Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:20 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

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

Don't forget throwing!

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:57 am  

Rock God X wrote: 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. What's considered polite is inherently conventional. It is conventional to be polite. But these days what with Twitter, FB and the rest conventions have certainly changed a lot, and amongst a very large (but still minority) they seem to claim a right to be bloody rude, indeed in many cases there's clearly a need to butt in and make rude and nasty remarks. But anyway, the two cases (new boyfriend / girl's father) simply do NOT equate, and I'm sure you know that. Rock God X wrote: 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. Oops. You appear to be discussing that which you just said we weren't discussing: convention. Can't you stick to the point either? Rock God X wrote: 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. Er, that's not an "utter rejection, then. It's a "slight amendment". Rock God X wrote: As for the other respects, they are relevant to the point. Hmm. Let's see, then. Rock God X sets up a total Straw Man when he wrote: 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?" Have you got enough straw? Rock God X wrote: Whether or not one considers a person to be polite is based on a whole myriad of factors, not just their form of address. You are just confused. Being polite is not taken as some sort of overall average. Impoliteness can appear at any time, and however polite you may have been before then, once you go on to be impolite, that impoliteness isn't somehow negated by your previous behaviour. (Though allowances may be made, on the basis of the rudeness being 'out of character' - but that doesn't alter the general point). Your "myriad of factors" is just plain wrong. Anybody is capable of being impolite at any moment. Obviously. If they are, it will be judge on that incident. Just that one. Not a myriad of anything. If you have been at Wayne's all evening and have been charming, totally deferential and the very model of politeness, but then say to Waynetta "Oy, more tea, bitch", do you argue that this remark might be considered polite, due to some built-up politeness credits? I doubt it. You might have a point in there struggling to get out. If you do, it would be "Whether or not one considers a person to be generally a polite person is based on a whole myriad of factors". But past politeness does not make any given rudeness polite. Rock God X wrote: Again, I think you know this, but by 'have to', I meant 'be expected to lest I am considered impolite'. Woot, there ya go discussing convention again. That thing we're not discussing, right? Rock God X wrote: It's arbitrary from the point of view that most of the recipients are 'famous' and often incredibly well rewarded for what they do. And now you are trying to reverse the meaning of "arbitrary". Whatever the honours system is, it's not that. You may not like it, it could be changed, improved, overhauled or scrapped, but it is in fact a very complex and involved process https://www.gov.uk/honours/overview In no sense does it qualify as "arbitrary". Oh and I also would point out that your claim most of the recipients are "famous" is self-evidently rubbish. Here's the full 2012 New year's Honours List. I have never, ever heard of the vast majority of these people. Most of them "famous"? that's nuts, even for you! Rock God X wrote: 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. Name them.

Rock God X wrote: 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. What's considered polite is inherently conventional. It is conventional to be polite. But these days what with Twitter, FB and the rest conventions have certainly changed a lot, and amongst a very large (but still minority) they seem to claim a right to be bloody rude, indeed in many cases there's clearly a need to butt in and make rude and nasty remarks. But anyway, the two cases (new boyfriend / girl's father) simply do NOT equate, and I'm sure you know that. Rock God X wrote: 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. Oops. You appear to be discussing that which you just said we weren't discussing: convention. Can't you stick to the point either? Rock God X wrote: 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. Er, that's not an "utter rejection, then. It's a "slight amendment". Rock God X wrote: As for the other respects, they are relevant to the point. Hmm. Let's see, then. Rock God X sets up a total Straw Man when he wrote: 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?" Have you got enough straw? Rock God X wrote: Whether or not one considers a person to be polite is based on a whole myriad of factors, not just their form of address. You are just confused. Being polite is not taken as some sort of overall average. Impoliteness can appear at any time, and however polite you may have been before then, once you go on to be impolite, that impoliteness isn't somehow negated by your previous behaviour. (Though allowances may be made, on the basis of the rudeness being 'out of character' - but that doesn't alter the general point). Your "myriad of factors" is just plain wrong. Anybody is capable of being impolite at any moment. Obviously. If they are, it will be judge on that incident. Just that one. Not a myriad of anything. If you have been at Wayne's all evening and have been charming, totally deferential and the very model of politeness, but then say to Waynetta "Oy, more tea, bitch", do you argue that this remark might be considered polite, due to some built-up politeness credits? I doubt it. You might have a point in there struggling to get out. If you do, it would be "Whether or not one considers a person to be generally a polite person is based on a whole myriad of factors". But past politeness does not make any given rudeness polite. Rock God X wrote: Again, I think you know this, but by 'have to', I meant 'be expected to lest I am considered impolite'. Woot, there ya go discussing convention again. That thing we're not discussing, right? Rock God X wrote: It's arbitrary from the point of view that most of the recipients are 'famous' and often incredibly well rewarded for what they do. And now you are trying to reverse the meaning of "arbitrary". Whatever the honours system is, it's not that. You may not like it, it could be changed, improved, overhauled or scrapped, but it is in fact a very complex and involved process https://www.gov.uk/honours/overview In no sense does it qualify as "arbitrary". Oh and I also would point out that your claim most of the recipients are "famous" is self-evidently rubbish. Here's the full 2012 New year's Honours List. I have never, ever heard of the vast majority of these people. Most of them "famous"? that's nuts, even for you! Rock God X wrote: 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. Name them.

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:16 am  

Incidentally, while "Nice to meet you" appears on the surface to be polite, there's a whole raft of society still that will judge you with an inner-raised eyebrow if you greet them with it. "How do you do" is still safest and correct.

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:19 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: What's considered polite is inherently conventional. It is conventional to be polite. But anyway, the two cases (new boyfriend / girl's father) simply do NOT equate, and I'm sure you know that. Obviously I don't, or I would not have made a claim contrary to that. Oops. You appear to be discussing that which you just said we weren't discussing: convention. Can't you stick to the point either? Oops? Really? We're sinking to that, are we? I addressed the matter of convention because you raised it. I notice you didn't answer the point I made, though. Much easier to post a silly 'oops', eh? :lol: Er, that's not an "utter rejection, then. It's a "slight amendment". Hardly. It was the 'plainly' part I utterly rejected. Hmm. Let's see, then. Have you got enough straw? It's hardly a straw man to point out that one can be polite whilst using a first name just as easily as one can be impolite using a formal title. You are just confused. Being polite is not taken as some sort of overall average. Impoliteness can appear at any time, and however polite you may have been before then, once you go on to be impolite, that impoliteness isn't somehow negated by your previous behaviour. (Though allowances may be made, on the basis of the rudeness being 'out of character' - but that doesn't alter the general point). Your "myriad of factors" is just plain wrong. Anybody is capable of being impolite at any moment. Obviously. If they are, it will be judge on that incident. Just that one. Not a myriad of anything. If you have been at Wayne's all evening and have been charming, totally deferential and the very model of politeness, but then say to Waynetta "Oy, more tea, bitch", do you argue that this remark might be considered polite, due to some built-up politeness credits? I doubt it. I would suggest that it is you, my friend, who has become confused. I wasn't talking about 'politeness credits' or any other such irrelevant guff. I'm taking about the initial impression a person might give upon meeting someone for the first time. If they are courteous and pleasant but use the first name, that is unlikely to bother most people. Those people who are bothered by an otherwise pleasant individual using their first name are almost certainly massive wankers. You might have a point in there struggling to get out. You might have a non-condescending git in there. It's not struggling very hard to get out, though. If you do, it would be "Whether or not one considers a person to be generally a polite person is based on a whole myriad of factors". But past politeness does not make any given rudeness polite. See above. Woot, there ya go discussing convention again. That thing we're not discussing, right? Not really. And now you are trying to reverse the meaning of "arbitrary". Whatever the honours system is, it's not that. You may not like it, it could be changed, improved, overhauled or scrapped, but it is in fact a very complex and involved process https://www.gov.uk/honours/overview In no sense does it qualify as "arbitrary". Oh and I also would point out that your claim most of the recipients are "famous" is self-evidently rubbish. Here's the full 2012 New year's Honours List. I have never, ever heard of the vast majority of these people. Most of them "famous"? that's nuts, even for you! 'Even for you'? Was this you 'being funny' again? Or just needlessly combative? Name them. You want me to name every outstanding nurse, teacher, doctor, scientist, fireman etc in the country? Might be a struggle, that.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: What's considered polite is inherently conventional. It is conventional to be polite. But anyway, the two cases (new boyfriend / girl's father) simply do NOT equate, and I'm sure you know that. Obviously I don't, or I would not have made a claim contrary to that. Oops. You appear to be discussing that which you just said we weren't discussing: convention. Can't you stick to the point either? Oops? Really? We're sinking to that, are we? I addressed the matter of convention because you raised it. I notice you didn't answer the point I made, though. Much easier to post a silly 'oops', eh? :lol: Er, that's not an "utter rejection, then. It's a "slight amendment". Hardly. It was the 'plainly' part I utterly rejected. Hmm. Let's see, then. Have you got enough straw? It's hardly a straw man to point out that one can be polite whilst using a first name just as easily as one can be impolite using a formal title. You are just confused. Being polite is not taken as some sort of overall average. Impoliteness can appear at any time, and however polite you may have been before then, once you go on to be impolite, that impoliteness isn't somehow negated by your previous behaviour. (Though allowances may be made, on the basis of the rudeness being 'out of character' - but that doesn't alter the general point). Your "myriad of factors" is just plain wrong. Anybody is capable of being impolite at any moment. Obviously. If they are, it will be judge on that incident. Just that one. Not a myriad of anything. If you have been at Wayne's all evening and have been charming, totally deferential and the very model of politeness, but then say to Waynetta "Oy, more tea, bitch", do you argue that this remark might be considered polite, due to some built-up politeness credits? I doubt it. I would suggest that it is you, my friend, who has become confused. I wasn't talking about 'politeness credits' or any other such irrelevant guff. I'm taking about the initial impression a person might give upon meeting someone for the first time. If they are courteous and pleasant but use the first name, that is unlikely to bother most people. Those people who are bothered by an otherwise pleasant individual using their first name are almost certainly massive wankers. You might have a point in there struggling to get out. You might have a non-condescending git in there. It's not struggling very hard to get out, though. If you do, it would be "Whether or not one considers a person to be generally a polite person is based on a whole myriad of factors". But past politeness does not make any given rudeness polite. See above. Woot, there ya go discussing convention again. That thing we're not discussing, right? Not really. And now you are trying to reverse the meaning of "arbitrary". Whatever the honours system is, it's not that. You may not like it, it could be changed, improved, overhauled or scrapped, but it is in fact a very complex and involved process https://www.gov.uk/honours/overview In no sense does it qualify as "arbitrary". Oh and I also would point out that your claim most of the recipients are "famous" is self-evidently rubbish. Here's the full 2012 New year's Honours List. I have never, ever heard of the vast majority of these people. Most of them "famous"? that's nuts, even for you! 'Even for you'? Was this you 'being funny' again? Or just needlessly combative? Name them. You want me to name every outstanding nurse, teacher, doctor, scientist, fireman etc in the country? Might be a struggle, that.

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:32 am  

Bloody phone won't let me edit the quote ballsup.

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:33 am  

WormInHand wrote:

Incidentally, while "Nice to meet you" appears on the surface to be polite, there's a whole raft of society still that will judge you with an inner-raised eyebrow if you greet them with it. "How do you do" is still safest and correct.

Have I accidentally wandered into a Jane Austen novel, or something?

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:35 am  

'

Rock God X wrote:

YEven for you'? Was this you 'being funny' again? Or just needlessly combative?

It wasn't "Even for you", it was "Even for you!". Note the jaunty, jokey exclamation mark. If I'd made such a nuts comment then when it was pointed out to me, I'd say, "Yep, on second thoughts, that was pretty nuts". It was in fact rubbish, and I was ribbing you about it. If you wrongly mistook it for being "combative", I apologise; I didn't realise you were so sensitive. If I actually thought you were basically nuts, I can assure you I wouldn't have discussions with you.

Rock God X wrote:

You want me to name every outstanding nurse, teacher, doctor, scientist, fireman etc in the country? Might be a struggle, that.

No, I want you to name the ones who are just as brilliant as Jessica Ennis, who haven't been honoured, which is what you claimed.

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:37 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Have I accidentally wandered into a Jane Austen novel, or something?

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:43 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, I want you to name the ones who are just as brilliant as Jessica Ennis, who haven't been honoured, which is what you claimed.

Saving a life, perhaps?

Re: Honours and gongs : Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:44 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Have I accidentally wandered into a Jane Austen novel, or something?

What do you mean?