This is a local sydenham forum, so I would have thought there's a good case for posters being required to reveal their real names. I do. Tim does. Lee, Annie and Stuart do.
I wonder whether some of the posters on here would be so antagonistic under their own names. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be so face to face. Certainly I've never come across hostility at any of the sydenham assemblies, where people are inevitably polite, listen to different points of view and can debate issues in a good spirit.
I think we need to be encouraging non sydenham residents who might stumble across this forum to see the town and its residents in a more positive and welcoming light and posting under our own names could only be a help.
I'm going to make it a personal rule from now on only to respond to those who want an argument when they're not hiding behind an alias.
Mr_Sheen wrote:I don't believe mck is your surname so I refuse to acknowledge any future posts. And yes, Sheen IS my surname.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
And that if course Mr Sheen is entirely your prerogative. Whatever your Christian name happens to be. I don't believe it is Mr. I have revealed my surname in this forum before now. For your full enlightenment, it is McKernan.
I will of course continue to respond and answer questions from any visitors to this forum. What I won't do is respond to those who just want to have a tit for tat argument whilst hiding their real names.
I don't know Stuart's surname BTW, but I'm pretty sure Stuart is not an alias. Same goes for Annie and Rachael. I never said "full names", I said "real names".
But in fact I'd even be happy with people's silly aliases, if we could look up their real names on their profile page.
How about this as a solution that works on another,albeit paid, site of which I'm a member? Anyone can view the forum discussions, but all names are obscured. To view names one must log on, only real names are used on the site. Admin is clearly a clever chap with computers, so I am sure he could set this up quite easily. This method certainly cleaned up the other website, as people became much more responsible and less mocking in their comments.
Whilst I can partly understand how Christian name may cause offence , not sure how surname could??????
Family names are not always last names. I've always associated sur names with sire or father's names. But maybe that's my lack of understanding. All I know is that at the BBC you're told to use the words personal and family names, so as not to cause offence to any creed or culture. I thought it safest to stick with that.
Don't respond to Eagle's comments, Mary. He isn't really an eagle.
I don't find much personal antagonism on this forum, whatever people's names. Some posters recently have been on the brink of getting sneery but have, I think, pulled back. The discussion that most recently got personal was between two members who use both their personal and family names, so using real names doesn't always make things more civilised. When things get really nasty, admin steps in pretty promptly.
marymck wrote:
Family names are not always last names. I've always associated sur names with sire or father's names. [...]. All I know is that at the BBC you're told to use the words personal and family names, so as not to cause offence to any creed or culture. I thought it safest to stick with that.
Interesting. My dictionary says that 'surname' is in fact nothing to so with 'sire' - the 'sur' is from the French for 'on', so a surname is one you 'add on' to your personal name. Although in modern English usage it is equivalent to 'family name', this has not always been the case. At one time it could mean a (non-hereditary) 'nickname', as in the Authorised Version of the Bible - 'Simon whose surname is Peter' (Acts 10:5).
I would imagine that the word 'surname' would be ambiguous to the point of uselessness in many non-English systems of personal nomenclature, so I can see why 'family name' would be preferred. (On the other hand, I'm not sure whether 'family names' are commonly used for distinguishing individuals in e.g. Arabic. Abu Hamza? Osama bin Laden? And what about the Icelandic system of patronymics, where Jon's son's last name would be 'Jonsson' and his daughter's would be 'Jonsdottir' - real 'sir names'?)
That's really interesting robin thank you. I was completely wrong about the sur in surname and am glad to know the truth. In some countries people have only one name and the Spanish seem to have lots. Trying to be PC seems to do me no good at all. I guess unless Mr Sheen's parents were also non Christian, he may have had a Christian name at first.
On a slightly different tack, it was a bit of a shock to me when I was in Cuba to be told that che's real name was Jim and that che meant "hey you". So I think of che now as "hey you, jimmy" and (very non PC) always in a Scottish accent.
My parents' religion is irrelevant. I was never christened/baptised/forced into any religious fold, therefore I don't have and never have had a Christian name.
Mr_Sheen wrote:My parents' religion is irrelevant. I was never christened/baptised/forced into any religious fold, therefore I don't have and never have had a Christian name.
Mary, don't apologise, you didn't mean any offence,everyone knows that,this is a Christian country and therefore it is easy to assume everyone has a Christian name,he is just trying to upset you.
Mary, there's no need to apologise, I didn't take offence. Annie, please don't jump down my throat. I was not trying to antagonise, I was merely pointing out that the term is not a 'fits all' one. I'm not going to argue the point with you.
