Washington Redskins change their name

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are correct on Baldwin' Blake character. We saw Jeffrey Richards' Broadway production after the film and Blake wasn't part of that cast.

Mamet's work is characterized by its crisp, precise dialogue and the Blake scene is especially electric.

"First prize is a new car. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is You're Fired!"

"Nice guy? I don't give a sh1t! Good father? F UCK YOU! Go home and play with your kids!"

I've had two bosses like this.  Sales guys can make a lot of money which pisses a lot of people off (why, I don't know), but they also have crazy pressures and get to go to work in those type environments.  You're as good as your last sale or your last quarter.  Don't perform, good bye.  No tenure, no union, no nice guy bonus.  Perform or gone.

[MU82]

You are correct on Baldwin' Blake character. We saw Jeffrey Richards' Broadway production after the film and Blake wasn't part of that cast.

Mamet's work is characterized by its crisp, precise dialogue and the Blake scene is especially electric.

"First prize is a new car. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is You're Fired!"

"Nice guy? I don't give a sh1t! Good father? F UCK YOU! Go home and play with your kids!"

People use the term "jaw dropped" but usually don't mean it literally. When I saw GGR in the theater, and that scene came on, my jaw dropped. I practically had to pick it up from the floor.

"You see this watch? This watch costs more than your car!"

When I bought a Hyundai three years ago, my wife was skeptical because Blake ripped Hyundais in his scene!

[keefe]

When I bought a Hyundai three years ago, my wife was skeptical because Blake ripped Hyundais in his scene!

I am still laughing 5 minutes later at this

[MU82]

I am still laughing 5 minutes later at this

Yeah, she's like, "We can't get a Hyundai. Alec Baldwin's watch cost more than a Hyundai!"

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nimrods anyone?

....waiting for keefe to weigh in on our military changing the name of the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters

LOL.   Here you go   

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/27/army-vets-blast-pc-police-for-attacking-apache-chi/

[ChicosBailBonds]

Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/

Honest question (because I have no idea):

Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?

I mean, if I really hated the Redskins, I'm not sure I'd be calling the patent office about it.

[brandx]

Patent office got ZERO complaints about the name prior to the decision. LOL

Definitely in the running for most absurd statement of the year so far.

Did anyone in the country even know that the patent office has anything to do to this?

And, even if they did, why would they complain to the patent office?

If you don't like the title of a book, do you complain to the U.S. Copyright Office?

[Coleman]

LOL...Washington Times.

Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.

Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?

I guess that means its ok.

See what I did there?

[brandx]

LOL...Washington Times.

Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.

Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?

I guess that means its ok.

See what I did there?

Thanks, Chicos

[GGGG]

Honest question (because I have no idea):

Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.

Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.

[Benny B]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.

Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.

You should change your name to Sultan of Strawmen

[ChicosBailBonds]

LOL...Washington Times.

Figures they would manufacture such an irrelevant statistic.

Did you also know that the Department of Commerce had ZERO formal complaints filed to its office about segregation at lunch counters in the 1950s?

I guess that means its ok.

See what I did there?

I did see what you did there, a publication you don't like therefore it doesn't count.  You used to do that last year on a few stories and then I would provide the same stories written by the AP or whatever, and you would then "recognize them".  Comical.

The problem with your analogy, much like many of your failed arguments here (like Eskimo being one of the most recent), is that there were claims of many complaints about the name to the Patent Office.  Now, a fine publication like the Washington ComPost (see what I did there) would have filed a Freedom of Information Act to determine if that statement was true.  They didn't.  The Washington Times, the paper you don't like, DID.  Hmm.  Now you don't like the result.  Problem is, the result doesn't jive with one of the reasons given for turning down the trademark.  Or, in other words, they were caught with their pants down.  Seems to be very common place these days.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honest question (because I have no idea):

Does the patent office normally receive consumer complaints for this kind of stuff?

I mean, if I really hated the Redskins, I'm not sure I'd be calling the patent office about it.

Some do, recently there was a list of names that actually were NOT denied trademark access DESPITE complaints about the trademarks.  Nevertheless, what's more important in my view is that complaints were supposed to be big reason why the trademark was revoked. 

In fact, the USPTO issued this as part of their statement :  "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"


So apparently complaints meant something, so much so that they pulled data out of their arse to put it in their filing.  Where they got these data points, well we don't know.  What we do know, is that no complaints went to the USPTO about Redksins, despite complaints about other names which the USPTO ignored.

In summary, complaints about some names received at USPTO don't mean anything and trademark approved.  No complaints at USPTO, too bad we're going to reject a trademark anyway based on other numbers which no one can reproduce or source in any fashion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Patent Office does not have a mechanism to receive comments from the general public as it is not part of their decision making process.

Chicos loves to build strawmen...but this is the strawiest one he has built in quite a while.

UHm, categorically...Bullshyte.  The USPTO admitted to approving some trademarks despite protests labeled against those trademarks.  Most of them porn products, adult products, etc.  Now they claim they don't have a mechanism to take these complaints, but they did for those other names.

What's even more, the USPTO admits they got complaints AFTER THEIR DECISION.  So they had a mechanism to count those, but didn't have a mechanism before?   They were for it before they were against it?

LOL.  Seriously.  YOU. Can't. Make. THIS. Crap. Up.

[Coleman]

I did see what you did there, a publication you don't like therefore it doesn't count.  You used to do that last year on a few stories and then I would provide the same stories written by the AP or whatever, and you would then "recognize them".  Comical.

The problem with your analogy, much like many of your failed arguments here (like Eskimo being one of the most recent), is that there were claims of many complaints about the name to the Patent Office.  Now, a fine publication like the Washington ComPost (see what I did there) would have filed a Freedom of Information Act to determine if that statement was true.  They didn't.  The Washington Times, the paper you don't like, DID.  Hmm.  Now you don't like the result.  Problem is, the result doesn't jive with one of the reasons given for turning down the trademark.  Or, in other words, they were caught with their pants down.  Seems to be very common place these days.

Its not that I don't like them, its that its not real journalism. It is owned and operated by the Unification Church, founded by that Church's founder as a mouthpiece of the Church to "let the American people know about God," according to its founder. So yeah, not real journalism.

I'm fine with conservative journalism when its actually done by journalists.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Its not that I don't like them, its that its not real journalism. It is owned and operated by the Unification Church, founded by that Church's founder as a mouthpiece of the Church to "let the American people know about God," according to its founder. So yeah, not real journalism.

I'm fine with conservative journalism when its actually done by journalists.

It was started by them, but was sold to News World Communications which owns UPI among other news outlets, mostly international.

Ultimately, I don't care who owns them, they did something the Post should have done.  I don't care if it is a citizen journalist, or a guy pretending to be a pimp and bringing down Acorn, the truth is the truth.  Since so many media outlets have taken time off the last number of years, it is good to see some out there that are not.  As for not real journalists, well they've had quite a list of columnists and opinion writers over the years that have also written for the NY Times, WSJ, Dallas Morning News, Sacramento Tribune, etc, etc.  Journalists. 

[MU82]

It was started by them, but was sold to News World Communications which owns UPI among other news outlets, mostly international.

Ultimately, I don't care who owns them, they did something the Post should have done.  I don't care if it is a citizen journalist, or a guy pretending to be a pimp and bringing down Acorn, the truth is the truth.  Since so many media outlets have taken time off the last number of years, it is good to see some out there that are not.  As for not real journalists, well they've had quite a list of columnists and opinion writers over the years that have also written for the NY Times, WSJ, Dallas Morning News, Sacramento Tribune, etc, etc.  Journalists.  

Washington Times is not a well-respected publication, and not just because of its right-leaning ways. Same is true of the New York Post, another horrible newspaper that favors the right. The Wall Street Journal and San Diego Union-Tribune -- both right-leaning -- are widely respected.

UPI hasn't been a factor for several decades, not even internationally where it is dwarfed in scope by AP and Reuters, among others.

I'm not commenting at all about the subjects they treat that are being argued about in this thread. I'm simply a registered Independent and former newspaper journalist who is setting the record straight on the publications themselves.

[keefe]

Washington Times is not a well-respected publication, and not just because of its right-leaning ways.

Funny you mention this. The Washington Times is the daily of choice at the Pentagon. Personally, I still prefer the Post. It is a world class publication regardless of political bent. I don't think the same can be said for the Times.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Funny you mention this. The Washington Times is the daily of choice at the Pentagon. Personally, I still prefer the Post. It is a world class publication regardless of political bent. I don't think the same can be said for the Times.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement or MU82's.  Question I have is why the Post didn't expand on the story and do a simple FOIA request, but the Times did.  Actually, no need to answer that question because the answer is obvious.  

I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore.  Maybe if some of these guys actually went against their beliefs and acted as journalists, they would get some more respect.  Let's not forget, as much as MU82 and others want to say how it is not respected, the media in generals is not respected at all. Again, reasons are obvious.

Confidence in newspapers down to 22%


http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx

[MU82]

I wouldn't disagree with that statement or MU82's.  Question I have is why the Post didn't expand on the story and do a simple FOIA request, but the Times did.  Actually, no need to answer that question because the answer is obvious.  

I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore.  Maybe if some of these guys actually went against their beliefs and acted as journalists, they would get some more respect.  Let's not forget, as much as MU82 and others want to say how it is not respected, the media in generals is not respected at all. Again, reasons are obvious.

Confidence in newspapers down to 22%


http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx

Newspapers are in big trouble, we all know that. It's the major reason I'm an ex-journalist!

I'd guess that the NYTimes and Washington Post have broken more legitimate, big stories in any year than the little ones have in any decade. Much of that has to do with resources, of course.

[brandx]

I'm always amazed at how the "less respected" or smaller news outlets go out and hustle, find stuff that the...ahem...the bigger guys don't find or REFUSE to explore. 

The Times went out and hustled for this because they hustle after EVERY story that makes liberals look bad. Period. End of story.

Why would you be amazed over that? It is what they do.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Newspapers are in big trouble, we all know that. It's the major reason I'm an ex-journalist!

I'd guess that the NYTimes and Washington Post have broken more legitimate, big stories in any year than the little ones have in any decade. Much of that has to do with resources, of course.

That's part of it, but there is also stories they refuse to cover or ideological reasons or will only cover on the periphery and not dig.  Sheryl Atkinson who just quit CBS tells it quite nicely.  It's sad, but that's the state of journalism in this country and has been for a long time. A classic example is the immigration flood that has been going for months and only the small guys covered it, until the big guys could no longer ignore it.  Makes you wonder how many stories are buried, as Atkinson puts it, because they are cozy and told to bury them.  That's the sad part.

It's not just newspapers as the graph clearly shows.  Birds of a feather certainly flock together on who supports it, however.

[brandx]

That's part of it, but there is also stories they refuse to cover or ideological reasons or will only cover on the periphery and not dig.  Sheryl Atkinson who just quit CBS tells it quite nicely.  It's sad, but that's the state of journalism in this country and has been for a long time. A classic example is the immigration flood that has been going for months and only the small guys covered it, until the big guys could no longer ignore it.  Makes you wonder how many stories are buried, as Atkinson puts it, because they are cozy and told to bury them.  That's the sad part.

It's not just newspapers as the graph clearly shows.  Birds of a feather certainly flock together on who supports it, however.

For all of your political bluster over this, there really is a very, very simple answer. And it applies to all sides.

It is all about access!! Every week on Meet the Press or Fox's Sunday show or ABC's show, there are lies being told by both sides and the hosts never challenge those lies. Why? It is all about access!! If politicians are going to get called out every time they lie, they would refuse to go on these programs.

Simple as 1, 2, 3.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Blackhawks are making changes....someone was outraged and I am thrilled that they are responding to the outrage.  Now, if they can only end the racist logo there will be peace in the world.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/11350487/chicago-blackhawks-nix-stripper-online-petition-launched