Rocky Landing

Was Denver #1?

Yes. Marshall's statement is at least as much an insult to Cutler as it is a compliment to Orton.

A lot of hay has been made from from this Emory study. This is the second article to get its own thread tolling our sensibilities. And, we're rightly offended. The problem with this study, and the terms coined by its authors ("fan equity," is the most insidious), is that it is mixing disciplines for which I'm not sure they are qualified. These guys, Manish Tripathi, and Mike Lewis, are not sociologists, psychologists, or sports analysts. They are both Emory University professors with Ph.Ds in marketing, and that is the perspective to which they are contributing. Among other things, they are taking the term "fair weather fan," which has connotative, and denotative meanings, and using it as a marketing term, which applies to neither. And, as such, they are offensive to the fan bases they are callously, if inadvertently, denigrating. Buffalo fans can be forgiven if, in the years we don't have many stand-out performances, and have been eliminated from playoff contention in the first half of the season, we skip a game, or two, and don't buy as many jerseys. And, that is the only metric by which these authors are judging fandom-- by how reliably profitable we are. At any rate, if you really want to let these guys know how you feel about this study, and its implications for us, as fans, you can email them directly at: manish.tripathi@emory.edu mike.lewis@emory.edu

Well, it doesn't make any justifiable sense. Which is why it might happen.

A friend gave me and my wife each one of these jumps as a wedding gift. Where we went, you could pay a little extra money, and jump out of the plane with two guys holding onto you, and then you got to ride your own chute down solo. That seems like a much more dignified option. Wearing a guy looks a little weird.

That could certainly apply to either side of this debate. But, I think it says more about the person applying it than it does about the debate itself.

The arguments in this thread seem to have focused as much on misrepresenting the opposition, as they have representing their own points. So, here is a summation of the points that have led me to my conclusion that changing the name is the right thing for the Redskins organization to do. And, I have put them quiz form so that anyone can decide which points they would argue. True or False: While the origin of the term “redskin” is benign, by the end of the 19th century, it had become a pejorative. True or False: Native American organizations like the Oneida Nation and the National Congress of American Indians have stated emphatically that the term “redskin” is offensive to them. True or False: Since the early seventies, there have been numerous protests by Native American groups opposing the Redskins name. True or False: The “Redskins” trademark was cancelled on the grounds that it was “disparaging to Native Americans.” True or False: Trademark protections notwithstanding, the Redskins name is constitutionally protected free speech. True or False: In the 1930s (the Redskins were named in 1933), the United States media overwhelmingly portrayed Native Americans negatively as either violent savages, comically childish savages, or drunken savages. True or False: Native Americans were marginalized, driven from their lands, and slaughtered by this country’s European forebears, as well as the United States government, and military. I believe all seven of these points to be true, and fairly easily verifiable. If one accepts this premise, the name would seem in extremely poor taste, at best.

Such a case may not be as revealing as some are hoping. The content of Brady's texts, for example, may not necessarily be admissible.

Straw man argument. I associated the nation's capital with the US government, and the team with the nation's capital, which should be obvious. Please don't pretend that I was implying that the team represents the government. It's insulting to both our intelligence. Dan Snyder should, of his own free will, change the name of the team because it would be the right thing to do. That's my opinion, and I believe it to be rational, and well thought out. I haven't heard a single compelling argument to the contrary-- not one-- that is based on that simple opinion. The arguments I keep hearing are either based on points that are irrelevant to that opinion, or based on easily debunked, fake stats, many of which were propagated by Dan Snyder. No one is suggesting, for example, that anyone has "a right not to be offended." As I'm sure you remember, there was another thread on this topic, and you and I got into it. That whole thread was exhausting, and I don't feel like getting back into it. I'm not going to answer to any more straw man arguments, anecdotal stories, BS polls, or Dan Snyder press releases. There's no question that whether or not the name should be changed is a matter of opinion. But, please, argue the opinions that people are espousing.

Did I say there was? The Washington Redskins are associated with Washington, just as the Buffalo Bills are associated with Buffalo.

For anybody still arguing whether or not the term “redskin” is offensive to Native Americans, I suggest you visit the website of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), by far the largest, oldest, and most representative Native American organization, representing over 500 tribes, for the answer. (Hint: they do find it offensive.) From the State of Indian Nations address by NCAI president Brian Cladoosby in Washington DC, January, 2015, (http://www.ncai.org/resources/testimony/2015-state-of-indian-nations): “Let me be very clear: the single-most offensive name that you can call an American Indian is “Redskin.” But, personally, for me, a white guy of entirely European heritage, it isn’t a question of the name being offensive. It’s a question of it being an embarrassment. That an NFL team that makes its home in the nation’s capitol is named a perforative term for the native population that our European forbears, and our government, systematically drove out of their lands, marginalized, and slaughtered is a national embarrassment. To me, that seems so blatantly, mind-numbingly obvious, that I marvel that it needs to be argued.

But, they are posting a lot slower, since they have to type with one hand.

I have been working in set lighting in the motion picture industry in Los Angeles since 1991. There were some pretty lean years in the beginning of my career, and somewhere around '92, I accepted a job on a porn directed by the infamous "Dark Brothers," called New Wave Hookers IV. It was a four day shoot, in 16mm, which is an epic by porn standards. It was one of the most disgusting experiences of my life. Among other things, I was responsible for operating the "P light" (which I am told is called a "C light," these days). I used to wear contact lenses in those days, but switched to my glasses after the first day when the boom operator caught it in the eye. I can tell you that porn stars-- male, and female-- are a different breed of human. I can't even pretend to understand their mindset. But, I can say that they don't fit the stereotypes you would imagine. Most of the women seemed utterly normal, and ordinary when they arrived to set. I remember having a very pleasant conversation with a girl at the craft service table one morning, not realizing what her job was. A couple hours, and about a pound of makeup later, she was being double-penetrated by two dudes she had just met. This is work for these people. I also had a particularly weird conversation with the boyfriend of Christy Canyon, who was performing for a day. He was a chubby, hippie kind of guy, and nowhere near as good looking as the several, well-endowed, muscular men who were performing all over her, while he watched the monitor over the director's shoulder. I asked him if it bothered him. It did not. He was totally into it.

The link seems to not be functioning. But I read this story the other day, and was annoyed. Essentially, the author of the article (I don't remember who it was) quotes an anonymous NFL exec who said, "I'll take McCoy over Murray every time," and then proceeds to ridicule the opinion, and explain why it is wrong. It will be interesting to see how these two RBs fare in their respective new systems.

This is free publicity for her. How many reading this story just did a search for her on their favorite porn site? Her rate just went up.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. It's a grim fact of modern life, inconvenient though it may be.

No offense, but none of this gives you priority over anybody. a) The fact that you have been doing this on a regular basis means that you're going to have to work these traffic delays into your tradition. b) Your "service to the country" as a mailman is something the rest of us refer to as a "job," for which you were paid a salary, and now collect a pension. Don't get me wrong-- I respect mailmen. But, no one's going to genuflect to you any more than they would a construction crew building the roads which are currently inconveniencing you.

This is all kind of random. These teams also had great QBs, O-lines, TEs, and LBs-- all positions that we had greater needs for on draft day than CB. And, who says we don't draft BPA? Not Whaley. Here's something I found from Whaley's draft day press conference: Q: Rex has said it, you have said it--you’re obviously taking the best guy, but having it be a cornerback must be a bonus. A: Well three factors: one we said at the beginning of this thing that we were going to take the best player and he was the highest rated player on the board. Two, yes the fact that we can take a corner every year. And three, with the additions the other teams have made this draft in our division, we need to keep up with the arms race, but most importantly we think this guy is a heck of a football player.

I wonder at what point they started talking about moving Graham to safety?

I know a lot of people on here were confused by the pick. CB was nowhere near out biggest need. Personally, I think it was just a question of BPA, and Darby was that guy.

As a current resident of Los Angeles, where you can hit a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam at 4:00am on the 405 pass for no Goddamned reason, I have to say this thread has put a smile on my face. I pine for the simpler days as a Rochester resident where rush hour only lasts about 45 minutes.

As I understand it, the only reason the case was dismissed is because the victim/witness made herself unavailable to the prosecutor. He couldn't even find her. And, his office was going to press charges without her. But, without her testimony, there was no case. It was speculated (and this seems most likely) that Hardy had paid her off. Otherwise, a conviction-- at least in the opinion of the DA-- would have been a slam dunk. Regarding the Judge: Not that I don't appreciate your cynicism, but I doubt that a sitting judge would ignore the merits of a case in order to "pad her resume." Be that as it may, it certainly seemed like there was more than enough evidence to convict him in the first trial, before the appeal.

Local newspapers serve other functions than just whatever it is you're referring to as, "inferior content." Newspapers will only exist as long as there is a market for them. To consider their demise an inevitability seems a bit defeatist, to me-- but then again, I appreciate newspapers. If you really think that Buffalo would be better off without a newspaper, then I understand why you would consider buying one as "throwing money" at it. However, if, like me, you appreciate the value a newspaper has for its community, then supporting them by buying the papers, frequenting their websites, and using their advertising space (if you are a small business owner), is a worthy endeavor.

He said we should stop calling our D great. Was our D not great last season?