DEAR MISS MANNERS: I enjoy a well-laid table and appreciate that table settings are meant to help a meal progress with little trouble to the guests. When I invite guests for lunch I'm happy to take into consideration their varied dietary needs and preferences.

The most elegant solution, menu-wise, has been to offer soup, salad and sandwiches so that the vegans, the gluten-averse and the omnivores can all eat their fill.

The problem? How to serve these foods so that all can enjoy the meal at the same time. Serving the food in courses would defeat the purpose of letting guests choose the foods that suit their needs.

So how does one arrange the tableware? One or two plates? And what about the bowl? I am left wondering if it might be easier to make a vegan, gluten-free meal for all, but that would be so limiting.

GENTLE READER: Isn't there a saying, "Those who know etiquette history are content to repeat it"?

No? Perhaps that is just as well.

Nevertheless, Miss Manners enjoys plucking solutions out of the past, and she has one for you. That is, if you don't mind skipping back, oh, about a century and a half ago.

That was when Russian service, the serving of meals in several sequential courses, began to catch on. Before that, a company table would be elaborately set with everything for the main part of the meal on symmetrically arranged platters from which the guests could help themselves.

These would include a soup tureen, usually two of them with a choice of clear or cream soup. You could make one a vegetable broth. The table would be set with soup spoons and bowls that would be removed with their underliners, so that the larger plate underneath would be used for whatever the guests choose among the salads and sandwiches.

Even at huge 19th-century banquets, when fat was called "statuesque" and where such tables were artfully arranged with an overwhelming variety of dishes, guests were not expected to eat from each. The style is therefore highly suitable to today's, ah, specialized eaters.

Another custom you might revive is that of placing menu cards on the table. Not intended to resemble restaurant menus, these are pretty cards that state what is being offered so that people can choose, pace themselves, and refrain from calling out "What's that over there?" to guests across the table.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it polite to step into an elevator and continue a conversation with a friend, relative, etc., about politics or religion, with everyone else in earshot?

I feel that these subjects should be more private and should not be exposed to strangers who are not at all interested in your conversation. I believe that one's political views and religious views should be kept to oneself or discussed in private, not in public.

GENTLE READER: Rude? To the other passengers? Certainly if you were loud, or were voicing bigoted opinions or using offensive language.

But Miss Manners must warn you that the worst offence is to yourself. Others may be only too interested. And you may be sure of two things:

In every trapped audience, there is someone who thinks that your views, however sound or pious, are crazy.

That person knows someone whom you know.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is there ever a scenario in which it is appropriate to point out the bad manners of a stranger? What if the offense was so atrocious as to cause nervous twitching to those in the vicinity?

I was recently riding on a sold-out train, a three-hour journey between two major cities. My partner and I were seated across the aisle from a young woman who smacked her gum, mouth open, for the entire trip. The noise could practically be heard throughout the entire car. Moving was not an option as the train was sold out.

On top of this, the man seated behind was ill and frequently coughed without covering his mouth. Is there anything to be said or done, short of a nasty glare (which I'm sure is equally inappropriate)? Could people possibly be expected to endure such abuse in silence?

GENTLE READER: "Atrocious"? Miss Manners doesn't enjoy hearing gum-smacking or unprotected coughs, but you had her expecting to hear about gross violations of human rights.

Perhaps you think that is what these petty annoyances are. But public space is filled with petty annoyances, and you can't go around scolding the public. Then you, too, would be a public nuisance.

Oh, Miss Manners supposes you could go around offering tissues with a sympathetic expression, hoping that the cougher would figure out using it to cover his mouth, and telling the gum-chewer the tissue was for when she wanted to dispose of her gum. But you would be better off, not to mention safer, in administering earplugs and facemasks to yourself.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am wondering if it is rude to ask a bride to repay me for all of the purchases I made for her wedding since it did not last a year.

I know that she is suppose to return gifts she received from the wedding, so I am wondering if the same rule applies to the wedding party. I never wanted to be in the wedding but since it was family I had to say yes.

GENTLE READER: You really hated being in this wedding, didn't you? The principals didn't care for it, either, Miss Manners gathers.

Nevertheless, the marriage did take place, and you are mistaken about the necessity for refunds. Wedding presents need to be returned to the donors only if the wedding is canceled, and there is no question of reimbursing bridesmaids or guests for the expenses they incurred. Next time, you might want to take out your own insurance.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I would like your advice on the proper RSVP for a very good friend for a 50th birthday! We have not kept in touch these past few years. However, we were very good friends for the past 20 years.

I don't want to be too personal, as the invitation is via Evite. Therefore the response will be public to all the hosts and guests.

GENTLE READER: Aren't you grateful, then, for blandly conventional wording, to which no one can take exception? Miss Manners advises "Warmest congratulations on your birthday" followed by "I will be delighted to attend" or, if you are open to a stretch, "I wish I could be with you to celebrate."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I would like to know the reason why people put napkins on their lap at restaurants. I mean what's the actual reason for doing so?

GENTLE READER: To catch the gravy on the way down. To have a mop easily at hand in case of sloppy dinner partners or waiters. To cover the fact that one is holding hands with one's dinner partner. And because it is not always convenient to keep a large sheep dog to pass among the sticky-fingered guests.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I would appreciate your advice on how to respond to requests from nonprofit organizations with which I am associated that ask me to ask my friends for money for the organization.

If a friend were to ask me for the name of an organization that I believe is worthy, I would of course endorse these organizations and explain why I support them. But I don't believe I should presume on a friendship so far as to solicit donations.

Recently, a group I am involved with began a campaign they called "friend-raising." They suggested that members host events such as dinners, movie nights, or other get-togethers, and charge an admission that would be donated to the charitable group. The admission and purpose would be announced in advance, of course. The group likened it to a smaller version of a charitable gala.

What is your thought on this? As a board member, I was asked to participate, but was able to offer an alternative. (I am selling artwork at a craft fair, and have pledged the proceeds to this organization). However, I was unable to articulate to the board why this proposal made me uncomfortable.

Perhaps there is something that I am missing. I would very much appreciate your perspective.

GENTLE READER: Although Miss Manners does indeed know what is bothering you, she is not sure it would be a good idea to tell the board.

Presuming on friendship to get into other people's money -- including posted gift registries and personally targeted sales campaigns -- is so commonplace that doing it for good works seems benign by comparison.

But it seems even odder to you, and certainly to Miss Manners, that people should be willing to embarrass their own friends into spending money in ways that those friends may not have wanted to do. Really? Is it all right, or even virtuous in a good cause, to embarrass your friends?

The rejoinder is always the worthiness of the result and the supposed impossibility of accomplishing it in any other way. Children whose school activities are in need of funds are now routinely instructed to accost their neighbors and parents' friends with commercial trinkets for sale and even to write fund-raising letters to strangers.

Didn't they used to organize car washes, bake sales, band performances and other activities of their own? Isn't it more self-respecting to charge for real services than to wheedle friends?

You have proposed doing so, and Miss Manners congratulates you for that and for shrinking at charging admission for entertaining you friends. The only hope she can offer in explaining this to others is to point out to them that so very many demands are now made on people by their friends that it might be practical to think of offering desirable alternatives.

: