DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am seeking a polite, civil, yet firm way to express that a person's opinions and thoughts are unwarranted and unwelcome.

My husband has had full custody of his daughter since the age of 3; she is now 12. Last year, for three months, the child had a trial custody change to her mother's care. The court reversed that decision after "Tammy" provided the child with drinking parties (where minors were getting drunk and making sexual contact with one another).

Tammy is also in the process of being tried on child abuse charges. She is currently allowed two days a month visitation with the child.

My issue arises each visit, when Tammy approaches my husband and me wanting to talk about all sorts of parenting issues that bother her. For example, Tammy feels that the child needs to have her nails manicured at all times; that we should consider taking her out of school if that is the only time the hairstylist has an appointment for a trim (as every six weeks is too infrequent a trim, according to Tammy); and that the child should be allowed a two-piece string bikini of her choosing.

My husband and I try to exit these conversations with, "I'm terribly sorry, but we must get going," so as not to set a bad example of rudeness in front of the child.

Tammy then persists, calling, emailing and text-messaging us daily until we hear her out for what could be hours of conversation because she insists that a 12-year-old should be allowed miniskirts and attendance at parties without adult supervision.

We cannot block Tammy from our phones and email, in case of emergency when she does have the child for a visit. Is there any way, still keeping civil with Tammy, that we can let her know that her thoughts, in the opinion of the courts, the law and ourselves, are rubbish, and we don't wish to waste any more of our lives listening to them?

GENTLE READER: Suppose there were a way -- which there is not -- of politely saying, "Keep your rubbishy thoughts to yourself"?

Are you dealing with someone who would reply: "Oh, I'm so sorry; I didn't mean to bother you -- of course you are right -- so do as you think best, and I won't say another word"?

If your stepdaughter's mother is convicted of child abuse, you may have help in limiting her ability to communicate. It also sounds as if, aside from being annoying, she is actually dangerous enough to children to require you to appeal the decision about even two-day custody.

Miss Manners doubts that anything short of that will work. She is glad to hear that you consider rudeness out of the question, but even firmness would be more likely to antagonize than to deter someone who is not hesitant about making a nuisance of herself.

So you are reduced to deleting emails, answering her calls only when the child is with her, and continuing to rush off. Your real problem will be explaining the mother to the child with tact and compassion.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have encountered the expression "bride-elect" in engagement announcements. It seems to confuse fiancees with politicians.

Where does this expression come from, and is it correct? I now live in Alabama and first encountered the phrase here.

GENTLE READER: The use of the term "elect" to mean someone who was chosen goes back at least as far as the 15th century, when churchmen were sometimes referred to as "the elect of God."

Miss Manners does not take this to mean that God held primaries at which competing candidates put themselves forward, presumably without resorting to name-calling and negative advertisements about their rivals. One can be chosen in different ways.

That a bride was chosen by someone is indisputable, and therefore the term is correct. "Bridegroom-elect" is also correct, as the two presumably chose each other.

You needn't have moved south to encounter this expression. In Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado," Katisha announces herself as the emperor of Japan's "daughter-in-law-elect," although her fiance makes it clear that the choice was not his.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When someone has passed/died and the family has requested donations to be made, how much time do you have to make those donations?

We have not made ours yet, and the daughter of the deceased continues to ask if our donation has been made. The woman died a month ago. I thought a donation made within three to six months would be OK, but the pressure of these donation efforts has made me uncertain.

GENTLE READER: The only cause for uncertainty that Miss Manners sees in this situation is how long it will be before the bereaved turns you over to a collection agency.

You are under no obligation to pay her for her loss. When donations to a charity are requested in connection with a death, they are only requests, and you needn't comply nor, if you do, follow a particular timetable.

In rare cases in the past, compassionate people might take up a collection to help indigent survivors. Lately, in these unsubtle times, people have begun to ask for money for themselves. Death has joined other major personal events, such as births, graduations and weddings, as yet another fundraising opportunity.

Why others donate to the greedy, rather than the needy, Miss Manners cannot say.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The other day I received a form letter solicitation from a niece presently in college, asking for a contribution on behalf of her school sports team to enable them to go to a national competition. The addressee and signature were hand-entered; the rest boilerplate text.

The quick background is that this niece (and her brother) have never acknowledged receipt nor thanked us for holiday or birthday gifts in the past. Hence, we stopped sending them. That was easy enough, given that their actions bore consequences.

At present, though, there is an active solicitation (generated, no doubt, from whatever address book she uses). Should we contribute a trifle or more out of magnanimity and support for her present endeavor, or should we abide by our past decision?

GENTLE READER: Actions have consequences, Miss Manners agrees. If you respond with a donation, your niece could conclude that her action, of sending an impersonal solicitation for money to people whose generosity she has discourteously ignored, has rewarding consequences.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a private person, but I have taken an unpopular public stand on a controversial issue. I speak to civic groups about the issue, sometimes participate in debates sponsored by such groups and write letters to the editor. Within my local area, I am well known for my stand on the subject.

However, I do not want to limit my associations to only those people who agree with me on this issue. I don't like to fight it all the time. Also, I have many other interests and go to many types of social gatherings.

Most of the time, I can avoid a confrontation by changing the subject or saying, "Hey, I'm on my time off now!" or words to that effect.

However, some people see me as a red flag and they are the bull. They just have to charge and keep charging. They feel they must tell me why I am so very wrong! I say that I prefer not to debate the issue, and I try to change the subject, but it doesn't always work.

Do you have some words I can use that are better than what I am currently using? Or should I be ready to defend my position to all people under all circumstances? Is there any way I can set some boundaries on this situation?

GENTLE READER: Try assuming an interested look, and without responding to the attack on your issue, say, "Tell me about your favorite cause. Besides this, what do you think is our most important question of the day?"

This doesn't just change the subject, if it works. It challenges such a person to show whether he has ideas of his own, or just goes around attacking others.

Miss Manners realizes there are risks. He could be tempted to say, "Stopping wrongheaded people like you," although personal insults at a party would only mark him as even ruder than the confrontation, which might be passed off as conversation. The real risk is that you will then attack his ideas, and it will be a draw. The way to win is to listen intently, say pleasantly, "Hmmm, interesting you should think that," and excuse yourself to get a drink.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: After years of listening to friends and acquaintances repeat the same story over and again verbatim, I developed the knack of saying with great enthusiasm, as if I have just remembered, "Oh, that's right, you told me about that!" which usually prompts them to jump to new additions to the tale.

However, there are still a few who plod along through the whole saga after I've reminded them I am familiar with it. What can I do when I don't want to spend the time on repeated life's tales?

GENTLE READER: You are going to have a difficult old age. People repeat things. And then they do it again. See?

Your defense is a good one, even if it doesn't always work. A mean variation would be to declare, "I love the part where you ..." and repeat the punch line.

But you have known these people for a long time, and, Miss Manners supposes, are likely to know them longer still. You should consider suffering through their unstoppable repetitions in the hope that they will do the same should you need similar tolerance someday.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)