DEAR MISS MANNERS: Do you have any "rules" for online dating that pertain to determining the person's character and integrity before continuing the relationship?

I got very badly burned by someone recently who seemed to be of sterling character, treated me well, then dumped me without a word, and I had to confront him about it. (The precipitating issue was he wouldn't get an HIV test.)

The whole Internet dating thing is scary to me (I'm in my 50s and divorced), and this incident makes me feel like my BS detector is broken.

What is the real deal anymore? So many men seem to be just looking to hook up.

GENTLE READER: So Miss Manners has been told for the last millennium or two. Hardly something she can be expected to reverse with a few pithy words.

Let us therefore address only the aspects of the situation that relate to Internet dating. While undeniably making it easier to meet great numbers of people looking for romance, it has, as you say, made an always-risky venture even scarier.

Before this method, people met through other people, whom they both knew.

No, wait. Miss Manners has skipped an era, possibly because she prefers to forget. Before the Internet, determined people were meeting in singles bars. And complaining that these were, as they so elegantly put it, "meat markets." What they meant was that an awful lot of people were there looking for something a bit quicker (and more quickly over) than romance.

And sadly, there were some ladies who misunderstood the concept of the one-night stand, believing that the traditional timeline could be reversed and that courtship would follow.

Meeting through introductions from those who knew both people never precluded such unfortunate misconnections. But it does offer certain protections.

One is reputation. The go-between, knowing something of each person's character and history, is able to vouch for them -- and, if wrong, to damage the reputation of anyone who behaved badly. The online equivalent requires accepting the testimony of people who are equally unknown, and being able to warn only other prospects, without reaching the offender's own circle.

The other protection is deniability. People who frankly declare themselves to be looking for romance are bound to encounter different interpretations of what may loosely be termed romance. But those who meet socially need not seem ridiculously -- if not fraudulently -- coy if they make up their minds about prospects slowly under the guise of mere acquaintanceship. They may plausibly become indignant at crude advances. As a bonus, they lack the paradoxically unattractive aspect of someone who is "looking."

Miss Manners is well aware that all this is little help to those who feel that long work hours and a demise in strictly social entertaining have given them no choice but to turn to strangers. She offers it only with the slim hope that it will encourage everyone to develop and cherish circles in which romance will flourish naturally, as it always has.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My friend addresses her pastor (who has a doctorate degree in theology) as Reverend, Doctor "John Doe." I say that only one title is used before a person's name when addressing him either orally or written. Who's correct?

GENTLE READER: You are correct about using one title, and your friend is correct in addressing the Reverend Doctor Doe. Miss Manners realizes that people have come to believe that "reverend" is a noun. It remains an adjective.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a condo association meeting consisting of about 60 people, there was a head table with six people, facing about six rows of tables, about 5 feet away. In the front row were two ladies -- not sitting next to each other -- doing their needlework.

Is it proper to do needlework while at an event such as this? I noticed that the speakers were distracted (and so was I) by their movements. Between reading the directions and rearranging their work, one couldn't help but turn their way to see what was going on. I say it is rude.

GENTLE READER: But what if they don't have hand-held devices that enable them to check their e-mail, text message and play games while the committee is droning on?

Not that Miss Manners condones failing to pay attention at meetings, or rather, failing to look as if one is paying attention. She merely wants to make the point that there are worse distractions available. Needlework at least has precedent behind it. For centuries, ladies sat quietly doing needlework while gentlemen conversed around them, and didn't miss a thing of what was going on.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am confused as to how to reply to curious onlookers who ask if I and a friend are dating. We are not currently dating; however, we may sometime in the near future. "No" sounds too exclusive, however "No, not yet" sounds too presumptuous.

GENTLE READER: "Oh, we're just good friends."

Miss Manners urges you to continue saying this if you do begin dating. No one will believe you --they probably don't now -- but it will distract those curious onlookers from asking when you will become engaged.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I stay at hotels a few times a year -- not expensive or luxurious hotels, but the sort frequented by those on corporate or government business. More and more often, we see other guests checking in who are carrying their clothes on hangers, minus a suitcase or any other covering except the occasional plastic bag from the dry cleaner.

When my husband said that he planned to "pack" this way on our next car trip, I asked him not to. He agreed not to because it would bother me, but when he asked why, I found it hard to put my objection into words.

My husband feels that a short trip from the car to the hotel room with his clothing on hangers is a small price to pay for not having to iron his shirts again after unpacking. I find the practice distasteful.

Am I being prudish or excessively finicky in my preference? Since my husband has been considerate of my feelings, I would like to consider his as well.

GENTLE READER: Good plan. Miss Manners does not really see why you find this offensive. It is not as if he is parading your underwear through the lobby. But you do, and both she and your husband understand that that is important.

And although this is not the household hints department, another good plan might be to buy him a garment bag.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Over the past few years I, along with many other people, have tried to do simple things to live a more ecological lifestyle, like reducing my use of disposable and plastic products. One area that continues to frustrate me is restaurant dining.

I view it as wasteful to take my leftovers home in a container that frequently cannot be used again or is of limited usefulness. In addition, many restaurants insist on wrapping the container in a paper or plastic bag, which, of course I can reuse but would prefer not to take.

My idea would be to take along a clean container inside a clean brown bag with string handles and discreetly hand it to the server along with my half-finished plate.

Perhaps a restaurant would view this as nonsanitary, but it seems more sanitary to me than menus which servers pass around between people without regard as to who has washed their hands and who hasn't.

Unfortunately, I tried this strategy without checking with you first and was lambasted by my dining companion, who described me as socially inappropriate. He says that he questions whether our values are really that similar.

Is he right or am I? Note, I would not do this in a very fancy restaurant or at a business meal, which means perhaps I should have not tried it in front of a special friend.

GENTLE READER: Here is a radical idea in keeping with your concern about waste, which Miss Manners shares, and your friend's objection, which she shares only to a point:

Why don't you learn to order the amount of food you expect to eat?

Yes, yes, Miss Manners knows about oversized restaurant portions, diets, sudden satiation and whatever else may thwart such an attempt. But you don't seem to be trying. And yet your admission that you would not bring your feedbag to a fancy restaurant or a business meal indicates that you have qualms about its being seemly.

You could call restaurants beforehand to inquire whether they would allow you to order appetizer-sized versions of their main courses. You could order only appetizers. You could ask dinner companions whether they would like to split a course. You could find restaurants that offer tasting menus. You could buy take-out and portion the food at home as you like. And so on.

Restaurants are, after all, dependent on pleasing their customers, and since you like to go out for half a meal, it would be worth your trouble to find those that are willing to cooperate with you.

Yes, there would still be the exceptional occasion when you found you had ordered more than you could eat. In a food court, you could sweep it into your own bag and no one would care. In a restaurant, you could respond to a waiter's offer to wrap your leftovers by saying, "Thank you," and asking if he could please use your container.

Surprised that Miss Manners came back to the private container, after all? How the food is wrapped does not interest her so much as how the question of taking it home is handled. You must promise her to behave as if the possibility of another meal from this comes as a pleasant bonus, not as if you had schemed to stock your larder.

: