Not so fast with the schadenfreude, please. Just because people who are infinitely richer than you have been diagnosed with Infectious Greed, that doesn't mean that you can enjoy the pleasant relief of knowing that your lighter case has not been noticed.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve coined the term to describe the state of the business world that has given rise to so much scandal. Miss Manners has simply noticed how apt a description it is of the social climate of the last decade or two.

True, there is a difference between the greed that lands you in the worst seat at congressional hearings (not to mention in the pokey) and the greed that merely gouges friends and relatives. There is undoubtedly a relationship, however, although she cannot say which gave rise to which.

Both forms of greed consider that the financial bottom line trumps the niceties. Both are characterized by smarmy self-congratulation on not being a sucker, which is to say not having allowed sentiment or delicacy to interfere with maximizing profits.

Both spread their infection rapidly: First, people notice that others are getting away with nefarious practices. Then, they conclude that such is the standard way of doing things. Finally, they forget that there was any other way, and cite it as hallowed by custom.

Celebrations, entertaining and even charity have all become corrupted. Gift registries, pay-your-own-way parties and fundraising ambushes have proliferated so much that freely offered hospitality and voluntarily offered presents and contributions seem part of a naave, distant past.

All the same, people who accept the new "traditions" sense that something is wrong. They may not feel justified in the sort of outrage that would put a stop to it, but they are unhappy.

Miss Manners' mail is full of such laments:

"Our clergyperson recently had a baby, and the entire membership of the congregation received e-mail invitations to a baby shower for the happy couple, telling us to bring a dish to share with eight to 10 people and providing four different links to Web-based gift registries. A number of the congregants are unemployed or on fixed incomes. Do you think it is acceptable for a spiritual leader to solicit gifts from the congregation?"

"I bought a card and gift to a graduation party for a fellow classmate, but upon leaving, the party-giver asked me to pay my 'share' for the party. It was 'drinks only,' and I'm not a drinker, but I was charged as if I were. (They split it 'Communist way,' so if you had one drink or five, you paid the same.) Nowhere on the invitation did it say that we had to pay an entrance fee. Was I right to feel a bit miffed at the party-giver, or was I a heel for not offering to help pay in the first place?"

"I have recently been invited to three functions: A birthday party for a 1-year-old, a party for an 80-year-old and a wedding shower. The 1-year-old was 'registered' at a toy store, and the parents had the nerve to ask for donations to her college fund! At the 80-year-old's party, the family asked for donations to the grandchildren's college fund! And at the wedding shower, we were asked to bring food as well as a gift."

"We have gotten an invitation to a greenback shower addressed to Mr. & Mrs. & family. Is it proper to send one gift with all the names on the card?"

"I just received an e-vite (e-mailed invitation) to a birthday celebration from a colleague of mine from work, stating that she is hosting a 'Pamper Party -- to pamper yourself for all of the hard work you do.' Each guest must bring their own nail polish for a professional manicure or pedicure, and either bring a bottle of champagne or a food item to share (and a birthday gift, since she didn't say not to bring one!). If this is not enough, I also have found out that each guest must pay $25 toward each spa service. I am wondering if I am wrong to feel angered and insulted by this invitation. Tell me, would Miss Manners feel pampered by such an invitation?"

The answer to that last question is: Well, no. But neither would she confuse friendship with solicitation and feel that she had an obligation to buy.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Maybe I'm missing something, so please help me. When finger food and/or other types of appetizers are served at a social gathering (say an outdoor reception), what is the proper way to eat them?

I usually take a small napkin (which, more often than not, are in abundant supply) and grab the item. What I see is 99 percent of the guests simply grabbing the item with the hand, one after the other. By chance, they may or may not touch other items, or lick their fingers and grab more, or both. It's disgusting. Is it me, or do I need to relax and enjoy the food?

GENTLE READER: It's you. You missed something.

Take a deep breath, but before you relax, take a look at the term you used to describe these appetizers: finger food. Does this contain a clue about the proper way to eat it?

You may not choose to do so. Miss Manners has no objection to fastidiousness. What she does find objectionable is showing others that you find their unexceptionable manners disgusting and the merest hint of their touch lethal. Your method heavily suggests that, so you may want to bypass the appetizers, especially if you reflect on what human contact may have gone into their preparation.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The wedding invitations of a relative of mine who has requested my assistance are in the process of being created but are being held up because of the desire to accommodate all parties concerned.

The bride's mother is divorced and remarried. Both the mother and father of the bride, whose relationship is, at best, tense, are participating in the wedding, both financially and physically. Traditional wedding invitation formats recommend that the bride's mother's name appear first and, of course, as spelled out using her new husband's name (Mrs. Timothy Trover), which is not setting well with the ex-husband or the bride, mostly because of the placement of the name but also because it acknowledges the remarriage.

Are there any recommendations that you can give?

GENTLE READER: That no one, but especially not those preparing to enter marriage, should take up the hobby of deciding whether or not to acknowledge other people's legal marriages, however distasteful they may find them. It sets a bad precedent.

Courtesy does require that the lady's name appear first and cannot help what that lady's name happens to be.

No, wait. The bride, or whoever is on best terms with the mother, can attempt to persuade her to use the modern formal construction, "Ms. Tabitha Trover." Miss Manners only suggests that the reason for this proposal not be mentioned.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a successful professional, married, and the mother of two young adults, and I am constantly accosted in public as I go about my business.

As I use a motorized wheelchair, some people seem to feel free to make rather personal comments whenever they wish. I am not sure how to respond to comments ranging from the vacuous ("Bless your heart") to the jocular ("No speeding, now, you'll get a ticket!") to the downright rude, which I do not intend to repeat. On occasion, someone makes so bold as to touch me!

I generally try to ignore these morons, but I find it trying at times. I don't want to descend to their level, but I want to find a way to let them know they have offended me. I will confess reluctantly that when touched by a stranger, I have told them to stop in a loud, clear voice. Was I wrong?

My family is very aware of my feelings on this subject. When an airline employee approached my husband and said, "We want to load her on first," my husband got up and walked away, and I said, "Why don't you try speaking directly to me?"

I got an immediate apology. I may have been rude, but it certainly felt good!

GENTLE READER: You seem to be afflicted with the common delusion that being rude makes people feel good. Miss Manners assures you that being rude makes people feel terrible -- either because their consciences bother them, or, more commonly nowadays, because rude people they provoke retaliate in kind -- or worse.

The reason you felt good is that you made a perfectly reasonable request in an apparently civil fashion. Sounding an alarm to ward off any physical overtures from strangers is also permissible.

Miss Manners regrets that a hearty "mind your own business" is not permissible, because there are so many people who apparently need to be told. Simply continuing to go about your business without acknowledging those who make jokes or confer blessings is the dignified way to deal with impertinent strangers.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the old days, when colleagues and their wives would get together at parties, the "men" would talk business, and the "wives" would talk house and children. Nowadays, the "wives" are often professionals in their own right, and things can get sticky.

I am a female professor in a medical school department. When we have social gatherings, the "men" talk work and the "wives" talk, not so much house and children, but let's say "not-work."

If I stay with the "men" do I snub the "wives"? If I stay with the "wives," I'm missing some important conversation with my peers in the department.

I realize that the answer lies in mixed gender conversation, but the situation usually deteriorates into the situation outlined above. I wish to snub nobody, but I can't be in two places at once!

GENTLE READER: Have you been spending too much time in the Gender Studies department? Your use of quotation marks prompted Miss Manners to speculate that the wives weren't really wives and the men weren't really men -- and now you want to be two genders at once.

Miss Manners has heard that it has been done, but it seems unnecessarily complicated in this situation.

Even in the old days, when ladies and gentlemen (and maybe those are the terms that deserve warning quotation marks) separated after dinner by custom, rather than by inclination, the idea was only to quarantine the business talk and the cigar smoking so these questionable activities wouldn't spoil the entire party. Your implication that more important things were being said over the cigars alerts Miss Manners of your innocence of social history, as well as of your assumption that trade talk is more important than real conversation.

In any case, the artificiality of dividing all this by gender became apparent because ladies were smoking in the powder room and holding positions that made an increasing number of them have to be included in working dinners that had borne the curious label of "stag."

Miss Manners suggests that you not mess with our newfound liberty by making a point of noticing which gender is talking about what. Just join whichever conversation interests you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My son sent me a very nice wristwatch for my birthday, one which I would not buy for myself, or wear, because it is too heavy and glitzy. I have a couple of good everyday watches, plus a Rolex which I wear occasionally.

Obviously, the gracious thing to do would be to thank my son and just leave it at that, but I'm a little annoyed that he would spend good money for a speculative gift in light of the fact that we have contributed to his financial health in the past, and I'm certain we will again in the future.

GENTLE READER: However, Miss Manners doubts that you will have to worry in the future about how to treat presents your son gives you. By linking the present with your own contributions, you use your own generosity to squelch his.

Presents should be accepted graciously, even if they are misguided. If your son lives above his means and expects you to bail him out, surely you can find other examples with which to upbraid him.

: