DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have never been married. I someday soon will propose to my lady friend. She was previously married and has a 4-year-old daughter.

Should a man still purchase an engagement ring for his lady? I am not opposed to the idea whatsoever, rather willing actually. Or should I propose with the wedding ring itself? What is customary in this un-customary situation?

GENTLE READER: Custom has varied in this matter, in accordance with the, ah, customs generally being observed before the proposal. So although the gentleman now usually (but by no means necessarily) proposes with a ring in hand, it is for different reasons than existed long ago.

A century or so ago, as Miss Manners recalls, the presumption was that a husband and an engagement ring from his family were being offered as a package deal. Thus developed the picture we have of the proffered hopeful on bended knee, brandishing a velvet box.

Whether the supply of suitors with extra rings lying around the vault ran out, or modern ladies had stricter taste requirements about what they were going to wear, this began to change. Until recent decades, it was more common for the couple to choose the engagement ring together (after prudent gentlemen warned their jewelers to show only rings in their price range).

The package deal approach reappeared when premarital cohabitation became commonplace. The element of surprise that once enabled ladies to exclaim, "Why, Mr. Farnsworth! I had no idea you cared!" is seriously lacking in today's courtships.

To replace this, suitors have been taxed with making the long-suspected and perhaps long-overdue marriage proposal a surprise. Elaborate schemes to ambush the lady when she least suspects now include producing a ring the gentleman has selected on his own. She is still allowed to have some say about the wedding ring, which, in any case, it would be premature to produce before sealing the engagement with or without its own ring.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It has come to our attention that a brother who disowned the family years ago has a Web site, on which he has recounted his memories of our mother's long illness and many of our past family problems.

There are many untruths in this "novella." Our family names are all clearly there with many false claims to having cheated this brother from our mother's will, etc. Lots of defamation of character for all of us, including, but not limited to, accusations of beatings, drug use, sexual deviation and theft. We have pointed out these inaccuracies to him via e-mail. There is no legal recourse to stopping this "novella." If we were to have our own Web site, how could we, in the least offensive way, state the facts?

GENTLE READER: Sympathetically, if at all. Frankly, Miss Manners thinks dealing with this at all is a bad idea. People who did not read your brother's Web site will find out about the charges through yours, and will take the approach, as people always do, that there must be truth on both sides.

If you must say something, it should be to express the hope that your estranged brother will overcome his problems and return to the fold. Anything more provocative would be sure to send people scurrying to his Web site to find out more.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I were invited to a small dinner at the official residence of a head of state and spouse. What is the correct form in which to frame a thank-you letter? Should it be signed by me (the wife) on behalf of my husband and I, and couched as "Harold and I wish to thank you...blah blah blah..."? Or, should it come from both of us ("We wish to thank you...") and be signed "Harold and Harriet Blah blah blah..."?

My husband is the reason we were invited to this dinner, if that matters, and they know him better than they do me. We have only recently become acquainted with them, and while they do seem to be informal people, I would like to be correct. Any other guidelines you can offer (approximate length?) will be appreciated.

GENTLE READER: Here is a guideline that you did not request: It is never safe to assume that a head of state and his wife are "informal people."

Modern leaders have mastered apparently informal behavior so as not to appear to their constituents as if they are full of themselves. But it is not in the nature of human beings to be truly indifferent to rank after they have achieved its highest level. So you should address them formally, unless you have expressly been told to do otherwise.

Another guideline (after which Miss Manners promises she will answer your actual question): It is important to maintain the social fiction that people are invited solely because of their charm. So although you realize that it was your husband's position that got you invited, you must act as if both of you were invited for a purely social evening by these informal people, simply because they happen to like you.

The letter of thanks need not be long, but it should be of the usual kind about having had a lovely evening. Unlike invitations and cards, letters are always written by one person alone, and most formally it is the lady who writes, on behalf of herself and her husband, to the hostess, thanking both her and her husband.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It seems we need some rules about when to stop an e-mail exchange:

Person 1: What is the budget code for Legal fees?

Person 2: 62120-920-92100

Person 1: Thanks!

Person 2: You're welcome.

I personally believe that the third and fourth lines are unnecessary. It clutters up in-boxes and serves little purpose. In your opinion, is it OK to stick with the question/answer style of e-mail relating and skip all the "thank yous" and "you're welcomes"?

GENTLE READER: Unaccustomed as she is to bargaining over courtesies, Miss Manners understands the problem of in-box clutter. She therefore proposes a deal: The inquirer adds "please" to his request, and retains the obligation to respond with thanks, which serves the additional purpose of confirming that the e-mail arrived. Then she might be willing to consider the reply of "You're welcome" to be optional.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was at a restaurant when a solitary diner loudly admonished the neighboring table for talking too loudly. The two ladies in question were at the table next to me and their conversation was not intrusive in the least. They, as well as I, were nonplussed by this comment.

No one responded to the complainer and, after a startled look of disbelief, everyone went back to their meals and conversations. Should something have been said to this person?

GENTLE READER: You mean that someone should have admonished this person for the rudeness of having admonished others?

Satisfying as you may have found that, Miss Manners is afraid that it would have made your complaint difficult to define. The two ladies could have responded by saying, "We are so sorry to have disturbed you" and turned back to their meals. You could have said, "Perhaps you might want to have the waiter move you to a secluded table." But as you are not allowed to quash rudeness with rudeness, you were all best off tending to your dinners.

: