What an awful headline for this story. She's a journalist and presenter on the Australian show WTFAQ. As an investigation for the show she decided to put the restrictions on baby names to the test. Based on the rules she expected the name to be rejected, but it was permitted and a birth certificate was issued. In her journalist capacity she contacted the department of births, deaths and marriages and got a statement from them and they agreed that the issue was an oversight, and they offered to change the name. So in reality the exact opposite to "promoting government response" occurred.
Damn, that's some serious click-baiting. Appreciate the breakdown.
What an awful headline for this story. She's a journalist and presenter on the Australian show WTFAQ. As an investigation for the show she decided to put the restrictions on baby names to the test. Based on the rules she expected the name to be rejected, but it was permitted and a birth certificate was issued. In her journalist capacity she contacted the department of births, deaths and marriages and got a statement from them and they agreed that the issue was an oversight, and they offered to change the name. So in reality the exact opposite to "promoting government response" occurred.
Damn, that's some serious click-baiting. Appreciate the breakdown.
Dr. Marijuana Pepsi might have something to say.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Pepsi_Vandyck
The best part:
Few people are more qualified than someone who grew up with that name and the burden it carries, so I find it quite adequate.
Why not go with a nice traditional name like Methany or Merimeth?
Because it's a boy, silly. Obviously, his name would be Metthew or maybe Metthias.
I prefer Walt. Or Whalteeeeer.
I'm not saying this article is bullshit, but most anthony it of the New York Post is bullshit
Got to admit, I anthonied it, too.
The most.
At the moment, mother and son have the same number of teeth.