as she values modesty:

1. Allowing your fiance to suspect that you found something wrong with the engagement ring he gave you.

2. Polling people (other than those supreme and discreet authorities, your mother and Miss Manners) on a personal aspect of your engagement.

It is important that you understand that an engagement ring has two properties: It is a piece of jewelry, and it is also a symbol. You were regarding it only as jewelry, while those whom you consulted were considering it only for its symbolism.

Engagement and wedding rings are exempt from rules limiting the wearing of jewelry, but there may be any number of reasons -- fear of its being lost or stolen, swollen knuckles, annoyance at forever snagging it on one's stockings - that someone who is blissfully happy in her marriage may nevertheless park her engagement ring in her jewelry box.

It is perfectly proper for a married lady not to wear her engagement ring until death allows it to be pried from her -- as long as she allows the gentleman who gave it to her to believe that she considers it too precious, not too gaudy.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it "still" in poor taste to "point" toward a group of people as you are seen whispering to someone else "about" them, even if it's at a funeral and even if all you're doing is pointing out different relatives to this person, telling them who is who.

GENTLE READER: Or you might be pointing out who done it.

This is not a rule that is going to be rescinded. The point (Miss Manners is trying to resist your habit of highlighting words with quotation marks) is that the targets can only know that you are talking about them, not what you are saying.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Several of my friends and I attended an art and garden show and were enjoying it very much until the handicapped group arrived in their motorized wheelchairs and those maneuvered by caregivers. It is great that these folk are now able to attend so many more functions and be part of society.

One problem. They lack good manners.

My friends and I (all in their late 70s and early 80s) were just getting to the front of the area where we could view the displays when the handicapped group rammed into us. This is not the first instance that this has happened.

It is wonderful that so much has been gained for their participation, but must they be rude and endanger the others who also attend? While some of us do have hearing problems, not everyone in the area is deaf. Could they not speak up and request access to the viewing areas?

The problem is they run their wheelchairs into our legs and backsides and force us to move, even if we were just approaching the viewing area. If they are that demanding, perhaps they should have a special day/time reserved just for them so that they would not have to compete with those of us still on our feet. Being physically handicapped is bad enough, but must they also be handicapped by bad manners?

GENTLE READER: Really? They rammed into your legs with their wheelchairs?

In that case, Miss Manners would have thought that you would be arguing how the standees get in everyone's way, as you would be likely to attend next year's show in a wheelchair.

She does not countenance rudeness, whoever practices it, and those who use wheelchairs are responsible for keeping them from disabling anyone else. Although people who are sitting down cannot see if others are standing in front of them, they are not exempt from the rule about excusing themselves for passing in front.

However, it is not only the possibility that you exaggerated the physical damage that worries Miss Manners. In her experience, people often state the obvious -- in this case, that those in wheelchairs should get around in public -- but those who do so repeatedly often intend to imply the opposite.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Every year since my daughter was in first grade, we have had a birthday party and invited every child in her homeroom class (which is the school rule, and we feel it is fair).

One of the children has a sibling in the same grade (one was held back), and they are always in separate homerooms. My daughter has always ended up with one of them in her homeroom. Their mother will call to RSVP for my daughter's birthday party and say that the invited child can attend only if the other child (in a different homeroom) is invited as well.

I've never quite known what to say, so I say "Oh, OK, that won't be a problem." (I guess one more child isn't going to break the party budget, right?)

I don't like being put on the spot. I feel that I am being taken advantage of, and I don't want to see one of her friends that she is with all day in class miss her party. How do I handle this situation?

GENTLE READER: If one more child is not going to break the budget, Miss Manners wonders why you are suggesting that a classmate would be displaced if you accepted the sibling.

Surely the reason for the homeroom rule is to avoid making a child feel left out; for the same reason, young siblings of roughly the same age are generally invited together. No hostess has to accept proposed guests, but it seems unnecessarily harsh to stand on the legalistic point that a child who is often invited and whose sister is invited must be excluded on technical grounds.

: