DEAR MISS MANNERS: I need help before my husband and his father stop speaking entirely! My father-in-law has recently become a stickler for thank-you notes. He and his wife live in another state and mail gifts to our children for holidays, birthdays, etc. Each time we receive a gift from them we have our children call to thank them personally.

My father-in-law feels that we should be sending written notes in addition to the phone calls. My husband thinks that thank-you notes are formal and the telephone calls are more personal and appropriate for an immediate family member. Neither is willing to compromise on the subject and things are starting to get tense.

GENTLE READER: You are in luck, because Miss Manners can make everyone happy: Your father-in-law will get his letters of thanks, and your husband doesn't have to write them.

The children do, as the presents were sent to them. They can make telephone calls when they receive the presents, and then sit down and write those letters. True, this may not make them happy, but proper child-rearing rarely does at the time, and their lives will be happier later for having the habit.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A co-worker and I had a dispute about six months ago that has left us as co-workers only; no longer friends. It was never a great friendship, but it was amicable.

Yesterday she put a Christmas gift on my desk. I had no idea what to say or do. Last evening and today I have thought about it and decided I would wait until the other people had left around 5 and then return it to her and explain I am really uncomfortable with this gift and am unable to keep it. What do you think?

GENTLE READER: That what you have there is not so much a Christmas present as a peace offering disguised as a Christmas present. Do you really want to reject the offer of peace from someone with whom you still have to work?

Miss Manners supposes that what you want to reject is renewed friendship. Unless the present is a substantial one, you can do that by saying, "I very much appreciate your gesture."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When planning our holiday party, we were discussing the proper breakdown of the different dress-code classifications. The classifications we came up with are: Black Tie, Formal, Semi-Formal, Business Casual, Casual. We need help clarifying the proper dress for each classification, and in what settings they are generally applied. Also, are these the correct breakdowns?

GENTLE READER: Breakdown is right. The system of allowing guests to know the style of clothing they were expected to wear is in shards.

The old system recognized only Formal and Informal. You had to know the community to know whether that particular set meant that Formal was white tie and Informal was black tie, or Formal was black tie and Informal was business suits, or Formal was ties and jackets and Informal was jeans.

The attempt to fix this by a proliferation of categories has only made things worse. In addition to the ones you mention, other bewildering terms are being tossed about by reckless hosts: Festive Leisure, Creative Black Tie, and heaven knows what else. Not only is there nothing correct about these, there is nothing helpful, either.

If people are still going to have to ask what these instructions mean, Miss Manners would think it a kindness to go back to Formal and Informal so they could ask the question one time and remember the answer.

:

Now is the season to think of those more fortunate than ourselves.

At least so it appears from the flood of solicitations that are made toward the end of the year, requesting donations of money from those who are deemed to be such. Hardly anyone seems to be considered below the financial cutoff line for being importuned by friends, relatives, colleagues and strangers alike, through the mail, e-mail, the telephone and both door-to-door and desk-to-desk visits.

Collecting for charity is such a widespread activity that there are entire income brackets who depend upon it for a meal. Miss Manners is not referring to the poor, who can hardly consider such largesse dependable. She means that segment of the rich who give lavishly, but who expect something in return: not only a tax deduction, but a social life, complete with gift bags.

Miss Manners heartily supports charity, and, as in Victorian times, she expects good behavior in return. The difference is that the Victorians expected the objects of their charity to behave well. At best, this led to a lot of showy shuffling and at worst, it ruled out some of the needy on the basis of their neediness.

The good behavior Miss Manners expects is from those who collect for charity. She expects them to observe social decencies toward potential and repeat donors, and to not try to claim that violating etiquette is permitted "because it's for a good cause."

As they know, pity and shame are basic to the disposition to donate money. Pity for the plight of others and shame if one remains selfish. But what many charities prefer are the implied threat of social embarrassment and the enticement of social aggrandizement.

That people give to charity to get their names and reputations around is an occasionally amusing sport that Miss Manners considers unobjectionable. There are worse reputations for which to strive than that of philanthropist. There may be none better, although the difference between acquiring it through others' noticing one's deeds and through trumpeting it oneself is not a small one.

That people also give because they are embarrassed to say no to the particular person who asks is also effective, Miss Manners is aware. This is why charities send friends, neighbors, colleagues and children to do the asking. The onus then is on the prospective donor to weigh the factor of pleasing the importuner along with his interest in the cause and assessment of what he can spare.

It is invaluable to know that there is nothing rude about saying pleasantly, "Thank you, I'll pass on this." Really. Deciding where and how much to give is a serious responsibility of the giver, which should not be abandoned.

But the agents of charity often try -- indeed, are often instructed to try -- to engineer deeper embarrassment. Using such insidious techniques as familiarity with the income and possessions of the prospective donor to extract or raise the donation is a common -- and rude -- practice. Using a venue where cooperative behavior is expected, such as the workplace (especially when a higher-ranking person, or worse yet, a high-ranking person's child, does it) or a social occasion that the guests were not warned was for fund-raising are also rude.

What is fair, and more effective in the long run, is working up an impassioned speech about the goodness of the cause and the good that donations will do: wrenching the heart, rather than tweaking the ego.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What are chocolate spoons? Are they for stirring hot chocolate (as teaspoons are for tea), or are they for eating chocolate desserts such as mousse or pots de creme? I have a chance to buy some in my pattern, but I am unsure as to their proper use. I even asked a good friend who is a former White House social secretary, and she's not sure.

GENTLE READER: Then she could not have worked for an 18th century administration, which was when chocolate became such a prized drink that it developed its own spoons, pots and cups. However, your other guess has some validity, as the hot chocolate of that time was so thick that it might well be mistaken for a pudding.

Chocolate spoons are short and round-bowled, but the pots and cups are tall and lack the bellies of coffee and teapots and cups. Miss Manners is afraid that the same cannot be said of people who (understandably in her view) prefer chocolate to coffee and tea.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: An uncomfortable situation arose prior to my sister-in-law's marriage a few months ago. To be polite as I can, her mother, my mother-in law, is an extremely pushy, insensitive woman who usually does and says whatever she wants.

While making the guest list for the shower, she informed me she was going to invite my mother. My mother does not like this woman for many obvious reasons (her insensitivity would make your hair stand on end). I knew this was going to be a problem. Also, my mother's health has been deteriorating over the past few years and she is unable to sit or stand for long periods of time.

When I informed my mother of the impending invitation, she told me to convey to my mother-in-law that she would not attend because of her health, so please do not send her an invitation. I repeated this back to my mother-in-law, stressing how ill my mother was, and the response I received was "I'm sending her one anyway"! And she did just that!

When my mother got the invitation, she was furious and threw it in the trash. My mother-in-law then kept badgering me about whether or not my mother got the invitation and if she was going to RSVP soon so she could get a head count! My mom said to tell her she never received the invitation, so I ended up lying.

Obviously, my mother-in-law was wrong, but the behavior on both sides left me in the middle and I'm upset. What should have been done?

GENTLE READER: Not having the pleasure of being acquainted with either of these ladies, Miss Manners is able to pass judgment without prejudice.

Your mother-in-law has done nothing wrong.

Wait -- you are prepared to testify that she has done wrongs that would make Miss Manners' hair stand on end, and that may be the case. But it is inadmissible evidence here.

Issuing an invitation is not a rude act, even if it is known that that person will not be able to attend. Refusing to answer an invitation is a rude act.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When preparing Christmas cards, or other holiday cards for that matter, when should one stop listing recipients' children?

If the child is grown and moved out of the home, I would expect that they would no longer be listed. What if the child is grown (over 18), attending college and living at home? Are they adults and therefore not listed on the card, or are they still members of the household and listed as always?

GENTLE READER: What exactly is the reasoning here? Why should you cease to consider children members of the household they inhabit because they are grown up, and why should you want to stop greeting them if you were previously in the habit of doing so? Unless you meant to ask whether they should be sent separate cards, which you could do although it hardly seems necessary, Miss Manners sees no reason to strike them from your greetings on the grounds of age.

: