Tim Sandefur takes exception to familiar address among bloggers who don’t know each other:
Can it really be that hard for people to understand that when you don’t know someone, it’s not proper to call him by his first name? There’s no way to point this out without sounding rude in today’s backslappingly Jacksonian ultraegalitarian world, but when I’m tired of ignoring it, and finally say something about it, all I get is a ration of crap. There’s nothing mean or uppity about the rule, folks, it’s just the rule. The rule is, if you don’t know someone, you call him Mr. Soandso, you don’t call him Jim or Bob or Bill—and if you’re publicly speaking to a third person about Mr. Soandso, you call him Mr. Soandso, even if you are on a first name basis with him.
I think that’s true to some extent, but in a lot of ways blogging is like a community—you get to know people in a different way (by reading their posts, rather than by interacting with them), perhaps, but I think it’s awkward to refer to someone whose blogging I read and respect (and hopefully vice versa) on a regular basis using formal pronouns and titles. Heck, there are a few bloggers I’ve never met who I consider friends (of course, there are also folks like Dean & Rosemary Esmay and Mike Hollihan and Len Cleavlin who I have met in person, though only because of blogging).
There is also a certain carryover from academe, where it is considered generally collegial to refer to eschew titles—the hierarchy is enforced in other, more subtle ways instead.
As far as I am concerned: I’m Chris (or Christopher if you’re my parents), and you may call me that, although I’ll certainly forgive, and wouldn’t dare correct, anyone who insists on “Doctor Lawrence” or the (technically incorrect, at least for now) “Professor Lawrence” for reasons of upbringing or an interest in maintaining the tu-vous distinction for other reasons.