[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[OT] 'real'-names vs. nicks (was Re: Proposal: /etc/friendlynames)

Hash: SHA1

On 2004-03-26 15:17, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Number Six (40311.nospam@comcast.net) [040326 14:55]:
> > If you don't like it, don't use it.  The default will be what you want.
> My default is to ignore people without a real name.

Name (according to gcide)
   1. The title by which any person or thing is known or
      designated; a distinctive specific appellation, whether of
      an individual or a class.
      [1913 Webster]

Personally I prefer to use my screenname and not my 'real' name when online, 
in my experience it is _more_ distinctive (I remember searching on the 
icq-site for my icq-number back some years back, there where 6 other 
Belgians named 'Bart Cornelis', I have yet to run into another 'cobaco')

What makes a name real (in my eyes) is the fact that it clearly designates 1 
specific person, whether the particular name is recognized and archived by 
your respective government is completely irrelevant for most all practical 
purposes (legal matters being the only exception I can think of).
- -- 
Cheers, cobaco
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
    format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: