At times etiquette is common sense

“Use your common sense” is not an admonition that Miss Manners is wont to employ.

For one thing, it seems unprofessional. She must have been absent from advice-columnist school the day they taught passing the buck: “You should seek help,” “You must do what you feel is right,” and so on. It seems to her that they are seeking help and, if they knew what to do, they would not have asked.

For another thing, people who only need to be told to use their common sense are not likely to be able to do so, as they have already displayed a want of it.

But when Miss Manners hears of people dispensing etiquette advice to others without having exercised the easiest mental test at hand, she is unable to contain herself. This unfortunate handicap seems especially to afflict those who issue erroneous information in regard to two of the most basic etiquette duties, replying to invitations and giving thanks for presents.

Hapless Gentle Readers report being told that it is only necessary to answer invitations if there is a request to do so or only if there is a card enclosed with which to do so. Some declare that answers are required only if one is planning to attend and others declare that answers are required only if one is not planning to attend.

Here is the common-sense test:

You are issuing the least formal of invitations. You stop by someone’s desk and ask, “Want to get a cup of coffee?” Or you call a friend and ask, “How about catching a movie tonight?”

How would you feel if the response was silence?

Huffy, right? You would maintain that you didn’t really care that much if the person wanted to go or not, but you are furious to have your offer ignored.

So why would anyone think that people who issue written invitations, which are more formal, would not be furious to have them ignored? Never mind the argument about needing to know how many people for whom to prepare. That is true, too, but what stings most is the insult.

In regard to expressing thanks, illicit advisers have circulated the ideas that those who receive presents are excused if it is a particularly busy time for them, or that they are allowed a full year in which to thank, or that it is no longer necessary if a lot of time has gone by, and thanking for a present that was itself given in thanks would only create an endless cycle of thanks.

None of this is logical. Since presents are given for holidays, weddings and births, practically all of them are given at busy times, so this would abolish the need to thank at all. As would the heretical notion that you have only to ignore the duty long enough to have it forgiven. And because thanks are not required for letters of thanks, but only for presents, including presents of thanks, such as flowers, the exchange ends there.

The common sense test:

You offer someone a stick of gum. That person grabs it and walks away without saying anything.

What bothers you is not, as donors to ingrates claim, that you are unsure it was received. It was. If that were the only reason in regard to mailed presents, one can ask for a return receipt and, in the case of checks, read the bank statement.

What bothers you is that you don’t want to feel like a vending machine. So it shouldn’t be hard to figure out that others who have been generous do not want to feel like personal shoppers or cash cows.