DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a baseball fan, but my enjoyment is spoiled by the distasteful TV views of spitting by players, coaches and even umpires.

Please tell your readers (hopefully many players, too) that their habits are gross, not appreciated and a very bad example to kids. Ditto for the probable underlying causes, including chewing tobacco, seeds or what ever else they chew. They can relieve their anxiety or boredom with a stick of gum (not bubble) if necessary. The TV broadcasters could use a little common sense, too, by not capturing the spitting on close-ups. Will you help?

GENTLE READER: What -- and get killed? And not only by those who believe that spitting is a time-honored, if not sacred, tradition among baseball players, but by those who are indignant that gum-chewing was not also condemned.

Nor does Miss Manners want to take on the task of refining television, which does not strike her as a promising proposition.

Lest you believe this to be cowardice, she hastens to explain that although she dislikes vulgarity as much as you or more, she disagrees with your approach. Television in general, and athletes in particular, can hardly be expected to serve as models of decorum.

But bad examples can serve as examples, too. Children will always be exposed to the variety of human behavior, and it is the job of the responsible adults they know, such as parents, teachers and clergy, to teach them to evaluate it. A parent who shares the child's admiration for a player's prowess, but then says, "Eeew, disgusting" when he spits will elicit a giggle. But the parent's influence will linger, all the same, when the athlete's fades.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: As the worship team at church led moving and inspirational songs, a woman behind me was talking rather loudly to the woman next to her, which was interfering with the worship experience. Another woman, sitting nearby, gave me a look of frustration, as if to confirm that she was also quite disturbed.

Hoping that the talking would end soon, I turned back to the worship team. When it didn't stop, I turned again to look at the women. I didn't have a nasty look on my face, as I was only hoping to draw their attention to the fact that they could be heard, which I assumed would cause them to be quiet. Unfortunately, this didn't work.

Finally, I simply leaned across the row between us to get their attention, which was difficult to do because they were so wrapped up in their conversation, and I very politely asked them to please quiet down. Before I turned back around, I noticed the woman nearby smiling at me gratefully.

I was then able to finish worshipping without distraction.

The problem is that I've continued to feel guilty about it. Should I have handled the situation differently?

GENTLE READER: Why? You made your objection politely, and furthermore, it worked. You, the other lady and everyone around were allowed to worship in peace.

So whatever guilt you feel now, Miss Manners had nothing to do with engendering it. Please unload it on your minister.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife is training for a marathon. She's very athletic, a beautiful woman and a mother of five who keeps herself fit through running. She is planning on competing in a marathon out of town, and going with her sister and her sister's two adult children. Our children will still be in school, so I will be staying home.

What my wife has proposed is that in order to save money, she would share a hotel room with her sister and her sister's two children.

My concern is that one of these grown children is a 22-year-old male. I wouldn't call myself a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe that it is improper for my wife to share a hotel room with an adult male, even if he is her nephew. My wife tells me that if she can't share the costs of the hotel, she won't be able to live her dream of running a marathon. "And besides," she says, "he's my nephew...."

My argument is that he may be her nephew, but he's still a grown man. Do you have any suggestions?

GENTLE READER: Yes: that you tell her that you love and admire her, wish her luck, assure her that everything at home will be fine, and ask her to give your love to her relatives.

Meanwhile, you have given Miss Manners an unpleasant time of it, trying to think what you imagine could be improper.

It can't be what the neighbors will think, because they will be in a hotel with transient neighbors. And -- please! -- it is surely not that you think your nephew might be overcome with incestuous lust for his aunt, despite the presence of his mother and sister, or that your hitherto blameless wife will betray you and your children because of the proximity of her nephew, not to mention her sister and her niece.

So why don't we both stop thinking along these lines and hope that she wins the marathon?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A now-deceased friend of mine once did a quite large, lovely watercolor of me, recently sent by her surviving husband. I really like the picture but feel it's somewhat unseemly to display a portrait of myself in my own home. If I had a spouse or children, I could justify its presence by reasoning it's there for them to look at. Alas, no such luck.

Are there any rules or traditions about displaying likenesses of one's self? I'm thinking I might be able to rationalize that it's there to keep my dog company when I'm at work.

GENTLE READER: Not bad. Or you could explain that you value it as a reminder of your late friend.

But you do not actually need an explanation. You asked Miss Manners about displaying "likenesses," but the traditional rule made a finicky distinction between paintings, which can be displayed in the public rooms, and photographs, which belong in the private ones. Artistic photographers are welcome to object.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Cousin 1 recently wrote in a friendly way that she had found out that Cousin 2 was also writing to me, and Cousin 1 enclosed a photocopy of the letter she had gotten from Cousin 2.

Now, I have the feeling that I am supposed to thank Cousin 1 for the photocopy, and send her copies of the letters Cousin 2 has sent to me. Otherwise, I'm being unfriendly and unreciprocating to Cousin 1, yes?

These letters do not contain anything gossipy, but still, I would feel that I was violating Cousin 2's privacy and confidence if I gave copies of her letters to anyone. How do I know her reasons for including something in one letter and not another, even if it doesn't seem gossipy to me?

What should I say to Cousin 1? Should I thank her for the photocopy? Should I remark on one or two items that were common to Cousin 2's letters to both Cousin 1 and me? How should I respond if she asks me point blank for a copy of my letters from Cousin 2?

GENTLE READER: Does Cousin 1 date from the early days of regular postal service, when people would pass their letters around the breakfast table? (Yes, the mail actually arrived by breakfast time.)

Or does she think that letters are a form of e-mail, but without the convenient forward button, which it is safe to send around because no one in his right mind would put anything private into e-mail? (Would they?)

Miss Manners advises letting your cousins settle this themselves. You can arrange that by opening your next letter to Cousin 2 with a chatty, "I see from the photocopy of your letter that Cousin 1 sent me...."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Could you please tell me if traditional posted birth announcements serve a social purpose beyond announcing the happy news of a child's birth?

It seems to be common practice now to send e-mail announcements very soon after a birth. These almost always contain pictures and information, such as the baby's name and birthday, that is included in a traditional announcement, but arrive much more quickly.

Because all of our family members and close friends have access to e-mail, and word of her arrival will certainly go out electronically anyway, I am considering sending e-announcements after our daughter is born this summer and foregoing paper ones. Would this constitute some breech of etiquette or tradition that I am overlooking?

GENTLE READER: You will be surprised to hear that the world's biggest fan of the handwritten letter and of the formal announcement thinks that e-mail is preferable for announcing births.

What now passes for the traditional birth announcement -- the engraved parents' card with a wee baby card attached by ribbon-- was never a favorite with fastidious etiquetteers. Maybe it was something about an infant's having a card, but anyway, they took so long to make that the baby was practically in college before people heard. A handwritten line on the parents' usual card was preferred, and even those commercially cute little fill-in cards were tolerated.

Perhaps there are recipients who put mailed announcements into scrapbooks for sentiment or file boxes for reference, but we must not forget that the purpose of an announcement is to announce. And since Miss Manners knows that even the most informal cards are rarely sent promptly, e-mail seems a sensible solution.

: