Jump to content

Nigel Tufnel

Limited Posting Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2653

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nigel Tufnel

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    It's pretty clear that the name is offensive to some Native Americans, and not to others. I guess the thing that I feel comfortable debating is whether or not a majority of Native Americans would have to be offended before the name would have to be changed. I mean, say 30% of Native Americans are offended... what would that mean for the name? It's not a majority, but 30% is still a significant part of the population.

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>From our family to yours, have a very safe and Happy <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Thanksgiving?src=hash">#Thanksgiving</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HappyThanksgiving?src=hash">#HappyThanksgiving</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HTTR?src=hash">#HTTR</a> <a href="http://t.co/TZ0fBzbEm2">pic.twitter.com/TZ0fBzbEm2</a></p>— Washington Redskins (@Redskins) <a href="

    ">November 27, 2014</a></blockquote>

    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted · Edited by Nigel Tufnel

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Actually, that was the disgraced, soon-to-be-former Navajo Nation President sitting with Dan Snyder: <a href="http://t.co/3WgaSedFlu">http://t.co/3WgaSedFlu</a></p>— Deadspin (@Deadspin) <a href="

    ">October 12, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

    Tracking Ex Oriole Thread

    in MLB

    Posted

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Brian Roberts will be DFA'd. Drew takes his roster spot.</p>— Jack Curry (@JackCurryYES) <a href="

    ">July 31, 2014</a></blockquote>

    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

    Boog Powell

    in Orioles Talk

    Posted

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>*Kramer's moviefone voice* "well why don't you just tell me what number isn't retired"</p>— Brandon McCarthy (@BMcCarthy32) <a href="

    ">July 8, 2014</a></blockquote>

    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

    Boog Powell

    in Orioles Talk

    Posted

    Yeah, HOF'ers only.

    I did think it was a little strange, though, that at Eddie Murray's statue ceremony, just about every speaker made a point of emphasizing how Eddie was the best firstbaseman in franchise history, while Boog Powell sat 10 feet away. I mean, sure, Eddie was the best, but you know Boog had to be thinking, "wait, my teams won two World Series, I was the league MVP, I was beloved and they ran him out of town, etc."

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    Might not be the correct place to put this, but close enough.

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Riggo tells Buck Showalter the secret to his NFL health: "A constant state of lubrication." <a href="http://t.co/SmtVMzv1KL">http://t.co/SmtVMzv1KL</a> <a href="http://t.co/8ObZM7KNqT">pic.twitter.com/8ObZM7KNqT</a></p>— Dan Steinberg (@dcsportsbog) <a href="

    ">June 27, 2014</a></blockquote>

    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

    • Upvote 1

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    Do you think the team name was chosen in order to be derogatory?

    Edit: I should point out I'm asking with 100% sincerity, at the time it may have been. Just curious what you think.

    That's a good question. I don't think it was, but:

    1) The story about choosing the team name to honor their Native American coach has been debunked.

    2) The owner who chose the name was a notable racist, even by the notably racist standards of his time.

    But I tend to think that nobody really thought anything about it back then. And these days, it's just the team name... nobody means it in a racist way at all. But, still, it's hard to get around the fact that the team name is the freaking Redskins. Red. Skins. It's hard to defend.

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    If the courts have already ruled on the issue then they shouldn't be making a ruling that is contrary to what the courts have already decided.

    That is Government overstepping it's bounds.

    You can't just go back and rule on something when the courts have already spoken on the issue.

    That's just it, though - the only thing the courts have actually ruled is that there was something wrong with how the case was originally filed in the 1999 decision. So maybe they were allowed to correct the problems and refile.

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    If it is a settled matter then it should stay a settled matter. If it is a legitimately different issue then sure. To have the Government make a ruling, have it get overturned and then have the Government ignore the courts and rule on it again seems outrageous.

    Of course since the name has been in place since 1933 I am unsure of the grounds by which the office made it's findings.

    From what I've read, the 1999 ruling was overturned in 2003 because of a technicality. So maybe that's why they were able to file a new complaint? I don't really know.

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    Here's an e-mail I just got from the Redskins:

    STATEMENT BY BOB RASKOPF, TRADEMARK ATTORNEY FOR THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS

    LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. ? The following is a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Washington Redskins, regarding today?s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:

    ?We?ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today?s ruling will have no effect at all on the team?s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.

    ?Redskins Are Denied Trademarks?

    -Washington Post, April 3, 1999

    ?Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules?

    -Washington Post, October 2, 2003

    We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board?s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins? trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.

    As today?s dissenting opinion correctly states, ?the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation? here ?remains insufficient? and does not support cancellation.

    This ruling ? which of course we will appeal ? simply addresses the team?s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.

    When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.

    Why?

    As the district court?s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ?is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...? The court continued, ?The Court concludes that the [board?s] finding that the marks at issue ?may disparage? Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.? Those aren?t my words. That was the court?s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review?s today?s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.

    In today?s ruling, the Board?s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:

    It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner?s case have some semblance of meaning.

    The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.?

    Snyder's attempt to defuse the "Redskins" name controversy

    in Washington Commanders

    Posted

    I'd like to understand more about why you feel this way. To be honest you are calling me an idiot, so there's that too. Appreciate that.

    Tough to not get into a political discussion here but seriously aren't things like national security and the economy paramount?

    I just said the type of argument you were using was idiotic. I don't know anything about you.

    And, anyway, you just listed two things. By your argument, wouldn't we have to just pick one or the other and focus completely on that? Why would we care about problem #2 when there's a more important problem out there? That's why it's idiotic.

×
×
  • Create New...