Very Important Poll Question for All Posters!

The resting place of threads that were very valid in 2004, but not so much in 2024. Basically this is a giant historical archive.


Post Reply

Should Baptismal or legal names be required for everyone?

Poll ended at Fri 30 September 2005 7:22 pm

Absolutely. Either the name or a derivative of the Baptismal/legal name.

19
36%

Absolutely. But not nick-names (i.e. Tom should be Thomas) please!

8
15%

No way! I do not want people knowing my Baptismal/Legal name, or what religion I am!

14
26%

I have no opinion.

12
23%
 
Total votes: 53

Anastasios
Sr Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Anastasios »

Justin Kissel wrote:

Some who might be considering traditionalism and might want to ask questions discreetly will be turned off by this rule.

Quite the contrary, I think such a constrictive rule is a perfect introduction to the realities of the online traditionalist world view. If they are intersted in traditionalism (the online kind anyway), then they better get used to changing their whole life around in the pursuit of correctness! :)

Why are you shutting down your site? You should leave it up for other people who might benefit from it.

Anastasios
(Actually attended a GOC parish for over a year, and still would if he didn't have to move to N. Carolina for the time being).

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

I'll PM you... :)

User avatar
Joe Zollars
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed 30 October 2002 5:16 pm
Location: Podunk, Kansas
Contact:

Post by Joe Zollars »

though obviously I haven't been careful with it, in today's day and age of internet fraud and identity theft, I don't think it is a good idea to force someone to use their "legal or baptismal" names. I can see the anti-trolling benefits of this, but I believe the dangers outweigh the concerns.

Joe

User avatar
Aristokles
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri 28 November 2003 5:57 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Contact:

Post by Aristokles »

Ridiculous.

Although I have always liked an optional religion/church designation, this does not appeal to me. I voted 'No opinion' because I don't mind the church label, but see no point in the name-thing.

Δημητριος, Demetrios, dimitrios, Demetrio, Demetru, Dmitri, Demetri, Mitya... :roll:

Katina
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue 21 December 2004 8:27 am
Location: US/Canada

Post by Katina »

I voted no opinion. My only concern is that there are probably a number of users with the same baptismal name. Perhaps rather than a user name tied to our baptismal name, the baptismal name could be indicated in the signature?

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

I agree with using our baptismal names and derivitive. I don't agree with the example of "Tom" as being wrong. This, I see, as the derivitive name of Thomas, just as "Katia" is to Katherine or "Kolya" for Nicolai, or "Costa" is to Constantine. I can go on and on.

Just for clarification: Joasia is Polish for Joanna (it's my derivitive name, since Yoanna is the proper name). If I was Italian, I would have signed-in as Giovanna.

I think that our jurisdictional identification is too much to ask for. Besides, we usually volunteer that info in our "discussions".

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
Nikodemus
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu 7 April 2005 7:28 am
Location: Stockholm

Post by Nikodemus »

I can change to my baptismal name. No problem.

AMDG was short for Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

But of corurse I can change

Exact science must presently fall upon its own keen sword...from Skepsis there is a path to "second religiousness," which is the sequel and not the preface of the Culture.

Oswald Spengler

Post Reply