DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it ever acceptable to donate money at all levels of giving so that one's name appears multiple times on a program?

We are not talking about endowing a trombone and, for example, a musical chair, but at the friend level, the donor level, the patron level ... well, you get the picture.

If one can afford to give at all levels, the assumption is made that one would give only once at the highest level, even if one's donation far exceeded the lower limit of, say, $15,000 for top recognition.

These same donors, while their obvious generosity was appreciated, donated numerous very high-priced auction items (trips to their expensive vacation home, etc.) and made certain they were listed as purchasers of the more expensive items and, I might add, many of them. What is to be made of this behavior?

GENTLE READER: There was such a chap, Miss Manners recalls, who gave to all possible causes at all levels. She did not actually know him. Apparently, nobody did, as he seems to have been a modest person, who gave for the sake of helping causes, with no interest in glorifying himself.

His name was Anonymous. He doesn't seem to get around much anymore.

But as this is about charity, you might exhibit some toward those often-named donors. Perhaps it was the beneficiaries who plastered those names around, because they thought it was expected, or to encourage others to give. And it is reasonable to expect that before bidding on using someone's house, one would want to know whose house it was.

In any case, Miss Manners supposes that while it does, indeed, make the philanthropists look a bit foolish to insert themselves at all levels on the same program, there are worse ways to buy publicity.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I would like to know if it is strange that my ex-wife has asked my son to walk her down the aisle for her third marriage. My son walked her down the aisle for her second marriage without my knowledge.

I've never heard of such a thing, with her father, brother and uncle still alive. I'm just a little "creeped out."

GENTLE READER: Frankly, so is Miss Manners. Yet it is often done.

The almost universal notion that a bride must be given away by a man is, of course, highly anachronistic. But that does not bother Miss Manners. If anything, she is rather charmed by seeing a proudly independent lady reverting, on this important family occasion, to being daddy's little girl.

But there are situations in which the symbolism becomes offensive. A common one springs from mistaken, upside-down thinking that counts gender as more important than shared history in what they call this "role." And indeed, many think of it as a role to be cast with someone who looks the part of a father, rather than someone who has actually played the part, as it were.

Thus a single mother may be overlooked while a male who had little or nothing to do with rearing the bride is chosen. And for a son to "give away" his mother is particularly unfortunate symbolically. Logically, a previous husband might give her away, as he doesn't need her any longer, but Miss Manners does not recommend that.

(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: Say I have a guest over for a meal and I don't agree with their opinions and lifestyle. How do I politely tell them I disagree without coming on too strong?

GENTLE READER: Parties at your place, where hospitality includes luring a guest for a critique of his or her life, must be a barrel of fun. Do you have many repeaters?

Miss Manners has been straining to think of someone who might warrant such interference, and yet be described as "a guest," rather than a minor child in your custody. You don't even call this apparently misguided person your close friend or relative -- not that this would entitle you to launch a surprise attack at your table.

There is an ancient rule forbidding a host to kill his guest, and many a legendary character waited impatiently for his enemy to step outside the premises. Attacking someone's way of life is somewhat equivalent psychologically. If you must do so, Miss Manners requires you to ask the target frankly for the opportunity -- providing a fair chance at his making a run for it -- and not to spring it during a social encounter.

Challenging opinions is a different matter. Civilized people are not required to pretend that they agree with one another. Life spent entirely among those of the same mind in everything would be boring. One could even argue against the value of opinions that have gone untested by counter-arguments.

But to be polite -- and for that matter, to be effective -- those with opposing views must be respectful and fair. That requires listening to the other's argument and conceding when convinced. And it means confining the discussion to the subject matter, eschewing personal criticism. As that is not your intention, you should avoid either any topics in contention or entertaining people of whom you so thoroughly disapprove.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother, who is 89, is having medical tests. Someone at work was bemoaning illness in general, and without thinking, I mentioned my worry over my mother's health (generally, with no gory details.)

Her reply left me literally speechless: "Well, your mother is really, really old and nobody lives forever, so you should just be getting used to the idea that she's going to pass."

I wish I'd had a reply, but fear it would have been anything but polite.

Really? Must one ready oneself for the unthinkable? I've lost one parent already and frankly can't fathom the inevitable, let alone "get used to it." As with tragedies in life, I feel I will cope when the thing that I fear is upon me.

What I do wish I had was a polite yet withering remark should someone ever say something so stunningly insensitive to me again.

GENTLE READER: Ah yes, a member of the Cold Comfort Squad. Such people also specialize in telling the bereaved that they must be relieved when people they love die.

You should not regret having been dumbfounded by a dumbfounding remark that does not deserve an answer. But if you want to be prepared for another such encounter, Miss Manners suggests, "Yes, it's true that we are all mortal. But some of us manage to form strong attachments nevertheless."

(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: Somehow I missed the memo that desserts in restaurants are a communal affair.

We are able to go out to dinner only on special occasions, and I limit my alcohol intake to be able to afford dessert. If I order soup, it will always come with one spoon, but the waitstaff almost always decides for me that my small, expensive dessert should come with a spoon for each person at the table.

I have had people take three or four bites while telling us about their co-workers who came in today with the start of a flu bug.

I am tempted to make a pre-emptive strike and tell the server that if he brings everyone a spoon, fine, just bring two desserts and I'll take the second one off the tip, but I know this is not only rude, but also allows for who-knows-what to happen to the food before it is served. Do you have any suggestions for me?

GENTLE READER: Yes: Stop threatening the waitstaff, and not just because you suspect them capable of nasty reprisals. Although Miss Manners shares your dislike of the automatic assumption of sharing, a great many people do ask for extra spoons, and it is not a high crime to hope to save a trip.

However, she will protect you from sharing your goodie. Just make your pre-emptive strike a bit less harsh. You could say good-naturedly to the server, "Thank you, but I'm sure this is so good that I'll want to devour it all," and to your companions, "Does anyone else want to order one?"

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When I visited a museum with my mother, we noticed other visitors taking photos of the exhibits with their cellphones. My mother and I were taught never to take photos in a museum, that it deprived the museum of its "product," as it were, and could damage antiquities.

Is this no longer the case? The docents and guards did not correct the photographers, and no signs were posted prohibiting photography.

GENTLE READER: Ordinarily it scares Miss Manners to be asked if a rule is no longer in effect. What follows is usually the declaration that an act of basic decency, such as answering invitations or giving thanks for presents, is so frequently violated that people honestly think it must have been repealed.

So it is with relief that she is able to tell you that indeed, the rule against taking photographs in museums has changed. Those institutions that keep the ban, in order to retain control over reproductions or to respect that policy in regard to exhibitions on loan, will post signs.

But it is no longer the default rule, now that the danger of exploding flashbulbs has passed, with the development of fast, electronic cameras, including those in telephones.

However, the rule against confronting strangers is still in effect. Miss Manners does not want to discourage you from reporting overly enthusiastic museum-goers who may be cutting a painting from its frame or chipping a souvenir from an artifact, but such violations should be reported to a museum guard.

(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.)