BleedBNG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 yeah jpeg - granted, i did try to just copy and paste **edit: wasn't in full editor mode Right after submission: skins poll.JPG After refresh: skins poll 1.JPG Of course it could have been rigged this way (oh Arianna, LOL) https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152404728122913 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Of course it could have been rigged this way (oh Arianna, LOL) https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152404728122913 thanks for the link - just emailed that to the editor on the column who I was communicating with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'm telling you Oreo is like calling someone dookieface. It's just a stupid name no one cares about. I'm saying I've been around mixed people all my life with people envying them due to nice hair and skin. With Native Americans most Americans rarely ever see one so how we know they are not being called redskins. You are right in that "Oreo" is aimed at blacks who are perceived to be "acting white". On pretty much everything else, though, you are wrong. For starters, it's not the same as "doookie face" or some other equivalent...dookie face has nothing whatsoever rooted in anything racial. Obviously Oreo does. Second, you're incredibly naive or incredibly young if you think "Oreo" is an insult only used by kids that "nobody cares about". Lastly, the whole notion that those who are mixed race are "envied" is insulting on multiple levels. For one, it completely ignores the variety of ways someone of mixed heritage has been shunned, bullied, ostracized and had rights taken away over our country's history. And second, it puts the emphasis of that supposed envy solely on their looks...it would be like saying whites try and get tans and get perms because they actually "envy" blacks, so that should prove that blacks are rarely the receivers of racial insults. You may have "been around mixed people" but I have them in my family, including my daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyIsThatYou? Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 That is understandable, but yes everything has been answered in your post. In short, no one really agrees with how to handle any of it. One person likes an idea, another person doesn't. That is the way it will go even if a name change is forced. There will be a lot of disagreement no matter how this is handled. Yea, I know what you're saying. But I don't think the question I raised was answered. My specific question was if anyone knew if there were bylaws that stated every NFL franchise needs a team name. I am asking if "Washington Football Club" or "Washington FC" is even a possibility. I know that the idea has been floated around, but I've never seen any discussion about the rules governing team names. I have googled this to no avail. I have yet to hear or read anyone discussing the question I raised specifically, so posed it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sorry, from the WashCrap, but a decent article non the less... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/01/no-the-fcc-may-not-ban-the-use-of-redskins-on-radio-and-tv-broadcasting/ Whew! I was about to say, all hope is lost at this point.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 thanks for the link - just emailed that to the editor on the column who I was communicating with All their interested in is the red banner under the helmet that says "7% Voted No, the name is not meant to be offensive" as the link is share on FB and Twit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyIsThatYou? Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 along those same lines, i want to know what obstacles there are to renaming a team- i'm talking about the 'washington' part. the greatest possible outcome (IMO) is keeping 'redskins', and getting a tribe (im on record with 'potomac', the leadership of whom has already spoken out in favor of this) to take the place of the 'washington'. having tribal endorsement, much like FSU, would essentially take the wind out of the sails of most of the media critics. the california/anaheim angels have done it. (not sure if they actually moved to a new city). same with miami. i dont know what the technicalities are, but i'd like to know if this is doable. Man, that is a good suggestion and a great question. I'd like Potomac Redskins or Washington FC. I just don't know the bylaws. You would think some beat writer would have addressed this by now. With all of the space devoted to this issue from the Post, at least a small article or two would be devoted to the rules governing NFL team names. Do you have to have a name (Washington Football Club)? Do you have to have a city in front of the name (Potomac Redskins)? I know "Potomac" is a city, but in this idea, "Potomac" is representing a tribe. EDIT: Now that I think about it, could they keep Washington and add "Potomac" to Redskins? Officially they would be the Washington Potomac Redskins, and short-hand would be Redskins [similar to the New York Metropolitans (Mets) or New York Football Giants (Giants)]. Obviously, this would in conjunction with getting the Potomac (aka Patawomeck) tribe to endorse the team, just like the FSU Seminoles are supported by the Seminole tribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 it's at 90% YES (to banning name) / 8% NO HumbleSkins @johnnylocal 2m2 minutes ago @skinznation @AOL Would you like you're beheading on Monday or not on Monday? How you ask is as important as what you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Again...damn. Not being heard. Again...insulting. Gizmo and whats up... boy oh boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Do you have to have a city in front of the name (Potomac Redskins)? New England isn't a city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnyIsThatYou? Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 New England isn't a city True, obvious point I didn't consider. Still a bit different, since New England is an area within the US. Potomac in Potomac Redskins would specifically be referring to a tribe. But in any case, I think Washington "Potomac Redskins" is a better idea anyway, since that would be shortened to just Redskins when referring to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Another poll... this one for the FCC issue. http://www.aol.com/article/2014/10/01/should-the-washington-redskins-name-be-banned-from-radio-and-television-fcc/20970445/ get yer votes in. they switch yes and no around after you vote. Should be 90+% voting NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 they switch yes and no around after you vote. Should be 90+% voting NO.hopefully they revisit the fraud tomorrow. I'll make a point to email again if he doesn't respond. The guy has been pretty nice about it though but can't keep on with the excuses after that Facebook link pointed out above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 hopefully they revisit the fraud tomorrow. I'll make a point to email again if he doesn't respond. The guy has been pretty nice about it though but can't keep on with the excuses after that Facebook link pointed out above they take the option that you vote for and move it to the top. i voted no the first time, no was on top. i voted yes the second time, and yes was on the top. no conspiracy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Manipulation of data has and always will occur. As long as these polls exist and aren't a part of a 3rd party that is monitored, they'll be used to manipulate and inspire flame wars from both sides. When debating this topic, logic and reason will lose out to emotional pleas. I have yet to see a real debate on this issue where the following list of fallacies isn't used to create a false sense of "reason" on why the name is "racists". The term racist is an inflammatory word, and immediately hits at the core of American culture. We have a history where the worst of the worst came about and also a history where we had helped defeated the worst of the worst (WW2). In both cases racism was the core of these wars. Genocide. These are terms used to inflame what should be a debate on the history and usage of the word "redskin". I think many who may favor the "don't change the name" aren't educated in the word enough, and haven't done or can't do enough digging to determine if the word was or was not used historically in a predominant way or if we're dealing with a revision of history in order to eliminate the usage and possible exploitation of Indian culture throughout sports. I am not naive, and I do not believe this is the end. These debates never end. They just change. In 1991 it was that redskin meant scalp, which I've done research on (limited as it may be, the internet has vast amounts of data) and found that the term does not mean scalp and has never meant scalp. It has meant Indian. Now whether Indian itself is a mockery, because it represents a European POV that is due to the inadvertent naming of the people (as the explorers thought they'd found a shorter trade route to the Indies, and so they'd be able to control trade routes of spices, silks and other exotic items). The term red people comes from the indigenous people themselves. I've pointed out before, and I'm certain I'm not the only one, that Oklahoma is Choctaw for "red people". Red skins came from the French translation (this was a reference from another post of mine that goes to the law paper presented by a Marquette student). It was given by the native population and has survived, because at the time the settlers were likely referenced as the white skins (I'm assuming) or pale skins (also an assumption). Regardless, that was how the native population talked and created the term. Slang terms that are used against other races were developed as ways of keeping those races down and they were meant to be derogatory. These words were not given by these minorities by themselves, but instead by the racists who wanted to make people feel less than human... and I don't use these words, because I do find them horrific in nature. But because the "change the name" contingent has said that "Redskins" is racist and derogatory, people have immediately associated it with a slew of actual racist terms. I find that pretty horrific. Native Americans have never really been "one people", so we'll never have one universal answer from them. Native Americans come from tribal people, some of which didn't like each other, fought with each other, others were peaceful in nature and existed far enough away from others to not have this occur. Or traded with each other. It goes on and on, and the entire history cannot be paraphrased easily. I could go on, but all I can say is Redskins is not racist. It is not derogatory. The name was started as an honoring of what G. P. Marshall thought were a mystical people who helped the South (it is his view, twisted or otherwise). I don't like the attacks on Redskins fans. I don't appreciate the lack of unbiased reporting, but all I can do is post here or on my other internet accounts where my posts aren't removed for their "pro-Redskin" point of view. I only attempt to present facts to support my arguments, references to those facts, but needless to say this isn't math. 2+2=4 in math. It's obvious. Redskins is much more complicated, and I don't think the American public is given the whole truth or even enough of the partial truths to make a real association and determination in an educated manner. Interesting link of the post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Tampa Bay is also not a city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Folks, Y'all are spending hours clicking over and over again, on a poll that isn't counting your votes, on a web page that makes money every time you refresh the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 they take the option that you vote for and move it to the top. i voted no the first time, no was on top. i voted yes the second time, and yes was on the top. no conspiracy here.top and bottom is irrelevant, the counting is where the errors are occurring. A link has already been provided for other reports and I provided screen shots of vote being removed while yes being increased Folks, Y'all are spending hours clicking over and over again, on a poll that isn't counting your votes, on a web page that makes money every time you refresh the page. oh I know- it's the principle though that this one will come up in discussions more than likely, may as well discredit ahead of time and get it to be shown as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 My specific question was if anyone knew if there were bylaws that stated every NFL franchise needs a team name. I am asking if "Washington Football Club" or "Washington FC" is even a possibility. You are correct, I read it wrong. I will answer your question with, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 From AOL guy earlier: "AOL staff was able to replicate this behavior on multiple computers using three different web browsers (Chrome, Firefox and Safari). We do believe the poll to be accurate, but want to make sure everyone has the same experience using it. Would you be willing to try again and wait to see a few minutes if it catches up? " They know the issue is there and replicated it. They say it's possibly lag but that is debunked because the 'yes' continues to jump with no lag while the 'no' literally removes the vote it shows from completion to refreshing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Hahaha poll was removed with the message below: Editor's note: A previously-included third-party poll had technical difficulties and had to be removed from this article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 True, obvious point I didn't consider. Still a bit different, since New England is an area within the US. Potomac in Potomac Redskins would specifically be referring to a tribe. But in any case, I think Washington "Potomac Redskins" is a better idea anyway, since that would be shortened to just Redskins when referring to the team. I see what you mean. We'll say it's the tribe (with THEIR OK, like the Seminoles) while the NFL pretends it's the river area. Hahaha poll was removed with the message below: Editor's note: A previously-included third-party poll had technical difficulties and had to be removed from this article And so goes another accurate AOL poll for 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundyrush Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You are right in that "Oreo" is aimed at blacks who are perceived to be "acting white". On pretty much everything else, though, you are wrong. For starters, it's not the same as "doookie face" or some other equivalent...dookie face has nothing whatsoever rooted in anything racial. Obviously Oreo does. Second, you're incredibly naive or incredibly young if you think "Oreo" is an insult only used by kids that "nobody cares about". Lastly, the whole notion that those who are mixed race are "envied" is insulting on multiple levels. For one, it completely ignores the variety of ways someone of mixed heritage has been shunned, bullied, ostracized and had rights taken away over our country's history. And second, it puts the emphasis of that supposed envy solely on their looks...it would be like saying whites try and get tans and get perms because they actually "envy" blacks, so that should prove that blacks are rarely the receivers of racial insults. You may have "been around mixed people" but I have them in my family, including my daughter. The plight of mixed-race Americans? You gotta be kidding me! And let's be honest when discussing mixed-race relations in the US its the combination of white Americans with fill in the blank. Are you referring to the one drop rule which was basically made to separate pure white blooded Americans from semi-white blooded Americans. Is that how they were ostracized and shunned away from the privileged white community and made to grow up in the downtrodden black community? Even when in the black community their lite skin color afforded them advantages. Also your analogy make no sense. They are envied because of how they look. I'm not implying they are not racially ridiculed, but throughout our country history lite skinned people have it better than dark skinned people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whats up? Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 lol. AOL Editor's Note: "A previously-included third-party poll had technical difficulties and had to be removed from this article." No votes on a Redskins' name ban apparently were being counted as yes votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 ^^HAHAHAHA!! Made my morning with this.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.