Watch out for the paparazzi.

You don't have to be famous and they don't have to be professional. The American dream of being constantly pursued by people who are crazy to capture your every moment on film is coming true for everyone.

The latest means for effecting this miracle is the picture-taking-and-transmitting cellular telephone. We also have the wristwatch camera, the pen camera, and a variety of ever-smaller cameras and camcorders that can pop out of nowhere and snap away, but it is the telephone one that worries Miss Manners. All we needed was a new irritant to stir up the hostility between that half of the population who has not yet acquired cell phones, and the half that has but has not yet learned to use them politely.

What with all the commotion made by people screaming into cell phones and people screaming about cell phones, the camera function may not be immediately suspected by its targets. And they could be anyone -- household members thinking they were at leisure, guests caught off guard, strangers assuming shared privacy in gyms and anonymity in the streets.

Not that there is a lot of pictorial privacy to lose. We are all already starring on numerous security films, presumably caught in the act of going about our lawful business. Some who claim to have been going about lawfully find that the traffic-regulating film on which they have made cameo appearances argues otherwise.

Most people seem to be used to being on camera, although Miss Manners has to remember not to stop and use video monitors to pat her hair into place as she passes through surveillance. She also has trouble remembering why a society composed of people angling to get on television to confess their disappointments or, now that we have reality television, demonstrate their shortcomings, would defend privacy with a straight face.

Apparently it is the right to straighten up their faces (a euphemism, Miss Manners notes, for pulling in their stomachs) that invasive photography overrides. In the days when being photographed involved fitting the head against an iron clasp and going immobile until the photographer scared the daylights out of you with a burst of sound, light and possibly smoke, you were at least not caught unawares.

But the complaint of the bride was a familiar one. She said the unauthorized pictures made her look fat.

Even the lady's lawyer was not willing to take up that angle, nor is Miss Manners concerned with the particulars of indignant movie stars. What struck her is that no one -- not even a famously beautiful professional actress while she is posing for other cameras in her wedding dress -- feels safe from photographic ridicule.

And surely ordinary people going about their lives -- whether relatives who are corralled or strangers who are caught -- matter more than the stirring arguments one hears from camera wielders about their art and their duty to the historical record. If such subjects do not give permission in advance, they should at least be offered the chance to delete.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm hoping you can help me -- my family and I have a bit of a debate on this issue. I am currently a graduate student studying for my master's degree. I currently hold another master's degree, for which I received a hood at graduation. At my upcoming graduation, is it appropriate for me to wear my other hood? If I continue on for my doctorate, do I wear both hoods?

GENTLE READER: Your head may be stuffed with knowledge, but Miss Manners presumes you have only one, currently and otherwise. So however many disciplines you can juggle, she is afraid you can wear only one hood at a time.

:

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."

: