DEAR MISS MANNERS: My boyfriend of a year was approached by two female friends of his asking for a night out of the city to visit him in the suburbs for dinner.

After asking me, we agreed to host a dinner party for the four of us in his home. I have yet to meet these friends and thought it would be fun to host a party and get to know them.

Upon further discussion of what I thought I would cook for the evening, I learned that these two ladies plan on cooking for us. Apparently, that was part of the idea, to get out of the city where their kitchens are small and to cook in a larger kitchen.

I feel like this it is rude of them, but am not sure, since it is technically not my kitchen, as we do not yet live together. I certainly would never invite myself to cook in another person's home.

Am I overreacting? What is the polite way to signal I am planning the menu and if they would like to bring a side that would be wonderful?

GENTLE READER: Funny that you haven't mentioned the gentleman's reaction.

They are his friends, and it is his kitchen. And while there are people who hate having others working in their kitchens, the offer, which they can simply decline with thanks, is not rude.

So Miss Manners will address herself to your question about overreacting.

Her guess is that this strikes you as the ladies' thinking it would be cute to feed the helpless bachelor who must be in need of some feminine care. And that you are bristling because this would ignore your attachment.

You would be well advised to drop that whole idea. They know about you, they have shown interest in meeting you, and you should accede graciously to their offer, which Miss Manners suspects that the gentleman has already accepted.

Besides, nothing will emphasize the two of you being a couple more than jointly allowing these friends to pamper you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At least several times a month, I receive "warnings" from well-intentioned friends. These are usually messages that have been forwarded many, many times, containing alerts about computer viruses, credit card scams, health issues, dying children yearning for business cards and the like.

Trouble is, that when I check the accuracy of these well-meaning messages, the vast majority turn out to be false alarms, many of which have been circulating for years.

Of course I always ignore the "please forward this to all your friends," but what do I do vis a vis the sender? It seems rude to return a message telling them they've alarmed folks unnecessarily, but my not doing so simply encourages them to continue the practice of sending on unverified information.

GENTLE READER: The phrase you need, if you wish to alert your friends to their mistakes, is "You will be relieved to hear that..."

Miss Manners' idea here is to show sympathy for their concern, thus enabling you to explain how you found out, thus possibly encouraging them to check themselves before sending out the alarm.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Have you ever been physically restrained by someone so that she might continue her conversation?

Well, that is exactly what happened to me at church last week. I was exchanging pleasantries with an acquaintance while waiting on my husband to pick me up. When I saw him pull up, I said something along the lines of "Oh, that's George; he's out front in the car. It's been good to see you. (It hadn't.) I'll see you next Sunday."

Miss Manners, this woman reached out and took hold of my arm and held on to me to keep me there! She wasn't even trying to finish her sentence; she began talking on a new subject! I knew from past interaction that she doesn't seem to recognize polite social cues, but I didn't expect such selfish behavior.

I just kept smiling and backing away and agreeing sympathetically (the subject was her children) and reminding her that I really had to go and that I hoped George wasn't blocking the drive.

She was oblivious. I backed all the way to the door and there she released me. All in all, it took me about five minutes to "escape." I think she would've followed me out to the car if it hadn't been raining buckets. How should I handle this if it happens again?

GENTLE READER: Ah, so that's where the Ancient Mariner hangs out now.

As you may recall from the Coleridge poem, the classic victim of this treatment exclaims "Hold off! Unhand me, grey-beard loon!" but still can't get away. Fixed by the Ancient Mariner's glittering eye, he gives up and misses the wedding feast of his next-of-kin. only to endure 142 verses of sea story.

The next day, he counts himself a sadder and wiser man. Presumably that is because he has learned that "He prayeth best, who lovest best/All things both great and small" and therefore to avoid killing albatrosses. But Miss Manners has always suspected that he has also learned to pull away and say firmly, "Excuse me, I really must go" while making a dash for it.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband believes that when setting a table, a soup/table spoon, dinner/place fork, and knife should always be provided, regardless of what will be served. I contend that only flatware appropriate for the meal being served need be provided. That is, if there will be no soup course, one need not include a soup spoon in the setting.

It seems to me that otherwise, there could theoretically be no end to which flatware should be provided, and surely we do not need cocktail forks at breakfast.

Can you please "set" us straight?

GENTLE READER: While Miss Manners is willing to overlook that pun, she cannot easily forgive your husband his mistake. His is a notion that has considerably blackened the reputation of the noble art of etiquette.

Laying out all the utensils -- and it is astonishing how many possibilities there are -- would turn the pleasure of mealtime into an unpleasant guessing game. Only the necessary utensils for each particular meal should be set out, and furthermore, they should be set on each side of the plate in the outside-to-inside order in which the corresponding courses will appear. We do not want to ruin anyone's digestion with trick settings.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: For years now, I have had people's phone numbers sitting in my mobile like everyone else; some I do call, and some I don't. I have debated time and time again as to whether or not I should call the people who I haven't spoken with in years to see if they would like to meet and "hang out," for lack of better term.

We parted with no bad blood, but I can't help but shake the feeling that they have all moved on, and at best have no room for me in their lives. At worst, they may not want to speak with me due to a nasty rumor or two. Still, I wonder: what if I did make contact with them? How do I know that they want nothing to do with me?

We haven't spoke in so long, maybe they keep thinking the same thing about me when they look at my number. I was just wondering, what does etiquette dictate in these circumstances?

GENTLE READER: Looking up people with whom one has lost touch is practically the national pastime now that so many have made themselves available on Internet social sites. So Miss Manners appreciates your reminding her to explain how to do this politely.

As you surmise, not all such approaches are welcome, nasty rumors or not, although many are, and it is worth trying. One should give the other person the choice -- but first, one should give the opportunity to figure out that caller-out-of-the-blue is.

Thus writing, electronic or not, is better than telephoning. You can explain fully who you are, so that the recipient can say gracefully, "Of course I remember you." Then you say you would love to hear from that person. Then you wait.

No response? With all the "friend" requests careening around, one cannot afford, emotionally, to take silence as an insult. People are otherwise occupied, overwhelmed, forgetful, careless and -- oh, yes, they may not have liked you back then. All the more loss for them, considering the fine person you presumably turned into since.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Lately, I'm receiving a number of business and alumni invitations that begin with "the honor of your presence is requested..."

I thought this wording was only appropriate for use for a ceremony in a church or synagogue.

Am I hopelessly old-fashioned? What are the uses for "pleasure of your company" and "honour (or lately, honor) of your presence"? Please bring me up to date.

GENTLE READER: The latest development is that people keep getting it wrong.

Actually this has been going on for some time now, more than half a century. The rise of the cult of informality did not, as would have been reasonable, lead to using informal forms. Rather, it led to scrambling formal forms until the traditional wording was forgotten.

But not by you or Miss Manners. You are correct that "honour" or (equally correctly and more suitably for Americans) "honor of your presence" is for services held in a house of worship, and "pleasure of your company" for those that are not.

: