DEAR MISS MANNERS: When two dear friends of mine were married, I did not receive an invitation. I assumed (correctly) that they were having a small, intimate wedding. I was in no way offended; quite the contrary, I was very happy for them.

After their ceremony, they posted photos on Facebook to share their good tidings. It was clear that the wedding party was very small, the only others present besides the couple being their pastor; the judge, who is also a friend of theirs; the wedding singer, also an old friend; and three relatives who were the adult children of each of them, and one offspring's spouse.

I was therefore appalled that on one of the photos, not one but two people had remarked, "Gee, I didn't get an invitation."

Really? The couple gracefully apologized to these rude individuals and explained kindly the makeup of the wedding party and their reasons, even though they did not have to.

I could not imagine that anyone would have the gall to complain, or to make any comment whatsoever on being invited or not to a wedding! And on Facebook, broadcasting one's rudeness to all -- how tacky.

Am I being overly sensitive to this? Could the individuals have been joking? I don't know them, so perhaps they were just trying to be funny.

GENTLE READER: If everyone would just cease broadcasting their business full stop, Miss Manners would have a lot more time to enjoy her tea with actual friends instead of hearing about the rest of the world's virtual ones.

While it was gracious of you not to be offended, there is a rule against discussing parties with people who are or were not invited.

If the wedding couple had merely supplemented their announcement with a wedding portrait, those comments would be unwarranted (and unfunny). They are still rude even if written in reaction to festive pictures of the occasion, but the couple in some part brought it on themselves.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My future mother-in-law sends thoughtful gifts to my boyfriend and me for most occasions -- birthdays, holidays, even Valentine's Day. The cards accompanying these gifts are always signed (by her) with both her and her husband's names.

I know that her husband is oblivious to these tokens and doesn't do gifts. In my thank-you notes, I have always addressed both of them, even though I know that he didn't contribute or care at all. Should I continue addressing both parties?

GENTLE READER: Surely you do not want to challenge your future in-laws about who is paying for what and expressing which sentiments.

While Miss Manners has long maintained that two people cannot write a letter (your mother-in-law could have written, "Herbert joins me in wishing you a Happy Arbor Day"), the reverse is not also true -- you can address one to multiple people. So thanking both of your future in-laws is not only generous and good protocol; it is also correct.

(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: As a regular subway rider, I usually take the elevator rather than the escalators, as it is closer to where I need to be. I always let disabled people, elderly people and people with small children board before me if they wish, but most of the time they decline.

The other night I had a situation that enraged me. We were all waiting in line for the elevator, about 10 people deep, when a 20-something man came to the front of the line, stood in front of me, and proceeded to board the elevator before all of us. No words, nothing. He was so brazen!

He was given multiple nasty looks, but did not seem fazed, and I really wanted to say something but was not sure what to say.

Several people who had been waiting in line did not make it into this trip on the elevator because of his line jumping. It's the men in this age group who hog the seats while the elderly and pregnant stand, push old ladies out of the way, etc., and it's the men in their 60s who get up. What should I have done?

GENTLE READER: "Excuse me, but there is a line for this elevator."

Your goal is properly to change the young man's behavior, not to express your outrage, always a risky and scene-provoking move. Miss Manners recommends that you accompany it with a neutral air, as if the transgression was from absent-mindedness rather than an indictment of his age, compassion and intelligence.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I work as a teacher in a non-public high school. Three or four times each semester, during the regular work week, we are required to attend in-services that occupy the whole day (the students have a holiday).

On these occasions, we are given breakfast and lunch at the school's expense. This is not, I assume, an obligation on the school's part, since providing one's own meals is usually an employee's responsibility.

How often should I properly acknowledge my employer's generosity? Should I write a note of thanks for each one, at the end of each semester or at the end of the academic year?

In addition, we have several prayer breakfasts during the school year at which attendance is expected -- during regular school hours one morning a week when we are expected to be on campus and working. Does required attendance in this case also mandate an expression of thanks?

GENTLE READER: One properly expresses thanks for a present, raising the question of which work amenities rise to that level.

While Miss Manners may be grateful for free food, she does not consider such offerings a gift when given in recognition that an employee is working through what would otherwise be a meal. The same exemption applies to food supplied to ease the burden of long hours or late nights in the office.

But if there is no positive requirement that thanks be offered in such cases, an occasional expression of appreciation -- for the policy, not for each meal -- is gracious and may be useful if the school board suggests abandoning it.

(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.)

Mail delivery used to be a sport for the whole family. The dog was excited to see the mailman (as he was likely to be then), even if the mailman was not excited to see the dog. The baby loved to rip up the packaging and stomp on the foam bubbles. That left Miss Manners time to read her letters in peace, an activity she finds both enjoyable and enlightening.

But then the children grew up, and so did the technology. Since the mail started arriving electronically, Miss Manners' Gentle Readers have deluged her with complaints that their friends and relations never put down their cellular telephones.

They are constantly checking for emergencies. Unless they had left children at home in possession of matchbooks, the potential emergencies are always described as work-related. And perhaps they are. Miss Manners does not peek at other people's screens.

But putting aside the increasingly flabby definition of "emergencies," she recognizes a valid concern. The volume of work-related mail has increased enormously from the days of typewriters and mimeograph machines, and employees on the receiving end also have complaints. They are constantly on call, and they are aware that their personal relationships are being harmed.

The standard explanation is that greater email volume is an unavoidable consequence of an increase in the speed and complexity of business. That this garners sympathy for their heavy responsibilities may have caused them to overlook an equally plausible explanation:

Business people are becoming windy. Many are still too struck by the technology itself to stop and think about how to use it politely. And social media have taught them to think of self-editing as a vice rather than a courtesy.

So there is all that mail in the inbox and someone has to read it, and alongside the announcements of free cake in the lunchroom, there may be real emergencies.

Miss Manners recognizes that it is probably futile to suggest that not every aspect of one's job is of Lifesaving Importance. Or that having a sense of perspective about our work can improve our ability to do that work. Or that every business consultant's dictum to Think Outside the Box requires time to think.

But she asks that bosses and workers alike stop hurling accusations of insufficient dedication at workers who do not respond at noon on a Sunday to every thought that passes through a co-worker's head. Employees may be intimidated into responding even if the boss had no other intent than to clear out his own inbox.

She asks everyone to acknowledge that employees -- and bosses, too -- are entitled to some time away from the office. Someone should actually read all those emails from Human Resources about how much they care about Their People. Just not during family dinner.

If there must be after-hours communication, the technology itself may be used to distinguish the pressing from the vital-but-less-time-sensitive. Company policy could, for example, dictate that agreed-upon categories of emergencies are handled by telephone or text rather than email.

What matters is that everyone, including bosses, take time away from those devices to think about the contents of the correspondence -- and the welfare of the correspondents.

(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.)