Washington Redskins

[giblets]

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.

He talked about legal matters in post 87, therefore every single thing Imran says in this entire thread must be about the law. Am I getting this right?

[Sava]

Imran didn't say the Redskins would be legally required to change their name. In fact, he said the opposite.

The Washington football team could still use the name after that

Learn how to read, Ogie.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

He talked about legal matters in post 87, therefore every single thing Imran says in this entire thread must be about the law. Am I getting this right?

He talked about legal matters, went on to talk about Atlanta and his feeling regarding "the chop." Followed up in another post to state in response to Jrabbit, that not only did they encourage the use of chop, but sold items with the chop on them. Thus the connection is that the team had some responsibility to the fan behavior at least via use of the "the chop" merchandise.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Imran didn't say the Redskins would be legally required to change their name. In fact, he said the opposite.



Learn how to read, Ogie.

Good lord. He indicated they would not be able to merchandise trademarked materials you fool. Hence the discussion regarding "the chop" merchandise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its funny that everyone gets what I was talking about, EXCEPT Ogie. Keep digging...

[Sava]

Good lord. He indicated they would not be able to merchandise trademarked materials you fool. Hence the discussion regarding "the chop" merchandise.

/facepalm

as if the entirety of your posts had nothing to do with whether a team could be required to legally change their name

Dude... do you even read your own posts?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You mean this part

....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.

The first part he already addressed in post 87 the name of the team and yes he already indicated no team would necessarily be forced into a name change. However, and if you read it appropriately, obviously the real value of the allowable team brand comes in the form of not having to forgo sales revenue which was his point. The two points are inextricably tied.

Good lord stop now before you confirm every suspicion I have that you have burned out your brain.

[Sava]

You mean this part

No. I quoted the part of your post I was talking about. I don't know why you choose to ignore it and then pretend you didn't.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Maybe because I understood when I wrote it that both parts were required to accurately paraphrase what Imran was saying in Post 87, without being accused of selective editing. As opposed to the selective editing I have dealt with now from both you and Imran.


You really need to get high or something your perception is at all time lows.

[Sava]

This isn't rocket science Ogie. You said Imran did something. He clearly did the opposite.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This isn't rocket science Ogie. You said Imran did something. He clearly did the opposite.

You simply can not read then. I never claimed Imran said anything of the sort that teams were required to change their names. I did however, claim his post 87 dealt with the issue of whether a team had to legally change its name. And guess what, Post 87 answered that question in the negative. The larger point was who was rasing legalistic arguement in the first place you moronic twit. To wit Imran did.

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.

[Sava]

I never claimed Imran said anything of the sort that teams were required to change their names.

Your account must have been hacked.

as if the entirety of your posts had nothing to do with whether a team could be required to legally change their name

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes you got me. Good catch moron. The topic at hand was whether a team could be required to legally change their name.

Topic - Is a team required to legally change its name?

(Answer per legal analyis of Post 87)

Resolution - No they did not have to.

Gee faced with the brilliance of Sava I can full well see the topic of whether a team could be forced to legally change their name apparently was never discussed in post 87. Reality has been successfully distorted.


Moron.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I enjoy Ogie trying to tell someone else what I said, when I have mentioned that Ogie's reading is completely wrong - and everyone else has an opposite opinion from his.

[Sava]

Yes you got me. Good catch moron. The topic at hand was whether a team could be required to legally change their name.

Topic - Is a team required to legally change its name?

(Answer per legal analyis of Post 87)

Resolution - No they did not have to.

Gee faced with the brilliance of Sava I can full well see the topic of whether a team could be forced to legally change their name apparently was never discussed in post 87. Reality has been successfully distorted.


Moron.

It's not brilliant to read what was written and repeat it. That's all I did.

I'm generally concerned that you might have some sort of learning disability. If so, I'd do all I can to help. I wouldn't make fun of you or anything.

But typically people refuse to admit they are wrong because of pride. As if saying "oops, my bad" is such a horrible thing.

It's highly entertaining to watch a prideful moron continue to assert he isn't wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.