DEAR MISS MANNERS: I know it is wrong to repeat gossip amongst friends, but is there ever a circumstance when it is best to alert strangers to gossip?

A few weeks ago, while marooned in an airport waiting area, I observed a distressing tableau. Several men and a woman, clearly colleagues on a business trip, were sitting near me. After the woman left to buy snacks for her group, her colleagues proceeded to insult and denigrate her vilely, vulgarly and at great length. When the lady returned, her colleagues treated her respectfully, leaving me feeling as though I'd been made privy to a disgusting secret.

At the time, I held my tongue and made do with a few icy stares, but have since thought it might have been better to intervene somehow.

Should I have confronted the group of men -- uncaring brutes who seemed likely to cause an ugly scene -- for rudeness as they were making the comments? Would it have been right for me to discreetly tell the woman what I'd heard, perhaps approaching her in the ladies' room or some other relatively private spot? What would Miss Manners have done under the circumstances?

GENTLE READER: Gotten on her airplane and left.

Failing that possibility, she would have immersed herself in a novel, where she could be sure of being given all the necessary information to understand the situation -- as one is not in life, certainly not in regard to strangers.

The people you overheard treated the lady respectfully. They are entitled to their private opinions of her, although they should have tried harder to keep them private.

You would be doing the lady no favor to bring these out in the open. The hypocrisy you want to expose is the very thing that enables people who don't like one another to work together politely -- which, by your own account, is what they are doing.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: If you are the second person to board an elevator and the person who boarded first is standing directly in front of the buttons, should you reach across them to press your button? Or request that they press it by saying "Four, please"?

I typically refrain from reaching across them and request that they press it, but was once told off by a woman who instructed me that she was "not my servant." And this on a day when I was carrying coffee and bagels for the entire office and unable to press the button if I'd tried! Just wondering what your thoughts are. Don't want to press anybody's buttons inadvertently.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners' thoughts are a lot more presentable than that of someone who tells off elevator passengers.

Well, no, maybe they're not. It has occurred to her what unfortunate accident might take place if, in response to this person's refusal to perform a trivial and common courtesy, you leaned across her with your hot coffee to push the button for yourself.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am over 6 feet tall and I never complain if the passenger in front of me reclines his seat fully in coach class on long-haul international flights.

I feel that, even though the space used is in front of me, it is not "mine": It is there to accommodate the seat in front as it moves back in its fixed, designed arc. I may make a request if I have to move out of my seat to step into the aisle, but I do not make any requests even for meals, as airline trays, bottles and glasses are designed to fit into the limited space when properly placed.

By the same token, am I not entitled to the same courtesy by the passenger behind me?

On the outward leg of a trip, I was called "a selfish man" by the passenger behind me when I reclined my seat, even after I explained that I was making no such request of the passenger in front of me. On the return leg, things turned nastier.

When one passenger said that I was "a charming man" and the other abused me, using the Cheney f-word and balling his fist, threatening to "get me," I summoned the purser and stewardess. I explained my situation, and said calmly that if either I or my possessions were so much as touched by them, I would press charges on arrival, with possible penalties for air rage incidents including jail, fines, bans on future air travel and deportation for my assailants. I would also file complaints against the airline with the FAA and the Department of Transportation for its failure to protect a passenger against a public threat.

The purser and stewardess explained that I was perfectly within my rights to recline my seat fully. The passengers sullenly accepted this but then went into guerrilla war mode of shifting and kicking the seat backs.

It was a tiresome journey. Shouldn't the airline make public announcements to the effect that all passengers have the right to recline their seats fully, except during landings and takeoffs?

GENTLE READER: Why are you appealing to Miss Manners? Has your lawyer stopped taking your calls?

In the etiquette system, as opposed to the legal system, we deal in courtesies, not rights. The polite person tries to negotiate a compromise that will provide some comfort for all, including himself, under difficult circumstances. Reclining the chair only partway, for example.

The real culprit here is the airlines, who install their seats so closely together that the reasonable attitude of reclining a seat that is designed to recline constitutes a nuisance to the passenger behind.

However, this deeper problem, of setting minimal comfort standards -- or even minimal health conditions -- for long-haul flights, is not one that etiquette can solve. Miss Manners may have been a bit hasty in discouraging the legal approach.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I need to know which side of the groom is the bride at a formal wedding.

GENTLE READER: As in marriage, all sides. At the altar, she stands at his left, so that when the ceremony is concluded and they both turn around in place, she can take his right arm. In the receiving line at the reception, she stands nearer to the head of the line than he, because there is more interest in how she looks, and there may be more interest in kissing her. If there is a dinner, she sits at his right, knowing that this is the last time they can properly sit at a table together in company.

:

It seems un-American to have etiquette restrictions on discussing politics informally, among friends, colleagues and anyone else who will stand still long enough. How else are the citizens supposed to thrash out the plethora of complex issues of our time and arrive at judicious and reasoned decisions?

Well, we could study one another's T-shirts and bumper stickers. We could glean understanding from those who shout down candidates before anyone hears what they have to say, and those who start cheering them before anyone hears what they have to say. Or we can just snap out opinions at one another, and remark upon the stupidity of anyone who doesn't agree.

Since this is what we do anyway, it strikes Miss Manners that etiquette hardly needs to caution that political conversation can be volatile. Conversation? What conversation?

When was the last time you heard political talk that included such phrases as "You do have a point there" or "I hadn't thought of that" or "Tell me more about how that would work"?

Miss Manners can sense the derision felt for these wimpy statements. Why would you say such things unless you didn't know what you were talking about? Anyway, you don't win by making the other person look smart. And you certainly don't win by showing yourself to be so unsure of your beliefs that you can be talked out of them.

She doesn't doubt that this assessment is true for people who are running for office. What puzzles her is why the electorate is more interested in demonstrating that it already knows everything than in delving for information and exchanging ideas.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to observing and participating in conflicts in which sides are chosen ahead of time, anything short of total endorsement constitutes disloyalty, and the object is to win. In law, sports, debates, and business and international negotiations, partisanship is a given.

Even then, the particular rules that apply mandate that each side be allotted a fair chance, limit the tactics that can be used, and require a show of respect for the opposition and for the presiding authority. No one believes that this represents true open-mindedness, but the forms provide order and dignity that prevent the proceedings from deteriorating into melees.

Candidates, their staffs, and voters who have made up their minds should take the same approach. One reason for etiquette's wariness about political discourse is that they often don't. Respect for opposing views is in short supply these days.

But if there weren't a great many people reserving judgment, we could all go to bed early on Election Night. These are the people whom etiquette hates to prevent from talking politics. In theory, they could trade information and insights, and all come out the wiser.

The practice, however, is miserable. Gentle Readers report being hounded by acquaintances and strangers declaring and demanding views, berating the opposition and belittling their supporters.

So perhaps Miss Manners needn't put a ban on discussing politics -- but only on political polemics, posturing, prying and engaging others in conversations they do not want to have.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was told that in the old days, the initial engraved on a woman's silver flatware was the first initial of her maiden name because it was generally supplied by the bride's parents. The person who told me this is very believable and a historian by profession. However, when I tell people that this is what I've heard, they seem surprised to hear that it's not the groom's last name. Could you tell me what the rule was, if any?

GENTLE READER: Believe your believable historian. In the old days, a lady would collect her silver long before marriage, and, not yet knowing the bridegroom, had her own initials put on it. Miss Manners considers this an even wiser practice in the new days, when the lady might want to collect back her silver after the marriage.

: