View Message

I think Jane is gorgeous. It's classic, timeless and like you said it's simple and classy.

I like it for the same reasons as you. Also think it's ageless

I think Jane is pretty enough. It is certainly simple and classy, but it just doesn't do it for me. I prefer Joan for a feminized version of John.

Boring and without much charm.

It's bland and boring and colorless and without character. All it has is its age and it coasts on that.

I think it's utterly boring. Classic? Yes. Overused? Yes. Plain? Yes. As far as it being ugly, eh, that could go either way for me.

I think Jane is beautiful.

I said "straightforward and plain without being ugly - like Jane and Ruth and Gail."
This means I think Jane is not ugly.
I guess there must be a grammatical error there, because I can see how it might be ambiguous. I should have put "it's" after the dash.

I don't think it's ugly, and I would never argue that it's not simple and classy. But I don't like it because it is very generic to me, as a result of centuries of overuse.

---

ETA: You misread that comment. It said Jane is straightforward and plain without being ugly.

This message was edited 3/16/2016, 11:41 AM

I like the simple classiness of it too. I used to think nothing of it, until I met a toddler named Jane and it just struck me as really chic (I guess) and pretty. I'm more inclined to use it as a mn, but it'd be a pleasant surprise to see it on another little kid.