NYJetsFan.com Forums: Name Problems - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

Chris Johnson signs 2 year deal - http://nyjetsfan.com...showtopic=38339
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 11:34 AM) He was at the Knicks/Nets game yesterday
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 11:36 AM) Idk about the numbers, I read an article that said that the Jets offered a "attractive" deal to Johnson and that it was always a longshot that he would sign yesterday, but the Jets believe the deal is market value for him
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 11:36 AM)

Quote

The Jets put together a convincing package on Tuesday to him, on and off the field. Now it is up to him. - See more at: http://m.metro.us/ne...h.cFze6cx8.dpuf
Chaos Icon : (Today, 12:30 PM) when did we start using "quote" in the shoutbox?
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 12:33 PM) yesterday at 9:24 PM
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 01:09 PM) If the JETS get Chris Johnson he better not wear #28
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 01:09 PM) all I'm sayin
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 01:09 PM) carry on numbnuts
santana Icon : (Today, 01:11 PM)

Quote

nyjetsfan setting new quote trends
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:17 PM) Signed to a two year deal
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:18 PM) Per Shefter
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:18 PM) CJ1K that is
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:20 PM) http://i.imgur.com/RWFWUYi.gif From Santana
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 02:32 PM) he better not wear 28 though
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 02:32 PM) all I'm sayin
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 02:32 PM) that is C-Mart's #
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 02:32 PM) PERIOD
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 02:33 PM) Hes wearing #28
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 02:34 PM) He ain't wearing 28
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:34 PM) Well considering they already retired #28 in honor of Curtis Martin, I don't see Johnson wearing #28.
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:35 PM) Kind of defeats the purpose of retiring a number.
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:39 PM) But I know he better not wear LaMont Jordan's number. Or I'll be pissed.
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:40 PM) Snell
santana Icon : (Today, 02:41 PM) The title race is real
Chaos Icon : (Today, 02:42 PM) Jordan...what number was he? it was 30sometihng
Chaos Icon : (Today, 02:43 PM) tanaka had a great game today. gave up 2 hits due to bunts. 10K
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:48 PM) Jordan was #34 with the Jets.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:03 PM) Tanaka is looking like a stud
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) Jets added Vick, Chris Johnson, and Eric Decker to the offense.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) FIRE IDZIK
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) And this draft is loaded at the offensive skill positions
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) Hopefully we can get anohter starting WR and starting TE in the draft
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:05 PM) Our offense could be much better than last year
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:05 PM) can't get much worse than what it's been the last 2 years
santana Icon : (Today, 03:22 PM) Very cool
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Today, 03:24 PM) FIRE IDZIK
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:32 PM) still need another WR
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:33 PM) so i bet powell barely gets any touches this year and goodson gets cut
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 03:34 PM) Goodson is as good as gone.
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 03:34 PM) With all his legal issues and coming off injury he is done. Possibly even in the NFL
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:39 PM) Powell is average anyways.
Chaos Icon : (Today, 03:39 PM) @ProFootballTalk 5m

Per source, Chris Johnson's two-year deal has a base value of $8 million, with another $1 million available in incentives based on yardage.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:40 PM) He does a lot of things well, but isn't talented enough. Johnson has breakaway ability still and Ivory is man beast running the football
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:41 PM) We will get another WR in the draft. Even in round 2 you can get a starting WR
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 04:09 PM) I am still standing by my CB in the first round and WR in the second prediction
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Name Problems Redskins Name Battle

#1 User is offline   Chaos Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Assistant Admin
  • Posts: 2,946
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2005 - 06:50 AM

something interesting i found online...what do u guys think


Legal battle over Redskins name continues

By BRETT ZONGKER, Associated Press Writer
April 8, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Major American Indian groups went to court Friday trying to revoke the Washington Redskins' trademark name, calling it a disparaging reference to millions of people.

Four national organizations joined a District of Columbia resident who sued in 1992 to pressure the team to drop the Redskins moniker because they consider it offensive. But a team lawyer argued that the appeal should be dismissed because the legal complaints weren't filed until decades after the name was first adopted in 1933.

``This football team has been on actual notice from 1972 that Native Americans found this name offensive,'' attorney Thomas Morrison, representing the American Indian groups, told the U.S. Court of Appeals. ``I don't think we'd be hearing this debate if it were a different ethnic group.''

Suzan Shown Harjo, one of the original plaintiffs, won the first round in 1999 when a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the Redskins' trademarks. But a federal judge reversed that decision last year, ruling the panel relied on flawed data.

``We should not be the only group that the law allows discrimination against,'' said Harjo, president of the Morningstar Institute, an American Indian rights group.

Team lawyer Robert Raskopf said that ``redskin'' wasn't considered offensive when the trademark was first issued to the football franchise in 1967. He said at that time, there was no substantial evidence that the term was offensive.

But Raskopf maintained that it was important to distinguish between how a dictionary defines a word and the way a word is actually used. He said the team has never used its name in a disparaging way.

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves, but owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to Redskins in 1933 to avoid confusion with the local baseball team. The team moved to Washington four years later.

For 40 years the team operated without a trademark on its name, and it could go on using the name without a trademark, said Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Trademarks allow the team to control distribution of team merchandise, and Randolph said the consequence of revoking the trademark could be a proliferation of Redskins apparel.

``The effect could be to spread the term even further,'' Randolph said.

A ruling could come at any time, but the three judge panel typically issues a decision before the current term ends in July.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users