politesse ... ?

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm looking at the RONR MB thread "http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30455-bylaws-what-takes-precedent/?page=2" .  (Actually I copied the URL from where I was; I'm not specifically referring to Page 2.)

Transpower says this:

[Posted Friday at 09:45 AM ·]

....  And:  Daniel was a member of the authorship team, but he is no longer.

Mr Honemann's reply includes this incidental

[Aw nuts, I can't chop out all the chaff:  please disregard it, pretend you're all George Mervosh]:

Posted Friday at 10:06 AM · Report post

On 8/18/2017 at 9:45 AM, Transpower said:

 

 

On 8/18/2017 at 9:45 AM, Transpower said:

 

 

"And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid."

***

Then Greg Goodwiller said:

[Posted Saturday at 01:17 PM · Report post]

  On 8/18/2017 at 10:06 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid."

Thank for this, Mr. Honemann. I have always appreciated the level of decorum that is practiced in this forum. It honors our profession. And I regret the extent to which this particular thread has not done so.

***

But I'm nopt (the "p" is silent, or a typo) sure what the protocol is. Generally I myslef try to refer to posters with an honorific-appended surname in the third person*, but I use first names in the second person with those with whom I'm familiar: i.e., George or Richard (sometimes "Rich", depending on when I can guess he prefers), and even, to the point, "Dan".

("Dan" is a special case.  Back in the 1890's, when he and I were little kids and the RONR MB website was in its formative stages, he posted only as "Dan" -- partly, I suspect, because he was trying to conserve bandwidth -- remember, in the 1890's, the Internet was powered by coal -- so I was perforce obliged to respond to his posts by calling him "Dan", because that was all I knew him as.  He evolved to "Daniel Honemann" and eventually to "HIs Honemannship," but that didn't last long and he ratchetted it back -- there's probably no documentary evidence for this deluded period, probably only occurring during the 1950's.)

So I'm wondering why Transpower's saying "Daniel" is presumptuous.  My gut tells me yes it is, but not why.

_________

* For the love of heaven, there's got to be a simpler description for the term, somebody please remind me what it is.

 

[Gary c Tesser]

So ... Dan and I have been addressing each other by our given names since I guess the late 1990's, and, third-person, usually by honorific; the same with me and George Mervosh and Richard Brown, &c, &c.  So I don't see how or where Transpower fits into this; maybe judging by his cognomen he's going to star in an upcoming Avengers movie and we can see him with his shirt off, and preferably with his hair parted on the side like a grown-up.

[Dan Honemann]

In the instance to which you refer, I found the use of "Daniel" a bit presumptuous because it suggests at least some degree of personal familiarity where none whatsoever exists.