From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 On 12 Aug 2025 at 16:32:37 BST, "JNugent"  wrote: 
  
 > On 12/08/2025 01:17 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >> On 12 Aug 2025 at 10:17:12 BST, "JNugent"  wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 11/08/2025 07:40 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 14:38:00 BST, "Jethro_uk"  
 wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> Assuming there is no power granted to the police by parliament to 
 demand 
 >>>>> the details described below, how does one respectfully - but firmly - 
 >>>>> decline. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/first-it-was-clarkson-now- 
 >>>>> its-vance-spare-a-thought-for-the-beleaguered-cotswolds 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> quote 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> €€€We have had the police knocking on every door,€€€ said a dog walker 
 and 
 >>>>> resident of Dean, as a helicopter buzzed overhead. €€€They wanted the 
 names 
 >>>>> of everybody living there and details of their social media. I know 
 >>>>> several people refused. We asked them if they were protecting us, or 
 >>>>> Vance. At least they were honest and said it is for him and that it 
 will 
 >>>>> all be passed on to the American security people.€€€ 
 >> 
 >>>>> unquote 
 >> 
 >>>> Of course I would always be polite, but *respectful* - why? 
 >> 
 >>> To individuals. 
 >> 
 >>> Do unto others, etc. 
 >> 
 >>> It applies to the barman, the doctor's receptionist, the man who will 
 >>> fix your car... and a police officer. 
 >> 
 >> Respectful has a different connotation to politeness. 
 > 
 > Why would you not be respectful to a professional whose services you 
 > require? Or to anyone else? Are they all your social inferiors? 
 > 
 > As to your statement, no, not all that much. The key to politeness lies 
 > in not conducting oneself so as to imply that one's interlocutor is in 
 > any sense inferior to, or less deserving of, politeness AND respect for 
 > his person that one's self. 
 > 
 >> I would be polite to all 
 >> of the above, but in no case treat them as superiors to whom I owe 
 respect. 
 > 
 > I'm not at all sure you are referring to the correct definition for 
 > "respect". It has meanings at various levels, but does not necessarily 
 > imply subservience. 
 > 
 > I don't have a subscription to the OED, but a Google search for the OED 
 > denition(s) provides the following: 
 > 
 > QUOTE: 
 > Oxford Dictionary defines RESPECT as: 
 > /r€€€€spekt/(noun) 
 > 1. A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by 
 > their abilities, qualities, or achievements. 
 > 2. Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others. 
 > ENDQUOTE 
 > 
 > Number 2 covers what I was referring to. 
 > 
 > The simpler way is to remember: "Do unto others...". 
 > 
 > And as it happens, I understand that "disrespect" is regarded as a sin - 
 > in some cases a mortal one (literally) - among the kids on the street. 
 > 
 >> Are you using it in some kind of American sense, where it seems to have 
 >> replaced politeness as a word? 
 > 
 > No, in the OED "sense". See above. 
 > 
 > Are you using it in some kind of right-on sense, where it implies and 
 > necessarily imports a personal sense of inferiority? 
 > 
 > Would you regard it as an impugning of manhood for anyone to be expected 
 > to respect a police officer asking him a few questions? 
  
 Probably you are right and I am merely behind the times about the meaning of 
 the word. Not for the first time. I really miss "gay" too. But the American 
 meaning 2. seems to have taken over in the OED. In my day a servan showed 
 respect for their master. 
  
  
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)