>
> Now as much as I like the individualistic spirit of the parents who give their children such names, it's really more of a hassle than it may at first seem. Often it's impossible to just take a wild guess at the spelling of someone's name, and instead we have to resort to asking a series of ridiculous-sounding questions regarding exactly how it's spelled. If we do just take the most obvious guess at the spelling, it's bound to be wrong, and the person in question may become rather annoyed at having their name misspelled, especially when it's done repeatedly. That's not a bad thing for a name that already has several well-established variations ("Catherine", for instance), but seriously-- there should be some sort of limit to it.
>
> -- codeman"oh yeah, and I've even seen a Jhon or two"38

It's kinda problematic. I mean, I could not agree with you anymore. On the other hand, it just seems so far out to actually make a big issue (and regulations) of it.

mode=wishful thinking.

It shouldn't be like that. One would think that people had better things to do than cook up 'interesting' names for their children. It's not as if they'll ever gain anything positive from it. Individualism for individualism's sake achieves nothing.

mode=rant.

I imagine that this might be a subject where some people might invoke the "I have the right to ..." argument, and it would be impossible to disagree. However, I think this - the argument - would be sheer disrespect for one's ancestors. There have been generations who have fought and died for various honourable rights. They earned theese rights for their descendants, so that they should not have to earn them for themselves. I find that these rights are degraded when "I have a right to ..." is invoked for relatively trivial reasons. On the other hand, it shouldn't be necessary to argue like that!

mode=old geezer.

Is that what the world is coming to?

jul"chest feels lighter now"ian

mode=rinkforum brand of serious, resourceful and often zany interestability