Sender: Moxxie
Subject: re: Armaments, traditions, and customs, vis-a-vis names

Reverein, I need a little help in resolving a minor dispute on a matter of opinion. And weapons.

Namely, the naming thereof.

Now, I've always had a mind for the classics in both music and literature, and giving a weapon a name all its own is a way of establishing personal significance, identity, and legacy, to say nothing of gravitas in recognition of or anticipation of the deeds ascribed to it. What, pray tell, would be Der Ring des Nibelungen without Nothung, the accursed sword of Siegfried? What would be the Arthurian legends without Excalibur or La Chanson de Roland without Durandal?

I would assert, therefore, that the practice is timeless, and has a well-earned place in the modern day, and with modern weaponry besides; that something like, for example, a shotgun can have enough significance to its wielder and within its deeds that it is no less worthy of being given a name than the weapons of old.

HOWEVER, in contrast, a certain colleague of mine does not share my views on this matter and describes the entire practice as, and I quote them directly,

"Cringe, T B H".

Which to me not only shows a lack of dramatic appreciation but also ignorance of the proud tradition upheld by the act of doing so. Thus I put it to a vote in a public forum before my fellow dreamers:

Is the practice of naming weapons really just a relic of a bygone sentimentality, or is it a timeless practice honoring the tools of the world's second-oldest trade?