DEAR MISS MANNERS: Dear friends of ours and we apparently have different views about the role of answering machines. We often choose to not answer the phone if we are home doing something else or simply don't want to answer the phone at a given moment.

This annoys the husband of this family -- if he calls and we don't pick up, he hangs up without leaving a message.

We have told him many times that if he leaves a message, we would call back, or in the event we are home, would likely pick up the phone as soon as we can get to it.

That isn't good enough; in his view, we are required to answer the phone if we are home, as that is the practice at their house. He also complains that we never answer the phone. And then we (I) explain to him that if he just would speak even to say -- please call back -- when the answering machine kicks in, we would know that they were trying to reach us and would respond promptly.

GENTLE READER: You folks are not really keeping up, are you?

It must be 10 years since Miss Manners saw the last of the Hate Answering Machine complaints. Almost immediately after that ended, she began to receive equally angry letters from those who chastised anyone who did not have an answering machine, thus forcing them to call back.

As for you, you are apparently unaware of the devices that could spare your friend from using the machine to make himself known. You could check Caller ID, if you have it, or you could have a telephone that allows you to program its ring to let you know that a particular person is calling. It is even possible to have an answering machine that announces the callers out loud by recognizing the numbers from which they dialed.

However, none of this addresses the serious underlying issue, which is that your friend expects you to live at his beck and call, as it were. Only the parents of small children have a right to ask that.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My brother-in-law died recently, and when I read the obituary, his spouse, grown children, grandchildren, siblings and nieces and nephews were named, and great nieces and nephews were mentioned, but there was no mention of a sister-in-law on his wife's side.

My question is, should I have been named or mentioned as a sister-in-law in the obituary? I am his wife's only sibling. I have not seen this question addressed elsewhere.

GENTLE READER: Let us hope not. And let us hope that you are not taxing your newly bereaved sister with this complaint.

In emotional times, people often go out of their way to start etiquette arguments. Miss Manners is used to getting angry letters asking her to settle, in regard to weddings or funerals, trivial disputes in which etiquette has no stake or interest.

She does understand that there are cases that are not trivial concerning acknowledgment in an obituary. For example, when a devoted partner or children from a first marriage or a non-marriage are omitted.

But the wife's sister? Why aren't you comforting her instead of looking for your name in the paper?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A large percentage of the U.S. work force for my corporation was laid off without warning. Some of these are colleagues who I am not close friends with, but yet I have worked closely with for several years. What is the proper etiquette in such situations?

Everyone in the office seems to wish to avoid contracting the contagion by remaining holed up in their offices or cubicles and not speaking to these coworkers.

I would like to approach them and offer my condolences and ask if there is anything I can do to help, but this may seem presumptuous, and my presence might even cause resentment, since those laid off had been at the firm many years longer than I have, yet I still kept my job. I know that if I were laid off, I would appreciate a friendly word of support, but I recognize others might prefer to metaphorically lick their wounds in private.

At this point, it is moot, since the coworkers have left the office and I don't have contact information to send a commiserating email, if such a thing would be appropriate. For future reference, however, what is the best way to handle such a situation?

GENTLE READER: Well, it is not by shunning them. Miss Manners can hardly think of a crueler send-off than saying, in effect, "Don't come near me, you loser; go enjoy your humiliation by yourself."

Miss Manners considers not knowing what to say a poor excuse for inflicting that kind of damage. Because of such reasoning, the bereaved are often made to feel that their loss is augmented by the loss of friends.

Surely one can always say, "I'm so sorry." Perhaps you might be able to add that it was undeserved, that you know what fine work they did, that you enjoyed working with them -- whatever. But if none of that is so, just the simple expression will do.

And don't think it is too late. Tracking down a former colleague for lunch is always a nice gesture. Eventually you may even want to go to such a person for consolation yourself.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We invited our two friends to our country home in Pennsylvania sometime this summer. In conversation, they told us that they visited other friends' home that was old and dingy and was a tear down. That house was built in the 1950s.

Bottom line, our house was built in 1989, and I feel that our friends are going to scrutinize what's in our home. Is it proper to uninvite them?

GENTLE READER: It is never proper to disinvite your guests short of an emergency. This is Miss Manners' idea of an emergency.

One of the most sacred rules about hospitality prohibits breaking bread with one's hosts and speaking ill of them afterward. If your prospective guests can break that one -- presuming they were not fasting -- what rules will they not break?

You can hardly cite this, however, because another pesky rule forbids criticizing. A highly apologetic letter should accompany your regret that you have a change in plans.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am invited to a baby shower, or so I thought!

The expectant mommy and grandmother live in another part of the state. I was so excited to have a chance/good excuse to travel there for a visit, not particularly to stay with either of them.

However, as I read the somewhat interesting invitation, I found that neither I nor anyone else "invited" were actually supposed to ATTEND! The invitation said something to the effect of, "Since you all live there and we live here, just send the gifts and we'll have a private surprise baby shower," i.e., send gifts to Grandma's house; she will then take cake, etc., and go to Mommy's house with gifts. As each gift is opened, a picture will be taken and forwarded to each person who gave gift. This is the extent of the "shower"!

I couldn't believe I was reading correctly, so I read the "invite" three times! I've NEVER heard of such a thing, have you?

GENTLE READER: Unfortunately, yes. This is the next logical step for those who already require guests to bring the refreshments, donate game prizes to the guest of honor and address their own thank you letters.

They have finally realized that the guest is a mere nuisance, interfering with the business of the shower, which is apparently not to celebrate the coming event with friends but to extract free dry goods from them. Why anyone whose company is not wanted would comply with this, Miss Manners cannot imagine.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was wondering, when you end a romantic relationship, do you return the gifts that your partner gave to you?

GENTLE READER: The jewelry and the car should go back. You can keep the stuffed animals, but Miss Manners would think it far more satisfying to return them.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I realize that your column is geared to highly paid professionals rather than people who work hard for a relatively low wage.

I am a teetotaler, and my daughter is in love with a nice boy whose family tends to drink to excess. Should this relationship progress to the altar, the reception would be modest and a cash bar would be the most tactful way of discouraging the amount of drinking that can ruin a special day. The only thing that would make me happier is a dry reception.

GENTLE READER: You do not need to serve liquor, and you do not need to offer an excuse for not doing so.

But you also do not need to hurt Miss Manners' feelings by saying that she sacrifices honest working people to cater to -- she gathers from the way you put it -- people who are working less hard for more money. Good manners are available to all for free. And as far as Miss Manners can tell, those interested in practicing them are randomly distributed up and down the economic scale.

She must tell you that there is nothing "tactful" about a cash bar at a wedding, or any private social event. It would be especially mean to invite out any hard-working, low-paid, non-alcoholic friends you may have and then charge them for any refreshments you have available.

: