New Post
Search
HelpDennian
This made it into my top ten for the month, just looking for thoughts. Would you spell it any differently? How about Denny as a NN? I use to hate it but now I think it's kind of sweet, but will the restaurant be too immediate an association?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I'm guessing you want it said "Denny-in"? Dennian seems the most logical spelling. Denny is a cute nickname :) Is it a mashup name?
I don't think the restaurant would be a huge issue... but then, I am not American.
I don't think the restaurant would be a huge issue... but then, I am not American.
1
I like it. I don't have any association but it does remind me of Damian
1
I TOTALLY associate it with the restaruant! lol
1
Ahh, now that I have RequestPolicy I can read your posts without having to look at those photographs of that child.
Dennian sounds like a word coined to describe the people who patronize Denny's.
It also sounds like denizen.
If it's made-up, how about Denyon. I'm OK with that. It seems more surnamey and less alien-race-y.
Denny is a decent name, and I don't think the restaurant ruins it. It only ruins Dennian because Dennian is strange enough to make me wonder, what is that? and the restaurant is the only thing that comes to mind.
Dennian sounds like a word coined to describe the people who patronize Denny's.
It also sounds like denizen.
If it's made-up, how about Denyon. I'm OK with that. It seems more surnamey and less alien-race-y.
Denny is a decent name, and I don't think the restaurant ruins it. It only ruins Dennian because Dennian is strange enough to make me wonder, what is that? and the restaurant is the only thing that comes to mind.
1
It's an add-on for Firefox that prevents the webpage from requesting and loading any content from other sites.
It can be inconvenient because a lot of pages are chock full of cross-site content - the entire page basically. And I have to enable requests any time I want to see photos here. But that's not very often, and it's just one click.
It can be inconvenient because a lot of pages are chock full of cross-site content - the entire page basically. And I have to enable requests any time I want to see photos here. But that's not very often, and it's just one click.
1
Why? He's cute :)
1
It's just a really big signature, dude!
1
Sorry. I'm always using the site from my phone so I guess it's never seemed that big to me. Plus I just love all of his expressions. Babies are so honest with their feelings.
1
Agree. It's huge. Never said anything because it became the signature after some royal baby related threads involving me being very tired of the royal babies and I didn't want to start anymore nonsense with Ismene, but it's a really big signature.
1
Yep. I wouldn't mind it if it was like, half its current size. Right now it's unreasonably gigantic.
1
Brutal honesty.
He's an infant, he's not a public persona, and it's just wrong to have pictures of a child that isn't yours in your signature. It really, really bugs me. Famous or not I wouldn't be happy that random people on the Internet were using pictures of my son on their signatures on message boards.
He's an infant, he's not a public persona, and it's just wrong to have pictures of a child that isn't yours in your signature. It really, really bugs me. Famous or not I wouldn't be happy that random people on the Internet were using pictures of my son on their signatures on message boards.
1
Also
What about all those Anne Geddes baby pics that were particularly popular in the late 90s? Those were massed produced into calendars that hung in thousands of people homes. It's the choice of the parent whether they put their child in the public eye. While being royalty isn't exactly "chosen," the repercussions should be well known if you're joining the family, and then procreating. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
What about all those Anne Geddes baby pics that were particularly popular in the late 90s? Those were massed produced into calendars that hung in thousands of people homes. It's the choice of the parent whether they put their child in the public eye. While being royalty isn't exactly "chosen," the repercussions should be well known if you're joining the family, and then procreating. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 10:01 AM
1
His being an infant (actually he is no longer an infant) doesn't preclude the possibility of his being a public persona. He is a public persona, as all royals are from the times of their births.
I'm a big defender of royalty, but one thing I do believe is that they give up certain things in exchange for their privilege, and one of the things they do give up is a certain level of privacy that most of us mere mortals are able to enjoy.
I'm a big defender of royalty, but one thing I do believe is that they give up certain things in exchange for their privilege, and one of the things they do give up is a certain level of privacy that most of us mere mortals are able to enjoy.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 8:20 AM
1
I agree. Same goes for celebrity kids.
And plenty of people put their young babies into acting where they are exposed to the wider public daily. I don't really see the difference between using a picture of a royal baby, or some stock baby photo picked from Google.
And plenty of people put their young babies into acting where they are exposed to the wider public daily. I don't really see the difference between using a picture of a royal baby, or some stock baby photo picked from Google.
This message was edited 3/10/2016, 9:54 AM
1
I dig the signature.
1
Me too. I remember it got changed for a very brief moment and I felt a strange sense of loss.
1
Yes. Thank you. I did remove it not too long ago and a few people lamented. I like seeing all his expressions. Especially the top right one- I hear baby squeals everytime.
1