Washington Redskins

[Sava]

Sava's avatar.

[Sava]

Atlanta fans are so apathetic, I don't mind those mopes using racially charged rallying cries to help boost enthusiasm.

If they stopped being racists, I wouldn't be able to accused them of being so.

A good guy needs a bad guy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Chicago sports teams are never the good guy.

[Sava]

Chicago

Atlanta

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

? That's the exact point I was making.

Unless you are wording it extremely poorly.

Why is the team responsible for a fans reaction? (Caveat- Unless materials with "the chop" are trademarked, do they have copyright or other asset value associated with a fan reaction? Answer would be no, nothing that could be explicitly valued.)

They may encourage the reaction by use of organ music but have no legal responsibility for it. Unless issued some form of restraint they are well within their rights to play the music anytime they feel like it. That being said they couldn't enforce elimnation of spontaneous crowd chants.

[Sava]

Ah the classic bigot's apologist... "they have a right to do that"

Yes. They have a right. But that doesn't make it right.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Atlanta fans are so apathetic,

Sava speaks truth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is the team responsible for a fans reaction? (Caveat- Unless materials with "the chop" are trademarked, do they have copyright or other asset value associated with a fan reaction? Answer would be no, nothing that could be explicitly valued.)

They may encourage the reaction by use of organ music but have no legal responsibility for it. Unless issued some form of restraint they are well within their rights to play the music anytime they feel like it. That being said they couldn't enforce elimnation of spontaneous crowd chants.

Who the **** is talking about "legal responsibility"?!!

Really, dude.

[Sava]

Bigots do that a lot. They figure, if something is legal, that means it's okay... thus absolving them for being horrible people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Who the **** is talking about "legal responsibility"?!!

Really, dude.

I dunnno, Post 87 was rife with legal responsibility rationales and the entire basis for the notion of the Braves being brought into the thread in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm going to quote the origins of the Braves's chop discussion

FWIW, I would be happy to see the Washington football team change their name. I'd also be fine with the Braves, Indians, and Chiefs changing their name. The main issue with the Braves though, that I have, isn't their name its the obviously racist "Chop"

That's fan behavior, not a team thing at all. So really, you just hate your fellow Atlanta fans.

Yep... that's totally speaking of legal stuff. And totally the same exact discussion as the legalities of changing the Redskins' name in a prior paragraph (do I have to discuss what paragraphs mean?). -Jrabbit had no problems figuring out The Chop discussion was not speaking legally, so why do you?

[Sava]

Ogie seems to be reading posts on another forum today... aside from his difficulties in understanding what words mean.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not entirely true. Technically (and this will never happen, but it could), the US Government could decide one cannot trademark racial slurs and reference "Redskins" as one of those non-trademarkable slurs. The Washington football team could still use the name after that, but basically anyone could sell apparel with "Redskins" on it, putting severe pressure on their bottom line.

FWIW, I would be happy to see the Washington football team change their name. I'd also be fine with the Braves, Indians, and Chiefs changing their name. The main issue with the Braves though, that I have, isn't their name its the obviously racist "Chop"

Bolding mine.

Ben?Imran you do so well at selectively editing post 87 to make it look as if the entirety of your posts had nothing to do with whether a team could be required to legally change their name or whether their trademarked property (i.e in this case if taken to its logical conclusion as you argue in further posts potentially "the Chop") could be forcibly and legally challenged.

Obviously the idea of a preceeding paragraph having any contextual impact on a following para is foreign. Reading is tricky you know.


Good show Imran Kenobi. Goal posts moved.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yay for Ogie's twisting arguments!! I may actually have to explain to you what paragraphs mean (and what FWIW means).

Once again, -Jrabbit had no problems identifying what I was talking about, but you do.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

For what its worth, it would mean you have decided to embrace kenobi-ism.