Respectable people did not used to appear any the less respectable as a concession to summer heat. They had summer wardrobes made of lighter materials, but these featured the same items as their winter counterparts, including ties and jackets, long skirts and stockings.

Of course, that was back before air conditioning. Now we have desperate and indignant pleas that human survival would be at stake if anyone had to stagger from air-conditioned transportation to air-conditioned buildings wearing more than tank shirts, shorts and sandals.

Miss Manners does not mention this out of any yearning for the fortitude of yore. Those people must have been nuts.

But she finds the relationship between the progression of technology and the progression of style to be curious. As the methods of producing clothing went from tedious handwork to mechanized mass-production, tailcoats and embroidered, elaborately draped dresses were abandoned for jeans and basic-black shifts. In architecture, for that matter, increasingly powerful equipment and more flexible materials marked the change from an immense variety of fanciful buildings to the ubiquitous unadorned box.

Ah, well. Miss Manners doesn't pretend that hers is the prevailing taste. If it were, the bustle would be back, and ladies could use their stair machines to practice walking with a train.

All she asks is that some effort be made to conform to the standards of our own times, which still distinguish between dressed and undressed. There must be a summer compromise between running around in practically nothing in order to stay cool and looking dignified while passing out.

But attempts to loosen easily definable dress codes always bring more problems than they solve. No sooner are concessions made than they are abused. When word goes out that ties and jackets are no longer required, out come the T-shirts and jeans. If those are permitted, out come the tank tops and shorts.

Part of this stems from confusion. Most people have a pretty good idea what business dress is, but -- as is obvious at any informal social event -- everyone has a different definition of genuine casual, and, even after all these years, no one has ever found out what "business casual" means.

The rest is bolstered by argument, mostly about creativity and comfort. Miss Manners doesn't mind the visual part of the summer slops nearly as much as having to listen to versions of "Nobody can tell me what to wear because I'm grown up now and I won't wear any of those grown-up clothes that would make me look old."

She would have thought that at least she would be spared the summer buzz of complaints about how tourists and co-workers dress, but strangely, even the self-proclaimed rebels care about such things. As it is difficult to proclaim independence for oneself but not others, they put it in different terms: Those half-dressed people are fat, sweaty, provocative, showing off, smelly, hairy, threatening-looking and so on.

Yes, those are some of the things that benefit from a few bits of light cloth. Unless these people are on the beach, where it is inoffensive because that is the dress code.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My family and I had taken my mother to church in her parish, where I am unfamiliar with the parishioners. As we lined up for Communion, I noticed that a lady in the next line over had a good-sized cockroach crawling on the back of her sweater.

I didn't want to disturb her in a moment of prayerfulness, but I worried that if I tried to remove the bug myself, it might cause a commotion. I ended up not doing anything, but felt guilty about it. What is the correct thing to do when one notices that a stranger has something distasteful on her clothing?

GENTLE READER: Slapping people around in the Communion line probably would cause a commotion, Miss Manners agrees. In fact, it is a dangerous tactic to spring on the unsuspecting at any time or place, and should be reserved for greater and more immediate threats than are posed by a distasteful cockroach. Even at a propitious time, you should say quietly, "I believe there is a bug (the polite term) on your sweater -- shall I brush it off for you?"

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am saddened by the loss of a friend who passed away as a result of an auto accident just a day before she would have participated in her graduation ceremony. The whole community she grew up in is devastated.

I knew her from her basketball games and would often talk to her mother at the games. Her mother and father were very close to her. Her family was looking forward to her future. She received her basketball scholarship the day of the accident.

I want to pay my respects at the funeral home. I will be going by myself so I will be very nervous about the proper way to handle things. I want to send a card and flowers.

I purchased a sympathy card for the family. Should it be addressed to the parents or the deceased? I assume it should be addressed to the deceased. Please correct me if I am wrong. I have never had to handle anything like this before.

I have no idea what to say to the family. This is very painful for them because they were close to their daughter. I've been in agony ever since I heard the news myself.

What is the proper way to express your concern and sorrow without upsetting them further? I sometimes get lightheaded around caskets. This occasion WILL make me lightheaded. Do you have any suggestions for either preventing the situation or excusing myself if I feel it coming on?

GENTLE READER: This is always a daunting situation, even for those who have had to go through it before, and Miss Manners admires you for facing it. Many an adult takes the cruel and cowardly course of running away.

The only thing that could upset the parents more than they already are is the impression that others don't care. But you have nobly determined to use all the ways to show that you do, and Miss Manners need only guide you through the technicalities.

The flowers should be sent to the funeral home, addressed to "The funeral of" with your friend's name. Condolences are addressed to the bereaved, in this case the parents, but a letter is infinitely preferable to a card, where you merely sign someone else's words.

This brings us to the question of what to say. Both in person and by letter, what you need to tell the parents is that you sympathize with them and cared for their daughter. The former is done just by saying "I'm so sorry," and by writing, "I send you my deepest sympathy." Elaborating on this is what gets people saying foolish, hurtful things, such as "I know how you feel" or "Time will heal you."

If there is an open casket, you may be able to busy yourself with the mourners so that it is not conspicuous that you keep your distance. But if you do get faint, you need only say so to anyone nearby who can help you to a seat. The one thing people do not have to be embarrassed about in this situation is being overcome.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: On occasion, I have been known to take personal letters I have written with me to the office, where I can mail them more conveniently. When I run out of postage stamps, I sometimes use the office postage meter (after paying for the postage, of course). I have been told that it is rude to use a postage meter on personal mail, but I've never been able to find any rule to that effect. Can you enlighten me?

GENTLE READER: It is not the meter itself that violates etiquette, but the embarrassing impression you leave on the recipients that you violated office ethics. Miss Manners would consider it harder to figure out how to indicate that you reimbursed your employer than to lay in a supply of stamps.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It occurs to me that we may be just a couple of weeks away from needing a refresher course on why gentlemen and ladies used to wear gloves. What with SARS beginning to spread, wearing gloves in public may once again become a reasonable precaution to help avoid disease. From what the medical people are saying, it should be more to the point than wearing masks.

GENTLE READER: Oh, but the etiquette of mask wearing can be so much more exciting. Miss Manners is thinking of 18th century Venice, when masks were worn half the year and the convention was that masked people must be considered unidentifiable. So if your spouse or creditors spotted you at an inconvenient time, knowing perfectly well it was you, it didn't count.

There is also earlier precedent for their usefulness during plagues. The masks, that is, not the spouses and creditors.

Other than in specific working situations, from surgery to gardening, gloves were not worn expressly for protective reasons. Unimaginable as it may now seem, people were simply in the habit of getting dressed when they went out, and this included hats and gloves.

Glove-related etiquette therefore had mostly to do with when to take them off: Gentlemen had to remove them before shaking hands, and, following a rule that is always being disgustingly violated in costume dramas, everyone had to remove them before touching food or drink.

So those rules are not terribly useful to ward off disease. Miss Manners would undertake to revise them if she thought we would all have to learn to live that way, but she trusts not. Emergency measures must sometimes be taken, during which people apologize to one another for suspending the conventions and everyone understands. But she does not want to encourage those who, even during ordinary times, view their fellow human beings chiefly as sources of contamination.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: While my wife and I were dining in a restaurant, the server made a mistake and brought one of us the wrong order. We can return the meal and ask for the original order, but that means that one of us will be eating while the other one is watching, which is a bit awkward.

We can accept the wrong order and grumble about it, but this is not an option we care to entertain. Or we can return both meals and ask that two fresh dinners be served so that we can enjoy the meal together. Are we being unreasonable in asking for two fresh dinners?

GENTLE READER: Not at all. The business of restaurants is not just to sell food, but to provide the experience of dining, and you would be cheated of that if you and your wife were forced to have successive dinners. Miss Manners would not worry too much about the inconvenience to the restaurant. First, it was their mistake, and second, you will only get that same dinner back re-heated.

: