View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Um . . .
in reply to a message by Mar
Giving it in reference to state doesn't change anything. I think you misunderstood my reason for not liking it.Anyone who has read any number of my posts would know that I don't like word names. I don't much care for place names, virtue names, flower names, etc., so why would I treat a tribe name any differently? Unless you're confusing mine and Array's replies with the replies about it being disrespectful, I don't see any reason to argue this point. I didn't say it was disrespectful, or that the characteristics of the tribe render it unusuable; I wouldn't use it because it is a word "name," the name of a tribe. I don't like Brooklyn, London, Boston, Cheyenne, Grace, etc., etc., and I classify Dakota as such.And no, I don't particularly like Norman, Saxon or Frank; their sounds are unappealing. Francis is nice, though.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

Yes, I put it in the wrong place. But I meant it to everyone who dittoed as well, to people who see it that being a tribe is a reason not to use it, but then don't have a problem with a name like Norman. If you don't like any word names, that's a good reason to me not to like Dakota, but I find it hypocritical if people have problems word-names and with one word name 'Dakota' tehy say do't liek it because of this and then in the next post say that they think 'River' is cute... Like I said if you never like any word-names, ad this qualifies, I have no problems with that. (sorry I put it in the wrong place!)
vote up1
i think she might have meant Array or the ones opposing the name not sure

This message was edited 1/20/2007, 7:45 PM

vote up1