DC Tom Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Why, yes! I just baked a new batch this morning... or was it in 1966? I forget. Shhhhhh!!!!! Sphere O' Beer is doing his upmost to get us some tasty new morsels and kitty toys. "Upmost?" Yeah, that's going in the TDBisms thread.
Greg F Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Imagine if the NFL had a team called the 'New York N Word', and nobody cared because 'it's tradition', or whatever the other nonsense excuse of the day was? Well they do have a team named the Yankees, which is often a derogatory term used by southerners to refer to people from the north. Context matters.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) My God, why did it take so long to start a thread about this? You're an idiot. (tm, until the USPTO takes it away for offending someone.) But he makes some good points. Plus, the first one talked about the US Patent office, this one talks about the US Trademark office. Completely new topic. With no trademark rights fans can sell there ownNew Shirts with redskins logo right out side The stadiums. Even made sure to capitalize New Shirts,and The stadiums, and made sure redskins wasn't. A new and innovate take on the subject. Edited June 18, 2014 by The Real Buffalo Joe
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Even made sure to capitalize New Shirts,and The stadiums, and made sure redskins wasn't. A new and innovate take on the subject. Shakespearean, no less. "With no trademark rights fans can sell there own New Shirts with redskins logo right out side" Imperfect, but capable, iambic pentameter.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 But can they sell there Own right they're outside The stadium Their crazy if they dont.
Big Turk Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 It's an NFL issue now...30 other teams are losing out on merchandise sales since they share merchandising revenue with all teams except Dallas who has their own revenue agreement by choice... Snyder might be overruled by other owners who don't want to lose free money
26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) It's an NFL issue now...30 other teams are losing out on merchandise sales since they share merchandising revenue with all teams except Dallas who has their own revenue agreement by choice... Snyder might be overruled by other owners who don't want to lose free money Nothing changes while the case is being appealed. 'Redskins' Revoked a Second Time, but in a New Climate The Washington Redskins' initial response to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s monumental decision to cancel the team’s trademark registration was to argue that the move was not so monumental. This is not the first time the office has come to that decision, a statement from the Redskins brags, and the team has come out on top before. But the activists who have been campaigning against the name say this time the decision, coming from the agency's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is different, owing both to legal bearings and the way the climate has evolved since Harjo’s initial suit. What’s Next, Washington? The U.S. Patent Office has canceled Daniel Snyder’s team trademark, ruling that it is disparaging to a “substantial composite” of Native Americans. But the battle over the word “Redskins” is far from over Edited June 19, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz
eme123 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ESPN Sportsnation online poll Should the redskins change their name? Yes- 37% No- 63% (Total Votes: 128,530 ) All 50 states favored 'No'. New York voted 58% 'No'. Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state International Poll Total Votes: 36,820 Yes- 37% No- 63%
26CornerBlitz Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ESPN Sportsnation online poll Should the redskins change their name? Yes- 37% No- 63% (Total Votes: 128,530 ) All 50 states favored 'No'. New York voted 58% 'No'. Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state International Poll Total Votes: 36,820 Yes- 37% No- 63% All of this is immaterial to the case.
truth on hold Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 "Redskins" spelled backwards is "Sniksder" .... I'd just go with that and call it a day
eme123 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 All of this is immaterial to the case. Yes it has nothing to do with the case. This just seems to be the hot Redskins thread of the day. I wish we had reputable poll results of American Indians on this issue.
Beerball Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I wish we had reputable poll results of American Indians on this issue. What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales? 10% 20% 25%
Rocky Landing Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ESPN Sportsnation online poll Should the redskins change their name? Yes- 37% No- 63% (Total Votes: 128,530 ) All 50 states favored 'No'. New York voted 58% 'No'. Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state International Poll Total Votes: 36,820 Yes- 37% No- 63% That's an interesting poll. I just checked it out on the ESPN site. It certainly doesn't change my mind in the slightest, though. I have no desire to jump on that bandwagon.
Greg F Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I will just leave this here. In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign." And for those interested Goddard's published paper is here (PDF).
White Linen Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I could talk myself into being offended by nearly half the sports team names.
Pneumonic Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Snyder must have a connection with a Senator somewhere. If I were him, I'd ask my Senator friend for a "scratch my back" favour to petition the USPTO on behalf of any number of high profile sports teams who may have a derogatory name asking them to rescind said name(s) immediately. I'd make the episode as public as possible to expose the USPTO for the corrupt office that they are and to draw to light the ridiculousness of this matter.
NoSaint Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Should they have named the team Redskins? No. However, if you were to ask the general public, about two years ago, before this debate was brought up, what they think of when they hear Redskin, they'd prolly all say the football team. Point is, the meaning and connotations of certain words change over time. There have been protests going on for 30 years! There have been similar court cases a decade and a half ago. It's not new, it's new to you.
boyst Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 There has been plenty of social change over the last 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if things are different this time around. (Also wouldn't be surprised if the same results happend... just saying, its not set in stone) Social change means nothing legally, but hey, it sounds good. Change is good? Public opinion isn't a legal argument. But, it sounds great, now! I just don't understand the attachment to the team name. It's clearly something that offends a segment of the population... is a team name really that important to your enjoyment of the game? If the Bills changed their name tomorrow, I'd still be a fan of the team. I don't have an attachment to the name. I could care less if they change it or not. If I was Snyder I'd fight it hard. If 2014 goes down the drain I'd rebrand the team to hype them up and draw great attention to it. If finances are dipping it'd be great. Rebrand the Redskins, the National team?! RGIII bringing it back to the field, or Cousins coming out on fire, who knows... but using that to fuel 2015. That'd make a ton of money. On the other hand, I just don't really care that some people may be offended. If you presented me data that showed 80% of Native Americans are offended by this I might be concerned a little more then I already am. Just like yelling more popular racial epithets in public you likely would not get the same reaction. Most would think you are just super fans of the Redskins. It was reversed because there was no evidence. The government didn't even try to show that the majority of Native Americans find the name disparaging. What about the rest of the Americans? I wonder if this will be more fuel to having my high school (Lancaster) change its nickname. There is a list, well, there are lists online that list every school with Redskin as a mascot. Anyone that doesn't see this as a highly politicized issue really isn't paying attention. If anyone doesn't happen to be aware, there are over 1,000 high schools (including some on Indian reservations) that carry mascot names that could be considered disparaging to Indians. Redskins, Braves, Indians, Warhawks, Redhawks, Redbirds, and many others. There's only one reason the Washington Redskins are getting so much attention and media. They're big business while these other places are not. When you ask yourself whether there is an unfair amount of media on this NFL franchise, ask yourself how much attention the Carthage Redman are getting. The answer should be pretty obvious. This story is getting a lot of face time while the whole non-prof situation of the NFL has been a big deal, too. The motivation is clearly financial. If the gov could get money from taxing the NFL more, well, that'd be just fine with them. In Mississippi, you can order whatever size you want! (Of course, it's the most obese state in the country but still). Well, because obese people who cannot decide what is best for them because they're dumb means I cannot have a Super XXL Jumbo Gigante Mt Dew? Really? So, because some people are stupid and waste their life and our resources means I should suffer more for them. I get the argument but I do not support it and it is loosely relating what is going on to the Redskin situation. I'd be just as fine with taking those people and feeding them bacon lard. If you don't care, then why care whether other people care if you care? Because it gets old seeing it sensationalized and the smoke and mirror game people fall for...it just gets old. What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales? 10% 20% 25% I would like to know this, as well. And, at what % does it become a legal matter, which by my opinion is the only reason that the government should be involved? Petitions, threats, boycotts etc are all great by private citizens. But, the government being involved scares me because we will now be hearing that 1% does not matter enough, or 20% is still not enough.Or, put like this: If 3,140,000 are offended by this? If 62,800,000 are offended by this? With 314 Americans in this country it is likely that 40% do not care/have no interest/have no opinion/have no ability to make a decision. 30% do not like the name, 30% want it to remain. What do we do? Who decides what we do? Why is this likely to be headed to the Supreme court?
Recommended Posts