billsfan1959

All great points. I will also add that the offensive line play really regressed from the year before. Add it all together and anyone who believes they can make any sort of accurate assessment, either good or bad, of Hackett as an OC, based on last year, is ignoring reality and seeing what they want to see. I have no idea how successful Hackett will be. However, my educated guess is that his success will improve with (1) experience at this level, (2) stability and consistent play at the QB position, (3) consistently good O line play, and (4) players remaining relatively healthy. I am less worried about the pace of the offense than I am about the things listed above. Just as an aside: I do believe the coaching staff understands the necessity of slowing the pace at times and I think it showed as the season progressed. As far as the New England game...if Stevie catches that 3rd down pass, I believe the Bills would have won that game - fast pace and all.

1. They are not contradictory statements, they just vary in degrees. They carry the same message: If the name is offensive, maybe it should be changed. 2. I didn't say "we should come up with a decided upon definition." DC Tom said it and you echoed it. My stance, as I wrote in a previous post, is that there cannot be a concrete definition for offensiveness. I merely point out that it is ridiculous to say people can not oppose it on grounds that it is offensive if there is no concrete term for offensiveness 3. I used "absolute right" in that you seem to have this idea that because something is protected under free speech, then that is the end of it. It should never be subject to the forces of society to change it. 4. You stated that it is your belief that if Snyder thinks it is ok, then that should be the end of it. I do not think it is a logical sort of belief at all; however, I am not going to condemn you for it. 5. You are well with in your right to defend something that you feel is morally wrong. There are times I might do the same - this just doesn't happen to be one of them. 6. Sometimes it is a bad thing when government regulates what we can do in our private lives. Sometimes it is a good thing. Sometimes it is a necessary thing 7. Are you really suggesting that I should reconsider my belief that a term that refers to an entire population by skin color is offensive - because some leaders in history were under the delusional belief that entire populations should be exterminated? I think I will stick to my original point on this one. This is so bizarre in relation to this debate that I really don't even know how to address it.

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. (2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy. (3) Gay marriage is absolutely irrelevant to this debate in any way, shape, or form. (1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others. (2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance. Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start. (1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day. Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term. (2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

Offensiveness is a vacillating standard on both personal and societal levels and defining it has always been, and remains to be, a completely subjective process. As it should be. There can be no absolute (and, therefore, rigid) definition of something that, by its very nature, requires room for growth and change as human beings in regard to such things as tolerance, respect, decency, etcetera. To ask for a definition that is concrete in its rigidity before accepting whether or not something can be viewed as offensive is nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand. It gives the appearance of being reasonable when it is not. You are saying, “I will find it offensive when you prove to me in unequivocal terms how it is offensive. Until then, all of your arguments are moot because they are simply vague and amorphous.” - all the while knowing such unequivocal terms do not exist. Personally, the concept of offensiveness is not so vague as to preclude me from believing that a term that refers to an entire population of people by the color of their skin should fit somewhere within that concept. You have demanded that those that feel this way provide an unambiguous process for determining offensiveness. I do not believe such a thing can exist. However, let me make you this offer: Why don’t you provide your definition of offensiveness, or what you think the definition should be, and I will try to structure an argument based solely on that definition as to whether or not the term “Redskins” is offensive?

That is f'n funny...

The USPTO certainly has the right to reject any patent application which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality. While there may be no specific USPTO regulation addressing vacating a patent, that has already been issued, for offensiveness, it certainly does not preclude the USPTO from doing so.First, your assertion that you just can't "just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive" is wrong and a little simplistic. Civilized societies evolve. Part of that evolutionary process is the recognition that views, behaviors, and even laws that were once deemed acceptable can subsequently be deemed unacceptable, offensive, and wrong. The history of this country is replete with such redresses. Second, your argument that their decision is lacking in due process or is "lawless" is just not a solid argument. There was a hearing and evidence was presented indicating that the name could be deemed offensive. The USPTO agreed and then voided the trademark. They did not preclude Snyder from using the name as much as, or in any way, he wants. The USPTO simply did what is well within their purview to do. Snyder, et al, have every opportunity to appeal the decision. That is due process - a fundamental fairness to both sides in the process. I see nothing here that suggests otherwise.

Is your argument that there are no regulations governing offensive material in the patenting process or that there are no regulations governing vacating a patent that subsequently is deemed offensive?

What a wonderful gift! I have three children, all adults, and I am exceptionally close to all three. I have one grandchild, a grandson. I had no idea what it would be like to be a grandfather; however, I have to tell you – it is incredible.

1. I think the use of the word "outraged" is a bit off the mark here. There might be some people who are outraged, maybe Native Americans, in which case I think they have that right. However, I believe that most of us who feel the name should be changed, and who are not Native Americans, feel that way, not out of a sense of outrage, but, rather out of a sense of decency and respect. In a civilized society, particularly one whose foundation is predicated upon the rights of the individual, that really ought to be enough of a reason. 2. This particular issue aside, I have a question about your philosophy: Do you honestly believe that offensive behavior to a few is not a reason for others to find it wrong, even to the point of outrage, and want it stopped, as long as the vast majority do not find it offensive?

Of course the N-word is derogatory to an entire population. That isn't the point. The point is your example is irrelevant to the present debate. What people say to each other on an individual basis is not the same as an organization, a business, etc. using derogatory terms. If you wanted to provide an example of a business using the N-word in its name, then you would be providing an example that is relevant. And you would probably agree that it shouldn't be used - much like the term "Redskins" shouldn't be used. I really don't think I should have to provide any more reasons or any further explanation. It really is pretty obvious.

Yes you have stated it many times. We get it. (1) The people who the label does not apply to are not offended by the label. (2) Regardless of whether or not the people it actually applies to are offended, if the majority of all other people are not offended then there is no problem. Goodbye

1. Individuals within any given minority population that choose to address each other in offensive ways on an individual basis is far different than a business that chooses to use an offensive label for an entire population. 2. The name would be offensive in Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA. The fact that Washington, DC, happens to be the capital of a nation whose foundation rests on the concept of equality and that prides itself on being a "melting pot" only serves to heighten its offensiveness.

Actually, many of us who feel that the name is offensive are informed, educated, critically thinking, rational adults.

There are no smooth edges on this argument. Something may be legal under the law; however, it doesn't mean it is not morally objectionable or just plain wrong. If the standard for whether or not something is "right" is whether or not it is "legal," then legal standards would never change.

1. While the sole focus of the D may not be crushing the wideout, if a DB or a LB has the opportunity to lay as legally (and sometimes illegally) vicious a hit as he can on a wideout, he is going to do it almost every time. Every year, we have DBs and LBs fined/suspended for delivering such vicious hits on receivers who are in no position to protect themselves. In addition, the better wide receivers tend to have more passes thrown to them, which means more opportunities to sustain such a hit. 2. The league moved the kickoff up because of the high level of injuries (primarily concussions) suffered by players on kickoff returns. However, I haven't seen anything that statistically shows it was the returners suffering those injuries. I also do not recall the NFL stating it was because of injuries to returners. Anecdotally speaking, it appears to me that, far more often, it is players from the coverage team colliding with one another in their attempts to tackle the returner - or a coverage guy being leveled by a blocker because he was focused on the returner and never saw the block coming (much like a wide receiver coming over the middle) My point is the same as I made in a previous post and that several others have made as well: This seems to be a debate based purely on perception and anecdotal evidence. Until somebody finds statistics to support one side or the other that is all it is.

I think they are on the list of the Catholic Church - since they oppose the use of condomns

I haven't been able to find any statistics showing returners are more/less/equally susceptible to injury than the wide receiver position. Like you, I look at it anecdotally and it seems to me that wide receivers have been injured more than kick returners. Particularly those that work the middle of the field. It seems to me, far more often than returners, wide receivers are not focused on what is coming at them (instead, focusing on the ball), and consistently exposing their bodies in ways that are more likely to get them injured - particularly in this day of big strong safeties (and linebackers able to drop into coverage) who are all looking for that ESPN highlight hit. If anyone out there has any statistics supporting one side or another, then I certainly am willing to evaluate my position accordingly. Until then, I do not have a big problem with it.

That made me laugh out loud

Bad idea to go back and change the past. Didn't you see "The Butterfly Effect?"

A vote for you my good man. And a big thumbs up for giving the day you married your bride the number one spot on "happiest days of your life." Good luck and represent us well.

I certainly have concerns about Dareus; however, cutting him at this point is just a ridiculous notion.

This +100 Not to mention that, with all of the above going on, I believe 9 of their games were against teams ranked in the top ten defensively, and only 2-3 of their opponents were above the 15-20 defensive rank range. Add to that the fact that it was a brand new coaching staff from top to bottom. Above average talent, playing to the level of that talent, playing consistently, and remaining healthy are as critical as the coach's abilities. Most of us felt Pettine was a good DC; yet, when his secondary was injured and hobbled, the defense was torched in the passing game. And, a linebacking corp of overall less than average talent contributed greatly to a less than average run defense. I have no idea if Hackett will be a good OC. I just know it is unfair to make any conclusive judgements from last year.

I have a special place in my heart for all who have served their country in military service. My very best wishes on Memorial Day to all who are serving and have served; my hopes for a safe return to all those who are currently deployed; and my thoughts and prayers to those who have fallen and the loved ones they left behind. My eternal gratitude to all. - Former military and former law enforcement retired.

Engaging in behavior that is offensive to others - because they disagree with your stance that behavior that is offensive to others should be stopped... Hmmmmmm... I'm sticking with ironic

While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.