What a Tuel

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.

It is the name of a football team. There is no reason to call a Native American a redskin. Just like there is no reason to call me a bill. My names not Bill. Do you think Green Bay Packers refers to all Packers? Do you think Oakland Raiders refers to all Raiders out there? Do you think Cleveland Browns refers to all Browns out there? Edit: Let's hone in on Cleveland Browns. Let's say the Washington Redskins change their name to Washington Indians. I want you to make an argument to me, why the Cleveland Browns should keep their name, and should not be the next target of political correctness.

But let me understand this: Someone can make fun of Native Americans so long as they acknowledge the wrongs that were committed against them? But the Washington Redskins can't keep their team name because they acknowledge the wrongs committed against Native Americans, and have no intention of insulting Native Americans, but their name could be construed as an insult so..... Would it make you happy if they acknowledged that "Redskins" could be taken as an insult?

Nope. It is funny how people are actually more accepting of things that are meant to offend than things that aren't though.

I would be curious to know what your stance on crude comedy is.

What about the Raiders? What about the Browns? What about the Buccaneers? Pirates have done a lot of damage to innocent people, and are still out there to this day. How could the NFL support such a celebration of violence, rape, and pillaging. Who cares about the origin or intent of the names! Let's bring the name into our own context and tell the organizations what they really mean by choosing that name!

What does this even mean? So you think that he named the team the Redskins because he was so racist that he wanted to be reminded every day of the people he allegedly (is it even alleged that he hated Indians?) so very much hated? Really? You are really going to believe that over the organizations story of the origin of the team name? Regardless, it doesn't matter, because the organization stands behind the name as honoring Native Americans. Do you think they are secretly closet racists? The team started as Boston Braves (same name as the baseball team), and then moved to Fenway Park where the Boston Red Sox played. Boston Red Sox. Boston Red Skins. See a correlation? By the way, the Redskins first win was against the New York Giants. Where's the Senates letter about the Giants obviously picking on those poor people with gigantism? Edit: I could go on and on all day haha. How about those Bills? What does the Buffalo Bills organization think Buffalonians can't pay their Bills? How insulting! ( I know that isn't the true meaning of the name, but who cares!) What about the New York Jets? Isn't that a little insensitive in the aftermath of 9/11? What about the Vikings? Didn't they do some cruel things to people? How could they celebrate that? What about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? They celebrate pirates who did their share of damage to innocent people. They even have a pirate ship in their stadium! New Orleans Saints? Are they really trying to mock a large amount of peoples religion? Quite insensitive! Sounds pretty ridiculous when you take context and intent out of it.

A lot of words, and things people say are rooted in some form of insult, racism, bigotry, etc etc. The only way to differentiate whether they are offensive or not is with the speakers intent. Just following along with the theme of Sports teams names shows that the team name is meant to inspire its team members and fans, not secretly demean, and offend people. You can feel like its a "national embarrassment" all you want, but don't include the rest of us in your crusade....(oops)

Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.

This isn't the exact same scenario, but there were a few topics on here during preseason last year trying to convince people Tuel should get a shot (Taking valuable preseason time from Manuel). Can you imagine if Vick were on the team? Ignorance is bountiful when you are a fan. That's why we are fanatics I have the opposite opinion. I think Vick starts if Geno falters like he did last year. We can only wait and see though.

I believe the discussion was about drafting a 5th round rookie to back up EJ. I would have been fine with a veteran signing, however your rant says it all. The minute we get Michael Vick on the team, it no longer becomes about having a backup, it becomes tearing EJ Manuel down because Vick has had playoff runs. Just watch what happens to the Jets this year, and it will prove my point.

Ok thanks for the info

I guess in your dream world our 5th round rookie would step in and take us to 4-2? A veteran signing makes more sense if that is what you want.....

Well said. I agree mostly, except I think I liked the Watkins pickup more than you. If they would have just kept Johnson, I wouldn't be doubting it.

11.2 million before or after? Don't we have to sign the draft rookies still?