Roy Harding said:
Your etymological lesson is quite correct regarding the word "honorific" - perhaps I should have used the word "title".
That aside - are you saying that MDs, et al should NOT be termed "Doctors"?
I thought it was an interesting tidbit to go with the doctor-non doctor comment earlier in the thread. Like the old saw - what is the difference between God and a MD? God doesn't think he is an MD.
Whether Dr. is an honorific, title, designation or whatever is open for discussion. Id est, Dr. Layton regardless of his statements or your agreement with them, has earned his PhD and the right to the designation Dr.
An MD is literally a teacher of medicine whereas a PhD, as stated previously, is a teacher of teachers. Oddly few hold both degrees and they are Dr. Smith, MD or Dr. Smith, PhD or Dr. Dr. Smith.
An MD practices medicine and his area of expertise can be very narrow. A PhD must study a wide variety of topics and research to earn their designation. My brother holds a PhD is Fisheries Biology (or as I like to call him - a fish gynecologist) and is known as Dr.
Roy,
If you wish you can call them Doctors for their social status (honorific) and to stroke their ego. In uniform we call them by rank or Dr. Whereas other forces call them LCol Dr. Smith and then we are right back to which type of Doctor are they.
Back to the original topic:
Politics is a messy battlefield during a minority government - but is it really shameful to state an unpopular declaration. Dr. Layton has led his party since 2003 and his party won 29 seats in 2006. The balance of power during a minority government relies on the topic of the day. Unless one side or the other calls for a vote of confidence, the mudslinging will continue. Although the opposition parties have not done so, neither has the ruling party put the question to a vote.