DEAR MISS MANNERS: Why do we have to eat at almost every meeting, most functions and many classes? How does one politely decline to bring food without being ostracized and bringing attention to oneself?

With super-sizing our bodies and obesity being a concern, how can we turn this "must eat before and while functioning" (or rather "must eat constantly") mentality around?

What finally brought these questions to the surface was a call to bring a "dish to share" to the voting place for fellow workers, with an ending note that said "don't forget to bring food for yourself during the long day" -- food plus food!

I didn't volunteer to work in order to eat, nor to feed others. If I wanted to feed others I would volunteer, and I do on holidays and other days, to work in a soup kitchen.

Volunteer for a nonprofit organization or committee and the first things of business are "what kind of pizza do we order and what dish will you bring?" and then we need to decide where we will dine (paid for by the nonprofit organization) to celebrate the wonderful job our committee will do! It makes a lot more sense to me for each committee member to donate the monies that they would spend on the unneeded food to the organization and to save the nonprofit organization funds by foregoing the dining.

Sign up and pay for a night class of any kind (even diet or weight loss) and first thing, even before attendance is taken, the instructor says, "It has been suggested (and it is never disclosed by whom) that we all bring food for everyone to snack on before, during and after class; also we need to decide where we will eat at on the last night."

The airlines are finally (thanks to cost-cutting) getting away from the era of "fasten your seat belt, open your mouth, food's coming." Two breakfasts, lunch, dinner and snacks in between on a flight to attend a power breakfast is a little much even for Jack Spratt.

GENTLE READER: Well, sure, because Jack Spratt couldn't scarf the potato chips and the cheese dip. He ate no fat, remember?

Although Miss Manners shares your reaction, she would like to believe that the emphasis on constant snacking has to do with the spread of the hospitable impulse. She is, however, afraid it is more likely connected with the highly regrettable demise of proper meals.

You will not be able to reform this practice, but you can refrain from participating. As plans are made, you should say, without rancor, "Count me out, I won't be eating." Miss Manners is sure she does not have to remind you that after that, it is no fair snacking.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I gave my girlfriend diamond earrings for Christmas and she dumped me a week ago. She admitted she was thinking about breaking up before Christmas. Should I expect them back?

GENTLE READER: Not likely. Just a guess, but a lady who disobeys the etiquette rule against accepting valuable jewelry from a gentleman to whom she is not related -- and to the extent of accepting this from a gentleman she is thinking of dropping -- does not strike Miss Manners as someone devoted to the rule about returning love tokens from a defunct romance.

:

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.

: