J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
OK. I think on this one, I am reminded of the refrain, "East is East,
and West is West, and never the twain shall meet". :-) Which seems
ironically applicable here. I will conclude by just saying that I don't
feel you honor the source by using their name, but instead, are just
honoring yourself, unless, of course, it really is your name. But that's
just the way I see it.
I think I'll agree to disagree too, and thus cease argument (which has
been conducted with politeness, which makes a nice change), though I
incline more to Rudy's view more than yours. But I just thought, as a
parting shot, I'd try https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl, a
resource I use a lot for UK genealogy, and I can tell you that, between
1837 (actually first 1853, but the records go from 1837) and 1964
(FreeBMD's records actually go up to 199x), there were at least 65
Ernest Hemingway births registered in the UK; I imagine several are till
alive. (No Mark Twains though.)

Just to be clear, IF my name were Ernest Hemingway, that would be fine. But
it's not. I could sign myself as Ernest Hemingway, but to me, that's being
disrespectful of him and his memory, because as I see it, I'm stealing his
identity for myself, as if it were my own. Pretending I am an Ernest
Hemingway since I signed my name that way, and wanting the recognition that
goes along with it. At any rate, that's just how I see it.