Naming A Kid 2.0
from the updating-our-naming-system dept
It's a bit gag-inducing, but a self-proclaimed geek somehow convinced his wife (against her better judgment) to name the newly born son of Jon Blake Cusack and Jamie Cusack as Jon Blake Cusack 2.0. Not Jr. Not II. 2.0. All I can think is what a poor kid - though, perhaps not in as unfortunate a position as the children named IUMA after a dot com publicity stunt gone bad. And, of course, there are all those other kids named after brands like Timberland and Camry. Now, once we get an IUMA 2.0... then, we're in trouble.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 6:55am
The 2.0 is probably appropriate as most fathers who name their children after themselves are hoping to raise a child that's everything they weren't, ie an enhanced version of themselves.
Feel sorry for the wife who didn't realize she married such an insecure geek who's only hope to redeem himself is through his children.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by Galley on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 7:33am
I couldn't have said it better myself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by alex on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 8:01am
So does that mean once the kid finish college he has to change his name to 2.56?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by PhuzzyLogic on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 8:04am
The Max he could be is 2.99, would hav eto name his son 3.0... :/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by alex on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 9:32am
Unless of course he has another son or daughter and have to namer him/her 3.0. I can only imagine what it would be like if he had triplets, quadruplets, etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Revisions by Beck on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 9:54am
After he has his tonsils removed does he become 2.0.1? Braces - 2.0.2 etc?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I kind of like it by Trag on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 11:21am
Look at it this way, It beats Jon Blake Cusack Junior, and doesn't sound as stuck up as Jon Blake Cusack II. At least it isn't a company buying the name for advertising space.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
2.0? Could be worse by Precision Blogger on Feb 2nd, 2004 @ 11:39am
First, NOBODY would want to be named John Smith 1.0, right? The initial version is always, well, you know.
Second, I wouldn't want to be John Smith 2.1 either. I'd hate to think what the ".1" might mean...
- Precision Blogger
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 2.0? Could be worse by Anonymous Coward on Feb 3rd, 2004 @ 11:11am
do i get to return my kid if I don't like the EULA he comes with ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment