The Name Change

[tshile]

If you have any doubt about the campaign's stamina behind this... you can now find 'Redskin' being used offensively on certain TV shows when referring to native americans.

I get that it can be used as a slur, but I certainly didn't see it being the word-of-choice when referring to native americans disparagingly on TV shows in the past.

Anyways. Yeah, it's going on. Those in the entertainment industry with an interest in pushing this agenda are taking their queues from the gay movement and their tactics. The big road block they have that the gay movement didn't was that it's hard to find reasons for many shows to mention native americans, or to be focused on a topic that involves them. But you can bet that when they have the chance they'll take advantage of it. The last episode of Penny Dreadful certainly did.

 

[MikeSr619]

Looks like the patent was taken away.

 

[tshile]

what? link?
also, it's a trademark

 

[tshile]

In Landmark Decision, U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team | ThinkProgress

I, as well as many others, called it when the Redskins potato chip trademark was declined a few months ago :\

Well. That's it. The only thing that stops the name change is Snyder not being a money grubbing POS. Not sure which way he'll go but I'm certainly not going to put any money on him not being a money grubbing POS.

 

[MikeSr619]

I don't need to be corrected at 7am.

Looks like you found the link

 

[tshile]

Oh, should i have waited another hour or two?

 

[MikeSr619]

No, you can just hold on to it and quietly be smug.

 

[tshile]

Oh, well patents are for inventions.

 

[MikeSr619]

Oh, well nobody asked for clarification.

Move on

 

[tshile]

Someone's sure wound tight.

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990. There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.

Now that's some fun revisionist history.

 

[tshile]

Guess they still have the chance to appeal... Not sure they can do anything more than drag it out though.

 

[Boone]

Mike - I think Travis was just pointing out a fact initially. If you guys want to argue please take it to PM. Travis or Mike, i think that article deserves it's own thread...

 

[Ax]

Drag it out as long as needed. Nothing changes while we appeal the retarded decision.

 

[MikeSr619]

Mike - I think Travis was just pointing out a fact initially. If you guys want to argue please take it to PM. Travis or Mike, i think that article deserves it's own thread...

yeah, I get that. But the route that he went about it was smug and cocky. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, that's fine. but a little tact goes a long ways.

and that's all I will address about it unless asked or spoken to more about it.

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

I am very curious where the 30% figure came from. I really want to know where/when/how that survey was taken. If that was truly the case, the people desiring a name change would have been crowing it from the rooftops. It wasn't acknowledged until this though...that seems extremely fishy.

 

[tshile]

yeah, I get that. But the route that he went about it was smug and cocky. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, that's fine. but a little tact goes a long ways.

and that's all I will address about it unless asked or spoken to more about it.

if it was smug or cocky then you read into it yourself.

your ridiculous 'I don't need to be corrected' was what was smug and cocky. It's a typical response from you in those situations. I'm done tip toeing around your nonsense.

 

[tshile]

I am very curious where the 30% figure came from. I really want to know where/when/how that survey was taken. If that was truly the case, the people desiring a name change would have been crowing it from the rooftops. It wasn't acknowledged until this though...that seems extremely fishy.

I seem to only recall ever seeing 10-15%. :\

 

[MikeSr619]

actually...nah

**** that.

You be done all you want to, boy. Nobody on this side cares about you or your feelings.

 

[tshile]

Sure thing, idiot.