DEAR MISS MANNERS: I work for a small to midsized urban museum, the oldest cultural institution in the state, but inwardly focused and not well known. As we have begun to do more public programs, step up publicity and expand how we serve the community, we have won awards for our exhibitions, programs and restoration of our historic building.

I've been working here six years, and I am tired of people confusing us with the "other" cultural institution in the city that is more well known. When I say I work for the X Museum, people respond, "Oh, is that the same as the Y Museum?"

We are so different! I am so tired of being associated with the other place in people's eyes! What is a polite response to the people who confuse us?

GENTLE READER: Apparently, you have been looking inwardly for far too long. When you look outward, it is supposed to be with pleasant anticipation, not disgruntlement.

Miss Manners finds it particularly unreasonable of you to be annoyed that people are unfamiliar with your museum when you say it has just begun the effort to make itself known. Why don't you help that cause by using these opportunities to speak of the museum enthusiastically, in an attempt to enlighten and intrigue people who are unaware of its attractions?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At my wedding -- which was otherwise lovely -- guests, if so inclined, could speak a few words about us.

An acquaintance of mine, with whom I had a short liaison several years ago, began his comments, in front of our assembled family and friends, by explaining that he used to date me (which among other things, is not exactly true).

I found this humiliating, and while the gentleman did not intend to injure me, he has also not been tremendously apologetic. Because I don't wish to be reminded of any of this again, and because I was friendly with him at the time of the wedding only because I had been forgiving of previous lapses, I would like to return his wedding present. (Throwing it out does not seem quite final enough.)

I would return it with a polite note. Is returning the present acceptable? I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is thinking about how it would have sounded if, instead of describing himself as having dated you, the gentleman had described himself as only an acquaintance who had had a short liaison with you.

She will have to trust that the speech itself was in bad enough taste to justify your extreme reaction. Returning a present is a powerful and final rejection. (Those who do so because they just don't like the particular present should take note.)

If you must do so, the accompanying letter should say, "Under the circumstances, I'm afraid I cannot accept this."

:

In making it illegal to use cellular telephones at the movies, in concert halls, at museums and galleries, in the theater and at other public performances, the New York City Council is following a very old American tradition.

As Miss Manners recalls, the Puritans also believed in using the authority and force of the law to punish common and trivial forms of rudeness. Gossiping, swearing, flirting, defying one's parents and making fun of others were illegal under their rule.

You can see how well that worked. Except for playing video games, these "vices" pretty much cover how Americans now spend their time.

It also helps to explain why those who drew up the new country's government were wary of legislating against rudeness. It is not that they considered etiquette unimportant; on the contrary, Gen. Washington, Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson all had thriving sidelines as etiquetteers. How citizens in an egalitarian society should treat one another was of enormous interest to them throughout their lives.

But they were also freedom fighters, and therefore opposed to unnecessary restrictions on matters that civilized people could be presumed to settle for themselves. So -- unlikely as it may seem -- is their modest colleague, Miss Manners.

However, the rest of the population, sharing this enthusiasm for freedom but misunderstanding the trade-offs necessary to ensure it, has worked itself up to denouncing the gentle rule of etiquette. If the awesome law didn't mind annoying its fellow citizens, the public was not going to be restrained from this pleasure by silly old etiquette.

Did they imagine that their fellow citizens would give up and resign themselves to being annoyed? Not likely.

You want law? OK, these fellow citizens have been snarling back, we'll give you law.

The cellular telephone legislation is the latest example of that reaction. Like other such attempts, the end result is less freedom than if the matter had remained under the rule of etiquette. And although the rationale for using law is that etiquette is unenforceable, even supporters of this new legislation admit that it is just as unenforceable.

So how do you get people to shut up at public performances?

It is not easy, Miss Manners admits, but etiquette did accomplish this once.

The history of audience behavior was characterized by rowdiness, not restraint. The young Mozart groused about it to his father. Only in the 19th century did the idea arise that it would be more considerate of other audience members, as well as of performers, if everyone stopped yapping and sat and listened.

American impresarios blamed low-class toughs for the problem, and removed some of the cheap seats to discourage their presence. French impresarios blamed high-class toffs and put in more cheap seats to encourage a nonaristocratic presence. Then, as now, written and oral pleas for orderliness were delivered.

What finally worked, at least for the better part of a century, was that great weapon of supposedly defenseless etiquette -- shame. Conductors and soloists started shaming audiences by stopping their performances to scold or walk out. Audiences took this up, and began shaming miscreants among themselves.

Among some audiences, glares outshine the spotlights, and vigilantes took the position that one cough was enough to justify forced exile. It may have been strict, but it worked better than legal action. A telephone ringing in a concert hall is indisputably disruptive, but not as disruptive as the police trooping in to arrest the offender.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When an invitation to a party is received, is it proper or improper to call other people and ask them if they received an invitation?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is charitable enough to presume that your intention is to offer a ride, rather than to brag that you are on a guest list that they might not be, or to insult the host by talking over whether it would be worth attending. Nevertheless, the effect would be the same, so the answer is that it is improper.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a busy hairstylist, and I run a tight ship where clients are seldom kept waiting. However, I am frequently kept waiting by clients who feel that it is their God-given right to be on their cell phones during their whole appointment. They are too busy talking to even greet me.

I had one such client, who walked in on the phone, talked DURING her color application, the entire processing time, her shampoo (I had to signal for her to change ears so I could properly rinse the color out), the conditioning, the final rinse and her bang trim. When I turned my blow dryer on, she snapped her fingers at me and pointed in the most imperious manner possible.

I was so flummoxed by her rudeness that I meekly turned the dryer off. I am a person who is seldom at a loss for words, but this left me speechless.

I also decided that I would no longer put up with this kind of behavior, so I wrote to her and "fired" her. I sent her check back as well and kept a copy of the letter, just in case.

I want the message to get out: Clients, do not be rude to your stylists, we are people, too, and are highly sensitive, as most artistes are!! We love to visit with our clients, and become part of their lives, so please do not treat us as nonentities by spending the bulk of your appointment chatting on your cell phone. Please limit cell use for REAL emergencies ONLY.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners was with you, even through the part about being a sensitive artiste, which she believes to be an oxymoron. Conducting business with you must take priority over whatever else the client is doing to pass the time. It is rude for her to fail to greet you, to be unable to comply with directions, to keep you waiting and, most certainly, to snap her fingers and point. If she were committing the common offense of talking too loudly, that, too, would be rude.

But when you declare that the opposite of being treated as a nonentity is to be part of your clients' lives, and you resent their visiting with others because you want them to visit with you, you and Miss Manners part company.

You perform a professional service. No matter how many people choose to confide in their hairdressers, you cannot consider that politeness demands that all clients do so. Miss Manners would imagine that others in your business would be relieved to be allowed to go about theirs.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Today my boss told me that while I was at lunch, my daughter called twice and wanted me to return her call on her cell phone. My boss often offers her unsolicited opinions and enjoys scolding people. She said that she almost asked my daughter if she was driving while talking on her cell phone.

While I also do not approve of driving while talking, I would never reprimand my adult daughter for doing so, and it is not illegal (yet) in our area. What assertive response could my daughter make if my boss scolds her in the future?

GENTLE READER: You mean such as "Mind your own business," which, in this case, would apply literally?

Miss Manners is afraid that polite people are never permitted to use this phrase. Instead, they pronounce "How very kind of you to take an interest" so coldly as to create the same effect.

: