Sir Michael Parkinson CBE, who died 16 August 2023, aged 88, was an English television presenter, broadcaster, journalist and author.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66411604

He presented his television talk show Parkinson from 1971 to 1982 and from 1998 to 2007, as well as other talk shows and programmes both in the UK and internationally. He also worked in radio and was described by The Guardian as "the great British talkshow host".

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/business/media/michael-parkinson-dead.html

Michael Parkinson, Famous for Interviewing the Famous, Dies at 88

A mainstay of British television, he was best known for a long-running BBC program that was called simply “Parkinson.”

By Neil Genzlinger
Aug. 17, 2023, 5:00 p.m. ET
Michael Parkinson, a broadcaster known throughout Britain for his interviews with hundreds of the world’s most famous actors, musicians, athletes and politicians — many of them conducted on his long-running BBC program, called simply “Parkinson” — has died. He was 88.

A statement his family issued to the BBC on Thursday said that “after a brief illness Sir Michael Parkinson passed away peacefully at home last night.” It did not give a location or a specific cause.

Mr. Parkinson started out in newspapers but soon became a fixture on British television, first on Granada Television and then, beginning in 1971, on “Parkinson” on the BBC. The first incarnation of that show lasted until 1982, and the BBC brought it back in 1998. The new show lasted until 2004 on the BBC, then moved to ITV for another three years.

On Thursday, social media and British newspapers were awash in tributes from those who had worked with or been interviewed by Mr. Parkinson, with many praising his ability to put his subjects at ease. Nick Robinson, another BBC broadcaster, said on social media that Mr. Parkinson was “the greatest interviewer of our age.”

Mr. Parkinson was sometimes compared to Johnny Carson, but though the two interviewed the same caliber of celebrities, Mr. Parkinson’s sit-downs were a different breed from the somewhat facile opportunities Mr. Carson gave a guest on “The Tonight Show” to plug a movie or album. He engaged his subjects in conversations that could be lengthy and pleasantly rambling.

“My aim as an interviewer was always to establish a ‘relationship’ and rapport with, a couple of exceptions aside, a person who is basically a stranger in even stranger surroundings,” Mr. Parkinson wrote in “Like Father, Like Son: A Family Story” (2020), one of his several books. “I achieved that, I believe, by being ‘reactive’ in my style of interviewing, in the sense that I always prepared as well and as diligently as I could, shaping the interview into an editorially linked and justified series of questions.

“I went into each encounter confident of my subject,” he continued, “which gave me license to listen carefully to the answers and judge the mood and demeanor of the guest in order to be ready to, as it were, go ‘off script.’”

“I believe some of my very best interviews have been when I have only asked perhaps one or two of my prepared questions,” he added, “and it has then developed into a natural free-flowing conversation..”

That didn’t always happen. His interview with the actress Meg Ryan in 2003 was a notorious disaster, with Ms. Ryan giving only curt answers.

“It was not just car-crash TV,” The Guardian wrote later, “it was a prime-time multiple pileup.”

The two later traded barbs in the press: Ms. Ryan called Mr. Parkinson a “nut,” and Mr. Parkinson responded that “to be called a nut by her is a compliment.”

Mr. Parkinson interviewed Muhammad Ali four times from 1971 to 1982. In one of those interviews, Ali grew angry with him.

“For 15 minutes, the nicest thing he called me was ‘honky,’” Mr. Parkinson, sitting in the interviewee seat for once, recalled decades later on “Friday Night With Jonathan Ross.”

“It’s one thing sitting next to a jockey who loses his temper with you,” he told Mr. Ross. “But when it’s the heavyweight champion of the world, and he weighs 16 and a half stone …”

Michael Parkinson was born on March 28, 1935, in Cudworth, about 50 miles east of Manchester. His father, Jack, was a miner who loved cricket and hoped Michael would become a star in that sport. His mother, Freda (Dawson) Parkinson, wanted to name him Gershwin after her favorite composer, he wrote in his autobiography, “Parky” (2008), and she also loved the movies and would take him to them four nights a week.

“I knew how a New York taxi driver spoke long before I knew how anyone in Manchester talked,” he said in a 2007 interview. “In the end, I got to interview the people I’d only ever seen before 30 feet high on a screen.”

Although he never made the professional ranks in cricket, as a youngster in Cudworth he was captain of his school team. He left school at 16 and became a reporter for The South Yorkshire Times; he later worked for The Manchester Guardian and The Daily Express in London.

His leap to television came via an unexpected phone call in the early 1960s from a man he had met at a conference. The man had become a producer at Granada Television, a relatively new outlet in northwest England, and he offered Mr. Parkinson a job as a producer.

“And I said, ‘I don’t know anything about television,’” he told Mr. Ross. “He said, ‘Nor do I.’”

At Granada he was soon doing on-air work, including hosting a show about the movies. Then, in 1971, the offer came from the BBC to host an interview show.

After the first incarnation of “Parkinson” went off the air in 1982, Mr. Parkinson joined with four other television personalities, including David Frost, to start TV-AM, a “breakfast television” enterprise, but it didn’t last.

Mr. Parkinson, though, continued to be a presence on various television and radio programs. His credibility was such that, in the 1992 Halloween season, when he was the presenter on a BBC spoof radio drama about a supposedly haunted house, alarmed viewers called police stations and newspapers.

“With Michael Parkinson presenting the thing, I believed it was real,” one woman told The Daily Mail of London.

Mr. Parkinson, interviewed afterward, invoked the name of a man he once interviewed who had pulled a similar stunt on the radio in 1938 with his “War of the Worlds” broadcast.

“If it does for my career what it did for Orson Welles’s career,” Mr. Parkinson said, “I shall be delighted.”

In 1959 Mr. Parkinson married Mary Heneghan, who survives him. His survivors also include three sons, Andrew, Nicholas and Michael.

Mr. Parkinson was knighted in 2008, an honor he said he never expected.

“I thought there was more chance of me turning into a Martian, really,” he said at the time.

He knew that one key to a good interview was knowing when to stop.

“In their prime, Billy Connolly, Peter Ustinov, David Attenborough and the like could and should, for the benefit of the common weal, have been interviewed nightly for at least an hour until they ran out of things to say, or more likely the interviewer reached retirement age,” he wrote in “Like Father, Like Son.”

“But most interviewers should heed the maxim of the late Conservative politician Lord Mancroft, whose advice, although he was specifically talking about making a speech, can easily be applied to the arena of an interview: ‘A speech is like a love affair — any fool can start one, but to end it requires considerable skill.’”

..

> Michael Parkinson was born on March 28, 1935, in Cudworth, about 50 miles east of Manchester. .

Parky would have baulked at this. A proud Yorkshireman born '50 miles east of Manchester' --- in Lancashire ----Tut tut.

Perhaps '14 miles from the Yorkshire city of Doncaster' would have been a better choice.

Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Michael Parkinson was born on March 28, 1935, in Cudworth, about 50 miles east of Manchester. .
>
> Parky would have baulked at this. A proud Yorkshireman born '50 miles east of Manchester' --- in Lancashire ----Tut tut.
>
> Perhaps '14 miles from the Yorkshire city of Doncaster' would have been a better choice.
>
>

And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
even while dating his knighthood.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>Michael Parkinson was born on March 28, 1935, in Cudworth, about 50 miles east of Manchester. .

>>Parky would have baulked at this. A proud Yorkshireman born '50 miles east of Manchester' --- in Lancashire ----Tut tut.

>>Perhaps '14 miles from the Yorkshire city of Doncaster' would have been a better choice.

>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>even while dating his knighthood.

What on earth is wrong with that?

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> >And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
> >had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
> >even while dating his knighthood.
> What on earth is wrong with that?

Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>even while dating his knighthood.

>>What on earth is wrong with that?

>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
first name and not the last name.

Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
respect as we do it in America.

Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:17:40 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Big Mongo <bigmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
> >>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
> >>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
> >>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
> >Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
> That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
> first name and not the last name.

Methinks it more of a journalistic style rule than anything else. Only
have to make it known once then just "Parkinson" will suffice for the
rest of the article.

> Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
> the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
> attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

My bad... I probably shouldn't be looking at 4 screens and watching the markets
whilst trying to compose a coherent/flippant reply. Please excuse the fuck outta'
me...

> And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
> which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
> honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
> throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
> quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
> with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
> respect as we do it in America.

Respect? On the internet? Good luck with that, mate...

Sir Michael Parkinson --- then Sir Michael, or Parkinson, or just Parky .....

Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:17:40 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Big Mongo <bigmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.

>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?

>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>first name and not the last name.

>Methinks it more of a journalistic style rule than anything else. Only
>have to make it known once then just "Parkinson" will suffice for the
>rest of the article.

Fair enough.

>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
>>the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
>>attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

>My bad... I probably shouldn't be looking at 4 screens and watching the markets
>whilst trying to compose a coherent/flippant reply. Please excuse the
>fuck outta' me...

Did your day trading make you fabulous profits? Congrats

>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>respect as we do it in America.

>Respect? On the internet? Good luck with that, mate...

We're discussing whether an American NEWSPAPER's style book requires the
appropriate level of respect. It is my position that it does.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:36:45 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Big Mongo <bigmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:17:40 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Big Mongo <bigmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
> >>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
> >>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
> >>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
> >>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>
> >>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
> >>first name and not the last name.
>
> >Methinks it more of a journalistic style rule than anything else. Only
> >have to make it known once then just "Parkinson" will suffice for the
> >rest of the article.
> Fair enough.
> >>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
> >>the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
> >>attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>
> >My bad... I probably shouldn't be looking at 4 screens and watching the markets
> >whilst trying to compose a coherent/flippant reply. Please excuse the
> >fuck outta' me...
> Did your day trading make you fabulous profits? Congrats
> >>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
> >>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
> >>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
> >>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
> >>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
> >>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
> >>respect as we do it in America.
>
> >Respect? On the internet? Good luck with that, mate...
> We're discussing whether an American NEWSPAPER's style book requires the
> appropriate level of respect. It is my position that it does.

It varies widely from paper to paper. Strunk and White's Elements of Style and
the AP style book are usually pretty good starting points. Since most newspaper
copy is written by machines for 3rd graders with a few exceptions, anymore it
depends on what rules are plugged into Chat GPT or whatever bot they have writing
and proofing the copy. Proofreading by humans is becoming a "lost art". Respect
never enters into the equation. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing some
borked bit of html code or javascript in a spot where there should be actual news
copy and nobody caught it because management decided to save a few $$$ and
didn't perceive the need for human eyes on the copy

In article <a6a01f2b-5bca-47ef-b3a2-96dcfd386e0cn@googlegroups.com>,
Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:

> It varies widely from paper to paper. Strunk and White's Elements of
> Style and the AP style book are usually pretty good starting points.

I've tweaked a few in my time. A not very important one is the serial
comma. Strunk & White would have you render it as red, white, and
blue, and I would never do that. It's red, white and blue. The second
comma interrupts the flow.

In any case, the AP Stylebook is intended to prevent jarring
differences between your copy and their copy, and I think they got it
right more than 95% of the time. (The 5% includes that damned S&W
comma.)

BTW what always pissed me off about some papers is their refusal to
credit the AP and UPI. (I go back a ways.) They'd drop the byline and
the (AP) credit at the top of the copy and pretend they'd come up with
the copy themselves somehow. I always thought a good byline enhanced a
paper's reputation, e.g., the AP's Walter Mears on U.S. campaign
politics.

On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>
> That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
> first name and not the last name.
>
> Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
> the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
> attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>
> And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
> which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
> honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
> throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
> quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
> with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
> respect as we do it in America.
>
> Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
> level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
> affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.

So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
Idiot.

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>>
>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>>
>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>>
>> That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>> first name and not the last name.
>>
>> Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
>> the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
>> attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>>
>> And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>> which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>> honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>> throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>> quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>> with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>> respect as we do it in America.
>>
>> Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>> level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>> affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>
>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>Idiot.

I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
been Mrs. Mountbatten.

Idiot.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54???PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>>>
>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>>>
>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>>>
>>> That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>> first name and not the last name.
>>>
>>> Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
>>> the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
>>> attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>>>
>>> And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>> which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>> honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>> throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>> quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>> with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>> respect as we do it in America.
>>>
>>> Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>> level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>> affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>>
>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>Idiot.
>
> I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
> been Mrs. Mountbatten.
>
> Idiot.

Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
correctly is the idiocy.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54???PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.

>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?

>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>first name and not the last name.

>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
>>>>the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
>>>>attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>>>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>>>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>>>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>>>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>>>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>>>respect as we do it in America.

>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.

>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>Idiot.

>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.

>>Idiot.

>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>correctly is the idiocy.

A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.

The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.

Article I

Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
the foreign title isn't applicable.

Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54???PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>
>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>first name and not the last name.
>
>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by NOT cutting
>>>>>the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you to cut Louis Epstein's
>>>>>attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>
>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>>>>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>>>>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>>>>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>>>>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>>>>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>>>>respect as we do it in America.
>
>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>
>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>Idiot.
>
>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.
>
>>>Idiot.
>
>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>correctly is the idiocy.
>
> A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
> "Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
> address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.
>
> The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
> granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
> public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.

Unless they get consent from Congress.

Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.
> Article I
>
> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
>
> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
> shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
> present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
> from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
>
> Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
> argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
> the foreign title isn't applicable.

Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
subject to American law.

> Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
> newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
> an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
> style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.

I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
to ignore.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.

>>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?

>>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

>>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>>first name and not the last name.

>>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by
>>>>>>NOT cutting the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you
>>>>>>to cut Louis Epstein's attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

>>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>>>>>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>>>>>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>>>>>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>>>>>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>>>>>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>>>>>respect as we do it in America.

>>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.

>>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>>Idiot.
>>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.

>>>>Idiot.

>>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>>correctly is the idiocy.

>>A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
>>"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
>>address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.

>>The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
>>granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
>>public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.

>Unless they get consent from Congress.

>Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
>their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.
>>Article I

>> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
>> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments

>> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
>> them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
>> of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
>> whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

>>Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
>>argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
>>the foreign title isn't applicable.

>Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
>subject to American law.

You just contradicted yourself above when you stated that foreign states
do not regard law in other countries when granting titles of nobility. You
cannot have it both ways. Either a foreign title of nobility AND form of
address must be recognized, or it may be disregarded.

Which is it?

>>Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
>>newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
>>an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
>>style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.

>I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
>to ignore.

A surgeon in America is addressed as "Doctor" as he's a medical doctor. A
surgeon in the U.K. is addressed as "Mister".

There are plenty of style differences in forms of address between the
two countries; that one comes immediately to mind.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
>>>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
>>>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>
>>>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>>>first name and not the last name.
>
>>>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by
>>>>>>>NOT cutting the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you
>>>>>>>to cut Louis Epstein's attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>
>>>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC obituary
>>>>>>>which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood isn't an American
>>>>>>>honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using "Sir" with a first name
>>>>>>>throughout quoting all those entertainers who had praised Parkinson
>>>>>>>quite awkward to read. I prefer the New York Times style using "Mr."
>>>>>>>with the last name instead, and yes that's treating the deceased with
>>>>>>>respect as we do it in America.
>
>>>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>
>>>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>>>Idiot.
>
>>>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.
>
>>>>>Idiot.
>
>>>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>>>correctly is the idiocy.
>
>>>A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
>>>"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
>>>address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.
>
>>>The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
>>>granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
>>>public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.
>
>>Unless they get consent from Congress.
>
>>Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
>>their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.
>
>>>Article I
>
>>> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
>>> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
>
>>> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
>>> them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
>>> of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
>>> whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
>
>>>Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
>>>argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
>>>the foreign title isn't applicable.
>
>>Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
>>subject to American law.
>
> You just contradicted yourself above when you stated that foreign states
> do not regard law in other countries when granting titles of nobility. You
> cannot have it both ways. Either a foreign title of nobility AND form of
> address must be recognized, or it may be disregarded.
>
> Which is it?

Americans who have inherited British titles have them as far as
British law is concerned,and do not have them as far as American
law is concerned.

Americans' non-American titles can be disregarded by Americans;
non-Americans' non-American titles have no reason to be disregarded
by Americans.
>>>Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
>>>newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
>>>an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
>>>style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.
>
>>I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
>>to ignore.
>
> A surgeon in America is addressed as "Doctor" as he's a medical doctor. A
> surgeon in the U.K. is addressed as "Mister".

(This has its origins in the situation where the centuries-ago PCPs would
delegate the cutting work to someone without a medical degree,and persisted
after it was realized that better results came when it was done by someone
with specialized training).
> There are plenty of style differences in forms of address between the
> two countries; that one comes immediately to mind.

So what else?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.

>>>>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?

>>>>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...

>>>>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>>>>first name and not the last name.

>>>>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by
>>>>>>>>NOT cutting the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you
>>>>>>>>to cut Louis Epstein's attribution line whilst retaining his quote.

>>>>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC
>>>>>>>>obituary which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood
>>>>>>>>isn't an American honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using
>>>>>>>>"Sir" with a first name throughout quoting all those entertainers
>>>>>>>>who had praised Parkinson quite awkward to read. I prefer the New
>>>>>>>>York Times style using "Mr." with the last name instead, and yes
>>>>>>>>that's treating the deceased with respect as we do it in America.

>>>>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.

>>>>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>>>>Idiot.

>>>>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.

>>>>>>Idiot.

>>>>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>>>>correctly is the idiocy.

>>>>A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
>>>>"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
>>>>address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.

>>>>The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
>>>>granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
>>>>public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.

>>>Unless they get consent from Congress.

>>>Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
>>>their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.

>>>>Article I

>>>> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
>>>> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments

>>>> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>>>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
>>>> them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
>>>> of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
>>>> whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

>>>>Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
>>>>argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
>>>>the foreign title isn't applicable.

>>>Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
>>>subject to American law.

>>You just contradicted yourself above when you stated that foreign states
>>do not regard law in other countries when granting titles of nobility. You
>>cannot have it both ways. Either a foreign title of nobility AND form of
>>address must be recognized, or it may be disregarded.

>>Which is it?

>Americans who have inherited British titles have them as far as
>British law is concerned,and do not have them as far as American
>law is concerned.

>Americans' non-American titles can be disregarded by Americans;
>non-Americans' non-American titles have no reason to be disregarded
>by Americans.

The obituary acknowledged the title. It used an AMERICAN form of address
in the obituary because the newspaper uses the last name and not the
first name for subsequent reference. British form of address DOES NOT
dictate an American newspaper's style.

>>>>Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
>>>>newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
>>>>an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
>>>>style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.

>>>I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
>>>to ignore.

>>A surgeon in America is addressed as "Doctor" as he's a medical doctor. A
>>surgeon in the U.K. is addressed as "Mister".

>(This has its origins in the situation where the centuries-ago PCPs would
>delegate the cutting work to someone without a medical degree,and persisted
>after it was realized that better results came when it was done by someone
>with specialized training).

There can still be surgical training without a medical degree. If you
think about it, it's really inappropriate for a surgeon to prescribe
medicine unless it's directly related to performing surgery or surgical
recovery. A medical doctor in the United States is licensed to prescribe
medicine. Depending on the specialty, the surgeon has no clinical
practice. Obviously some do like opthalmology.

>>There are plenty of style differences in forms of address between the
>>two countries; that one comes immediately to mind.

>So what else?

The British equivalent of a CPA is chartered accountant. Chiropodist
with surgical training is equivalent to a podiatrist. In the UK,
librarians are in a chartered profession and have letters after their
names. In the United States, librarians are in a profession in which
membership in the association is optional. This is true of any number of
professions in the UK in which people have letters after their names;
rather rare for United States professions.

There's no equivalent to an American lawyer in the UK. In the UK, it's
two separate professions. UK has Q.C. (taking silk) which has no
equivalent in the United States.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>
>>>>>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>
>>>>>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>>>>>first name and not the last name.
>
>>>>>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by
>>>>>>>>>NOT cutting the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you
>>>>>>>>>to cut Louis Epstein's attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>
>>>>>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC
>>>>>>>>>obituary which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood
>>>>>>>>>isn't an American honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using
>>>>>>>>>"Sir" with a first name throughout quoting all those entertainers
>>>>>>>>>who had praised Parkinson quite awkward to read. I prefer the New
>>>>>>>>>York Times style using "Mr." with the last name instead, and yes
>>>>>>>>>that's treating the deceased with respect as we do it in America.
>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>
>>>>>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>>>>>Idiot.
>
>>>>>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>>>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.
>
>>>>>>>Idiot.
>
>>>>>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>>>>>correctly is the idiocy.
>
>>>>>A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
>>>>>"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
>>>>>address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.
>
>>>>>The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
>>>>>granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
>>>>>public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.
>
>>>>Unless they get consent from Congress.
>
>>>>Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
>>>>their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.
>
>>>>>Article I
>
>>>>> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
>>>>> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
>
>>>>> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>>>>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
>>>>> them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
>>>>> of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
>>>>> whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
>
>>>>>Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
>>>>>argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
>>>>>the foreign title isn't applicable.
>
>>>>Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
>>>>subject to American law.
>
>>>You just contradicted yourself above when you stated that foreign states
>>>do not regard law in other countries when granting titles of nobility. You
>>>cannot have it both ways. Either a foreign title of nobility AND form of
>>>address must be recognized, or it may be disregarded.
>
>>>Which is it?
>
>>Americans who have inherited British titles have them as far as
>>British law is concerned,and do not have them as far as American
>>law is concerned.
>
>>Americans' non-American titles can be disregarded by Americans;
>>non-Americans' non-American titles have no reason to be disregarded
>>by Americans.
>
> The obituary acknowledged the title. It used an AMERICAN form of address
> in the obituary because the newspaper uses the last name and not the
> first name for subsequent reference. British form of address DOES NOT
> dictate an American newspaper's style.
>
>>>>>Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
>>>>>newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
>>>>>an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
>>>>>style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.
>
>>>>I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
>>>>to ignore.
>
>>>A surgeon in America is addressed as "Doctor" as he's a medical doctor. A
>>>surgeon in the U.K. is addressed as "Mister".
>
>>(This has its origins in the situation where the centuries-ago PCPs would
>>delegate the cutting work to someone without a medical degree,and persisted
>>after it was realized that better results came when it was done by someone
>>with specialized training).
>
> There can still be surgical training without a medical degree. If you
> think about it, it's really inappropriate for a surgeon to prescribe
> medicine unless it's directly related to performing surgery or surgical
> recovery. A medical doctor in the United States is licensed to prescribe
> medicine. Depending on the specialty, the surgeon has no clinical
> practice. Obviously some do like opthalmology.
>
>>>There are plenty of style differences in forms of address between the
>>>two countries; that one comes immediately to mind.
>
>>So what else?
>
> The British equivalent of a CPA is chartered accountant. Chiropodist
> with surgical training is equivalent to a podiatrist. In the UK,
> librarians are in a chartered profession and have letters after their
> names. In the United States, librarians are in a profession in which
> membership in the association is optional. This is true of any number of
> professions in the UK in which people have letters after their names;
> rather rare for United States professions.
>
> There's no equivalent to an American lawyer in the UK. In the UK, it's
> two separate professions. UK has Q.C. (taking silk) which has no
> equivalent in the United States.
>
> I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I don't see the British newspapers calling American CPAs "chartered
accountants" or American contract lawyers "solicitors",do you?
Or high school seniors "sixth formers"?
They may note equivalencies,but they wouldn't dive in using
their titles for us.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 18 Aug 2023 at 18:17:38, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:41:54 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And after quoting the announcement that "Sir Michael Parkinson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>had died,the article calls him "Mr. Parkinson" throughout,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>even while dating his knighthood.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What on earth is wrong with that?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Doesn't show him the appropriate level of respect...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's simply not true, especially given that "Sir" is used with the
>>>>>>>>>>first name and not the last name.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Speaking of failure to show the appropriate level of respect by
>>>>>>>>>>NOT cutting the quote and attribution lines, it was wrong of you
>>>>>>>>>>to cut Louis Epstein's attribution line whilst retaining his quote.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>And Louis failed to quote the New York Times version of the BBC
>>>>>>>>>>obituary which is what he took issue with. Well, a knighthood
>>>>>>>>>>isn't an American honor, obviously, and I found the BBC obit using
>>>>>>>>>>"Sir" with a first name throughout quoting all those entertainers
>>>>>>>>>>who had praised Parkinson quite awkward to read. I prefer the New
>>>>>>>>>>York Times style using "Mr." with the last name instead, and yes
>>>>>>>>>>that's treating the deceased with respect as we do it in America.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Fry called him "Parky", so even they understand when a certain
>>>>>>>>>>level of informality is called for when speaking of someone with
>>>>>>>>>>affection. But "Mr." with last name is formal address in America.
>>
>>>>>>>>>So you referred to our late Queen as Mrs Windsor?
>>>>>>>>>Idiot.
>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not the one who didn't know that was her maiden name. She'd have
>>>>>>>>been Mrs. Mountbatten.
>>
>>>>>>>>Idiot.
>>
>>>>>>>Not being able to grasp layers of titles and using them
>>>>>>>correctly is the idiocy.
>>
>>>>>>A knighthood doesn't suddenly pre-empt all other forms of address.
>>>>>>"Mister" remains formal address and a polite and respectful form of
>>>>>>address. No one is obligated to use a title given in a foreign country.
>>
>>>>>>The United States Constitution prohibits its own citizens from being
>>>>>>granted titles of nobility in law and prohibits its own citizens holding
>>>>>>public officer from accepting titles from any foreign state.
>>
>>>>>Unless they get consent from Congress.
>>
>>>>>Foreign states,of course,regard titles of nobility that exist in
>>>>>their law as doing so without regard to the laws of the USA.
>>
>>>>>>Article I
>>
>>>>>> Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
>>>>>> Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
>>
>>>>>> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>>>>>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
>>>>>> them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept
>>>>>> of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
>>>>>> whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
>>
>>>>>>Constitutional law has influenced a newspaper's style. It's absurd to
>>>>>>argue that the newspaper didn't grasp the correct use of the title. Use of
>>>>>>the foreign title isn't applicable.
>>
>>>>>Failure to use it is inaccurate...Sir Michael was not
>>>>>subject to American law.
>>
>>>>You just contradicted yourself above when you stated that foreign states
>>>>do not regard law in other countries when granting titles of nobility. You
>>>>cannot have it both ways. Either a foreign title of nobility AND form of
>>>>address must be recognized, or it may be disregarded.
>>
>>>>Which is it?
>>
>>>Americans who have inherited British titles have them as far as
>>>British law is concerned,and do not have them as far as American
>>>law is concerned.
>>
>>>Americans' non-American titles can be disregarded by Americans;
>>>non-Americans' non-American titles have no reason to be disregarded
>>>by Americans.
>>
>> The obituary acknowledged the title. It used an AMERICAN form of address
>> in the obituary because the newspaper uses the last name and not the
>> first name for subsequent reference. British form of address DOES NOT
>> dictate an American newspaper's style.
>>
>>>>>>Similarly, if an obituary of an American were published in a British
>>>>>>newspaper that had all sorts of references and usages dissimilar to what
>>>>>>an American newspaper would have published, applying that newspaper's
>>>>>>style book, we in America cannot tell them they got it wrong.
>>
>>>>>I'm not aware of any American titles you would expect British papers
>>>>>to ignore.
>>
>>>>A surgeon in America is addressed as "Doctor" as he's a medical doctor. A
>>>>surgeon in the U.K. is addressed as "Mister".
>>
>>>(This has its origins in the situation where the centuries-ago PCPs would
>>>delegate the cutting work to someone without a medical degree,and persisted
>>>after it was realized that better results came when it was done by someone
>>>with specialized training).
>>
>> There can still be surgical training without a medical degree. If you
>> think about it, it's really inappropriate for a surgeon to prescribe
>> medicine unless it's directly related to performing surgery or surgical
>> recovery. A medical doctor in the United States is licensed to prescribe
>> medicine. Depending on the specialty, the surgeon has no clinical
>> practice. Obviously some do like opthalmology.
>>
>>>>There are plenty of style differences in forms of address between the
>>>>two countries; that one comes immediately to mind.
>>
>>>So what else?
>>
>> The British equivalent of a CPA is chartered accountant. Chiropodist
>> with surgical training is equivalent to a podiatrist. In the UK,
>> librarians are in a chartered profession and have letters after their
>> names. In the United States, librarians are in a profession in which
>> membership in the association is optional. This is true of any number of
>> professions in the UK in which people have letters after their names;
>> rather rare for United States professions.
>>
>> There's no equivalent to an American lawyer in the UK. In the UK, it's
>> two separate professions. UK has Q.C. (taking silk) which has no
>> equivalent in the United States.
>>
>> I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
>
>I don't see the British newspapers calling American CPAs "chartered
>accountants" or American contract lawyers "solicitors",do you?