DEAR MISS MANNERS: My financial situation has changed recently, and not for the better. I am in a quandary about how to deal with invitations to events that I cannot afford.

These aren't invitations to extravagant balls, but invitations to meet for meals at moderately priced restaurants I used to frequent with them, or attend movies and concerts at venues that used to be in my price range.

If I explain that finances are too tight, instead of changing plans, they offer to pay my share. While I appreciate their generosity, I don't always want to divulge my financial difficulties, nor am I comfortable having other people pay my share all the time.

When I initiate events, I do so in ways that are affordable to me and I believe they will enjoy, too, such as meeting for coffee or inviting them for a meal at my house.

Do you have any advice about how I can respond to others' invitations in a way that doesn't require me to divulge too much personal information, be a constant charity recipient or insult them by simply refusing?

GENTLE READER: With a bit of effort, you can be in the position of doing your friends a great service. Even if they are not feeling the pinch themselves these days -- and few people are not -- they may welcome a change from their routine.

So do some research about cheap eating places and free events, and start suggesting the outings. Expensive is not necessarily better, in Miss Manners' experience, and if you choose well, you needn't mention that cost was a factor.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am appalled that on more than several occasions, I have had friends, family or employers assume that since they don't have lunch (during an entire day when I'm helping them), neither do I.

At the very least, I would like them to state, "I don't have lunch, but you're welcome to do so at this time, if you chose." I don't think it's my place to bring it up, since I'm on their turf.

I end up very starving and very angry.

In my opinion, it's highly disrespectful to assume that someone who is helping you has no interest in lunch. I have a very high metabolism, and I'm hungry every two/three hours. I typically eat at 11:30 a.m. or 12 noon each day. I would never let a friend, relative or employee go without lunch, and I am amazed that people even consider conducting themselves in this manner. It's not only extremely rude but it also prevents a person from gaining more energy to help these lovely people who assume that I don't want sustenance at this normal hour.

GENTLE READER: Feeling grouchy, are we? Have a sandwich; you'll feel better.

Miss Manners cannot offer you one at the moment, but she can offer you the means to get one. Simply ask, "When are we breaking for lunch?" While your hosts certainly should have offered, it is not odd for you to ask because, you point out, lunch is part of the normal routine.

Should the answer be "Oh, I never have lunch," you can cheerfully reply, "Well, I do, so I think I'll take a break and go get some." In cases where you are doing a favor, you might add,

"So maybe we should break for the day."

:

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.

: