What a Tuel

Being offended is not good enough. Being offended does not give a person more rights than the average person. Especially when the offended party cannot provide a shred of evidence that the offending party intends to offend, or sets circumstances that would detract from the well being of a particular people. And they in fact do the opposite.

Oh I definitely don't think he will be cut. My problem is that we cut the one WR that we knew could perform at a high level, and replaced him with a lot of ? marks. Big gamble. I just think we should have held on to Stevie one more year so that some of those ? marks would have been more clear when we made a decision of this magnitude. I have high hopes for Mike Williams to return to his 2012 playing level, and for Watkins and Woods to blow things up, and even Goodwin to stand out, but there really wasn't a downside to keeping Stevie besides the cap hit we would've taken next year that we took this year instead.

Oh, all I saw was an @MikeRodak. True or not, this is why I think we should have held on to Stevie. If Mike Williams doesn't perform, we are down to Woods and Watkins, and maybe Goodwin. God forbid we have injuries (Every receiver was injured at some point last year) On top of that, Williams is due for decent money next year. Depth is a good thing. JMO take it or leave it.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000358918/article/no-guarantee-mike-williams-makes-bills-roster

I would argue that negative connotation should not be the sole determining factor in determining whether something is decent or not. The problem I have is that nowadays I see all kinds of movies, and tv and I wonder how people would treat them if they came out today. What should be classified as indecent and offensive? Should they be stricken from the record? How far are we willing to go to make sure everything in the world is decent? Is it possible that you may just have to deal with being offended at some points in your life? I feel like the world is overcompensating for the crimes of the past by treating ordinary people like glass. There is a difference between ensuring that an injustice does not recur, and being overprotective. On the other hand comedy just seems to get away with it, because they are just joking, but in reality are cashing in on racist/hateful/derogatory/intolerant humor which sole purpose is to offend you. (shock value) Blows my mind.

Now Native is offensive I bet. Because you must follow the established set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum. Obviously Native can have negative connotations, but we won't make the logical step in thinking that the term "Native" means "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." If you twist it and interpret it as demeaning then it must have been the speakers intention, and therefore must be stricken from the record. That is a real irritating way for the world to look at things.

Thank you. I have pointed it out before. Boston Redsox - Boston Redskins. Played at the same stadium. It says in your article he picked the name out of a desire to keep the logo. "He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo." http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/bhohscn72jl4tg468jvr/Boston_Redskins/1933/Primary_Logo Does that look like the logo of someone who wishes to disparage or resents Native Americans? The true history of the word as you admitted was not a slur. If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be?

What exactly is your point? Do you believe the Organization bears any ill will towards Native Americans?

I agree people need to have conviction. Like I said, I don't blame Native Americans for the escalation of this. I guess my problem is that I hear such an uproar about a name of a sports team that hardly has any real impact on anybody, but I don't hear a word about the real problems Native Americans face that have a real impact, and aren't something they can just ignore. The Native American leaders could have just as easily made an emotional video about conditions they face, and such but they decided to take on a football team that mean them no harm? It just seems absurd. It's like the masses and the government take the easy road. "Racist sounding name? Sure I can beat my drum to that cause". "25% of Native Americans in poverty?" Crickets.

Link please. Also if the original meaning of the term was out of respect, and the Redskins Organization is saying they respect, and honor Native Americans, why don't you believe them?

For both you and NoSaint. Let's not pretend they haven't been asking for 30 or more years. In the more recent years, and with the momentum of the internet, it has turned into a campaign to slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization in order to further the established goal. I don't blame Native Americans for that escalation, I blame the internet who seemingly has the power to determine not only what is right or wrong, but who is good or bad as well. I also blame the Media which has declined dramatically over the years. I also blame the Senate for thinking they have some sort of responsibility to ask beg a private organization to change their name. There are a lot of real problems out there that have real impact on Native Americans lives for so many people to be so focused, and devoting so many resources to changing the name of an private organization that you don't even have to watch and is not intended to be offensive.

Sure, they are perfectly justified in asking the organization to change their name. And the Redskins organization is perfectly justified in saying "No", in the polite and respectful manner that they have. That's where it should end. It isn't some travesty, controversy, or "national embarressment", that the whole country should be getting up in arms about (one side or another), especially the Senate.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans. That is where is should end. I picture you guys thinking in your heads that the people of the Redskins organization are laughing, and making crude jokes about Native Americans behind closed doors or something. It is very clearly not meant to be an insult, and the team just wants to keep the history behind it's team and name. A whole lot of words in the english meaning have different meanings. Anyone go on a crusade lately? Getting so tired of people getting offended (or being offended for others) by things that aren't meant to be offensive. "Well if you follow my strict set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum, then obviously you are being offensive"

True. But between the relocation fee, the lease fee, the court battle, etc etc, these fees would likely overshadow the increased value of moving to another city. Maybe you profit your way out of the red. Maybe you don't. Point is that Ralph made it difficult for someone to just pick up and move. How much more nervous would we all be if we didn't have this lease protection? I don't like the way Shredd constantly laughed when their guest asked about the rumor and how they got a hold of it. I think its all a cruel joke.

Not to mention even if the $400 million buyout existed, people act as if it is the same as paying 1 billion for the team. No it isn't. When you pay 1 billion for the team, you are making a 1 billion dollar investment that will make you money over the years and will likely sell for $1 billion + when you want to cash it in. When you pay a $400 million penalty, you are not making an investment, you are losing that money. It is gone forever. Completely different uses of money. Sure a billionaire may be able to say, meh $400 million? Heres a check. But it is unlikely they would just throw money away like that. It doesn't even exist though so it is irrelevant. Also the Shredd and Reagan audio just sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. Could Rogers Reps have been arguing about the canceled Toronto Series?

Now this I disagree with. You can have good character on your football team and still be a winning team. You just don't cut your good players out of some moral highground, unless you have a) an equivalent or better player to replace him (even then depth is always good) b) he consistently loses playing time as a result c) his performance suffers as a result of his actions.

Seattle with Lynch Niners with Aldon Smith Are you saying the Cowboys should have cut Dez Bryant? What about Josh Gordon? What about Suh? What about Hines Ward? Brandon Marshall? Vincent Jackson? The list goes on and on.... Would you like us to pick up any of those guys if their teams cut them at their time of trouble? http://espn.go.com/b...htclub-incident Edelman isn't a choir boy, but they still have him, and he was a disposable backup then and starter now. Good thing they didn't cut him. We aren't trying to emulate anybody, we are our own team. The point is that good teams don't just cut their good players at the first sign of trouble. Those organizations with Brandon Marshal and Dez Bryant, aren't losing because they have Dez Bryant, and Brandon Marshall, I can tell you that much.

Yep I just read through it too. Thanks, I won't file a claim. I hate crap like this.

http://bbitextclassactionsettlement.com/

Nope, winning organizations work with their problematic but productive players.

Good point. We want this to be done and over for the Bills. I like the idea of donating it, but still feel like a scumbag participating. So if the Bills set aside $3 million in debit cards, and only 20,000 people claim it for $1.3 million (plus 500k for lawyers, and 5k for douche), what happens to the rest of the money? Do the Bills keep it? I think it is frivolous in the sense that the lawyers and original "class representative" are going to get paid a pretty penny for a couple texts. I think that if the Judge saw it necessary for One Bills Drive's hand to be slapped, they should have to pay any overages that the subscribers incurred, and that is about it. The privacy part is irrelevant, I get constant paper mail, e-mails and notifications on my phone for things I unintentionally subscribe to. I don't think they have a cap of what they can send me in the small print. (Maybe they do, and I can start my own class action lawsuit )

I hate to bring this topic again, but it seems the old topics were archived, and I cannot reply to them. I got this ridiculous class action lawsuit packet in the mail, so I have a couple questions. 1.) Can I sue the people responsible for mailing me such ridiculous things that I never even subscribed to? 2.) More seriously, What is the best course of action as a Bills fan? Do I ignore this frivolous lawsuit? Do I participate if only to take money away from the lawyers and the douche who started it? How does it work? 3) How come I would get $57.50, $65.00, or $75.00 (in BBI debit cards) depending on the number of weeks that I got more than 5 text messages"? Just looking at Verizons "per text" rate, the worst case scenario to reach $57.50 would have been 575 texts in a week. I don't believe anyone got that many. Are people really getting $57.50-$75 for privacy infringement? Really? For something they subscribed to that they are a fan of? Absurd. Then they go ahead and mail out spam letters notifying people of the lawsuit they are included in by default. 4) The letter I got has 4 options. One of those is to "Attend a hearing on August 20th 2014 at 1:30 pm where people can speak to the court about the fairness of the settlement." I think people should definitely show up there en masse protesting this nonsense. 5) One of the other options is to write to the court about why I do, or do not like the settlement. I think people should also write to the court en masse, explaining why the subscribers of this service think this lawsuit is so frivolous.

This. I thought he was going to be great for the Vikings and thought Tampa's messed up staff screwed up on releasing him. He did well in Tampa. Then I saw him state "He wasn't in a hurry to compete for the starting job in Minnesota" or something similar. You can say maybe he didn't want to offend Ponder and Cassel, but the guy has no drive. He really just doesn't care. Something is up with him. No thank you.

1) Let me elaborate. You completely ignore the origin of the Redskins name. (Named after a Boston Redskins coach that was thought to be Indian). You know the team that played in the same park as the Boston Red Sox. But those things aren't relevant, it's racist! 2) Is led into by the fact that if you ignore the true origin of the Redskins name, you have to ignore the true origin of the Browns name. 3) It absolutely does. 4) Now I am racist . Sheesh. Like I said, the argument is absurd, just like the Redskins argument. If you don't like the name, don't watch or follow the team. You do not have the right to not be offended.

Well this seems easy. 1. I thought we were ignoring the origin of the name and the intent behind it. The only thing that matters is it's definition remember? 2. Brown people were just as oppressed as the Indians (albeit in very different ways). 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brown . 4. Would you walk up to a colored person and call them a Brown person? I agree the whole argument about the Browns is absurd. It's ridiculous, its off base, and lastly it's an argument that doesn't need to be made. Same goes for the Redskins. Let the team be, they clearly don't mean to offend anyone. If a word offends you so much, don't watch the team. You don't have a right to not be offended.