No one promised the evolution to a voluntary society would be done without offending anyone. In some cases that’s the point.

I’m not interested the least bit in bending my message. I constantly look for ways to adapt my message to reach more people. I just got a friend request via youtube from a flag waving military member who is on a tank crew in Iraq. A subtle hint that my message is just beginning to reach into the mainstream. I will continue identifying government entities as they are, private corporations.

P.S. There is a role for the government; it is as an organization on the free market providing services on a voluntary basis.

Conventions change over time. I remember reading that it was improper to address a former president as “President”, that only the sitting president should be so addressed. But I think Bill Clinton would be taken aback of somebody addressed him these days as “Governor Clinton.”

It’s all about effective communication. You could bend once in a while.

My mind is not subject to government bondage. It’s just that I accept a role for government, and you don’t.

I’m not a member of the US armed forces or any police department. I also don’t refer to corporate clients by their tile, like Director Scott, or Cheif Executive officer Williams. I call them Mr. Scott and Mr. Williams, and that’s common practice in the private sector. Why is it government does this? Why does government attempt to merge a man’s title or position with the man?

I appreciate your suggestion to “just play along” and “follow the rules”. Of course by the rules you mean the government’s rules.

Do you think calling my perspective an “ideological bent”, my be construed as equally offensive?

I hope you one day find the courage to free you mind from government bondage. When you do, you will become a powerful agent for change.

But I wish you could bring yourselves to refer to people by their customary titles, in this case “Lieutenant Maxfield” instead of “Mister Maxfield,” as you put it in print captions and the final spoken statement. I think I understand your ideological reason, but it strikes me as disrespectful and, frankly, juvenile.

I reminds me of when I was a college kid working in a NH resort dining room, and the local Catholic priest had breakfast there every Sunday after saying Mass in the hotel ballroom. I actually avoided his table because I knew I would be expected to address him as “Father”, and I was not (and still am not) Catholic and he was not my actual father.

Eventually I matured and came to realize that using a customary title was simply a sign of personal respect for the individual, and did not imply that I agreed with that person’s organization or belief system.