Let's not get back to normal. The commemoration has not been properly done until we have honored the profound effect that last year's national tragedy had on society during the aftermath of the attack.

What do you mean, you don't remember that part? That you remember the pain and have sustained the patriotism, and what more could there be?

Miss Manners is distraught. You promised at the time that you would never forget. You declared that the world had changed forever, and you were changing your life to go with it. And it wasn't just the loss of security to which you were referring, but the gain in civility.

A year ago, the terrorism attack unexpectedly exploded the belief that Americans are terminally selfish and rude. Nobody had believed this assessment more fervently than Americans themselves, although naturally it was not themselves they meant.

Deploring the rudeness of other Americans (and developing fiendishly rude punishments for them) was the national sport. It seemed to be everyone out for himself or herself. A unit of more than one person was called The Dysfunctional Family.

Then, disaster hit, and everything changed in an instant.

Relatives turned out to be deeply devoted to one another. Not only were those missing and killed the subject of intense emotion, but families who were far from danger started checking in with one another and expressing their appreciation. Those whom cynicism had made wary of forming new families wanted to get married.

Friends who had drifted apart or who had become estranged got back in touch and resolved their quarrels. The emotional content had come to seem more important than whether they still had matching interests (and perhaps incomes).

Strangers tried to make themselves useful to one another. There were massive efforts to be compassionate to those in need and considerate of those whom they had been shoving aside.

The techniques of tact were quickly learned: that "being in a hurry" is no justification for failing to realize that others could have equal or greater claims to urgency. Petty concerns that may seem important do not matter all that much. That workers who put themselves into danger to help others are even more heroic than famous athletes and singers. That funerals are obligatory occasions of solemn and formal dignity, not optional parties where the guest of honor happens to be missing. That bereavement is a tragic fact of life, not a problem that can be overcome in stages, and that, therefore, the word "closure" should be jettisoned.

So, despite the horrendous circumstances, society became strangely pleasant. The worse the situation, the more inspiring humanity became.

For all her scolding over the years, Miss Manners already knew that Americans had all this in them. It is demonstrated every time there is a large scale disaster. Whenever there is an earthquake, famine, war, plague, hurricane or flood, Americans rush to help -- not just in their own towns, or even just in their own country, but wherever it happens.

And they always seem to come away with that exhilarating feeling of solidarity that comes with working for the common good, rather than the comparatively paltry satisfaction of merely making their own way, heedless of the welfare of others.

Then, for most people, the feeling passes, and it is back to business as usual.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Please settle an old, and friendly, cork coaster argument among members of my bridge club. I believe a coaster should be used cork-side up. My friends, all seven of them, believe the cork side should be down with the slippery picture-side up.

As silly as this sounds, I would like to go to bridge with proof from you that I am correct. But am I? Thanks for your answer, even if I'm wrong.

GENTLE READER: You're welcome. You're wrong.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We are planning a 25th & 50th wedding anniversary party and have put on the invitation that in lieu of gifts, people should please make a donation to our church's building fund.

Is it proper for us to know the amount of each donation so that when we send a thank you card we can mention the amount? Or is it better to not know the amount and just send a thank you that you sent a donation?

The Church sends us the names of people who have made donations but not the amounts. When asking them for the amounts, they say they have never given out that information before. They do give the total amount donated from all the donators. What is proper in this situation?

GENTLE READER: Practically nothing.

It is not your place to presume that your guests owe you presents and that you may therefore redirect how they pay this debt.

Although you may press your friends to contribute to your church's building fund if you do it frankly, you cannot propose it as a condition of celebrating your wedding anniversaries. (Miss Manners is presuming that more than one couple is involved here, although she has learned to take nothing for granted nowadays.)

Finally, thanks for money should express gratitude for their kindness and not be scaled according to how much they came across.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I work in an office of five people. We are all very close except for one woman who has explained on many occasions that she chooses to not be friendly with her co-workers. I will be getting married next year, and I have decided that I don't want to invite this woman to my wedding.

Another woman in this office felt obligated to invite Difficult to her wedding because she thought Difficult would be hurt otherwise. I sat at the same "work" table as Difficult at the wedding while she negatively commented on the shabbiness of the food, the venue, etc.

A friend of the office was married last year, and Difficult was not invited because she claims she is not friends with any of us. She heard about the wedding and made a huge scene in the office about how she wasn't invited because she is a woman, or because she is old.

This really confused me, as Difficult is the one who has stated she doesn't want to be friendly with any of us. She points out that her car and home are a lot nicer than the rest of ours, allowing her to travel in a different social circle or class.

Difficult's favorite thing is to find things to be upset about. Therefore, I feel that when she finds out about my wedding she is going to make a deal out of it that she is not invited. I do not know how to handle this, exactly. I feel I should be able to speak freely about my wedding, but, from her track record, I feel that Difficult is going to try and make me uncomfortable about not inviting her. I guess the key word there is try.

GENTLE READER: Try what, exactly? To find out how much material you can give this colleague to feed her desire to criticize your wedding?

You are under no obligation whatsoever to invite people who are not your friends to your wedding (unless, of course, they happen to be your relatives), and this person even declares herself to be a nonfriend. A wedding is not a business obligation, and co-workers should be included only if you have formed friendships with them.

However, Miss Manners must warn you that you should not be discussing an event in front of people whom you do not plan to include.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I saw a toddler sitting in a shopping cart at the supermarket as his father shopped for produce, and the toddler had a plastic produce bag over his head and seemed to be enjoying himself. Presumably the father gave the bag the toddler to entertain himself as the father shopped.

Fearful that he would suffocate, I gestured to the toddler to pull the bag off of his head. Keeping the bag on his head, the toddler just smiled at me.

Was there a diplomatic way to ask the father to remove the bag from his toddler's head? Was I wrong not to say anything to the father? I feared being a meddler, but am haunted by the horrific vision of a lifeless young body. Plastic bags are potential deathtraps, not playthings.

GENTLE READER: Wait a minute: Is this baby alive? Knowing what you do, you walked away from a baby who was putting a plastic bag over his head?

Miss Manners is haunted -- not only by the danger involved, but by the outrageous assumption that etiquette condones human sacrifice.

True, there are rules against criticizing parents and assuming unauthorized authority over other people's children. However, this does not sound like a difference regarding child-rearing methods. Unless you believe the father was committing infanticide in the hopes of enjoying eating that produce all by himself, you have to assume that he was ignorant or unaware of a clear and present danger.

Miss Manners hastens to inform you that etiquette is not the foolishly inflexible system you seem to believe. It also has a rule against shouting at people, but if you were drowning, it would not take you to task for raising your voice to say "Help!"

Something more was called for here than using pantomime to administer a safety course to a baby. You could have spared both the baby and the father's feelings by saying apologetically -- after snatching away the bag -- "Forgive me, but I'm afraid those bags can be lethal."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My father recently passed away, and our family has received many cards of condolence. Is it proper for me to send thank you cards to those who mailed us condolence cards? Do I acknowledge condolence cards with thank you cards of my own when, for example, the original card was sent to me from a neighbor just next door?

GENTLE READER: The definition of "card" here troubles Miss Manners. Are you talking about an impersonal exchange of printed matter -- one card announcing "deepest sympathy" and the other "thank you"? Or an exchange of important sentiments that only happens to be written on smaller paper than is formally required on such occasions?

All letters of condolence, with their kind words about the deceased and sympathetic ones for the bereaved, require written expression of gratitude. If you simply want to thank someone for a minimal, rote acknowledgment, you can do so just as unceremoniously, for example, by saying, "Thanks for the card" when you next see the neighbor.

: