DEAR MISS MANNERS: Some of the lectures and panel discussions I have attended recently have been large enough to need microphones to ask the speaker questions. I understand the process of cueing and waiting to ask my question, but what do I do afterward, when I am listening to the answer?

Do I stay at the microphone until the answer is completed; wait near the microphone so the next person can prepare; or do I return to my seat?

GENTLE READER: Please stay there. As Miss Manners knows from experience, it is no fun to try to talk to someone who is scurrying away. It is polite to move away as soon as the exchange is concluded, but once you have asked a question, it is your job to look as if you were interested in the answer.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In my immediate family, we have chosen not to indulge in anything that has artificial sweeteners and/or soft drinks, like colas, because we simply believe they are not to be considered healthy. This is a problem when we are hosting gatherings for friends and acquaintances who may not share our beliefs.

My husband feels that to be a good host, we should provide soft drinks and such that most people enjoy. On the occasions that we do this, we are often at a loss over which of the dozens of particular offerings to provide: regular, or diet, or caffeine-free and regular or diet?! And invariably, we are then left with beverages leftover that we do not want, and yet do not want to pass on. (I even hate to toss them, adding their chemicals to the waste stream that is already overburdened.)

I have tried to compromise by providing something like sparkling, naturally flavored waters, juice, etc. but invariably, someone will ask for a "Coke" or a particular packet of some color (blue, pink, yellow) of artificial sweetener, which I do not keep on hand.

To be a good host, do we provide our guests with what they might want, even though we feel it is detrimental to their health?

GENTLE READER: Sadly, you are never going to get anywhere with this question, because the answer to each part of it is "Yes and no." That makes it easy on Miss Manners, but not very helpful to you.

Yes, you are supposed to provide your guests with food and drink you think they might like, but no, you are not obliged to run a bar where people can order whatever they like. And yes, you are supposed to be concerned with their health to the extent of, for example, not poisoning them, but no, you are not supposed to put them on special diets that you have decided would be good for them.

Therefore you can provide a modest assortment of usual drinks that you can save for the next visit or you can make something they do not expect but that you believe would please them -- an herbal tea, for example, or a sophisticated cocktail of fruit juices. In either case, you should state what you have and not be embarrassed to respond to requests with "I'm sorry, we don't have that" -- but for goodness' sake, skip the explanation.

:

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.

: