Nobody's paying attention. Such is Miss Manners' conclusion after careful and concentrated observation.

Students who grew up doing their homework to television are now playing handheld games and messaging one another during class. Audiences check their electronic notepads during entertainment events.

Executives who run meetings use their notepads and laptops as prompters and projectors, while the subordinates who attend these meetings use theirs to trade comments and jokes about the presentations.

Families at home are taking calls and messages in connection with their work, and workers are exchanging social calls and messages with their families while on the job.

Vacationers take along their computers and telephones so that they can keep working, and workers who are on duty use theirs to keep playing.

People who are out socially are talking on their telephones to others who are not present, while people who are talking on the telephone when they are home are doing all sorts of other tasks, mentionable and unmentionable, and perhaps even e-mailing others while they are talking.

Diners who go to restaurants with other people give priority attention to telephone callers, while diners out alone give theirs to their laptops.

The package of options available to people who are in cars -- other than watching the scenery or the road or talking or playing games with one another -- is staggering. There are radios, ham radios, cassette players, televisions, books on tape, CDs, DVDs, VCDs, GPSes, telephones, fax machines and multiple power outlets for plugging in other appliances.

Oh, yes, and in all of these situations, everyone is also eating.

Miss Manners notices that people who object to all this activity blame the instruments that make it possible. (It used to be only the gadgets that were held accountable, but now the hamburger and the soft drink have also been identified as culpable.) If only we didn't have all these temptations, we might stop driving ourselves frantic with multitasking, not to mention making everyone else around us crazy with the lack of attention and the noise. Life would return to the easy, peaceful ways of the generations who had to do everything by hand, foot and horse.

Miss Manners takes a longer and possibly more tolerant view. As she recalls, there used to be an enchanting distraction available to everyone struck by boredom at school, at work, at home, at meetings, at social events, at performances, on vacation and when traveling. It was called daydreaming.

Because daydreaming required people to think up their own plots, as opposed to simply downloading them, it seems as quaint as paying personal visits instead of instant-messaging. But it does serve to illustrate the etiquette of multitasking.

The rule is that you must not get caught. Appearing not to pay attention to the person or activity at hand is rude.

A good daydreamer was adept at reading the rhythms of speech so as to be able to say, "Really?" at the right intervals, and to maintain appropriate facial expressions without listening to what was being said.

Applied to modern times, this means that anyone obviously ignoring a live person or performance by brandishing equipment to do something else is rude, and that anyone making noises that betray other activities -- the usual one being the click of computer keys heard over the telephone -- or disturb others is rude, but that successfully hidden distractions do not violate etiquette.

They may lead you to drive into trees, which is not nice, but that is a violation that Miss Manners is fortunately not in charge of policing.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We have recently had two different houseguests, and they removed their linens in different manners. My question is: Which is correct?

Guest One: Removed the linens (sheets and blankets), left them folded on top of the bed and then "made the bed," putting the bedspread and pillows in place.

Guest Two: Removed the sheets, put them on top of my washing machine, then "made the bed" as described above.

GENTLE READER: The guests are both fine, having put their linens where you would find them and left the room looking neat. But Miss Manners is wondering whether it is quite polite of you to have two such considerate guests when some people haven't had any.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was engaged within the past couple of months, and unfortunately I'm already dealing with a minor issue. I had already picked out my matron of honor, but I didn't want to ask her until the engagement was officially announced and the planning stage was well underway.

Little did I know that my friend and her husband were looking at the possibility of moving to a location that's a 17-hour drive away from where I live. When I found out, I mentioned to my friend that I wanted her to be my matron of honor, but that I had doubts that she would be able to help out or be able to participate in some of the preparation (such as looking for a wedding dress).

She stated that being chosen to be the matron of honor was an honor, and that if need be she would drive here to help out. I still had my concerns, but decided since the move wasn't definite that I would go ahead with my choice.

Now the move is more definite and my doubts about her availability to help out and participate have become more pronounced. I find myself wondering if I shouldn't choose another to be the matron of honor.

I don't really want to choose someone else, since I already have asked her, and I feel that would be an insult. At the same time, I would hate to put such a strain on her and her family by making her drive all the way to where I live to help out with wedding plans. Unfortunately, my financial status and hers won't allow for the purchase of plane tickets, so I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do.

I guess with all that said, I would like to know if it would be wrong of me to choose another person to be my matron of honor after already asking someone else.

GENTLE READER: Apparently, you are not the only bride who looks at the term "maid of honor" (or, in this case, matron) and decides that "maid," rather than "honor," is the defining term.

Miss Manners' mail is filled with pleas for help from poor young ladies who find themselves in indentured servitude after being so chosen. And some of them weren't poor before the brides ordered them to spend lavishly on wedding-related clothes, travel and entertainment -- in addition to waiting upon their best friends, who have suddenly become their non-paying employers.

This is a perversion of the position. The only lady's maid tasks are at the wedding itself, and consist of such fussing as straightening the bride's train at the altar, holding her bouquet during the ceremony, and handing her a tissue during the reception when her cheeks are streaked with guests' lipstick.

Whatever else she may choose to do -- not, please note, what the bride tells her to do -- should come from her being the bride's closest friend, allowing for her own particular circumstances.

So it would indeed be an insult to tell her that she can no longer be your best friend if she is not available for errands. What you should be telling her is that you would love to have her along for the preliminaries, but all that really matters to you is that she stand with you at the altar.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it rude to wear headphones and listen to a baseball game while attending the game with others?

Often it is helpful and informative to hear the radio announcers describe what I am watching. But my husband feels it is rude to listen and not engage in conversation with him during the game.

GENTLE READER: Spectatorship can properly be an individual or a team sport, but not both at the same time. If your husband's sociability interferes with your enjoyment of the game, Miss Manners suggests that you attend alone and that he find more compatible companions with whom to attend.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I appear to have committed some type of etiquette error at my 30th high school reunion.

No dress was advised, but when I called about this I was told "elegant but not black tie" -- not a lot of help. My husband wore a navy blue suit and I decided on a satin tea-length dress. As I have near-waist-length hair, I opted for an up-do, done at a salon. It was a simple French twist, the way I always have my hair done for more formal events.

No sooner than we went to the event than people started talking about my hair. Specifically, they couldn't believe I'd had it "done." While my dress was OK with the "group opinion," the fact that I'd had my hair done was clearly outside the norm. While all of the women wore dresses, none had up-dos.

Is there an etiquette rule for a more formal hairstyle? I thought an up-do (simple, not prom hair) was appropriate for a 48-year-old woman, but I seemed to have missed something along the way.

GENTLE READER: Are you quite certain that the event you attended was your 30th high school reunion? Is it possible that you wandered into the sophomore prom by mistake?

Groups of people who hone in on one person to deliver an on-the-spot criticism -- always with an air of belief that their catty opinions are indisputable and helpful -- have provided generations of citizens with a lifetime feeling of relief that they are no longer in high school.

Even the most callous bullies are supposed to have learned something in the subsequent 30 years, if only that bullying is dangerous. The technique only worked in high school because it preys on victims during a stage of life where many are uncertain enough about themselves to worry that it is they who are wrong, and not their tormentors.

What alarms Miss Manners more is that you do not seem to have used those 30 years to learn that you can wear your hair as you please, and that etiquette does not side with bullies.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I have known that our son is gay for three years, since he was 15 years old. We told a few close relatives and left it at that until he was old enough to address issues himself.

Lately, however, he has run into a problem concerning well-meaning acquaintances and friends inquiring about his sexual preference, since he is presently 18 and doesn't date.

"Don't you like girls?" is the favorite. He replies that he does like girls, knowing that this reply is honest in a way, but not in the way they mean. He wants to be honest and true to himself without revealing information he doesn't feel is any of their business.

GENTLE READER: It seems to Miss Manners that your son already has the answer he wants. His choice is whether to reply to the text of the question or to the subtext. He chose to respond to the surface text.

The subtext is a demand to know about his sex life. This is never anyone's business to ask, as it is up to individuals to decide with whom they wish to discuss that subject.

: