Rocky Landing

That's more like it-- right on valuation. A safe bet, given the circumstances.

ALL of these predictions have one thing in common: Everyone has the "B"s to rank the Bills above NYJ, and Miami. NO ONE has the "B"s to rank us above NE. Well, I'm going to say it: NE drops this year. BUFFALO takes the division.

A la Kurt Warner.

If the Bills go for this amount, I will see it as a sign that in seven years they will be heading out of town. If this happens, maybe I will start a new thread: "What should the new name of the Bills be, once they relocate to Los Angeles?"

Yeah, guess I have to agree with this, too.

That's very optimistic. But, if (hypothetically, of course) in the back room discussions, it had been decided that the Bills were going to move to Wichita, Kansas, would he be saying anything different? Let's say that he were trustworthy (heh, heh, heh), and copped to the media that in seven years the Bills would be packing it up-- what would happen to the Bills franchise in those seven years? What would happen to their profit margin? If Goodell knew that the Bills were going to move at the end of the Non-Relocation Agreement, he would do everything in his power to keep that a secret as long as legally (or not?) possible.

I think I'm going to agree with this. It reminds me a little of Jauron's woeful no-huddle offense that (imo) destroyed Trent Edwards. At the time, the no-huddle was very fashionable with Payton Manning's brilliant execution in Indy. The problem was that it didn't come even slightly close to matching our team- we had no o-line!!! How do you run an effective no-huddle offense with an ineffective offensive line??? And now we have this next NFL fashion. We read about it all the time in interviews with players from other teams, as well-- how "fast" their offense is. I'm trying to remember who it was in Miami who recently said the same thing. Is Hackett jumping on this wave? The most effective OC will look at their own offense, and build a system based on their strengths and weaknesses. NOT look at another offense, and say "I'm going to model our offense after theirs..." Especially if that offense they are modeling after is in our own division. I want our OC to be an innovator, not someone who follows trends.

No.

Written without a shred of irony... (...i think...)

Who knew?

Obviously, I think that "redskin" is a derogatory word for Native American.

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

I was listening to the radio on my drive in to work this morning and they were debating this subject. A lot of the same points that I have been reading on here were being made by the two respective pundits. And, I will say this: the argument for not changing the name sounds slightly better when spoken with an English accent. You're welcome.

You're making a spurious assumption that this is setting some sort of precedent. It isn't. Trademarks are denied all the time. For example, a publisher tried to trademark "Hebe Magazine," and was denied on the grounds it was disparaging towards Jews-- even though it was championing Jewish issues. Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal. This is simply the trademark process at work. BTW- Muhammad's Islam Grill, assuming they served pork, would likely be denied a trademark.

No.

I will say this: You have my admiration for somehow pulling Benghazi into this! And, without a shred of satire, no less. Bravo!!!

You don't sound like a sucker. You sound utterly unhinged. But, I will bet you that Dan Snyder doesn't get a single civil lawsuit off the ground related to the USPTO ruling. What would be your time frame?

How about a little wager? Whoever wins the appeal process? I'll take the side of the USPTO decision, you take the Redskins. Whoever wins gets to choose the other's avatar for a month.

The problem that Native American proponents have with the Annenberg survey (other than the obvious fact that it doesn't fit their agenda), is that it was taken from a much broader political survey, and relied on people who self-identified as Native American. A survey taken from people who self-identified as tribal members would certainly garner a different result. At any rate, here is a very interesting link to an interview on the subject with Adam Clymer, the man who actually ran the National Annenberg Election Survey, from which the results were culled: http://indiancountry...nge-name-152737

Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder. Don't you feel freer?

Please tell me this is parody.

I'm speechless.

In my opinion, this is the best argument you have made. For the record, I have always maintained that context matters. It is context that makes every false comparison irrelevant. And, context is what makes this another false comparison. The NAACP is well aware that "colored" has evolved into a derogatory term. They also represent the people who would be offended by it. There have been numerous debates, internally within their organization, as well as in the media, about whether they should change the name. These debates are ongoing. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they did change their name in the near future. But, they certainly aren't ignoring the current connotations of the word, nor are they misrepresenting their history in order to preserve their name. The same cannot be said about the Redskins. Simply ignoring the connotation, and historical perception of a term does not make the term inoffensive. Writing press releases that misrepresent, or even fabricate the team's history regarding the term does not make it inoffensive-- quite the opposite, IMO. But the biggest point regarding context is the one I already mentioned in my previous post. People- lots of people, especially Native Americans as evinced by a very expensive commercial, numerous protests, the NCAI, and various lawsuits- find the term "redskin" offensive. In contrast, almost nobody is offended by the NAACP, especially the people they purport to represent. Again, the USPTO didn't "step into it." They ruled on a legally filed claim, as is their obligation. They aren't "pushing" anything. They are simply doing their jobs.

It's inaccurate to suggest that the USPTO "took action." They ruled on a legal challenge. You can argue their ruling, but they didn't act out of thin air. As far as me not responding to your other false comparisons, again... bizarre. Is there some legal challenge to "News Whore" we should know about? What does this have to do with anything? That is my point about the false comparison argument-- it is utterly irrelevant. Because one of them isn't offensive, and the other one is. Seriously. If the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred Native American Tribes, were to argue, for decades, that the term was offensive, and the foremost linguistic experts on the term were to contend that it is offensive, and Webster's Dictionary were to define it as offensive, I would say that the term has been decided to be offensive.

There is a difference between a false comparison, and a valid comparison, and the difference seems glaringly obvious. The term "redskin," and the term "colored," in modern day usage, are both disparaging. (Although, the term "colored" has only achieved this status recently- within my lifetime- hence the continued use of NAACP.) There are also valid comparisons one could draw between the history of African Americans, and Native Americans in this country. Both were subjugated-- the former through slavery, the latter through genocide. Where the comparison does turn false, however, is when a non-offensive term (like NAACP) is used to justify an offensive one (like "redskin"). Again, I'm not sure why I'm typing this? "The Washington Redskins should keep their name because the NAACP exists, and so does the state of Oklahoma," is not a statement that makes the slightest bit of sense.