Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I refuse to read this stupid f-cking thread, but pass along this lovely satire without further comment:
It’s not so bad as long as you skip Rick’s comments. Some really good points have been made.
The fact that the same body of evidence used in the prior 1992 case of which the TTAB found in favor of rejecting the trademark was overruled by federal court. No new evidence was presented in this case yet the TTAB ruled in exactly the same way. We will see how “rule of law” applies this time.
I saw no evidence to support their “finding” relating to 1967 thoughts. Did you?
A large part of why the federal court overuled was because of the doctrine of laches, or, there was an unreasonable delay in filing the claim. Another court ruled that laches was applied inappropriately, which opened it up for them to file another claim.
As for the evidence, I think at least the two things I listed previously are applicable.
I have figured it out. pakfanistan is racist.<br>
And apparently cannot have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him without calling them names. Pretty sad.And yet, I’m doing the exact thing you say I cannot.
What happened to the whole thing where you weren’t going to respond to me? I miss those days. I didn’t feel like I needed hip waders to get through the forum.
Oh, you’ve made your position clear enough not only on this subject but many other ones that show exactly where you’re coming from. The difficulty is no one can have an opposing view without drawing your ire. For me, I find it hard to see how someone, you included, are liberal in actual mindset, rather than in political leaning, when you REFUSE to even acknowledge that someone can have an opposing point of view. Instead of liberal I think we should refer to those on the political left as anarchists. It’s a much more fitting description.
And yet, after repeated requests, nobody will list what I think. It’s so clear it should be easy. Then we can get to the meat of specifically what you disagree with.
Labeling liberals as anarchists makes very little sense. I don’t know how they can be considered pro big government, and also anarchists. Since libertarians are so fond of eliminating government, I would think they’re closer to anarchy.
If you read it then I assume you realize the relevant legal question is whether at the time the trademark was registered whether it was disparaging. That means that the challengers to the trademark must submit evidence that the trademark would be considered disparaging as they were registered. The trademark was registered in 1967. Where is the evidence that in 1967 the term was offensive? If so why did anyone wait until 1992 to file the first case? Where was the evidence that showed what public opinion was back in 1967?
Yes actually. I thought it was pretty well laid out how they came to the conclusion that it was offensive in 1967. Which part did you disagree with?
Whether the mark is politically incorrect or disparaging today is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The evidence the TTAB did use was a National Congress of American Indians’ (“NCAI”) 1993 Resolution 93- 11. What someone said or thought in 1993 is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether in 1967 a trademark was offensive.
Actually, they also noted that the definition for the word started being noted as offensive, starting around the ’60s, and also that usage to refer to Native Americans dropped off around the same time. They also made a point of saying that the name Redskins is still clearly associated with Native Americans.
Just because 50 senators and a president have inserted themselves into the discussion does not mean that “rule of law” should be ignored.
What evidence do you have to show that this was a political decision, other than the fact that you disagree with it?
pakfanistan, I am so sick of hearing your liberal biased drivel. NO ONE dares to have an opposing view lest they be stupid, ignorant conservatives. Tell you what I’ll match you in an IQ contest and spot you 40 points. And I too am sick and tired of a president (lower case on purpose) that lies and talks down to me. He will become known as the worst president in history, yes even worse than James Buchanan (who beats carter by a long shot).
I don’t really care if people disagree with me. I thought SR44 and I were having an interesting conversation until lil Ricky and the rest of the tea party cheering squad showed up.
I would be interested to hear which part of my ‘liberal biased drivel’ you think is liberal, biased, and disagree with. Then we could have an actual conversation on our differences, rather than labeling me a ‘shrill for the administration’, or as ‘drinking the kool aid’.
Just like Rick I doubt you even know what my position is.
I most certianly did read the TTAB. What is your point? Am I supposed to magically understand how a politically motivated PC ruling makes sense from reading it? I am supposed to magically agree with your viewpoint even though a unbiased review of both sides of the discussion could allow one to reach the conclusion this was government overreach.
So, first, yes, if you read the TTAB, you can see how they came to that conclusion. I would be interested in hearing specifically which points of their logic you disagree with.
Also, it’s loltastic that an “unbiased review of both sides” would inevitably lead to your conclusion.
Lastly, do you know what my viewpoint is? Can you state it in three sentences for me?
BTW I notice you did not even remark on the fact that no one even complained about the name. The government did it on its own. I am not shocked. I am sure you have prepared some more clever names as per your MO.
Did you read the TTAB opinion O Enlightened One? I can tell that you haven’t.
Just out of curiosity, did you read (or even glance at)the TTAB opinion I posted before you typed out that screed?
You’re another butt hurt conservative talk radio parrot who has decided that since I haven’t jumped on the grrr first amendment Obama is the worst open carry in Starbucks Ayn Rand 4 Lyfe bandwagon that I must be a brainwashed liberal.
There’s a difference between asking should they be allowed to use it, vs. should they be allowed to trademark it.
Here is the link to the TTAB opinion if anyone wants to check it out.
If they went all the way back to ’92 I would be beside myself.
Could you imagine if we had a more recent title than them. It would bring new meaning to ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’.
Pakfanistan,<br>
You better save that $10 for your next hippy protest. You might need to buy some soap or something.Dear Internet, I offered Rick a monetary incentive to have a real discussion and he has instead chosen to hide behind fifth grade snark.
This is a fantastic example that shows in economics people can not be counted on to act rationally.
A rational individual would have take the post where I laid out my position, paraphrased it, and collected the easy money. Rick, however…..irrational. Inflammatory.
He is the Rock of Gibraltar of stupidity, a veritable edifice of dumbassery.
Proceed at your own risk.
I didn’t remember that (article from Dec 2012).
I remembered it because I printed it off and posted it on the fridge for the benefit of my MiL, who is a UNC homer.
FERPA works with the media. But with the NCAA?…not so much.
I glanced at the FERPA rules on disclosure, and couldn’t find anything that looked like it applied to the NCAA. Except apparently, the NCAA is considered a post secondary institution, which I find baffling.
I also found this:
Q. What is the relationship between FERPA and the NCAA, which requests and maintains all sorts of information in its investigations and in its routine, required reporting?
A.Student athletes sign a release allowing sharing of the education record information with the NCAA.
So yep, they’re boned.
Can’t they just continue to hide behind FERPA to avoid providing transcripts?
Also, their accreditation has already come into question at least a little.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/14/2545326/accrediting-agency-to-review-academic.html
I’ll give you $10 (or the equivalent) if you can accurately summarize my position.
Here’s a hint to get you started, there should be three.
I have a sneaking suspicion that $10 would be less safe if I put it in the bank.
Yup, Mr Politically Correct boy loves to be offensive, well except for football team names.
Maybe you should take three straight posts this time to explain your hypocrisy.
You’re boring. You bore me.
I could have it wrong, but CD seems to operate off of questions, metaphors, obscure references, and semi indirect statements that require a little thought to grasp the point.
The most relevant example I can think of for semi-indirect statement is when he suggested StateFansNation drop the e. Really, that’s a very direct statement, but I don’t think some people got it.
And if you don’t get the references, you’re doomed. 90% of his posts I don’t understand have a reference I don’t understand.
What do I know though, you might be able to put his posts through a CD decoder ring and get out, “Be sure to drink your ovaltine.”
I think I just figured out why you have so much trouble with my posts.
You’re reading between the lines. See, we have this thing called an alphabet. The alphabet uses what we call letters to represent basic sounds. Then, we can take those ‘letters’ and arrange them to create ‘words’. Words are collections of letters that are used to represent an idea. Then, you can take those words and arrange them into ‘sentences’ which give additional meaning. Crazy right?
So, I think the biggest thing that would help you, is stop looking at the spaces between the lines, and start paying attention to the words and sentences. I bet once you get the hang of that, you can move up to Dick and Jane books, and then maybe some Hardy Boys (or Nancy Drew, which I suspect is more your thing). With enough practice, you’ll finally be able to understand my posts.
I’ve already laid out my position in terms so simple a child could understand it. Since you continue to reference things I haven’t said, I am forced to conclude you can’t actually comprehend basic English.
Heck, I even responded directly to you with the three things I’m saying, and you’re STILL getting it wrong.
Do I need to draw some pictures for you? I’m not a very good artist, but I think I can get the point across.
I find it highly comical that a poster who states he does not care if he is offensive cares so much that other are offended by a football team name.
I find it sad that a poster who thinks so highly of himself struggles so mightily with reading comprehension 🙁
It OK, don’t be cry.
I was looking at it more from the perspective of allowing athletes to profit from the use of their likeness. I didn’t express that very well.
