Campy
-
Posts
4,617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Campy
-
-
Heh? hockey is played on a small playing "field" and its equally dumb to have 1/3 of the field excluded for use and having many scoring attempts in hockey killed by offsides. Actually, the hockey rule (the puck must enter the zone before the attacking player) and the soccer rule (the player can not enter the zone behind the last defender before the ball is kicked to him) are similiar. In soccer, at least if the "offside" player is not gaining and advantage from being in that position, then the play is not stopped like it is in hockey. I think there are more offsides in hockey then in soccer and certainly less "iceing" calls in soccer (e.g. none) then in hockey. I think hockey would be a different and maybe better game if they didn't allow substitutions during actual playing time. Be a man and suck it up for 45 minutes rather than 90 seconds.
For starters, hockey does have delayed offsides which keeps the play going if the offending player does not play the puck (ie, gains an advantage) and gets back onside.
And for your "Be a man and suck it up for 45 minutes rather than 90 seconds" comment tells me you probably cannot ice skate much less ever played any form of organized hockey.
In hockey, you go as hard as you can, constantly stopping, starting, and changing directions, as long as you can. As opposed to 3/4 of the players on a pitch who are standing around with their hands on their hips at any given moment, hockey players are always in motion and always having to balance on skate blades which requires much more energy than chilling on a field in a pair of Adidas.
I played soccer in high school, so don't think I'm anti-soccer. But if you want to pump up soccer, compare it to American football and hope you don't encounter any rugby fans, because comparing it to hockey the way you did will mean you lose.
-
Roger g having lunch with him and Jerry jones endorsement of Jon Bon jovi isn't a good sign. Remember what Jerry jones said: "He knows many of the owners, personally," Jones said. "All owners know of him. But he knows them personally. He's committed. He's very genuine. You talk about individuals and talk about their qualification — there hasn't been anybody more qualified to be involved in sports ownership, or certainly ownership in the NFL, than Jon Bon Jovi."
And if the other owners were the ones selling the team, I'd be nervous about those comments.
But since they aren't, and since nowhere in there did he say "We all agreed to vote against anybody not named Jon Bon Jovi buying the Bills," I really don't care how buddy-buddy JBJ is with Jones or any of the other owners. Nor should you.
-
I hope Tuel shows a lot improvement and develops into a guy we can count on if given the opportunity. Of course, I think that way about all of the back-ups and role players.
Will he make a huge jump this camp? Will any of the non-starters? I dunno.
But I hope so.
-
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.
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
-
Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?
Context.
Who decides what is and is not an offensive term?
The USPTO?
The offended party decides what they're offended by.
-
But I'm not Native American and the word doesn't bother me. They need to suck it up and people need to mind their own business. You don't see people in Texas complaining about the offensive Texans name do you?
Knowingly and intentionally offending others when stopping, changing, or preventing it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights (ie, people "offended" by guns, homosexuality, etc) is the dictionary definition of a d-bag.
Unfortunately, they're not in short supply, and at least one of them owns an NFL team.
-
Then Baxter Holmes is an ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't see my post on the previous page.
Unlike a ignorant Boston Celtics beat writer for The Boston Globe, Goddard is an Indian language scholar at the Smithsonian Institution. A small quote from Goddard's paper:
I know this may come as a surprise to those who get their history lessons from sports writers that the first documented use of the term "redskins" comes from native Americans. In fact Goddard opens up the paper by dispelling the scalp myth:
This will come as a surprise to those who get their history from NFL team press releases, but Goddard's report has been thoroughly disproved in a subsequent report by the very same institution that Goddard wrote his for: the Smithsonian.
And it doesn't matter who coined the name first. Language, and people's opinions and interpretations of it, changes over time. In a civil rights speech, JFK used the term "negroes." When's the last time you heard a politician use that word?
And the reason why?
Because it is now deemed offensive.
-
A looming question is whether the Buffalo Bills should change their name?? The manner in which Buffalo Bill Cody treated native Americans and the derogatory remarks he made could spell trouble for our team. I may have reached a whole new level of being offended. Not sure what to do...can't believe my folks raised me to be a fan of this team.
Perhaps the only way to reconcile the multi-dimensional nature of Buffalo Bill's relationship with his Native American actors is under the rubric of paternalism. He cared for them quite deeply, yet felt detached from their more primitive existence. "I really think that they enjoy this sort of life," he remarked. "But they are a queer, uncivilized crowd. Watch them eat. You see they can use a knife and fork and spoon in a rude, imitative way, but when they go back home, they will be happier eating with their fingers."
"Indians are as easily controlled as children," Cody admitted, "but you must keep your promises to them to the letter. That I have always done, even many years before I employed Indians for my Wild West show" http://www.historica.../dave/cody.html
Unless you are a Native American, nobody cares. And since Native Americans aren't offended by the team being called the Buffalo Bills, there is no issue.
-
<snip>
That's why they aren't called the Penobscot Indians, They are called the Redskins.
If you read my post above, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Just about any other term associated with Native Americans would be a better nickname than "Redskins." It symbolizes the bloody scalps of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters that were collected for a bounty. That doesn't seem wrong to you?
Are you a Redskins fan?
Are you Native American?
Is there any real reason you care what their team nickname is?
This is beyond comical. Who do you think brought these grievance cases before the USPTO?
The plaintiff is a Native American woman named Amanda Blackhorse.
-
You're right, the "n-word" was once a commonly used term but we found that many people of color found it offensive. And we learned about it's history so we stopped using it. And we evolved.
We know many of the indigenous people of this continent find the term "Redskin" offensive.
And here's the history of the word, contrary to the club's position on it: In 1755, the Lt Gov of the Massachusets Bay Colony issued an edict called the Phips Proclamation. In it, each man would be paid a bounty for the bloody scalps of the Penobscot Indians. Each man's scalp - or "redskin" - was 50£. they got 25£ for a woman's, and 20£ for boys and girls under age 12.
The question now is, knowing what we know - that "Redskin" is different than "Indian," "Seminole," "Chiefs," or "Warriors" - and being able to appreciate why a Native American would find it offensive, will we evolve?
-
No.
But "offensive is "offensive"
Try and be consistent.
Offensive isn't offensive when the people who could/should be offended simply are not offended and nobody of color has made it an issue.
In other words, it's not about you or me, it's about what the indigenous peoples of this continent feel about the name. And if they find it disrespectful, then it should be changed.
Only children and juvenile d-bags go out of their way to offend people, grownups show respect.
-
here you go: http://jimrome.com/2...fred-jackson-2/
And if you can't listen, I caught it a few hours ago but here is the gist:
Fred's excited about Bills going all in, says it sends a message to the guys that this is the time, no more excuses. He also likes that the front office has shown confidence in the guys that are there to get it done.
Rome brought up LeSean McCoy tweeting Bryce Brown would be a Day 1 starter when the trade went down and Fred's tweet that we'll see about that. McCoy responded something along the lines of "Aren't you too old for twitter?" Rome asked about that and Fred said some people like to talk off the field and that's their thing, but that he prefers to do his talking on the field.
Rome asked about Spurs, and Fred said it was exciting to see the "old guys" getting it done.
Fred was pure class throughout and took the high road although Rome gave him the opportunity to go the other route. Pure class.
-
Ah Campy, good to see you over here on TBD. Looks to be an interesting time for another one of our sports franchises. And look, no political thread
-
I know. I was being sarcastic because it's been asked and answered a number of times.
Sorry, didn't catch it.
-
<snip>
Wife pulled me away 30 minutes later, never saw him again, but guy was as genuine as you think!
RIP Timmy!
Funny, I never met him, but that's exactly what I though he'd be like if I ever did.
It's not like JFK, Challenger, or 9/11, but I will never forget exactly where I was the day they broke into whatever programming was on and announced he was gone.
The Bills lost a great fan that day and the US lost a great political voice.
-
We should discuss it here. Can Pegula own 2 teams??
Yes, because they'd both be in the same market.
-
I LOVE this quote from Sammy Watkins:
“{EJ's} a great quarterback and from a wide receiver point of view we’ve got to get the steps (down),” said Watkins. “It’s our fault if he doesn’t get us the ball because it’s all about steps and timing and it’s coming along. We’ve still got a lot to work on because sometimes we’re doing five and six steps when we should be doing seven. That’s something we’ve got to clean up before we start the season.”
-
Ha!
To be fair, I'm bascailly asking other people to do my research. I should have been a professor.
A couple of things I stumbled upon that I found interesting:
SUNY Albany's Center for Problem-Oriented Policing describes the types of, and factors that contribute to, spectator violence. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/spectator_violence/
And then there's this Wiki page that, starting in 1879, lists incidents of spectator violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_violent_spectator_incidents_in_sports
-
Someone woke up on the wrong side of OBD today!
Probably looks that way but I typed it with a smile on my face.
-
The OP is looking for statistics and facts. What part of "beyond anecdotes" confused you guys?
-
That's a pretty powerful ad.
If I'm Snyder, I keep the colors and the logo and call the team the Washington Warriors.
-
Stay classy...
He's just taking other gigs, it's not like he's sick or retiring...
-
Well agree to disagree. The only peopel know Spikes is because he played on NE with Brady. In Jacksonville, he's a nobody. The Pats thought so much of his ability they benched him for the playoffs. He has very little value around the NFL. One of the best teams in the NFL, the 49ers, gave up a 3rd for SJ. Personally, if a good team trades for you, that means you are valued. JMO.
That said, I'm rooting like hell for Spikes. But I like consistency and for me to pretend like he wasn't a piece of trash on NE would be lying. Hopefully, he plays hard without being dirty. And his play is better than his mouth.
Agree that we'll agree to disagree and agreed that we're both rooting for Spikes this year. My first post in this thread actually was that I hope he plays as well as he talks... I hope he proves me right this season!
-
<snip>
I strongly disagree on Spikes being a better LB than SJ was a receiver. Spikes is a one dimensional LB who might be the slowest LB in the league. SJ put up 3 1,000 yard seasons with a QB who struggled to throw 10 yards down field.
I know he's not a Bill and we should hate him, but SJ was a damn good (albeit flawed) receiver for us. Spikes can only play on run downs.
And you're wrong despite your assertion that I must be bashing him because he is no longer a Bill.
Nobody rooted for Stevie more than I did for three hours on Sundays. But if you searched TSW or could query members of my Backers club, you would know that I've been critical of his terribly inconsistent play, his ability to make a bad play at the worst possible time, his incessant dropping to the turf at the slightest hint of contact, and the selfish emptiness between the ears for years.
Spikes is better at his position than Stevie is at his. He backs up his brashness with devastating plays. The only time Stevie devestated anybody in any fashion was when he was dropping potential game winners or putting potential game sealing balls on the turf.
In other words, Stevie is all show and no go but Spikes actually brings it.
Trump on Howard Stern this morning discussing the Bills
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
From the get-go I've posted what a farce he is. It amazes me how many people fall time and time again for his schtick.
He will no sooner own the Bills than I will. Serious people don't talk about serious they are...
I'm not aware of a rule prohibiting an NFL owner from owning a beauty pageant.