So does that mean Stu that your default position is that no-one is worthy of your "respect" until you they have satisfied your criteria? Therefore it is reasonable to assume that you consider your attitude, point of view and judgement on all things superior to anyone else's. And no it is not "what a person is like that matters" - that is not what you are saying - the rule you seem to running on is that you think that it is whether the person thinks and acts in a manner that suits YOUR rules is what matters - to you.

A more reasonable position to take would be that all are to be considered worthy of "respect" until they prove otherwise - that covers respect on a personal level. When it comes to interface with certain professions respect should be shown to people due to their position, qualifications and experience, that should be done out of common courtesy and good manners. Or are you the type who if in Court would address the Judge as "Mate" just to make the point of not showing due deference? Someone did that the other day and found out to his cost that it certainly did not pay, he, and you, might think that you are making a point when in fact all you are doing is showing your immaturity by being pig ignorant and boorishly arrogant.