DEAR MISS MANNERS: I teach high school drama and English. This past summer, I received wedding invitations from four of my former students. I responded that I would not be attending the weddings.

Quite frankly, I teach hundreds of students each year, and I receive multiple graduation, wedding and other types of invitations. While each student is special to me, my public school teacher salary is not generous enough to allow me the financial ability to send gifts to each occasion. Other than teaching them in a professional setting or working on a drama production, I have no other contact with the students.

When I returned for the fall semester, several parents of the former students each approached me separately and informed me how disappointed the former student was that I could not attend the wedding. The parent(s) further explained that they did not invite that many people to the wedding -- that I was considered "special" because I was invited (as opposed to other teachers), and therefore my presence was greatly missed.

I felt guilty after each conversation for not attending the wedding(s). I apologized profusely, explaining that my summer was very busy. However, I was too embarrassed to explain that I had been invited to several former students' weddings, but attended none of them, because I did not want to show up to the wedding empty-handed (carrying no gift).

What should I do at this point? Should I now purchase gifts for those students' whose weddings that I did not attend? What should I do in the future? I imagine that I am not the only school teacher who faces this problem every time graduation season arrives.

GENTLE READER: Could Miss Manners induce you to take just a minute out from feeling guilty and overwhelmed to feel flattered?

Your former students want you at the important occasions in their lives because you made a difference in their lives. Through sheer force of your teaching, you made a lasting impression on them.

Isn't that why you went into teaching?

This is not to say that you have to attend their functions. Unless the parents are unusually rude, they were only saying you were missed because they want you to know how much you mean to their children, and they share their illusion that you were as focused on each student individually as they all were on you.

All you need to do is to express your regret at not being able to attend, and deflect inquiry by expressing your good wishes. You should certainly not insult them by insinuating that you would not have been welcome unless you brought a present.

However, if you wish to attend, that matter of being "empty-handed" should not stop you. Presents are properly sent, not delivered (no matter how many of your students are ignorant of this rule), and the best one from you would be a letter of praise at their achievements, if you can manage it, and perhaps an inscribed book (paper or second-hand will do) which, as it would be carrying a favorite teacher's recommendation, should be as precious as any silver or electronics they may receive.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My boyfriend and I have a disagreement about whether it's proper when we finish eating at a restaurant for him to stack up the dishes. I have told him it's the waitress' responsibility. Who's right?

GENTLE READER: Neither of you. It is the waitress's job to clear the table properly, and a good one would be just as horrified as Miss Manners at dishes being stacked.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In our increasingly high-tech world, it's become easier than ever to keep up with the events in the lives of people one has known, even if one has fallen out of touch with the actual person. I hope you can help me understand what the rules of etiquette are in these situations.

Specifically, I'm referring to the practice of "Googling" others; that is, typing someone's name into an Internet search engine and seeing what entries result from the search.

Recently, I came across information that a high school classmate and friend, whom I haven't spoken with in years, recently lost his wife, whom I did not know. This information prompted a flurry of searches, and I discovered that another classmate has also passed away, and a third has been jailed for repeated alcohol-impaired driving offenses.

How does one (indeed, should one) admit to having this information, without causing undue distress?

I would like to contact my old friend whose wife died to express my sympathy, but I simply don't know how to initiate the contact. It seems one thing to say, "I was talking with Christine, who told me about your wife. I'm so sorry for your loss," while it's quite another to admit that I came by the information through a practice that's not far removed from stalking. What would Miss Manners do?

GENTLE READER: What she is doing at the moment is wondering whether this matter will always be considered delicate, or is, even now, other than by you and Miss Manners.

It is true that, as a people, we are fiercely protective of our privacy. But that is only to make others stop bothering us while the population is busy posting everything it does, thinks or feels, accompanied by pictures, on its personal Web sites.

Perhaps not in the situations you mention, however. Presumably, people do not post their own arrests, deaths and bereavements. Yet these are matters of public record, and there are many ways you could have found out about them.

How you actually did is not that important. You need only begin your letter to your friend who lost his wife -- and the survivor of your other classmate, should you be prompted to send condolences -- with "I was so sorry to learn of your loss."

As for your other unfortunate classmate, Miss Manners suggests checking his Web site and your school's self-submitted alumni notes, and offering sympathy only if it appears to be solicited by his telling his version of what happened.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I received an invitation to a party whose purpose was to meet a candidate for a soon-to-be-elected office. It was given by the candidate, a person I do not know and will not be supporting.

At the bottom of the "party" invitation, it said "Regrets only." Although I did not plan to go, I did not reply. I did not feel I could have a comfortable telephone conversation with this person I do not know and will not support. Was this impolite?

GENTLE READER: The social rules that pertain to offers of hospitality from friends do not apply to offers from strangers attempting to extract an advantage for themselves. Had you telephoned, Miss Manners feels sure that you would have encountered -- depending on the size of the office -- either a staff member mechanically recording replies or a desperately pleading candidate. You may consider that you saved them trouble.

:

"The love affair that people have had with automobiles has in some ways grown stale, and some would say it's even dying."

Once everybody got over the astonishment of learning that such a statement had come from the chairman and chief executive of the Ford Motor Co., a Mr. Ford, Miss Manners began musing about whether motoring manners had changed as dramatically. Some say these are dying, or that others are as a result.

When automobiles first appeared, the etiquette complaint was that drivers sped about recklessly, heedless of pedestrians and other traffic. Nothing new there, except that the offending speed is above 20 miles per hour, and those miffed tend to be speedier drivers, rather than horses.

Huge goggles were worn, and still are, although no longer with those fetching linen dusters, motor bonnets and veils. Now the goggles are made with dark glass.

The rule about monogramming one's motor car -- that it be done discreetly, on both doors of a two-door one but only the back doors of a four-door -- remains unchanged, although the preference now is to post one's loyalties and sentiments in large banners on the front and back, and discretion has been left in the dust.

The factor to which the present disenchantment with automobiles is attributed -- nasty emissions -- is, indeed, a modern issue. It is not that people used to revel in messes instead of caring about the environment as we enlightened folk do; it was only that the traffic to which they had been accustomed had produced smellier messes.

Etiquette rules that were adapted from previous modes of transportation have long since fallen into disuse, Miss Manners has observed. It no longer seems necessary to do a motor-car seating arrangement reserving the place of honor on the host's right, although, even then, an exception was made if it interfered with his sitting within easy reach of the speaking tube connecting him with the driver.

However, the rule that no lady should have to sit backward still applies in those elongated cars that carry entire proms careening around town. Unfortunately, with built-in bars, the seating plan tends to rearrange itself.

It is in a larger sense that conditions inside the automobile have changed, giving rise to the need for different rules of etiquette. Early motorists did not require regulations for an entertainment center, a communications department, a dining room and a dressing room.

So far, attention on these activities has focused on the more urgent question of whether they impair public safety. One hears theories that a driver who is responding to music, receiving a fax, eating breakfast and clipping his fingernails may not be paying full attention to the road. This has not daunted people who grew up claiming they could do their homework while watching television.

But what of the social conditions within? Miss Manners admits that the potential danger here is minor compared to the possibilities for creating highway havoc, but she worries all the same.

Etiquette wars in households in which people have had to share such equipment have been so vicious that families who can afford it avoid the necessity of polite cooperation with multiple telephones and tape decks, not to mention bathrooms. And that is in a situation where they can at least get away from one another.

The family car may be the last place where the etiquette of sharing, taking turns, compromising and obtaining a consensus are necessary. At least until the children are old enough to drive their own cars.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My friends live in an older home on a lovely street and work tirelessly to improve their home -- beautiful gate, wonderful rock garden, etc. They enjoy their home -- or they would, if it were not for the busybody who lives in the neighborhood who believes she has the right to criticize them and others.

She invades their privacy. She enters their house uninvited, and if she sees them in their yard, she hustles over to inform them what she thinks of them and what they need to do to their place. She is nasty and uses foul language, calling people names that I shouldn't like to hear.

Should they have a restraining order placed on her? It's too late to try to teach her any manners. She's 70-plus years old.

GENTLE READER: What your friends have there is a genuine Neighborhood Character, in the Crusty Old Nuisance category.

This does not mean that they need to cherish her, but they do need to restrain themselves from over-reacting.

Miss Manners advises locking their doors and garden gates, replying, "Yes, ma'am" in reply to unpleasant remarks, and continuing to enjoy their home. If further restraint becomes necessary, it is the lady's relatives, not the police, they need to call, dumping on them both the problem and a lot of sympathy.

: