DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife and I are part of a close-knit group of four couples who meet regularly to dine, attend the theater and travel. We all have luxurious tastes, and as such normally pick the finest restaurants and travel accommodations.

Just before Christmas, one of our number lost his job as a hospital administrator. In January, his wife lost her executive director position when her firm was purchased by a competitor. Since these changes occurred, they have attended only one of our outings, and they have given me the impression that they do not wish to discuss their change in economic circumstances.

To avoid embarrassment, I feel that we should continue as if nothing has happened and let them decide whether to attend or request a change in our typical choice of venue. My wife feels we should start making much more modest plans as a group, thus sending a message that we value their friendship more than a restaurant experience or an expensive trip. Another group member feels that we should have a frank discussion with this couple and solicit their feelings on the subject.

All of these potential actions have drawbacks in my opinion. What would Miss Manners recommend we do to preserve our group and not embarrass people who are going through a difficult time (or who may be independently wealthy to a degree where none of this is of concern to them and their recent lack of attendance is due to scheduling conflicts only, as claimed)?

GENTLE READER: Is your group's taste so refined that it never deigns to go to the movies? Or take a car trip nearby? Or enjoy an unpretentious meal? And do you never entertain one another at home?

Miss Manners agrees with your wife that now would be a tactful time to indulge in such modest treats. You need not do this exclusively -- just often enough to see whether this draws your friends more than your usual outings. It is better simply to enable your friends to participate in activities than to require them to lament their finances, as they are obviously not choosing to do, and make them feel responsible for your altering your entertainment.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: While sorting through some old boxes for a charity pick up, I found a stack of leftover note cards from our wedding. I'm sure you know the type: folded cards with "Laura and Marc" on the front and a blank interior for the note.

I would like to use them for thank-you notes, as they are of rather nice quality and I like them very much. Would there be anything improper about doing so? I can't think of any reason why it would be, but I have a little niggling doubt in the back of my mind that someone might object.

GENTLE READER: That someone is Miss Manners. She has more than niggling going on in the front of her mind for fear that you neglected the thank-you letters for your wedding presents for so long that you forgot you had those cards. Surely you wrote all those when the presents arrived, and are only inquiring about letters of thanks for future birthday and holiday presents.

In either case, two people cannot write a letter -- although one can mention the gratitude of the other -- so a double name should not be on the paper that is used. However, two people can give presents and two people can entertain, so the cards will be useful for congratulatory notes and informal invitations.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have a gay friend who I would love to introduce to a colleague who I suspect is gay. Ordinarily I would simply have them both to dinner, but the colleague lives several hours' drive away. If I were certain of his sexual preference, I would be straightforward and ask him if he'd like to meet my friend, but for professional reasons, I feel it would be indiscreet to try to discover this information by doing "undercover detective work." Do you have any suggestions?

GENTLE READER: Before you fix up anyone, you are supposed to know something about both people. If mere availability were the only qualification necessary, matchmaking, such as you are kindly interested in offering, would be unnecessary because just about anyone would do.

Miss Manners suggests asking the colleague what sort of person happens to interest him. If you pay attention to the pronouns in his reply, you will have your answer, as well as the crucial information about his tastes and availability.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a member of the graduate student committee at my university that makes decisions about funding for student groups. Our grants program is divided into grants for community service projects, projects furthering diversity, etc.

Often, student groups will apply under the wrong categories -- asking us for an activism grant when the committee thinks that their project would really fit the diversity category better, for instance. I tend to interpret the funding guidelines more narrowly than about half of the rest of the committee.

When I said that I didn't think that a certain project should be funded by a diversity grant, one of the other students on the committee started to explain to me, very patronizingly, why diversity was a worthy campus goal. I felt like she was calling me a racist, or insensitive at the very least.

At that point, I slammed my fist on the table, explained that I was one of two women in my graduate program, and well understood the value of diversity.

Did I react too strongly? I felt that if she was implying that I was bigoted, I had to defend myself. I had supported funding for several diversity projects at that meeting already; that particular one just didn't seem to fit.

GENTLE READER: Before "insensitive" became a euphemism for casual bigotry, it signified a failure to adjust one's behavior to properly fit the circumstances. In that sense, it was insensitive of you to slam your fist at a committee meeting, for whatever reason, and to take general remarks, however pompous, as personal insults.

The polite method of derailing such an orator is to voice agreement to the obvious, and then give voice to every committee member's dearest hope, which is that you get on with the business at hand so that everyone can be released. What you should have said was, "Yes, yes, we all agree on the objectives -- that's why we're here. The point we need to decide is whether this particular case advances diversity better than others."

:

"I'll scrub floors before I'll accept charity."

"We may be poor, but we have our pride."

"I've always been independent, and I always will be."

"Thank you, but I wouldn't dream of taking your money. I'm sure I'll manage."

"I may not be legally responsible, but I consider this a debt of honor, and I'll pay off every cent if I die in the attempt."

"I don't accept tips."

When -- if ever -- was the last time you heard any of these statements? The young must think that allowing pride to trump avarice dates back to a long-past age of romance and stupidity.

Miss Manners is not exactly complaining that she misses what were, after all, responses to difficult, perhaps tragic circumstances. But she sorely misses the quaint attitude they represented. The rapidity with which begging and bankruptcy shed any sense of shame and took on an air of insouciant cleverness astonishes her.

In the social realm, pleading financial need and requesting assistance have become so commonplace that the techniques are cited as "traditional" by the clueless, as well as by the financially irresponsible. Not a day goes by that Miss Manners doesn't receive several questions about how to do something -- throw a party, take a trip, buy household items, entertain in a restaurant -- that the writer states being unable to afford.

Various schemes are proposed, with the expectation that Miss Manners will explain the proper way to do them. How do you politely tell your guests to give you money so you can buy what you want? What is the correct wording to invite people while letting them know that they are supposed to pay? How do you graciously state your desire that guests contribute payments toward your vacation or house?

Miss Manners' favorite Scheme of the Week is a postal card sent to members of a church congregation asking them to celebrate the marriage of their pastor with "monetary gifts for the honeymoon. If you like, do it anonymously to eliminate the need for thank-you cards."

She can't wait to hear his sermon about how charity begins at home. Or the one on offering thanks.

Nevertheless, Miss Manners saw it all coming. Once the commercial gift registry (originally kept only in case customers inquired about a bride's silver or china pattern) expanded to put generosity under the control of its beneficiary, the rest was inevitable. Stripping sentiment from the custom of giving presents naturally prompted the question of why the giver should be entrusted -- or encumbered, depending on the degree of hypocrisy exercised -- with the purchasing.

The next step was for the recipient to examine the overhead costs involved in entertaining the donors, which would have to be subtracted from the take. Prospective guests often ask Miss Manners whether etiquette requires that the cost of a present be dictated not by their resources or impulses, but by the amount spent on their food and drink. Hosts, especially those who like to entertain at places that they are the first to admit they cannot afford, are inclined to see these as two different obligations, and ask how to explain that the guests should both pay their own way and give a (directed) present.

But why bother with guests at all? The virtual community is larger and less troublesome than the relatives and friends upon whom self-fund-raisers had been drawing. The pioneers in asking strangers on the Internet for money patterned themselves on the causes of reputable charity -- such as donating toward education or helping the ill -- except for designating themselves the sole beneficiaries. A breakthrough was achieved last year when it was discovered that asking for money for luxuries also brought results.

Miss Manners fails to understand why philanthropists would turn from the needy to the greedy, but she is not opposed to enterprise. She only wants to make it clear that none of this has the least bit to do with etiquette, and she is not in the business of laundering rudeness to make it seem so.

These practices are no less vulgar for having become commonplace. There is no polite way to tell people to give you money or objects, and no polite way to entertain people at their expense. Begging is the last resort of the desperate, not a social form for those who want to live beyond their means.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a junior at my local high school and as a junior I am permitted to go to Junior Prom. I wish to take a young man I know, who does not go to my school.

Who pays for the tickets? Do I, because I go to the school that is hosting this Prom? Does he, because he is the young man? Or do we split it evenly between us, so as to be fair?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners regrets to inform you that splitting the cost of the tickets is not fair. What is fair -- and has always been considered so, as generations of graduates from female educational institutions can attest -- is for the person who issued the invitation to bear the cost. That gentlemen once issued more invitations than ladies cannot be used as an excuse to reduce a hostess's expenses.

: