The doctor is not in

[Tony Cooper]

Dunno if this story has received much attention.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html

In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

Part of the actual article is here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380

Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

bill

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

Post by b***@shaw.ca
bill

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

bill

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380

[Peter Moylan]

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:42:15 PM UTC-8, Athel

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed
piece castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using
"Dr" because she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical
doctors. The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr.
were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or
"Kiddo"? I think you need to read the article before confidently
asserting that you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I
agree with not using the honorific "Dr." for people who are not
medical doctors.

Which, I suppose, balances those who object to using "Dr" for a person
without a doctorate.

I don't know the full story here, but I suspect that the writer of the
piece wants her to be known as "Mrs President", to show appropriate
subservience to her husband.

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:42:15 PM UTC-8, Athel

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
 In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed
piece castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using
"Dr" because she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical
doctors. The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr.
were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or
"Kiddo"? I think you need to read the article before confidently
asserting that you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I
agree with not using the honorific "Dr." for people who are not
medical doctors.

Which, I suppose, balances those who object to using "Dr" for a person
without a doctorate.
I don't know the full story here, but I suspect that the writer of the
piece wants her to be known as "Mrs President", to show appropriate
subservience to her husband.

The journalist who wrote the article makes his views clear when he
attributes the following gem to an unnamed 'wise' person.

From the article:
"A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he
has delivered a child."

I have a doctorate, but not an MD. I have also 'delivered' my second
son, who was born in my car, in the hospital car park, 2 minutes before
the staff could attend.

Question to AUE: Can I call myself a 'Dr.'?

[I rarely do, except when I am applying for a mortgage loan. Bankers
deserve to be hoodwinked.]

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

You said "I'm on the side of the WSJ" without any qualification. That
seems clear enough to me.

Post by b***@shaw.ca
bill

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380

[HVS]

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:42:15 PM UTC-8, Athel

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady
-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr"
because she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical
doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their
degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or
"Kiddo"? I think you need to read the article before confidently
asserting that you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I
agree with not using the honorific "Dr." for people who are not
medical doctors.

How consistent were/are you, or your paper?

For example, when not using his initials or all three names, did
Martin Luther King become "Mr King"?

When the context was their academic field, did an academic doctor
still remained un-doctorated?

How was a medical doctor referred to when the context had absolutely
zilch to do with their medical field?

Curious minds wish to know.......

--
Cheers,
Harvey

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by HVS

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 11:42:15 PM UTC-8, Athel

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady
-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr"
because she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical
doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their
degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or
"Kiddo"? I think you need to read the article before confidently
asserting that you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I
agree with not using the honorific "Dr." for people who are not
medical doctors.

How consistent were/are you, or your paper?

Were. I've been retired for nine years or so.

Post by HVS
For example, when not using his initials or all three names, did
Martin Luther King become "Mr King"?

We used Rev. on first reference for clergy. In subsequent references,
we did not use honorifics, so he would have been plain King.

Post by HVS
When the context was their academic field, did an academic doctor
still remained un-doctorated?

We'd identify them by job, so first reference might have been Prof.,
and just their last names after that.

Post by HVS
How was a medical doctor referred to when the context had absolutely
zilch to do with their medical field?

Depends on whether there was a perceived need to identify their occupation.
Usually, the newspaper would want to provide some context as to who the
person is, in addition to the name. But much depends on the reason they
are in the news. If they are being quoted as experts in some field, you need
to establish their credentials.
bill

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by HVS
For example, when not using his initials or all three names, did
Martin Luther King become "Mr King"?

We used Rev. on first reference for clergy. In subsequent references,
we did not use honorifics, so he would have been plain King.

What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

In my youth (1950s, 1960s), in much of the country, the newspaper
convention was to write The Rev. Martin Luther King only if he
were white, and to write Rev. Marthin Luther King to signifiy Black.

I believe I learned that during the 1970s when I subscribed to the
Columbia Journalism Review. They would have been writing to
highlight what was probably still hanging on as institutional racism.

[RH Draney]

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit
all that on the signs when they rename a street....r

The main street in Santiago is (officially) called "Avenida Libertador
General Bernardo O'Higgins" and they fit that on street signs, but it's
a bit shorter than your example. No one calls it that, however: it's
usually "La Alameda" or "O'Higgins".

There used to be plenty of streets in Spain called "Avenida del
Generalísimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde" but I think they're all gone
now. There was one in Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, but it was called
something different (Avenida Blas Pérez González, I think) the last
time we were there. I was told that there was still one in Santander
(one of the last strongholds of Franquist sentiment), but I couldn't
find it when we went to a meeting there two or three years ago, and
Google Maps couldn't find it either.

On the whole Spain and France don't subscribe to the Anglo-Saxon notion
that streets should be called something short and snappy. The main
beach road in Marseilles is called "Corniche Président John Fitzgerald
Kennedy", and if you follow it a bit it becomes "Avenue Pierre Mendès
France". (Whichever bit you're on people just call it "la Corniche"
(the Edge)).

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit
all that on the signs when they rename a street....r

The main street in Santiago is (officially) called "Avenida Libertador
General Bernardo O'Higgins" and they fit that on street signs, but it's
a bit shorter than your example. No one calls it that, however: it's
usually "La Alameda" or "O'Higgins".

O ee jeens? (Oígins)

(That's how I'd say it in Spanish, but I don't know how Chileans
integrate foreign names).

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There used to be plenty of streets in Spain called "Avenida del
Generalísimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde" but I think they're all gone
now.

Every town (think 'zip code for a US understanding of how many 'towns'
there are in a city) will have a street named Dieciséis de septiembre".
None of these streets are related to the other streets nearby with the
same name, of course. I am sure there are many longer names, but I would
only have really known the street names by their shortened versions.
Many streets were named for people using their full names and titles.
One street I remember in Guadalajra was called Juarez, but I am sure the
official name was Avenia Presidente Benito Pablo Juárez García or similar.

(The idea that September 16th is Mexican independence day us a source of
confusion for American tourists.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit
all that on the signs when they rename a street....r

The main street in Santiago is (officially) called "Avenida Libertador
General Bernardo O'Higgins" and they fit that on street signs, but it's
a bit shorter than your example. No one calls it that, however: it's
usually "La Alameda" or "O'Higgins".

O ee jeens? (Oígins)
(That's how I'd say it in Spanish, but I don't know how Chileans
integrate foreign names).

More or less as in English, surprisingly enough, with a perceptible [h].

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There used to be plenty of streets in Spain called "Avenida del
Generalísimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde" but I think they're all gone
now.

Every town (think 'zip code for a US understanding of how many 'towns'
there are in a city) will have a street named Dieciséis de septiembre".
None of these streets are related to the other streets nearby with the
same name, of course. I am sure there are many longer names, but I would
only have really known the street names by their shortened versions.
Many streets were named for people using their full names and titles.
One street I remember in Guadalajra was called Juarez, but I am sure the
official name was Avenia Presidente Benito Pablo Juárez García or similar.

There is used to be an Once de septiembre in Santiago, but it's been
renamed Nueva Providencia because there was a lot of opposition to that
name, which didn't celebrate 2001 but 1973, when Pinochet came to power.

Post by Lewis
(The idea that September 16th is Mexican independence day us a source of
confusion for American tourists.)

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There is used to be an Once de septiembre in Santiago, but it's been
renamed Nueva Providencia because there was a lot of opposition to that
name, which didn't celebrate 2001 but 1973, when Pinochet came to power.

That is a good reason for renaming a street.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)

Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

Jan

[Quinn C]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)

Germany: Google Maps shows me Dr.-Martin-Luther-King-Straße twice, a
long list of Martin-Luther-King-Straße ...

... and twice just Luther-King-Straße. One of the latter is adjacent to
a Graham-Bell-Straße. Not sure how to feel about that.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)
Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

I thought "Ds." was from "doctorandus" -- having passed the
examination(s) prerequisite for admission to a doctoral program but not
yet having been awarded the doctorate; more or less equivalent to a
Master's degree, perhaps. I know that Dutch pastors often use the term,
but perhaps it's a carry-over from an older system that is no longer
used in other professions.

Perce

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)
Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

I thought "Ds." was from "doctorandus" -- having passed the
examination(s) prerequisite for admission to a doctoral program but not
yet having been awarded the doctorate; more or less equivalent to a
Master's degree, perhaps.

That was a Drs, or sometimes Dra. for the female form.
Doctorandus, doctoranda. (he/she who is to become a Doctor)
(for Q., yes some feminists objected, and refused to use the Dra.)

This was the final university exam. (now replaced by a Master)
Being a Doctorandus was a prerequisite for becoming a Dr. (Doctor)
Unlike in Anglosaxonia becoming a Dr. Doctor didn't involve
any examinations, just a purely formal thesis defence.
Most Drs. never went on to a promotion,
so it became in practice an end of university degree.

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
I know that Dutch pastors often use the term,
but perhaps it's a carry-over from an older system that is no longer
used in other professions.

A Ds. is a Drs. in theology.
It was a prerequisite for being allowed to preach as 'Dominee'.
Some Ds. did go on to to become a Doctor of Theology,
sometimes after their retirement.

Jan

PS Back to a previous thread, from some time ago:
there was an intermediate exam called the 'candidaats',
which was obligatory before taking the Drs. degree.
Some people stopped there.
They would have visiting cards with cand. jur. or cand. med. on it.
(but never cand. PhD or cand. Dr.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)
Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

I thought "Ds." was from "doctorandus" -- having passed the
examination(s) prerequisite for admission to a doctoral program but not
yet having been awarded the doctorate; more or less equivalent to a
Master's degree, perhaps.

That was a Drs, or sometimes Dra. for the female form.
Doctorandus, doctoranda. (he/she who is to become a Doctor)
(for Q., yes some feminists objected, and refused to use the Dra.)

Dra. is absolutely standard in Spanish, but I haven't seen it used in English.

Post by J. J. Lodder
This was the final university exam. (now replaced by a Master)
Being a Doctorandus was a prerequisite for becoming a Dr. (Doctor)
Unlike in Anglosaxonia becoming a Dr. Doctor didn't involve
any examinations, just a purely formal thesis defence.
Most Drs. never went on to a promotion,
so it became in practice an end of university degree.

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
I know that Dutch pastors often use the term,
but perhaps it's a carry-over from an older system that is no longer
used in other professions.

A Ds. is a Drs. in theology.
It was a prerequisite for being allowed to preach as 'Dominee'.
Some Ds. did go on to to become a Doctor of Theology,
sometimes after their retirement.
Jan
there was an intermediate exam called the 'candidaats',
which was obligatory before taking the Drs. degree.
Some people stopped there.
They would have visiting cards with cand. jur. or cand. med. on it.
(but never cand. PhD or cand. Dr.)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)
Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

I thought "Ds." was from "doctorandus" -- having passed the
examination(s) prerequisite for admission to a doctoral program but not
yet having been awarded the doctorate; more or less equivalent to a
Master's degree, perhaps.

That was a Drs, or sometimes Dra. for the female form.
Doctorandus, doctoranda. (he/she who is to become a Doctor)
(for Q., yes some feminists objected, and refused to use the Dra.)

Dra. is absolutely standard in Spanish, but I haven't seen it used in English.

Sure, La Dra. even, to make it even more obvious.
But that is Spanish, where use of gender is more pronounced.
In Dutch there is no female form of Doctor.
If you see Doctores it is the archaic plural of Doctor,
not the female form.
'Dokteres' for a female medical practioneer exists,
but it is uncommon, and objectionable to many of them.

Jan

[Quinn C]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RH Draney

Post by Rich Ulrich
What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

The full title in practice is "slain civil rights leader the Reverend
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior"...but it's often a struggle to fit all
that on the signs when they rename a street....r

Checked for the Netherlands: Many streets etc named after him.
Never a Jr. only one Dr., and one Ds.
(Ds. = dominee, from latin dominus, for E. reverend)
Usage has changed very much.
Only fifty years ago all kinds of titles were always given in full,
the more the better. With initials instead of first names.
Nowadays all those titles are almost always omitted,

I thought "Ds." was from "doctorandus" -- having passed the
examination(s) prerequisite for admission to a doctoral program but not
yet having been awarded the doctorate; more or less equivalent to a
Master's degree, perhaps.

That was a Drs, or sometimes Dra. for the female form.
Doctorandus, doctoranda. (he/she who is to become a Doctor)
(for Q., yes some feminists objected, and refused to use the Dra.)

Dra. is absolutely standard in Spanish, but I haven't seen it used in English.

Sure, La Dra. even, to make it even more obvious.
But that is Spanish, where use of gender is more pronounced.
In Dutch there is no female form of Doctor.
If you see Doctores it is the archaic plural of Doctor,
not the female form.
'Dokteres' for a female medical practioneer exists,
but it is uncommon, and objectionable to many of them.

But "Doctores", abbr. Dres. or Drs., is of course a well established
plural, so I wonder how you would have a different meaning for "Drs."

"Doktorin" is not very common in German, either, where nearly all
professions can take that feminine suffix. As a title, "(Frau) Doktor X"
is strongly preferred.

There was a woman who went to court trying to get the title "Doctora" on
her official certificate (to become "Dra. med. vet."), but the court
decided that they can't ask the university to use improper Latin, i.e.
if she wanted a female form, it should be "Doctrix". The plaintiff
didn't want that, because it "sounds like something from Asterix".

[Lewis]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by HVS
For example, when not using his initials or all three names, did
Martin Luther King become "Mr King"?

We used Rev. on first reference for clergy. In subsequent references,
we did not use honorifics, so he would have been plain King.

What jumps to my mind for King is "The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr." I assume he liked to be referred to that way.

That is the correct order of precedence, AIUI

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I'm not sure if the article is taking things out of context.

If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

If however she has simply signed something as "Dr. J. Biden" then she
isn't out of line & the article is doing a bit of character assassination.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I'm not sure if the article is taking things out of context.
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

Do think that's true for all holders of non-medical doctorates?

What if she asks to be called "Dr. Biden" under circumstances where otherwise
"Ms. Biden" or "Mrs. Biden" would be appropriate, but doesn't insist?

What if she preferred "Prof. Biden", since she's a professor?

Post by Sam Plusnet
If however she has simply signed something as "Dr. J. Biden" then she
isn't out of line & the article is doing a bit of character assassination.

I don't think that's the situation. Here's her page from when her husband
was the Vice-President.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/jill-biden

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

Do think that's true for all holders of non-medical doctorates?
What if she asks to be called "Dr. Biden" under circumstances where otherwise
"Ms. Biden" or "Mrs. Biden" would be appropriate, but doesn't insist?
What if she preferred "Prof. Biden", since she's a professor?

What if I offered the choice of Dr. C... or Mx. C..., as I would were I
in her place?

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I'm not sure if the article is taking things out of context.
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.
If however she has simply signed something as "Dr. J. Biden" then she
isn't out of line & the article is doing a bit of character assassination.

I think that she's being *referred to* as Dr Biden, not insisting that
she be addressed as Dr Biden.

What exposure we've had of her indicates that she's rather
level-headed and non-pretentious. She has announced that she will
continue to teach at the community college where she has been working.
She continued to teach when Joe was Vice President.

In this article, the writer refers to her as "Dr Biden". The
First-Lady-to-be has little control over how she is referred to unless
it's a condition of an interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/jill-biden-teacher-first-lady-history.html

[Lewis]

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.

Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?

Do you think she should insist that someone on a supermarket checkout
recognise her doctorate & refer to her as "Doctor"?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?
Do you think she should insist that someone on a supermarket checkout
recognise her doctorate & refer to her as "Doctor"?

Not speaking for Lewis, but that possibility is too absurd to consider, [*]
and it's not what the author of the WSJ op-ed was talking about.

[*] Well, somebody's probably tried it.

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?
Do you think she should insist that someone on a supermarket checkout
recognise her doctorate & refer to her as "Doctor"?

Not speaking for Lewis, but that possibility is too absurd to consider, [*]
and it's not what the author of the WSJ op-ed was talking about.

I don't see how such people would "recognize her doctorate", but it's
fully possible that they would recognize the person and say "Is that
you, Dr. Biden?" if that's how she's known (maybe to distinguish herself
from other well-known people named Biden.)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?
Do you think she should insist that someone on a supermarket checkout
recognise her doctorate & refer to her as "Doctor"?

Not speaking for Lewis, but that possibility is too absurd to consider, [*]
and it's not what the author of the WSJ op-ed was talking about.

I don't see how such people would "recognize her doctorate", but it's
fully possible that they would recognize the person and say "Is that
you, Dr. Biden?" if that's how she's known (maybe to distinguish herself
from other well-known people named Biden.)

Not speaking for Sam, but what his question brought to my mind was

"Find everything you were looking for, ma'am?"

"Call me Doctor."

[Lewis]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.

It is when dealing with idiotic misogynist statements like the one I
replied to.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?

Nope. It's her title. She earned it. It's up to her how and when it is
used.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Do you think she should insist that someone on a supermarket checkout
recognise her doctorate & refer to her as "Doctor"?

Nice straw man you build there.

I doubt very much she does this, but yes, if she wants. If someone
addresses her as "Mrs Biden" she is perfectly within her rights to
correct them. And people who insist she is behaving improperly can, as
far as I am concerned, fuck off.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.

It is when dealing with idiotic misogynist statements like the one I
replied to.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?

Nope. It's her title. She earned it. It's up to her how and when it is
used.

Nope.
There are a range of circumstances where anyone (male or female, so
let's get rid of that diversion) who insisted on being called "Doctor"
is just being ridiculous.

"regardless of the circumstances" remember?

I offered a (deliberately) extreme example, but you could make up a few
reasonable examples yourself, if you chose to do so.

Your words brought to mind:

"Help help! My son the doctor is drowning!"

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.

It is when dealing with idiotic misogynist statements like the one I
replied to.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?

Nope. It's her title. She earned it. It's up to her how and when it is
used.

Nope.
There are a range of circumstances where anyone (male or female, so
let's get rid of that diversion) who insisted on being called "Doctor"
is just being ridiculous.

May I mildly point out that there is no indication whatsoever that
Jill Biden has insisted on being called "Dr Jill Biden"?

The original souce of this discussion was an article on the use of the
title, but *not* her use of the title. While it was not stated, the
objection seemed to be that people referring to her and others with
PhDs include the title.

[Lewis]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Lewis

Post by Sam Plusnet
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.

No, you're wrong.

You might find a simple negation satisfying, but isn't all that helpful.

It is when dealing with idiotic misogynist statements like the one I
replied to.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Perhaps some part of "regardless of the circumstances" is causing you a
problem?

Nope. It's her title. She earned it. It's up to her how and when it is
used.

Nope.
There are a range of circumstances where anyone (male or female, so
let's get rid of that diversion) who insisted on being called "Doctor"
is just being ridiculous.

So? being ridiculous is a basic human right. MOST people are ridiculous
a large percentage of the time.

Post by Sam Plusnet
"regardless of the circumstances" remember?

And I stand by it. It is up to the person, always.

We've covered this before, if someone tells you their name is "Lex" and
you insist on calling them "Alexander" because that is their legal name
(Or worse, you ASSUME it is their legal name) you are not only wrong,
you are an asshole.

If someone tells you their name is "Doctor Brown" and you insist on
calling her Mrs Brown, you are not only wrong, you're an asshole.

When people insist on calling my "Lou" they are not only wrong, they are
assholes.

[Quinn C]

When people insist on calling [me] "Lou" they are not only wrong, they are
assholes.

What about "Lew"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I
tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

You think it's OK to address the President-Elect's wife as "Jill"
(assuming that you don't actually know her personally), or "Kiddo"? I
think you need to read the article before confidently asserting that
you agree with it.

That's not what I said, not even remotely. What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I'm not sure if the article is taking things out of context.
If Mrs. Biden insists on being called "Doctor", regardless of the
circumstances, then she fully deserves this slap on the wrist.
If however she has simply signed something as "Dr. J. Biden" then she
isn't out of line & the article is doing a bit of character assassination.

Joseph Epstein is well known as a superannuated curmudgeonly
rightwing nutcase. He may have been editor of *American Scholar*
(the Phi Beta Kappa magazine); he may even be too old to have been
counted among the neocons.

[Mark Brader]

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

If you like Dr Hoskins' signs, then you'll love this one:

Loading Image...

[RH Draney]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

I prefer this campaign sign:

Loading Image...

I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, even if he were in my district....r

[Mark Brader]

Post by RH Draney
https://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/vote-frank-schmuck.jpg

Well, that is a gem!

Leaving politics, see also:
Loading Image...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Post by RH Draney
https://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/vote-frank-schmuck.jpg
I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, even if he were in my district....r

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney
https://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/vote-frank-schmuck.jpg
I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, even if he were in my district....r

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by RH Draney
https://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/vote-frank-schmuck.jpg
I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, even if he were in my district....r

[charles]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

What I said was that I agree with not using the honorific "Dr."
for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the
street from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs.
Not so long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was
running, his signs always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know
some people who found that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins
*is* a medical doctor. (He was also the provincial health minister
for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy. In the same way
that my degree is "Master of Arts", but my subject was Engineering.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

What I said was that I agree with not using the honorific "Dr."
for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the
street from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs.
Not so long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was
running, his signs always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know
some people who found that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins
*is* a medical doctor. (He was also the provincial health minister
for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but "philosophy" is
what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

Post by charles
In the same way
that my degree is "Master of Arts", but my subject was Engineering.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but "philosophy" is
what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century
phrase that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.

I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers
came to fit in. Or architects.

[Quinn C]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but "philosophy" is
what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century
phrase that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.
I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers
came to fit in. Or architects.

In my understanding, medicine, law and theology are the original
speciality subjects. "Philosphy" was to cover all the other odds and
ends.

We had this fairly recently, but in Germany, the natural sciences were
separated out at some point, so Dr. phil. there generally means
"humanities".

It's fairly recently that engineering is thought of as worthy of being
taught at universities and of scholarly titles.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but
"philosophy" is what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century phrase
that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.
I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers came to
fit in. Or architects.

If someone is doing research in engineering, they have to make a
significant contribution to the underlying theory of their discipline.
Merely making measurements and reporting the results isn't good enough.
That means they're working in the field of natural philosophy. In fact
I'd go further: a doctoral candidate in engineering is working at that
rarefied level where there isn't a clear distinction between science and
engineering.

I presume that the same is true for other academic fields.

As Quinn points out, engineering wasn't a university discipline in the
19th century. Engineering design used to be based on experience and
rules of thumb and rough guesses. That changed when theories arose to
show that, for example, it's possible to calculate the stresses in a
mechanical structure, at which point one can base design on
well-established theories. One consequence of that change is that the
"rude mechanicals" lost their function as designers, and the job had to
be done by people with a more intellectual leaning. Once it was
recognised that the education of an engineer had to start with a
university-level study of mathematics and physics, engineering education
moved from technical colleges to universities.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but
"philosophy" is what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century phrase
that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.
I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers came to
fit in. Or architects.

If someone is doing research in engineering, they have to make a
significant contribution to the underlying theory of their discipline.
Merely making measurements and reporting the results isn't good enough.
That means they're working in the field of natural philosophy. In fact
I'd go further: a doctoral candidate in engineering is working at that
rarefied level where there isn't a clear distinction between science and
engineering.
I presume that the same is true for other academic fields.

In theory, yes, in chemistry, biochemistry etc. In practice
"significant contribution to the underlying theory" is interpreted
fairly generously.

Post by Peter Moylan
As Quinn points out, engineering wasn't a university discipline in the
19th century. Engineering design used to be based on experience and
rules of thumb and rough guesses. That changed when theories arose to
show that, for example, it's possible to calculate the stresses in a
mechanical structure, at which point one can base design on
well-established theories. One consequence of that change is that the
"rude mechanicals" lost their function as designers, and the job had to
be done by people with a more intellectual leaning. Once it was
recognised that the education of an engineer had to start with a
university-level study of mathematics and physics, engineering education
moved from technical colleges to universities.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
If someone is doing research in engineering, they have to make a
significant contribution to the underlying theory of their
discipline. Merely making measurements and reporting the results
isn't good enough. That means they're working in the field of
natural philosophy. In fact I'd go further: a doctoral candidate in
engineering is working at that rarefied level where there isn't a
clear distinction between science and engineering.
I presume that the same is true for other academic fields.

In theory, yes, in chemistry, biochemistry etc. In practice
"significant contribution to the underlying theory" is interpreted
fairly generously.

I once had a postgraduate student who had an exaggerated respect for
authority - a common problem with Chinese-educated students - which got
in the way of his coming up with original ideas. I suggested that one
way to get his degree would be to take a paper of mine and prove me
wrong. I meant it seriously, but I don't think he believed me.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but
"philosophy" is what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century phrase
that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.
I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers came to
fit in. Or architects.

If someone is doing research in engineering, they have to make a
significant contribution to the underlying theory of their discipline.
Merely making measurements and reporting the results isn't good enough.
That means they're working in the field of natural philosophy. In fact
I'd go further: a doctoral candidate in engineering is working at that
rarefied level where there isn't a clear distinction between science and
engineering.
I presume that the same is true for other academic fields.

In theory, yes, in chemistry, biochemistry etc. In practice
"significant contribution to the underlying theory" is interpreted
fairly generously.

Same in physics.
Experimental work that 'merely' verifies existing theory
in a new parameter range or to higher accuracy may qualify for a PhD,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:56:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

PhDs are awarded for many subject other than philosophy.

Surprising as it may seem, I'm well aware of that, but
"philosophy" is what "Ph." (or in my case "Phil.") stands for.

"Natural and experimental philosophy" was the 19th century phrase
that covered the scholastic gamut at the time.
I don't know when or how doctors of medicine or engineers came to
fit in. Or architects.

If someone is doing research in engineering, they have to make a
significant contribution to the underlying theory of their discipline.
Merely making measurements and reporting the results isn't good enough.
That means they're working in the field of natural philosophy. In fact
I'd go further: a doctoral candidate in engineering is working at that
rarefied level where there isn't a clear distinction between science and
engineering.
I presume that the same is true for other academic fields.
As Quinn points out, engineering wasn't a university discipline in the
19th century. Engineering design used to be based on experience and
rules of thumb and rough guesses.

True for Anglosaxonia, but not for Western Europe,
where there is a long tradition of university level technical schools.
Starting with Simon Stevin in Leyden, the Ecoles Royales in France,
(later the Polytechnique) and all those Technische Hochschule.
The ETH Zurich for example was founded in 1854.

The Americans were not as backward as the Brits.
The US Army Corps of Engineers was first established
by the Continental Congress,
and reestablished by George Washington when president.
With help from French officers the engineers played an important part
in the Revolutionary war. (at the siege of Yorktown for example)

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

The Americans were not as backward as the Brits. The US Army Corps of
Engineers was first established by the Continental Congress, and
reestablished by George Washington when president. With help from
French officers the engineers played an important part in the
Revolutionary war. (at the siege of Yorktown for example)

The military has its own approach to terminology. The British Corps of
Royal Engineers was founded in 1716. The Australian equivalent had to
wait until 1860. But most of these so-called "engineers" are what we
would today call builders' labourers out in the civilian world. They
were originally called sappers because they were the ones who dug the
tunnels. Later they moved on to digging trenches, putting temporary
bridges across rivers, laying mines, etc. All valuable work, but not
what I would call engineering.

It's true that the higher-level officers were better educated, and some
of them were involved in design: coming up with new weapons, for
example. But they were a minority in the corps.

Of course we're looking back at an era when there were only two kinds of
engineers, military and civil. The military engineers designed weapons,
and the civil engineers designed targets.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

...

I don't get that. If someone has a Ph.D., then they have a doctorate.
"Dr." is redundant because it provides no additional information.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

...
I don't get that. If someone has a Ph.D., then they have a doctorate.
"Dr." is redundant because it provides no additional information.

All I'm saying is that there are worse things to be redundant about. So
you're right, you don't need the "Dr.", though people who see the
election poster may not know that.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:58:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

...
I don't get that. If someone has a Ph.D., then they have a doctorate.
"Dr." is redundant because it provides no additional information.

All I'm saying is that there are worse things to be redundant about. So
you're right, you don't need the "Dr.", though people who see the
election poster may not know that.

Dr Jan Herrmann, Ph.D. was running for a seat on the School Board. The
bar should be a little higher when it comes to written form when the
candidate will be involved in education of the young.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:58:04 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:51:45 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Dw3z2Bf/0/b0727907/O/i-Dw3z2Bf.jpg

If he (or she -- "Jan" could be either) wants to be on a school board,
then evidence of some education like Dr. and Ph.D. is perfectly
relevant, and there is no objection to mentioning it.

Using both "Dr" and "Phd" is redundant.

Not really: the doctorate needn't be in philosophy.

...
I don't get that. If someone has a Ph.D., then they have a doctorate.
"Dr." is redundant because it provides no additional information.

All I'm saying is that there are worse things to be redundant about. So
you're right, you don't need the "Dr.", though people who see the
election poster may not know that.

Dr Jan Herrmann, Ph.D. was running for a seat on the School Board. The
bar should be a little higher when it comes to written form when the
candidate will be involved in education of the young.

But the electorate have all been educated in that local system - so they
wouldn't have the faintest idea why that might be wrong.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

I don't object to that. He can identify himself on campaign signs however he wants,
and if voters don't like it they can vote for somebody else.

bill

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

Being a medical doctor would make sense if he was running on policies
that were mainly medical in nature.

I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical engineering
and who eventually became a state senator. (Well, actually he was an
MLC, which is our state's equivalent of a senator.) In most situations
he was addressed as "John". I think he insisted on the "Dr" when
speaking on matters, like energy policy, where expertise matters.

Perhaps I should say "SHOULD matter". In practice, these policies are
made mostly by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical engineering
and who eventually became a state senator. (Well, actually he was an

I would suggest that the difference between a man with a PhD and a woman
with a PhD is a cast chasm.

Women are *very* used to being dismissed as having no opinions of value
and having their knowledge ignored of discounted.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical engineering
and who eventually became a state senator. (Well, actually he was an

I would suggest that the difference between a man with a PhD and a woman
with a PhD is a cast chasm.
Women are *very* used to being dismissed as having no opinions of value
and having their knowledge ignored of discounted.

Only too true.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical
engineering and who eventually became a state senator. (Well,
actually he was an

I would suggest that the difference between a man with a PhD and a
woman with a PhD is a cast chasm.
Women are *very* used to being dismissed as having no opinions of
value and having their knowledge ignored of discounted.

Only too true.

And that seems to be exactly what is happening to Dr Biden. Whom I will
continue to call Dr Biden, just to piss off people who think like that
WSJ contributor.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical
engineering and who eventually became a state senator. (Well,
actually he was an

I would suggest that the difference between a man with a PhD and a
woman with a PhD is a cast chasm.
Women are *very* used to being dismissed as having no opinions of
value and having their knowledge ignored of discounted.

Only too true.

And that seems to be exactly what is happening to Dr Biden. Whom I will
continue to call Dr Biden, just to piss off people who think like that
WSJ contributor.

Doctor and President Biden, just to REALLY piss them off.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical engineering
and who eventually became a state senator. (Well, actually he was an

I would suggest that the difference between a man with a PhD and a woman
with a PhD is a cast chasm.
Women are *very* used to being dismissed as having no opinions of value
and having their knowledge ignored of discounted.

Only too true.

I worked with for some time with a woman who defended her thesis whilst
eight and three quarters months pregnant.
That might have encouraged them to not ignore her - and to bring events
to a speedy conclusion.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca
What I said was that I agree with not using
the honorific "Dr." for people who are not medical doctors.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence riding, but St. Paul's is across the street
from my block, so I regularly see their election lawn signs. Not so
long ago their MPP was Eric Hoskins, and when he was running, his signs
always had "Dr. Eric Hoskins" on them. I know some people who found
that pompus and off-putting -- and Hoskins *is* a medical doctor.
(He was also the provincial health minister for a while.)

Being a medical doctor would make sense if he was running on policies
that were mainly medical in nature.
I had a friend, now deceased, who had a PhD in electrical engineering
and who eventually became a state senator. (Well, actually he was an
MLC, which is our state's equivalent of a senator.) In most situations
he was addressed as "John". I think he insisted on the "Dr" when
speaking on matters, like energy policy, where expertise matters.
Perhaps I should say "SHOULD matter". In practice, these policies are
made mostly by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

I love the rightwing nutcases who respond to questions about e.g. climate
change with "I'm not a scientist, so I can't say anything about that" --
immediately after they've been hearing (if not listening to) testimony about
e.g. climate change in committee hearings set up for the purpose of hearing
(if not learning) about e.g. climate change.

[Mark Brader]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing
off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

Tony said it was an op-ed, not an editorial. So it's Joseph Epstein
that you're agreeing with, not the WSJ. I also tend to agree, though
I think Epstain obscures his original point when he segues into a
near-rant about *honorary* doctorates before (for non-paying readers)
the article fades out.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing
off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

Tony said it was an op-ed, not an editorial. So it's Joseph Epstein
that you're agreeing with, not the WSJ. I also tend to agree, though
I think Epstain obscures his original point when he segues into a
near-rant about *honorary* doctorates before (for non-paying readers)
the article fades out.

It was an op-ed piece, not an editorial written by a WSJ staffer.

We don't move in the same social circles, but I don't have the
impression that Jill Biden goes around introducing herself as "Dr Jill
Biden" or asks people to call her "Dr Jill Biden".

In interviews and when she gives a speech she is introduced as Dr Jill
Biden, but that is the customary way to introduce someone.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing
off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

Tony said it was an op-ed, not an editorial. So it's Joseph Epstein
that you're agreeing with, not the WSJ. I also tend to agree, though
I think Epstain obscures his original point when he segues into a
near-rant about *honorary* doctorates before (for non-paying readers)
the article fades out.

It was an op-ed piece, not an editorial written by a WSJ staffer.
We don't move in the same social circles, but I don't have the
impression that Jill Biden goes around introducing herself as "Dr Jill
Biden" or asks people to call her "Dr Jill Biden".

Right, I doubt it, but officially, yes.

Post by Tony Cooper
In interviews and when she gives a speech she is introduced as Dr Jill
Biden, but that is the customary way to introduce someone.

Not if you're a fragile white man who is butthurt that he is not a
doctor and a mere 'kiddo' is.

I know quite a lot of women who are Doctors and when they are doing
anything official, or anything related to work, they are "Doctor".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing
off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

Tony said it was an op-ed, not an editorial. So it's Joseph Epstein
that you're agreeing with, not the WSJ. I also tend to agree, though
I think Epstain obscures his original point when he segues into a
near-rant about *honorary* doctorates before (for non-paying readers)
the article fades out.

It was an op-ed piece, not an editorial written by a WSJ staffer.
We don't move in the same social circles, but I don't have the
impression that Jill Biden goes around introducing herself as "Dr Jill
Biden" or asks people to call her "Dr Jill Biden".

Right, I doubt it, but officially, yes.

Post by Tony Cooper
In interviews and when she gives a speech she is introduced as Dr Jill
Biden, but that is the customary way to introduce someone.

Not if you're a fragile white man who is butthurt that he is not a
doctor and a mere 'kiddo' is.
I know quite a lot of women who are Doctors and when they are doing
anything official, or anything related to work, they are "Doctor".

My wife also, though she never uses Dr. outside official business. It
also works the other way in our case, as I am Monsieur Maria when I
have my hair cut.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors.
The feeling was that PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing
off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm on the side of the WSJ.

Tony said it was an op-ed, not an editorial. So it's Joseph Epstein
that you're agreeing with, not the WSJ. I also tend to agree, though
I think Epstain obscures his original point when he segues into a
near-rant about *honorary* doctorates before (for non-paying readers)
the article fades out.

It was an op-ed piece, not an editorial written by a WSJ staffer.
We don't move in the same social circles, but I don't have the
impression that Jill Biden goes around introducing herself as "Dr Jill
Biden" or asks people to call her "Dr Jill Biden".

Right, I doubt it, but officially, yes.

Post by Tony Cooper
In interviews and when she gives a speech she is introduced as Dr Jill
Biden, but that is the customary way to introduce someone.

Not if you're a fragile white man who is butthurt that he is not a
doctor and a mere 'kiddo' is.
I know quite a lot of women who are Doctors and when they are doing
anything official, or anything related to work, they are "Doctor".

My wife also, though she never uses Dr. outside official business. It
also works the other way in our case, as I am Monsieur Maria when I
have my hair cut.

I just came across an old business card of hers from about 40 years ago
while looking for something else: just her name, no indication of
position, degrees etc. With it was one of Federico Mayor Zaragoza: just
his name, with Presidente in small letters below, but that's fair
enough as it was a card from Fundación de la Paz, which he was
president of. No mention of degrees, honorary degrees, professorships,
former directorship of UNESCO, etc.

[Lewis]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

Both you old newspaper and the WSJ are wrong.

Doctor is a qualification that is earned by attaining a PhD, something
that nearly no medical doctors ever achieve. Earning a PhD is harder
(and therefor a greater achievement) than getting an MD license.

[Quinn C]

Post by Lewis

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

Both you old newspaper and the WSJ are wrong.
Doctor is a qualification that is earned by attaining a PhD, something
that nearly no medical doctors ever achieve. Earning a PhD is harder
(and therefor a greater achievement) than getting an MD license.

That's always been my observation: for the general public, only a
physician is a "real Doctor"; for academics, it's the opposite.

There are research doctorates in medicine, of course, but your average
practising "Doctor" doesn't need one of those.

[charles]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

My old newspaper allowed the honorific "Dr." only for medical doctors. The feeling was that
PhDs who called themselves Dr. were merely showing off their degrees. I tend to agree, so I'm
on the side of the WSJ.

Both you old newspaper and the WSJ are wrong.
Doctor is a qualification that is earned by attaining a PhD, something
that nearly no medical doctors ever achieve. Earning a PhD is harder
(and therefor a greater achievement) than getting an MD license.

That's always been my observation: for the general public, only a
physician is a "real Doctor"; for academics, it's the opposite.
There are research doctorates in medicine, of course, but your average
practising "Doctor" doesn't need one of those.

and - in the UK - once a doctor become senior (in status) he reverts to
plain Mr .

[Hibou]

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor. [...]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Hereabouts, at least, both medical
doctors and other doctors have studied for about the same length of
time. Why should one have the title and not the other?

I also think it's a useful title in academic circles, much like
'professor', or a rank in the army. It goes, or should go, with a
certain level of erudition and systematic thinking.

I do smile, however, at 'doctor of divinity'.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

Oh, there was so much more to it than just that. There as the whining
about how upset he is by people lording their qualifications over him
and how Biden's degree is not a real degree. It was the classic bleating
of the fragile old man who things he is OBVIOUSLY the apex human on the
planet and is very upset by the implication that any mere female could
even be counted as a human.

He's a vile misogynist toad, and he has been for his 50 year career.

He starts his drivel by referring to a 69-year-old woman with a
doctorate as "kiddo". What a complete asshole.

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

There;'s been some fallout.

"Joseph Epstein wiped from university website after backlash over
‘sexist drivel’ Jill Biden column"

The Atlantic has an article "The Professor and the Madman" which begins:

"Joseph Epstein’s record of provocation and self-disgracing is long but
not unbroken. ... he wrote with fearless gusto an op-ed in The Wall
Street Journal this weekend, advising Jill Biden, an English professor
at Northern Virginia Community College, to stop insisting that people
call her “Doctor Jill Biden,” which “sounds and feels fraudulent, not to
say a touch comic.” She is the spouse of the president-elect and earned
an Ed.D. in educational leadership from the University of Delaware in
2007."

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:37:17 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.

Oh, there was so much more to it than just that. There as the whining
about how upset he is by people lording their qualifications over him
and how Biden's degree is not a real degree. It was the classic bleating
of the fragile old man who things he is OBVIOUSLY the apex human on the
planet and is very upset by the implication that any mere female could
even be counted as a human.
He's a vile misogynist toad, and he has been for his 50 year career.
He starts his drivel by referring to a 69-year-old woman with a
doctorate as "kiddo". What a complete asshole.

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

There;'s been some fallout.
"Joseph Epstein wiped from university website after backlash over
‘sexist drivel’ Jill Biden column"
"Joseph Epstein’s record of provocation and self-disgracing is long but
not unbroken. ... he wrote with fearless gusto an op-ed in The Wall
Street Journal this weekend, advising Jill Biden, an English professor
at Northern Virginia Community College, to stop insisting that people
call her “Doctor Jill Biden,” which “sounds and feels fraudulent, not to
say a touch comic.” She is the spouse of the president-elect and earned
an Ed.D. in educational leadership from the University of Delaware in
2007."

I didn't know that she got her degree in 2007. I wonder if
late-in-life PhDs are appreciated more by the recipients.
Dr. Bill Cosby really likes to have his title used. He included
it in credits running after his TV show. (Also, Education.)

My dad got his PhD at age 40 (chemistry). While we lived
in a small Texas town, he was known to everyone as Doc Ulrich.
I think the town had few college degree-holders of any kind when
we moved there in 1955, beyond the school teachers. The original
"Social Class Scales" (mid-1950s) put school teachers fairly high,
probably because of their degrees.

The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies
to his insistence) that his title always be used.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Rich Ulrich
O
[ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies
to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to such
things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr. Dr.
(etc.)

[Silvano]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Rich Ulrich
O
[ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies
to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to such
things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

It's even written on German ID cards on request and becomes an official
part of their names. The discovery that their thesis or dissertation
(whichever has the highest rank in your country, after reading in the
Wikipedia article labelled Thesis that "In some contexts, the word
"thesis" or a cognate is used for part of a bachelor's or master's
course, while "dissertation" is normally applied to a doctorate, while
in other contexts, the reverse is true") did not meet academic standards
(too much copy-and-paste without proper reference to the sources) put an
end to the political careers of the future German chancellor, as some
newspapers labelled him about ten years ago, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
and of the former minister of education (!) and research Annette
Schavan. (Wikipedia articles available in English, if you're interested
in the details.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Silvano

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Rich Ulrich
O
[ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies
to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to such
things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

It's even written on German ID cards on request and becomes an official
part of their names. The discovery that their thesis or dissertation
(whichever has the highest rank in your country, after reading in the
Wikipedia article labelled Thesis that "In some contexts, the word
"thesis" or a cognate is used for part of a bachelor's or master's
course, while "dissertation" is normally applied to a doctorate, while
in other contexts, the reverse is true") did not meet academic standards
(too much copy-and-paste without proper reference to the sources) put an
end to the political careers of the future German chancellor, as some
newspapers labelled him about ten years ago, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
and of the former minister of education (!) and research Annette
Schavan. (Wikipedia articles available in English, if you're interested
in the details.)

Beachelor's (honors) essay; Master's thesis; Ph.D. dissertation; we have
no equivalent to the Habilitation.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Silvano

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically"
applies to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to
such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor
Dr. Dr. (etc.)

It's even written on German ID cards on request and becomes an
official part of their names. The discovery that their thesis or
dissertation (whichever has the highest rank in your country, after
reading in the Wikipedia article labelled Thesis that "In some
contexts, the word "thesis" or a cognate is used for part of a
bachelor's or master's course, while "dissertation" is normally
applied to a doctorate, while in other contexts, the reverse is
true") did not meet academic standards (too much copy-and-paste
without proper reference to the sources) put an end to the
political careers of the future German chancellor, as some
newspapers labelled him about ten years ago, Karl-Theodor zu
Guttenberg and of the former minister of education (!) and research
Annette Schavan. (Wikipedia articles available in English, if
you're interested in the details.)

Beachelor's (honors) essay; Master's thesis; Ph.D. dissertation; we
have no equivalent to the Habilitation.

It varies by country, though. In Australia we hardly ever use the word
"dissertation", and "thesis" (in this context) means the written
document that is finally judged by the examiners.

A qualifier is used to say what kind of thesis it is: undergraduate
thesis, honours thesis, master's thesis, Ph.D. thesis. Obviously these
all different in terms of the size and scope of the required work.

It's mainly in the PhD case that the "original research" criterion is so
strong that if someone beats you to publication you have to abandon the
work and choose a different topic. That happened to me.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:47:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Silvano

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Rich Ulrich
O
[ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies
to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to such
things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

It's even written on German ID cards on request and becomes an official
part of their names. The discovery that their thesis or dissertation
(whichever has the highest rank in your country, after reading in the
Wikipedia article labelled Thesis that "In some contexts, the word
"thesis" or a cognate is used for part of a bachelor's or master's
course, while "dissertation" is normally applied to a doctorate, while
in other contexts, the reverse is true") did not meet academic standards
(too much copy-and-paste without proper reference to the sources) put an
end to the political careers of the future German chancellor, as some
newspapers labelled him about ten years ago, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
and of the former minister of education (!) and research Annette
Schavan. (Wikipedia articles available in English, if you're interested
in the details.)

Beachelor's (honors) essay;

Would that be on surfing?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Master's thesis; Ph.D. dissertation; we have
no equivalent to the Habilitation.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-7, Silvano wrote:

[possibly excessive snip]

... their thesis or dissertation

Post by Silvano
(whichever has the highest rank in your country, after reading in the
Wikipedia article labelled Thesis that "In some contexts, the word
"thesis" or a cognate is used for part of a bachelor's or master's
course, while "dissertation" is normally applied to a doctorate, while
in other contexts, the reverse is true") ...

In my American experience, the one for a bachelor's (if required or
done optionally) and the one for a master's (more often required, but
not always) are called a thesis. The one for a doctorate is probably
officially called a dissertation, but people, including the people who
write them and the ones who read them, often say "thesis".

I've never encountered an academic "dissertation" for anything but a
doctorate, and I wonder whether those "contexts" where it can apply to
a master's or bachelor's degree are in non-English-speaking countries.

[CDB]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry Kissinger
who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies to his
insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to
such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr.
Dr. (etc.)

I thought yesterday about mentioning Kissinger as evidence that
resistance to "Dr Biden" was sexist, but decided not to press SEND; his
degree was in Poly Sci, and had some relevance to his professional duties.

[Lewis]

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry Kissinger
who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically" applies to his
insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance to
such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as Professor Dr.
Dr. (etc.)

I thought yesterday about mentioning Kissinger as evidence that
resistance to "Dr Biden" was sexist, but decided not to press SEND; his
degree was in Poly Sci, and had some relevance to his professional duties.

And her doctorate doesn't?

[CDB]

Post by Lewis

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically"
applies to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance
to such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as
Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

I thought yesterday about mentioning Kissinger as evidence that
resistance to "Dr Biden" was sexist, but decided not to press SEND;
his degree was in Poly Sci, and had some relevance to his
professional duties.

And her doctorate doesn't?

Not to her duties as "First Lady".

[Tony Cooper]

Post by CDB

Post by Lewis

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically"
applies to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance
to such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as
Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

I thought yesterday about mentioning Kissinger as evidence that
resistance to "Dr Biden" was sexist, but decided not to press SEND;
his degree was in Poly Sci, and had some relevance to his
professional duties.

And her doctorate doesn't?

Not to her duties as "First Lady".

Actually, the "First Lady" in the US has no defined duties. She may
self-assign projects - and most do - but other than her role as
hostess at the White House there's no official duties.

She is a teacher at a community college and has indicated that she
will continue to teach after the inaugeraton.

The FLOTUS receives no compensation from the government as Melania
just learned. Ms Trump wanted some government compensation for
relocating the family items to Mar-a-Lago, but found there is no
provision for this.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
The FLOTUS receives no compensation from the government as Melania
just learned. Ms Trump wanted some government compensation for
relocating the family items to Mar-a-Lago, but found there is no
provision for this.

How do you raise money to pay for the moving van if all the banks have
decided that you're a bad credit risk?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:07:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
The FLOTUS receives no compensation from the government as Melania
just learned. Ms Trump wanted some government compensation for
relocating the family items to Mar-a-Lago, but found there is no
provision for this.

How do you raise money to pay for the moving van if all the banks have
decided that you're a bad credit risk?

She may have to supply an back-up address for the moving van's
destination. Many Palm Beach residents are objecting to the Trump's
plan to live at Mar-a-Lago. Legally, they are not allowed to. Trump
signed an agreement in 1993 that made Mar-a-Lago a private club and
not a residence. Local laws mean that people can stay in a private
club for a maximum of 21 days a year and not more than seven
consecutive days.

Adding to the neighbor's woes, if the Trumps do find a way to legally
reside at Mar-a-Lago, they will be accompanied by a bevy of Secret
Service agents. Ex-Presidents are provided with Secret Service
security service.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
Adding to the neighbor's woes, if the Trumps do find a way to legally
reside at Mar-a-Lago, they will be accompanied by a bevy of Secret
Service agents. Ex-Presidents are provided with Secret Service
security service.

Every 45 Presidents there's an exception to this rule.

[RH Draney]

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
Adding to the neighbor's woes, if the Trumps do find a way to legally
reside at Mar-a-Lago, they will be accompanied by a bevy of Secret
Service agents. Ex-Presidents are provided with Secret Service
security service.

Every 45 Presidents there's an exception to this rule.

Maybe they could just tell Trump he's being protected, and if he ever
asks why he never sees the Secret Service agents guarding him, just tell
him that's what makes them secret....r

[Lewis]

Post by CDB

Post by Lewis

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

O [ … ]
The original news story reminded me that it was Dr. Henry
Kissinger who insisted (yes, I think, "somewhat comically"
applies to his insistence) that his title always be used.

Yes, but he was German, and Germans attach a lot of importance
to such things, to the extent of wanting to be listed as
Professor Dr. Dr. (etc.)

I thought yesterday about mentioning Kissinger as evidence that
resistance to "Dr Biden" was sexist, but decided not to press SEND;
his degree was in Poly Sci, and had some relevance to his
professional duties.

And her doctorate doesn't?

Not to her duties as "First Lady".

He "duties" as first lady are imaginary, which is why she is planning to
continue to teach at her job.

[Joy Beeson]

I strongly feel that *all* titles should be used only when they are
relevant. I'm particularly offended when junk mail attaches a random
honorific to my name.

[charles]

Post by Joy Beeson
I strongly feel that *all* titles should be used only when they are
relevant. I'm particularly offended when junk mail attaches a random
honorific to my name.

RH ?

[RH Draney]

Post by Joy Beeson
I strongly feel that *all* titles should be used only when they are
relevant. I'm particularly offended when junk mail attaches a random
honorific to my name.

RH ?

I suppose you're referring to my email address?...that comes from a
nickname I was given by a fellow employee who made a practice of such
things...at least one other cow-orker heard it and thought I actually
possessed a doctorate....r

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Joy Beeson
I strongly feel that *all* titles should be used only when they are
relevant. I'm particularly offended when junk mail attaches a random
honorific to my name.

RH ?

Right Honorable.

Post by RH Draney
I suppose you're referring to my email address?...that comes from a
nickname I was given by a fellow employee who made a practice of such
things...at least one other cow-orker heard it and thought I actually
possessed a doctorate....r

oh.

[Neill Massello]

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

It used to be considered pretentious for someone who held a PhD but was not a
medical doctor to use the title "Doctor". It still reminds me of a cartoon in
The New Yorker from many years ago. In a "call a doctor" moment, a group of
people surround a man who has passed out. At the edge of the circle, a woman
says, "My son's an anthropologist."

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-joseph-epstein-northwestern/index.html
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you-need-an-m-d-11607727380
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

It used to be considered pretentious for someone who held a PhD but was not a
medical doctor to use the title "Doctor". It still reminds me of a cartoon in
The New Yorker from many years ago. In a "call a doctor" moment, a group of
people surround a man who has passed out. At the edge of the circle, a woman
says, "My son's an anthropologist."

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that I had read that in Germany the
title "Herr/Frau Doktor" was for people with academic doctorates, while
medical practitioners were called "Artzt/Aertztin."

I don't know whether it is still the case, but not so long ago in the UK
and Australia the standard medical degrees for medical practitioners
were MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery) -- no "Doctor" in
the degree names at all -- and taking six years after high school.

Perce

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Neill Massello

Post by Tony Cooper
Dunno if this story has received much attention.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/jill-biden-dr-first-lady-op-ed-josep

h-epstein-northwestern/index.html

Post by Neill Massello

Post by Tony Cooper
In summary, the _Wall Street Journal_ published an op-ed piece
castigating President-Elect Biden's wife Jill from using "Dr" because
she is not a medical doctor.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-white-house-not-if-you

-need-an-m-d-11607727380

Post by Neill Massello

Post by Tony Cooper
Only part because the WSJ wants you to pay to read their online
content.

It used to be considered pretentious for someone who held a PhD but was not a
medical doctor to use the title "Doctor". It still reminds me of a cartoon in
The New Yorker from many years ago. In a "call a doctor" moment, a group of
people surround a man who has passed out. At the edge of the circle, a woman
says, "My son's an anthropologist."

Customs vary. In these parts a medical practioneer
gets the univerity title of 'arts' and is not allowed
to call himself a Doctor.
For that he must obtain a Doctorate,

Jan