"No, dear, it was a Tuesday, not a Sunday. I remember that, because there was snow predicted, and I left work early. And it wasn't just three men we saw; there was a woman there, too.

"You didn't actually say 'I bet this is a crime about to happen.' When you saw they'd left their car practically on the sidewalk and were having a huddled conversation, you said, 'There's something strange about those guys.'

"We didn't see it on television that night. You were in the bathroom and I heard something on the radio about a holdup at the mall, but by the time we put on the news, they were talking to witnesses and we couldn't be sure it was the same group we saw. Only we think so."

Conversational Helper, as Miss Manners calls it, is one reason that it is a bad idea to seat couples within earshot of each other at dinner parties. Some would say it is a reason why it is a bad idea to get married.

Miss Manners emphatically endorses the former premise and disputes the latter. It is no fun to be corrected, and that vivid detail about being in the bathroom deserves a special mention award. But that is a habit that can be, ah, corrected.

Knowing each other's stories -- background, shared experiences and other conversational material -- is otherwise one of the great benefits of marriage. It makes people feel loved for themselves, as opposed to for whatever counterfactual impressions they might be able to create. They can indulge in reminiscences without having to supply the background. They have a double repertory for use when the other person is not around. And as they grow older, they can use each other as reference resources about their own lives.

But they have to learn the difference between being a prompter and being a fact checker.

Correcting one's spouse in public is not a charming thing to do. And Conversational Helper not only interrupts and embarrasses the speaking spouse; it annoys the listeners. They couldn't care less whether it was Sunday or Tuesday, as long as they don't have to listen to that being made into a dispute.

Besides, embroidery is what makes factual reporting into conversation. Experience must be given form and colorful details, and bits of exactitude may get lost along the way.

Improving the dialogue is considered fair, because it makes the story more interesting. Being able to add a bit of drama to the narrative, instead of making it sound like directions being read from a can, is counted a plus.

This is not to say that spouses cannot be of social assistance to each other. They can prompt delicately when the speaker's own version of the story has been botched, supplying an essential factor that was omitted or a forgotten punch line.

And they can look charmed when hearing a slightly mangled story told yet once again.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My neighbor claims it is correct etiquette to personally pay for travel expenses of family to attend a memorial service for her deceased husband. Can this possibly be true?

GENTLE READER: No, it is not. You have a neighbor who is either exceptionally generous or exceptionally gullible.

If she has offered to pay travel expenses so that relatives who could not otherwise afford it can attend her husband's memorial service, it is the former, although she should not generalize to expect others to do the same. If the relatives have led her to believe that they expect her to pick up their bills as a reward for attending, Miss Manners is afraid that it is the latter.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My sister-in-law volunteered to host the family Thanksgiving dinner last year. In prior years, when hosted by me, my sister or my mother, the host would provide the meal and accept (only if asked) an offering of a special dish, a favorite dessert, etc.

When inquiring to my sister-in-law to see if I could bring my sweet potato casserole or other complementary dish, she asked me to bring all of the vegetables, including mashed and sweet potatoes, corn pudding, green beans, cranberry sauce and salad. She asked my mother to bring desserts (pies, cake, ice cream, whipped cream) and coffee. My sister was ordered to bring appetizers, rolls, corn bread and drinks (including wine and coffee). The host would provide the turkey, stuffing, plates and utensils.

We were caught off-guard last year by the potluck arrangement, but agreed to it in the spirit of family harmony. My sister-in-law loved it, however, and has asked to make it a tradition at their house.

We can always say our tradition is to rotate it from house to house, but how should one respond to a request in which one has previously replied yes to a dinner invitation and is later asked to provide a substantial portion of the dinner?

Is this the new standard for dinner invitations? Is this OK because it's family?

GENTLE READER: A cooperative family holiday is only OK if everyone concerned knowingly agrees to it. Last year, as you realized, you were stuck. Miss Manners assures you that this does not mean that you are stuck for life.

Now is the time for you to announce, with your mother and sister's pre-arranged backing, that you feel like doing Thanksgiving this year, and that your sister-in-law is not to think of bringing anything, as you want her to enjoy a work-free holiday. It is not necessary to argue tradition and counter-tradition in order to do something as gracious as insisting that you want to entertain the family.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We are a group of people, including couples and widows, whose ages range from 65 to 80. There are times when some of us may be invited to a function, while others may not.

We are aware of the two faux pas: Don't ask someone if they've been invited and don't ask the hostess whom they invited. We understand the severity of the first case; however, by not asking the hostess, we find that we cannot share the cost of a gift, or offer a ride to someone who might need it.

Frankly, it sometimes causes embarrassment to come to a function and find that your best friend is there and they could have been included in the gift or been given a ride. We have come to the conclusion that, because of our circumstances, we should ignore "don't ask the hostess who has been invited" and ask.

GENTLE READER: Why disobey etiquette rules when Miss Manners can so easily tweak them to get you the desired result? You cannot properly ask the hostess for her guest list, but you can quite properly ask her, "Is there anyone who lives near me, as I might need a ride?" As she probably has not memorized everyone's address, this will prompt her to recite the list anyway.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I frequent a local pub, usually twice a week, and on occasion I have either been sent a drink or asked if one could be purchased for me (usually by a member of the opposite sex).

I am a single, 46-year-old female, and I am not at my favorite pub looking to "pick up" someone. However, one of the main reasons I frequent this pub is due to the fact that a variety of interesting people do, too, and we often get into wonderful and interesting conversations at the bar.

I was raised to believe that if a drink has already been purchased and sent to you, the proper thing to do is think of it as a gift, drink it (barring that one has not already over-imbibed) and thank the sender without any further obligation on my part. I was further raised to believe that if someone merely asks, "May I buy you drink?" it is perfectly proper to either accept the drink (and thank the person with no further obligation) or thank the person for the thought, but refuse the drink dependent upon the circumstances.

Some of my friends/colleagues insist that if a drink is accepted under either circumstance, then I am obligated to purchase the sender a drink. What IS proper in these situations?

GENTLE READER: If your parents' child-rearing covered the etiquette of how to accept drinks from strangers, Miss Manners congratulates you on an unusually tutored upbringing. Most parents give up exhausted after they have managed to teach basic table manners. Or before.

Unfortunately, however, their information would now be out of date. A generation ago, a lady would not have gone to a pub alone (unless she intended to be picked up, in which case she would not have been a lady). That ladies may go there for respectable conviviality is certainly an improvement.

But the old form of flirtation with drinks has changed accordingly.

The old routine was both sly and harmless. A gentleman sent over a drink to a lady he admired, knowing that the most that could come of it, considering the presence of her escort, would be a flirtatious glance of acknowledgement. And it might equally well be refused, or receive a different sort of glance from the gentleman she was with.

What you describe is the equivalent of a stranger's offering to get you a drink at a party -- a way of introducing himself. That money is involved here, because you have moved from a social setting to a commercial one, is not the point. To accept the drink does not require that you buy a return drink, as it would when there are no courtship overtures involved, but it does commit you to talking, at least briefly, with the person who bought it. If you do not wish to do that, you should decline with thanks.

What you might do is buy Miss Manners a drink. She needs to recover from having accepted your premise that, although a lady may not go to a bar to pick up a stranger, it might just happen.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When a health care provider does not wash his or her hands before examining or assisting you, what is a polite way of requesting that they do so?

GENTLE READER: Try "Aren't you going to wear rubber gloves? I might be infectious."

: