But unless Wayne is referring to me as 'Mr God', he has no right to expect me to address him as Mr Smith. Just because I happen to be tupping his daughter doesn't mean I ought to behave deferentially towards him. And if he considers a smile, a handshake and a 'nice to meet you' impolite just because I use his first name, he's not the sort of person whose opinion of me I'd particularly care about.



I disagree. Different eras, perhaps, but I'd consider it no more a 'formal setting' than I would meeting any of my girlfriend's friends, or anyone else outside of work. I'm dating Charlene, not Wayne.



Again, we'll have to agree to differ. I'd still address him as Mr Ferguson if I chose to address him formally, as I refuse to recognise the honours system in any way, shape or form.



If someone said, "Lord Sugar, this is Rock God" and he responded with "Hello, Rock", then he'd get a hearty "Hello, Alan" in return. If he said, "Hello Mr God", then I'd use "Mr Sugar". I wouldn't call him Sir or Lord for the reasons stated above.



That wasn't the point I was making (as I think you know). Let me rephrase: Why should the beardy wankstain get 'Sir Alan' (as was) or 'Lord Sugar', when the nurse gets Nurse Higginbottom or, away from work Mrs Higginbottom?

Not a question of "rights", though but politeness.

No, none of thse things are impolite, but he may reasonably consider use of his first name impolite. You'e already made the point that you don't give a fook, so we got that.


But he doesn't KNOW that, does he. As he doesn't know you. So only you would know why you were seemingly being a prick.


But equally pointless, as he doesn't KNOW your reasons for doing so.


No, I replied to the point I thought you were making.

Because using the CORRECT title is not "better" or "worse" but just "correct"!

It seemed like a strange thing to do straight afterwards to me too, being a professional tennis player is all about earning money to feed the entourage that will travel with you, Ivan Lendl won't come cheap for starters, most of that prize money won't be Murrays to give away.

But if he's going to be so impolite as to address me by my first name, he can't believe me to be impolite if I return the favour, can he?



I'm not sure he 'reasonably' could. In fact, I'm sure he 'reasonably' could not. If someone is polite to you in all other respects (Hello, nice to meet you, handshake, whatever), I'd say it's bloody unreasonable to think that they were impolite because they use your first name.



A person might not KNOW my reasons for not addressing them as Sir Whatever, but it wouldn't take a genius to work it out if I was polite in all other respects.



I disagree. I don't think it's 'correct' that a person is arbitrarily awarded an inflated title based (usually) on a politician's/head of state's whim, and that we should all have to use that title when equally (more?) deserving people have to get by on plain old Mr or Mrs.

Are you serious? Unless the girlfriend introduced you by surname, how would he know it? And it shouldn't need me to tell you that expecting the father of the girl to call you "Mr. " is in normal convention just plain silly. It would be perfectly normal, expected and appropriate to use your first name. Anyway I think you actually know tgis, and are just being awkward for the sake of it.


Look, we aren;t discussing any other respects, just the (plainly) inappropriate unbidden use of the first name. Stick to the point. If you can.


No, they couldn't work it out. Because they have no additional data. It could indeed just be that you are being a prick.


But you do NOT HAVE to, ffs, why don't you get that simple point? We are discussing polite behaviour, and rudeness. Nobody ever suggested compulsion. Also silly is the suggestion that honours are "arbitrary". And I don't (at all) argue the system is, or even could be, perfect, but what did they do - pick Bradley Wiggins and Jessica Ennis with a pin out of the phone book?

Anal retentiveness!

And yes, all Scottish male born citizens should be called "Sir" by their English counterparts.

We'll skirt around that one ...

Here we go again.

We're not discussing what's 'normal convention', we're discussing what's polite. Stick to the point. If you can. It's no more impolite (whether conventional or not) for me to use his first name than it is for him to use mine.

As for 'convention', it may have been conventional for men to call their girlfriend's father 'Mr' in the 1950s, but it really isn't now. I'm in my mid thirties and have been married for the past ten years, so maybe convention has altered in that time, but I was never expected to call any one of my girlfriends' fathers 'Mr'. It was always, 'Ian, this is my dad, Dave; Dad, this is Ian'. They weren't always called Dave, that was just an example.



I utterly reject the notion that it's 'plainly inappropriate' to use a person's first name. It's not like dropping your pants in Tesco and taking a dump on aisle 3. 'Arguably inappropriate' would be better. As for the other respects, they are relevant to the point. You'd have to be a total prick to decide whether or not a person is polite based purely on whether they use your first name to address you. If I give a warm smile, look the person in the eye and say, "Hi, Bob, thanks for inviting me", surely that's more polite than, "Can we get this over, Mr Carolgees, so I can get back to humping your daughter?" Whether or not one considers a person to be polite is based on a whole myriad of factors, not just their form of address.



But they DO have additional data. If they see me make eye contact, smile and say something like, "Good to meet you too, Alan, and may I say how excellent I found your fax/emailer", then they have loads of other data to decide whether or not I am a polite person. It wouldn't be a massive leap of logic for them to decide that, as I'd been so polite in every other conceivable way, that I wasn't omitting the 'Lord/Sir' part of the address out of simple rudeness.



Again, I think you know this, but by 'have to', I meant 'be expected to lest I am considered impolite'.



It's arbitrary from the point of view that most of the recipients are 'famous' and often incredibly well rewarded for what they do. Jessica Ennis is a great athlete. But she is reasonably well paid for being so and has an Olympic gold medal as recognition for her efforts. There are plenty of other people who are just as brilliant at what they do, and who do far more vital work, who don't receive a medal or an honour from The Queen. I have the greatest respect for what she and the likes of Wiggins have achieved, but I still wouldn't call him 'Sir Bradley' if we were ever to meet.

I'd say that she is VERY well paid for running, skipping and jumping a bit.

There aren't too many people in the world who can earn enough money in a couple of years to last them for the whole of their life by doing something that they probably would have done for free as a hobby anyway.