DEAR MISS MANNERS: I live in the land of unpaid internships -- Washington, D.C. I know that for internship experience to work, the employer has just as much obligation to mentor and provide a good experience as the intern has to be a good participant. It takes time, attention and patience.

During college and graduate school, I had four internships. The one I remember the most is the first summer I spent in Washington working for my Congressman. His staff identified projects for me to work on (not just mail and phones) and made me feel welcomed. I was invited to attend events and hearings with staff, and I increased my understanding of the political process.

That experience and those individuals had an enormous impact on me. Years later, I still remember their names. And I will always appreciate the opportunity his then-chief of staff gave me by offering me the internship.

If companies and institutions want to hire interns, then they have the obligation to mentor, teach and provide good learning environments. Whether it's a medical-research facility that has a young biologist running samples, an MBA student learning the ins and outs of an investment institution, a law clerk whose summer project is researching a new ruling, a political intern learning the chaos of a political campaign or a student nurse experiencing public health care in rural America, it is rewarding only when some degree of structure is in place, mentors are assigned and an opportunity for questions and answers is allowed.

It may mean that an employee has to spend more time explaining how to do a project than it would take him/her to do it alone. Internships are about the process -- they are learning experiences. Employers shouldn't offer them unless they are willing to invest the time of their full-time staff in a teaching role. Otherwise, they are wasting the intern's time.

GENTLE READER: That possibility does not scare many employers as much as you imagine.

They would argue that the ability to observe how the operation works is enough compensation for the menial tasks the inexperienced intern is able to accomplish. But there are others, such as you have been fortunate enough to encounter, who see it as the opportunity to audition employees, and to see how far they would go with directed training.

Certainly, the latter situation is more desirable if you can get it. But Miss Manners urges you not to discount the former one if it is someplace you might like to work. Every office has someone who enjoys expounding on the mechanics of the place, perhaps throwing in its secrets, and the intern can supply that scarce quality, the fresh ear.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Hearing a married person being called single really gets to me. This term is being used for people who have been separated one hour, planning a divorce or have a divorce in process. Single means one. If you can't take out a marriage license, you must be married and one of two! Thanks for letting me rant.

GENTLE READER: Sorry about whatever happened. Miss Manners is afraid that this is why etiquette recommends proper instructions over encounters with strangers, even Googled strangers.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My matron of honor, my sister, will be (if all goes well) six months pregnant at the time of my wedding. Her husband will be in attendance and will want to claim his place as the father of the child. However, their wife, one of my oldest friends, will also be in attendance with her then-15-week-old baby, also born of their shared husband.

While their lifestyle is not for me, I do not find it my place to condemn them, but rather to rejoice in the happiness my sister's choice has brought her.

It is the concern of my fiance, however, that if their relationship comes to light, older and more conservative members of his family may look upon us with ill favor or denounce us outright since we did not denounce the three of them, opting instead to invite them to our union.

My own concern is that nobody there is so socially put out that they cannot enjoy themselves and celebrate with us our happy marriage -- whether that be the groom, fretting for his family relations; my brother-in-law, temporarily disavowing a great happiness in his life; or my fiance's family, trying to figure out what the world has come to, or some such.

I agree with my sister that it might not become a direct issue if we did not announce their relationship to one another in introducing them, but as the newborn will be the only child at the wedding, and my sister will be the only (and obviously) pregnant woman, the parentage of both seems to be an obvious point of conversation.

It seems that it would disturb the fewest people to have my brother-in-law practice restraint of joy for a few hours, but that it would be a more openly joyous occasion if we were not putting effort into denying the truth, and another source of joy. I have agreed to abide by your judgment, and I believe that my sister's family will, as well.

GENTLE READER: Since it took Miss Manners three readings of your letter to grasp the situation, she rather doubts that people who are busy drinking champagne and critiquing the wedding dress will be alert enough to understand it.

However, there is precedent for dealing with the presence of wedding guests of whom other wedding guests may not approve. And that is not to deal with it. You do not tell wedding guests how to present themselves, and you are not responsible for how other guests react to this.

Your sister, who must be used to the latter, seems to be in favor of discretion. Your chance to exercise this admirable trait would be to introduce the lot of them merely as "my sister's family," followed by their names.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it bad etiquette to take a reusable bag with one store's name and logo and use it when making a purchase at another store?

GENTLE READER: It is delicate of you to worry whether one store will have hurt feelings upon discovering that it is not the only place you shop, but no, Miss Manners assures you that no one has cared enough to make such a rule.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A conflict of values: I have always been committed to the practice of sending hand-written expressions of thanks for kindnesses in an appropriate and timely manner, and have valued receiving the same from others.

However, I am also committed to doing my small part to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on our precious environment. I recycle, take canvas bags when I shop, receive and pay bills electronically, and send electronic greeting cards to friends. I have canceled all catalogues and magazine subscriptions, carefully managed the use of electricity and gas in my home, and am careful about fuel consumption in my auto.

I find myself feeling guilty when I write a thank-you note, as each note uses resources in the form of both the paper on which it is written and the fuel required to send it from place to place. I would like to replace these notes with similarly appropriate expressions of thanks via e-mail to those of my friends who I know use e-mail. I would value your thoughts on this dilemma.

GENTLE READER: Weighing competing virtues is a pleasant diversion to Miss Manners, who spends most of her time just pointing out the difference between good and bad manners.

So let us examine the particulars of your case. It argues well for you that you do propose continuing to express thanks in writing, and that you extend your sacrifices to matters other than your social duties. You'd be surprised at how many virtuous-sounding people do neither.

How many letters of thanks do you use in a year, and how many pages do you write? How much more energy is used by sending a letter through the postal service as opposed to using your computer?

When you have an estimate, it should be weighed against the difference between the hand-written letter and the same text sent by e-mail. That would consist of the extra trouble your recipient observed you taking on his or her behalf. It is rather like handing over a bare object as a present rather than gift-wrapping it (which may also be one of your ways of saving paper). And the total should include the overall effect of doing away with small niceties.

Miss Manners does not presume to give you your answer. But she knows what she would decide.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: If a man wants to cross his legs while sitting, how should he do it? One alternative is with the crossed leg at a more or less 90-degree angle with the top ankle on the bottom knee. The other alternative is the more "feminine" way, with the top knee directly above the bottom knee. This latter way is much less comfortable for men for somewhat obvious reasons, though I've been told that it is the only proper way. Is that true?

GENTLE READER: It's not even proper for ladies, Miss Manners is afraid. They are supposed to cross their ankles, not their knees. To get an idea why, the next time you are in a lecture audience, take a look at ladies who are sitting cross-legged on a platform.

Gentlemen, in contrast, are supposed to keep their feet on the floor, not to form an unfortunate triangle by crossing an ankle over a knee. To get an idea why...

: