DEAR MISS MANNERS: Several doors up the street from my house is one of those street-side shrines -- the memorials set up by friends and family at the site where someone has been killed.

It was set up over six months ago by high school students where one of their friends crashed his car and was killed. The offending telephone pole was decorated with a large Irish flag inscribed yearbook-style, votive candles, flowers and many small mementos.

Never beautiful to my eyes, the display has been neglected and is now little more than a pile of trash. I walk past it several times a day and I'm tired of looking at it. I'd like to remove it, but ...

Is there a standard period of tolerance for such displays? Though it's not in front of my house, do I have any right to remove it, or must I persuade my neighbor to do so? Should I just forget it until the seniors have gone to college in the fall and won't be around to refresh it if it's removed?

GENTLE READER: You do see the pathos, and not just the unsightliness, in these shrines, don't you? However miserable a heap of wrinkled balloons and rain-soaked teddy bears may appear, it symbolizes the anguish of the bereaved in wanting to assure the dead that they are not forgotten.

The problem, sad to say, is that the symbols, if not the people, are forgotten. Even the most assiduous mourners are not likely to attend to gravesites daily, which is why these should be located in dedicated places with custodial care. While Miss Manners will not allow you to refer to the display you mention as trash, she agrees that makeshift memorials abandoned in public space do take on that appearance and character.

To clean this up without violating the spirit in which it was built, she suggests notifying the high school that it is time for the students to collect what they want to preserve, and to think about a more lasting tribute to their friend.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the correct response when one's grown-up child has not received an invitation of his own (or even had his name added to the invitation of his parents) and upon going through the receiving line the bride or groom ask, "Where is Bob?"

I hesitate to answer with the truth, "Home because he was not invited," and end up with a lame excuse, usually saying, "He was sorry he could not attend." But I hate to have them think my son or daughter would not have written a note accepting or regretting when the invitations were delivered.

GENTLE READER: That is presuming that they expected replies from people they didn't invite in the first place -- but Miss Manners suspects that you are right in not putting this past them. You can salvage your child's reputation without directly chastising your hosts by saying, "Oh! He didn't know he was invited! But I know he wishes you all the best."

:

Whatever happened to the Wedding Police?

Few besides Miss Manners remember them, but they were a social force in their time. Their job, as they saw it, was to maintain the integrity of wedding customs. Or perhaps it was to entertain wedding guests by mixing some acerbic commentary in with the usual treacle.

Their specialty was to declare whether each bride was "entitled" to wear a white wedding dress. And it didn't take much to be disqualified. The couple having been spotted in a parked car would be enough to put the question on the docket. Having been alone under a private roof for more than a few minutes was sufficient for a conviction.

The verdict had little effect, not only because the evidence was denied -- although the basic premise was rarely disputed -- but also because it was generally rendered at the wedding itself. Even if there had existed a cowed bride who wished to submit at that point, the logistics would have been overwhelming.

Society's change of morals did in the Wedding Police. What fun is it to question the bride's purity, as it was so quaintly called, when her toddler son is serving as best man?

Miss Manners confesses to having cheered on their demise. Her oft-stated position was that killjoys have no place at a wedding, and that the real vulgarity here was the notion that the color of the dress should advertise the history of the body it contained. (Besides, she had long since discovered how much mental and emotional effort one can save oneself by not much caring who is doing what with whom.)

But now she misses the Wedding Police. Not in regard to the original white dress issue, which remains as unseemly as it is hopeless, but to enunciate standards on the real taste issues of weddings.

They have been replaced by those reciting, "It's the bride's day, and she can do whatever she wants." In the absence of a sense of propriety, it has become commonplace for brides to discount parental wishes, demand specific presents and donations of their guests, issue orders to bridesmaids, and repeat the entire pageant at will, with the original or subsequent bridegrooms.

The white dress is still prized -- so much so that pregnant brides often postpone their weddings until after the birth so that they will look slim in the dress, an effect that apparently takes precedence over the legal standing of the child. However, the look has changed. Wedding dresses have become strapless, no longer demure but (redundantly enough) sexy, and topped with tiaras.

And how do we read that symbolically?

The Wedding Police might read it as a combination of Miss America and Queen for a Day -- complete with ladies in waiting and the right to expect obedience and collect taxes. Miss Manners is far too sentimental to think any such thing.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Our beloved dog of 11 years died three weeks ago from cancer. His passing left a great emptiness in our hearts.

Our vet thought he was a special dog as well, and he made a generous donation to his veterinary college in memory of our dog. We were very touched by this.

My first reaction is to send a thank-you note, but I am unsure of the proper etiquette. What are your thoughts about this?

GENTLE READER: You go first, please. Miss Manners would like to know what possible reason you could imagine that it would violate either the spirit or the practice of etiquette to express gratitude for kindness and generosity.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: After the death of my father only two months ago, my mother and our family have all found that our mourning is more acute now that our perspectives have cleared of initial confusion. Our church family, colleagues of my father's, friends and neighbors have been extremely generous with us, and I have been honored and humbled at once to see the graciousness Dad's kindness has engendered in those who will miss him most.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the church family has apparently been able to understand what we are going through. My mother has been a member of the choir for 30 years or so -- but, during a decline in his health and Dad's eventual hospitalization, Mom "took time off" to be with him. Both before he died and -- as I have found out -- since, the minister of music has pressured Mom to rejoin the choir over and over. Just this week, she and I met him by chance in a restaurant, and he smilingly enjoined her to "come on back, it is time!"

Not only is my mother still in pain, but she was on her way, the very next morning, out of state for three weeks. I gently explained that the minister was going to have to wait at least that long for her return, but that I would honestly like to see Mom take as much time as she feels necessary before rejoining the choir.

My brother's and my concern about this seems to make Mom more defensive of the minister of music, but I truly feel that his persistent approach is unkind and insensitive. It is difficult to make a joyful noise when still choking on sorrow.

My question is whether it would be grossly inappropriate to write either to him or to the church asking for forbearance during this difficult time, which may not be "over" quite by this gentleman's expectations. Your guidance would be much appreciated.

GENTLE READER: While sympathizing with your complaint, Miss Manners wishes you had used a kinder and more sensitive phrase than "unkind and insensitive."

The gentleman means to be kind. He is not bludgeoning your mother because he needs an alto, or whatever she is. It is because he wants her to know that she will be welcomed back, and also because he feels that the activity would be good for her.

The insensitivity is in not yielding to her judgment about what is best for her -- rather like a host who cajoles a guest to take more food or drink, under the impression that it is hospitable to ignore repeated rejections.

This is annoying, but it is not intended to be mean. What he needs to be told, firmly, is that your mother appreciates his invitations, and that she -- as the best judge of her emotions -- will let him know when she is ready.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is there a correct way to slide the food off a fork into one's mouth? Should one use one's lips, or is it acceptable to use one's teeth?

GENTLE READER: The lips. Miss Manners is afraid that the screeching sound involuntarily made in reaction to the sound of teeth scraping over a fork is not conducive to gracious dining or gracious digestion.

: