PMMJ (cheetahmaster) wrote,

The FAQ Question of the Day

Q: Shouldn't people have interesting names to distinguish themselves?
A: Would John Fitzgerald Kennedy be a more interesting person if he were named Dakota Ruger Kennedy?
Is "Marilyn Monroe" really more "unique" than "Norma Jean Baker"?
Would John, Paul, George and Ringo (ne Richard) have been worse musicians than Maverick, Taybree, Kason and Tom (ne Anakin)?

The ones who take already interesting names and "special" them up with odd spellings are the ones that really get my goat. They're hedging their bets too much. Funny part is, I've gotten some really nice comments from these same people, which, no joke, I really appreciate.

Q: You just don't like these names because they're new! Get with the times! In 50 years, won't names like Madison and Mackenzie be considered old fashioned!?
A: Yes, they'll be considered old-timey pretentious names instead of new and fashionable pretentious names.

Q: So what are your kids' names?
A: Don't have any, and don't have any names picked out for the future. Although I'm leaning toward a symbol that can't be pronounced, or maybe a series of high-pitched screeches.

Baby's Named a Bad, Bad Thing: A Primer on Parent Cruelty

  • lurching towards a finale

    2014 IN REVIEW: * Looking back: did anyone predict the foreign policy crises of the year ahead of time? * "The 10 Worst Civil Liberties Violations…

  • on the end of Serial season one

    "But the real pull of the show wasn't the promise of solving the mystery, it was seeing just how thick and convoluted the mystery became. Listening…

  • today's top read

    "I don't know what to do with good white people."

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment