EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Has anyone yet brought up that it's potentially offensive because they routinely get slaughtered by the Cowboys? Cowboys is not gender neutral. It is extremely offensive to women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 OK reading this thread and still confused why the terms we use for other races has anything to do with the term used to describe a different race? What do blacks, Latinos or any other race mean to the word Redskin? Who cares what you can and cannot call someone that much to draw a line that one term is correct, another is tolerable and the last is inappropriate? Are we becoming so sensitive that we can't tolerate one iota of sensitivity? We are all people. Unique and fascinating in our own individual ways and none of that has anything to do with skin color or any type of appearance for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 This IMO has nothing to do with the patent office, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with PC. I believe that people are bringing those elements into the argument as a crutch. I believe that a "right minded" individual when looking at this can come to only one conclusion, change the name. I believe that 'right minded' people would stay on topic. This thread is specifically about the patent office. I feel that people bringing whether it is the 'right' thing to do are using that as a crutch. I can only come to the conclusion that they are unable to separate what the patent office has done from whether it is the socially/morally right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Who knew? I went down to the dyke for a dam good time, and wasquite gay whilst i frolicked the path puffing on my fag and humming a diddy, I knew it felt great to be a Texan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) I believe that 'right minded' people would stay on topic. This thread is specifically about the patent office. I feel that people bringing whether it is the 'right' thing to do are using that as a crutch. I can only come to the conclusion that they are unable to separate what the patent office has done from whether it is the socially/morally right thing to do. The ruling is based on findings formed from opinions, not from absolute facts- therefore, to suggest that the ruling was NOT based on politics or PC movements is just not right. We're not talking about the scientific method or quantities- we're talking about opinion. Otherwise, there would be an offensivemeter one could use, but that does not exist. Edited June 26, 2014 by BmoreBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I believe that 'right minded' people would stay on topic. This thread is specifically about the patent office. I feel that people bringing whether it is the 'right' thing to do are using that as a crutch. I can only come to the conclusion that they are unable to separate what the patent office has done from whether it is the socially/morally right thing to do. If you prefer the narrow view, there is no question that the patent office acted according to their charter. What's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Cowboys is not gender neutral. It is extremely offensive to women CGF has something to say about this! If you prefer the narrow view, there is no question that the patent office acted according to their charter. What's next? As they did in 1999 too. An appeal and then Danny gets off on another technicality? Has anyone yet brought up that it's potentially offensive because they routinely get slaughtered by the Cowboys? Speak of the devil, what day is today... Little Bighorn has something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 If you don't care, then why care whether other people care if you care? Because maybe other people SHOULDN'T care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 If you prefer the narrow view, there is no question that the patent office acted according to their charter. What's next? I like how you operate from this automatic view that you're right and everyone else has a narrow view. I question your ability to be a moderator with that stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Has anyone yet brought up that it's potentially offensive because they routinely get slaughtered by the Cowboys? And who could forget the time that Jerry Jones sent over all those Dallas Cowboys souvenir blankets infected with smallpox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 If you prefer the narrow view, there is no question that the patent office acted according to their charter. What's next? Then the question begs: why aren't they doing so consistently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then the question begs: why aren't they doing so consistently? It's the gov't. Johnny, tell 'em what the man in Illinois has just won. They pick and choose the one's that get the most air time. High profile cases. And again, they came to this same ruling back in 1999. Freaking 15 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then the question begs: why aren't they doing so consistently? $$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) $$$$$$$$ Like duh. This decision has been going on for 15 years. They decided the same thing in 1999. If money was really a factor, then the gov't must be losing it in a 15 year old court battle... Where are they making it? Or they are spending it all the high profile cases while the others get a free pass. Maybe if the 1999 ruling stuck, it would free up some more resources so they can apply things evenly. Edited June 26, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Like duh. This decision has been going on for 15 years. They decided the same thing in 1999. If money was really a factor, then the gov't must be losing it in a 15 year old court battle... Where are they making it? Or they are spending it all the high profile cases while the others get a free pass. Maybe if the 1999 ruling stuck, it would free up some more resources so they can apply things evenly. Why not go with all the other patents on other schools logos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then the question begs: why aren't they doing so consistently? I'm sorry, that is off topic. I like how you operate from this automatic view that you're right and everyone else has a narrow view. I question your ability to be a moderator with that stance. That's OK, I question your ability to be a board member. We're square! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 That's OK, I question your ability to be a board member. We're square! What's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Why not go with all the other patents on other schools logos? Because it starts with the big dogs. Knock the head pin down and they all fall easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm sorry, that is off topic. No it's not. The thread is about the USPTO. Isn't it? That's been a consistent (albiet not constant) complaint in this thread: the USPTO's action is capricious and inconsistent. But every time that's brought up, the response tends to be "But 'Redskins' is offensive!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Because it starts with the big dogs. Knock the head pin down and they all fall easier. and the USPO is the one who is suppose to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts