Just when everything looked black, the emergency etiquette system kicked in. Miss Manners never ceases to be amazed at its power.

Campfire stories of the massive electric failure last month sparkled with illuminating examples. Consideration and camaraderie were being shown by people who would certainly not be chummy if they had anything better to do.

Those whose normal means of perambulation is to elbow one another off the sidewalk were stopping to lend a hand instead. Drivers who might have been running down pedestrians were offering them lifts. Neighbors whose only previous form of communication had been the complaint sat around chatting in the dark.

Some of the businesspeople who could have profited from the situation chose not to. There were more than a few vendors who lowered prices they might have raised and opportunists who decided not to go looting.

Miss Manners has noticed such outbursts of courtesy under stress occurring under many tragic circumstances. For the New Yorkers who were hit by the power outage, it was a small reprise of the spirit shown following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack; elsewhere, many found it reminiscent of the atmosphere during floods, tornadoes or other natural disasters.

As Miss Manners understands it, the formula is: The worse conditions get, the better people behave. Good times, bad behavior; bad times, good behavior.

This ensures that we always have troubles, if not from without, then from within.

After the 2001 tragedy, people were saying that life had changed forever, and now they were going to count their blessings and concentrate on what was important and never again grumble and fret over petty daily grievances.

"This is a wakeup call," is what people always declare each time things go wrong. That is when they promise to beef up security, lay in supplies, crack down on crime, fix the equipment or whatever else might offer retroactive reassurance.

Then comes the all-clear sign, signaling that the immediate threat is past and everyone can go back to being careless and snippy. It's impressive how resilient we are when it comes to reconstructing our shattered sense that life is irritatingly bad but not dangerous.

Miss Manners finds this understandable. How do you ordinarily react to a wakeup call, even one that you set yourself the night before? Don't you roll over and try to get back to sleep, trusting that the annoyance will go away if you ignore it?

However, the etiquette alert is different. The standard of behavior we exhibit during emergencies is not scary; on the contrary. It is a demonstration of how pleasant life can be when people treat one another courteously.

Furthermore, it is easily attainable. We may not be able to prevent natural disasters or eradicate crime, but we can create an amiable living environment by behaving ourselves. One might be forgiven for thinking "No, we can't" after observing people in their undisturbed habitat, but the examples when things go wrong prove otherwise. They also give the lie to the usual modern excuse of rudeness being the inevitable result of stress.

We needn't maintain the full heroic stance. Just the resolve to refrain from being annoying and aggressive would help. No need to go around handing strangers free bottles of water.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Like many office buildings, the one in which I work uses an access-card entry system. I keep my card in my wallet. Often, instead of taking out the wallet to run it by the sensor, I merely swivel my hip slightly to allow the card to be "read."

Is this hop move considered rude if (1) no one is in the vicinity? (2) I believe no one is seeing this? and (3) I'm only with close colleagues?

GENTLE READER: Rude? Actually, it sounds exciting. Miss Manners lives in a city with hardly a building standing that doesn't require an access pass or at least a show of identification, and none of them features a folk dance. Would you care to come to Washington, D.C., and teach it to us?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My son's public elementary school PTA is divided over whether or not to donate to a charitable cause. I'm curious which side you would support.

Here is the dilemma: The public school is desperately in need of repairs, new school supplies, an updated facility and various other real needs right at our school. For the last two years, the school has received a large donation from an anonymous source with the only stipulation that it be used toward arts education.

The school's PTA is very good at raising funds and has a surplus of money that must be used or will be lost. The school PTA decided to donate money to a charitable cause (a crisis nursery) in light of the 9/11 events. The idea was to donate the money to this cause in honor of the anonymous donor who has given the school funds in the past.

This does not make any sense to me. If you require money for your own needs and someone even gives you money to help with your needs, doesn't it seem irrational to then give some of your own money away in honor of that donor? I would think the anonymous donor would be scratching his head in disbelief. I guess the question is this: Should our public school donate to a charitable cause even if it has true needs of its own?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners wouldn't do well in your school. She doesn't understand what is going on any more than you do.

There is the arithmetic problem: If the school has financial needs, how come it has a surplus of money?

Then there is the problem that has to do with logic, psychology and simple social skills: If someone has made a point of being anonymous, why would you want to single that person out publicly (knowing that even if the person's name is not used, this would excite curiosity)? And why would that person or anyone else donate money to an organization that has money to spare?

The lesson that your PTA needs is: If you can't afford it, you can't do it, even if what you want to do is a good deed. For extra credit, they should learn that even those who are strapped themselves can contribute to good causes by donating their time and effort.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In addressing my wedding invitations, I am confronted with a dilemma. I understand that it is incorrect to address a widowed lady as "Mrs. Mary Jones," but that she remains "Mrs. Herbert Jones," as she has always been.

However, among my elderly relatives there are quite a few ladies who have been referring to themselves for decades in this "incorrect" way. Should I address them as they have chosen, or write to them by their "correct" title? In some cases, I would have to do some serious genealogical research to find out what their deceased husband's name had been, as they have been using this nomenclature for more than two generations' living memory! Should I not honor a lady's wishes in how she is named, if I know them?

GENTLE READER: Of course you should. Whether or not you plan to take your husband's name, don't you expect others to respect your choice? Miss Manners hopes that the research time you save will be employed learning that correcting others is even more seriously incorrect than whatever incorrectness you spot.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Well, I thought that I knew everything, but I am flummoxed. How does one properly eat Camembert, Brie, or other soft cheese in rind when they are served in public?

Are you supposed to cut a slice and eat it rind and all (yuck)? Or leave the rind for the next unlucky guest while sneaking off with only the lovely, gooey part?

Do you drag your cracker or bread in the soft part and risk leaving messy crumbs and broken crackers in your wake? I generally just run up to it, hack off a piece, then find a way to dump the rind when no one is watching, but this method requires too much privacy and obsessive behavior for most public events.

I am sure there is a better and more polished method of enjoying this gooey mess in public, but what is it?

GENTLE READER: Why does Miss Manners picture you at an art gallery opening, having skipped dinner, balancing a wine glass and trying to wield a plastic knife, while behind you press hordes of others trying to get at the cheese plate?

Not the best way to eat. In an ideal world, you would be served the cheese already portioned onto crackers, or as a cheese course complete with small knife, fork, plate and, most essentially, table space and chair.

Dragging the cracker is not a good idea, nor is hand-peeling away the part you don't like. The technique you need consists of inserting the knife at an angle, and cutting yourself a wedge under the rind (which is edible, but never mind).

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A distant relative and her husband recently sent a card announcing the birth of their first offspring, a baby girl. In addition to the child's given and, I assume, legal name (Elizabeth Anne), the announcement also specified a nickname -- "Betsy."

My wife thinks that announcing a nickname was cute and helpful, but I feel offended by it, and don't know why. Aren't nicknames supposed to be spontaneous appellations?

Of course, my wife and I will call the child by whatever name the parents prefer, but it all seems very artificial to me. Is it common practice nowadays for parents to designate nicknames for their children? Am I justified in thinking that it is not proper for them to do so?

GENTLE READER: You would have to supply Miss Manners with a better reason than that it seems artificial. The natural method of conferring nicknames is not something she wishes to preserve for its charm.

With the increased liberties people take with one another's names, it is common for adults to assume that they are entitled to use whatever nickname they presume should be derived from a given name. That is a step above the nicknames children give one another, most popularly those associated with some undesirable physical characteristic.

These parents are valiantly trying to head this off by telling you how they plan to address the child. Unfortunately, this will probably not prevent their friends from inquiring about Lizzie or Beth, nor the child's future playmates from calling her Fatso or Skinnybones.

: