zlacker

>>galonk+(OP)
"Don’t people have any sense of humour these days?” asked one OOeN reader.

Another noted: “They’re getting free publicity – they ought to have been happy to have a funny name."

Free publicity that leads to sign posts being stolen. For a tiny village of 100 people, this is likely a serious hardship. If it isn't bringing in more money than it's costing them, it's an attractive nuisance, not free publicity.

>>Doreen+eb
Moreover, is it really so difficult to imagine that there are still people that don't like publicity these days?

>>teeker+YK
Yeah, I just cannot comprehend what is going on in this discussion. Is this the same HN that hates Facebook for all of its privacy issues? But the people in some small village somehow forfeited their right to privacy because a few hundred years ago it was named something that now sounds funny to people in a different language?

It's bizarre.

>>Doreen+rM
That’s nonsensical. Because the town’s name is mildly meme worthy, these people are forfeiting their right to privacy? Sorry, what? And how is Facebook even remotely related to this discussion?

>>read_i+rZ
I think you're mistreading the parent comment. And oddly too, because you do the same thing. You don't mean "these people are forfeiting their right to privacy" literally, do you? it's the opposite. Neither does the parent, it's a question, implied that the answer is "of course not!"

You made that even clearer with "Sorry, what?" but parent comment only make sense if that addendum is assumed.

>>Sidebu+kg1
Thanks for pointing that out, I see where you're coming from, but GP's other comments make it seem like a serious statement to me.