DEAR MISS MANNERS: After about two years of dealing with my father-in-law's dementia and other old-age issues, trying to keep him in his home (by hiring a cook, housekeeper, etc.), my husband and I moved him to an assisted-living facility where he was very familiar with the staff and many residents. He at times said he knows he needs to be there.

We've put much time and energy into this process, including talking with his family doctor and friends and other people in the community in order to do all this in the most humane, dignified and safest way possible. We make a 16-hour round-trip monthly visit to try to give him personal attention as well as deal with his property and business affairs.

I feel satisfied with how we've done this, and only hope we get such treatment when we're in our 80s.

The support and kindness of his community has been one of the positive things to come out of this messy situation. However, a few people continue to offer unasked-for critiques of what we have done wrong and what we should have done. The worst is when we're told that we should have kept him at home and that the speaker would have done this, especially when the speaker doesn't know we did try to keep him at home.

Obviously, the thing to do is to just let it go and recognize that I cannot teach these people manners, much less empathy. But it does hurt and I have to admit I'd like to express this. I find myself thinking, "I know Miss Manners would have just the perfect response." Do you?

GENTLE READER: "I know; it was painful for us to realize he needs more care than we were able to provide. You are kind to take an interest. And you are so right that being in a home atmosphere is comforting. If you were to invite him to stay with you for a few days now and then, I'm sure it would be good for him."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In my third year of law school, I have encountered a potential etiquette problem with an upcoming class. The class' professor is also a local attorney and, presently, an interim judge. Inside the classroom (as well as outside the classroom), how should I refer to the man: as Professor or as Your Honor?

In the past, other students have gotten around the quandary by calling him nothing at all, and although I find that rude, I don't want to commit a horrible error with a judge I will probably appear before in the future.

GENTLE READER: Context is important, as Miss Manners is sure you have learned in studying case histories. In the context of the class, your professor's title is "professor." When you appear before him in court, preferably in a professional capacity, but however you may find yourself facing him, the title to use is "Your Honor."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: This is a question the answer to which will probably benefit any graduate student.

I am about to finish a late paper. It's two years late and, worse, the recipient of the paper is among the leading scholars in her field (unfortunately for me, also my field).

What tone do I take? Flippant I know is bad, but an obsequious apology would probably be seen both as insincere and as a waste of her time. I'm leaning toward a very brief note like this: "Dear Professor Soandso, I'm sorry this is so late." Please advise.

GENTLE READER: Any graduate student? You mean they are all two years late turning in their theses? Oh -- except for those who never finish and therefore never have to grovel.

Yes, grovel. Like flippancy, a perfunctory apology would leave a lasting impression of nonchalance on someone whose opinion will seriously influence your career. Miss Manners has one more writing assignment for you, and it is due when you hand in the paper. The topic is "How I Got So Caught Up in This Fascinating Subject Through Your Teaching and Writing That I Had Trouble Establishing a Cut-Off When I Would Stop Researching and Start Writing."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a married woman in a platonic friendship with a married man. We two couples are members of the same clubs, and so frequently find ourselves in social circumstances.

My friend's wife seems to dislike me intensely, in spite of my attempts at gracious behavior toward her. I suspect that she thinks my friendship with her husband is not platonic. He and I only see each other at parties and club events, always with one or both of our spouses present.

They attend all my parties. He seems to have a good time, while she sits in a corner, without smiling or speaking. I used to invite them to dinner by themselves, but stopped after a few cold refusals. They entertain frequently, and invite all our mutual friends, but not my husband and me. It hurts my feelings when people discuss their plans with this couple, assuming that we have been invited, when we have not. Must I drop them entirely?

GENTLE READER: If your friend has a wife who is jealous for no reason, who sulks at parties and who refuses to reciprocate invitations she has accepted, even if unwillingly, he has a big problem. Miss Manners advises you to extract yourself from the friendship before it becomes your big problem.

:

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.

: