That's certainly the dumbest moniker ever, and I'm surprised that it got through... This being said, I am still a new member and not yet familiar with all spoken and unspoken rules and I may be over reacting.
Wikipedia According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by a government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Global Forums > General > New member: Genocide
Only members can see names and photos
New member: Genocide
Apr 27, 2008 @ 02:06
The text you are quoting:
That's certainly the dumbest moniker ever, and I'm surprised that it got through... This being said, I am still a new member and not yet familiar with all spoken and unspoken rules and I may be over reacting.
Wikipedia According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by a government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
FreeApr 27, 2008 @ 02:06
Wikipedia According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by a government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
FreeApr 27, 2008 @ 02:06
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 1
Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:03
You raise an excellent point, Free. I would like to hear the views of the moderators on this issue. Are there guidelines for moniker approval?
The text you are quoting:
You raise an excellent point, Free. I would like to hear the views of the moderators on this issue. Are there guidelines for moniker approval?
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:03
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:03
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 2
Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:08
And I note there was also a "swati.kr" approved as well. What are the limits of monikers on Glocals?
The text you are quoting:
And I note there was also a "swati.kr" approved as well. What are the limits of monikers on Glocals?
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:08
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 03:08
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 3
Apr 27, 2008 @ 09:55
Swati is a rather common name in India, Swati.kr would simply be some initials, I am not sure that is exactly a problem.
The user looks to be from India and speaks Hindi as well, I'd not think anything of this.
Of course I work with Indians daily and know the name Swati quite well, I know some would not realize this.
The text you are quoting:
Swati is a rather common name in India, Swati.kr would simply be some initials, I am not sure that is exactly a problem.
The user looks to be from India and speaks Hindi as well, I'd not think anything of this.
Of course I work with Indians daily and know the name Swati quite well, I know some would not realize this.
StephenSQL, Apr 27, 2008 @ 09:55
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 4
Apr 27, 2008 @ 10:58
Hi guys
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
While Swati might be a common name in India, I really cannot see any reason for using Genocide as a username.
I am in contact with this member, and hope to have this settled soon.
Thanks again
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hi guys
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
While Swati might be a common name in India, I really cannot see any reason for using Genocide as a username.
I am in contact with this member, and hope to have this settled soon.
Thanks again
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Apr 27, 2008 @ 10:58
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 5
Apr 27, 2008 @ 11:42
Thanks to StephenSQL for the clarification and education. :cool:
The text you are quoting:
Thanks to StephenSQL for the clarification and education. :cool:
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 11:42
Translator, Apr 27, 2008 @ 11:42
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 6
Apr 28, 2008 @ 10:52
I have never seen this happen on another forum.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide.
Maybe it's the name of his favourite Norwegian death metal band?
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's?
[*] I got the name from a comedy show. It's rated 15 in the UK. Since Glocals members are all 23 or older, it's OK, right?
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide.
Maybe it's the name of his favourite Norwegian death metal band?
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's?
[*] I got the name from a comedy show. It's rated 15 in the UK. Since Glocals members are all 23 or older, it's OK, right?
The text you are quoting:
I have never seen this happen on another forum.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide.
Maybe it's the name of his favourite Norwegian death metal band?
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's?
[*] I got the name from a comedy show. It's rated 15 in the UK. Since Glocals members are all 23 or older, it's OK, right?
hayes, Apr 28, 2008 @ 10:52
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide.
Maybe it's the name of his favourite Norwegian death metal band?
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's?
[*] I got the name from a comedy show. It's rated 15 in the UK. Since Glocals members are all 23 or older, it's OK, right?
hayes, Apr 28, 2008 @ 10:52
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 7
Apr 28, 2008 @ 10:53
Hi guys
I spoke with member Genocide, and he assured me that he did not mean to offend or insult anyone, and was more than happy to change his username.
Thanks alot for the heads up.
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hi guys
I spoke with member Genocide, and he assured me that he did not mean to offend or insult anyone, and was more than happy to change his username.
Thanks alot for the heads up.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Apr 28, 2008 @ 10:53
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: New member: Genocide
Post 8
May 1, 2008 @ 16:58
[quote]I have never seen this happen on another forum.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide....
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's? [/quote]
"a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The point is that whether it can be given a benign definition or not, it is still a word that in most instances is offensive to most people. Although it seems silly to ban a person if they insist on using an appelation that is offensive, I feel that they should be told that it may cause significant offence and is not in their best interests to use. Unless of course they are joining and using the name specifically to cause offence. In which case they should be banned.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide....
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's? [/quote]
"a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The point is that whether it can be given a benign definition or not, it is still a word that in most instances is offensive to most people. Although it seems silly to ban a person if they insist on using an appelation that is offensive, I feel that they should be told that it may cause significant offence and is not in their best interests to use. Unless of course they are joining and using the name specifically to cause offence. In which case they should be banned.
The text you are quoting:
[quote]I have never seen this happen on another forum.
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide....
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's? [/quote]
"a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The point is that whether it can be given a benign definition or not, it is still a word that in most instances is offensive to most people. Although it seems silly to ban a person if they insist on using an appelation that is offensive, I feel that they should be told that it may cause significant offence and is not in their best interests to use. Unless of course they are joining and using the name specifically to cause offence. In which case they should be banned.
Maplady, May 1, 2008 @ 16:58
If you take the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition from Free's post to the letter, and strip out the bits that don't support your point, you arrive at the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political group. Surely there could be any number of examples of pretty excellent genocide. No? You could even envisage some pretty peaceful genocide....
Seriously though, when DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes[*] signs up for Glocals.com, what's the issue? So someone picks an idiotic name. If it was actually true that they had, or were planning to, skewer a load of newborns it's a pretty dumbass idea to give it away on an internet forum. Maybe it wouldn't even be representative of their character. They may not even think it was a good idea at all. Hell, maybe they wouldn't even be a real doctor? If they actually want to meet people, interact on the forum or sell their spikes in the Market Place, they might at some point realise it's not going so well for them. Eventually someone may subtly hint at the fact that the name DrPutsBabiesOnSpikes is not helping them to integrate. Surely that's their lookout, not anybody else's? [/quote]
"a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The point is that whether it can be given a benign definition or not, it is still a word that in most instances is offensive to most people. Although it seems silly to ban a person if they insist on using an appelation that is offensive, I feel that they should be told that it may cause significant offence and is not in their best interests to use. Unless of course they are joining and using the name specifically to cause offence. In which case they should be banned.
Maplady, May 1, 2008 @ 16:58
Your Reply:
