Mr. Weis Sues over Obesity Surgery

[Bucky]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/02/13/weis.malpractice.ap/index.html


How about a treadmill?? For an incredibly motivated and successful man, I find it hard to understand why he can't take care of his own body.

[Rupturedduck]

yet you have that freakin ugly cleveland head logo on the post,talk about a disgraceful depiction of 'native americans' with nicknames already changed,that logo is the most disgraceful.

[NCT]

That's what I call "baiting".

[UGA]

yet you have that freakin ugly cleveland head logo on the post,talk about a disgraceful depiction of 'native americans' with nicknames already changed,that logo is the most disgraceful.

Ah, a liberal at fine!

[Lincoln Tower]

Having gone to many Indians games (probably at least 300-400), I have seen some protestors. Most are white. In fact, probably 99% of them are not Native American.

I understand that it could be construed as racially insensitive. And I'll root for the team regardless of what they were called. But until ACTUAL Indians come to protest, I will assume it's not that offensive.

[NCT]

Having gone to many Indians games (probably at least 300-400), I have seen some protestors. Most are white. In fact, probably 99% of them are not Native American.

I understand that it could be construed as racially insensitive. And I'll root for the team regardless of what they were called. But until ACTUAL Indians come to protest, I will assume it's not that offensive.

I see your point, and I agree to an extent. I'm a Braves fan, after all. That is, I personally don't have a huge problem with the nickname (the logo's a little more startling to me). But what's the Native American population like in the Cleveland area? It's been a long time, but when I visited my yankee cousins in Parma, I just don't remember seeing a bunch of folks that appeared to be Indians. My point is that folks in North Carolina or Oklahoma or Arizona or Alaska might be mightily offended but opt not to take the road trip to the banks of the Cuyahoga for a game day protest.

[Lincoln Tower]

I see your point, and I agree to an extent. I'm a Braves fan, after all. That is, I personally don't have a huge problem with the nickname (the logo's a little more startling to me). But what's the Native American population like in the Cleveland area? It's been a long time, but when I visited my yankee cousins in Parma, I just don't remember seeing a bunch of folks that appeared to be Indians. My point is that folks in North Carolina or Oklahoma or Arizona or Alaska might be mightily offended but opt not to take the road trip to the banks of the Cuyahoga for a game day protest.


I see your point too. And the population here is very small. Granted I haven't gone out of my way to look for it, but rarely do stories about NA groups being outraged surface here.

Part of the reason might be they were bad for about 40 straight years. During the mid-late90's when every game was sold out, I saw more protestors. During the 95 series with the Braves, there was some heat. I guess if you were going to make a big deal, you wouldn't do it about a lesser known team.

They have been starting to slowly do away with Chief Wahoo. I think that logo, more than the name, stirs people up. On weekend hoome games they wear the script "I" hats. They are actually pretty cool. I'll bet by 5-10 years it'll be mostly Wahoo-less....

[NCT]

Back in the day, when it wasn't a problem to buy an extra dollar ticket for your group's keg for the home opener (at the gate, on game day) at the old Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium (RIP), we had a "mascot", Chief Nokahoma. He had a tepee set up on a platform in the stands (lots and lots and lots of empty seats) and would do the occasional "war dance". It came down in 1982 not because of any consideration for the potential offense, but because the Braves were on a winning streak and management wanted to free up some seats. The team promptly went into a 2-19 slump, and the tepee was restored. After that, the Braves finished by winning the division. And remember, this was 1982, long before thing got hot in baseball down here. I can't remember when he was finally retired for good.

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/nokateepee.jpg

[Bucky]

The only people who are bothered by Native American nicknames are self-rightous liberals. Poll after poll of REAL Native Americans have shown that a high majority are not offended by team nicknames.

Shouldn't the Irish be offended by the most famous college football team's mascot?? A very stern and stereotypical drunk Irish man?

I wish the liberals would stick to hugging trees and PETA, keep your antics out of sports.

[NCT]

Could you please cite a few of the "poll after poll" that "real" Native Americans are not offended by team nicknames?

And check out this 2001 resolution by real Native Americans calling for the elimination of "the stereotypical use of American Indian names and images as mascots in sports and other events."

http://www.iwchildren.org/resolution/fivecivres.htm

As I said, I'm not really that fired up about sports team symbols. But I've never seen data suggesting that the question is settled among Native Americans in favor of leaving mascots alone.

[jeff4bucks]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/02/13/weis.malpractice.ap/index.html


How about a treadmill?? For an incredibly motivated and successful man, I find it hard to understand why he can't take care of his own body.

thats an easy assumption. Perhaps he has some significant health issues in which he simply can't lose the weight. The fact that he went through a risky surgery in an effort to do so indicates he is trying.

[HellYeahHokie]

<QUOTE>As I said, I'm not really that fired up about sports team symbols. But I've never seen data suggesting that the question is settled among Native Americans in favor of leaving mascots alone.[/QUOTE]

That's because he made it up. People do that to serve their own arguement.

[Bucky]

Could you please cite a few of the "poll after poll" that "real" Native Americans are not offended by team nicknames?

And check out this 2001 resolution by real Native Americans calling for the elimination of "the stereotypical use of American Indian names and images as mascots in sports and other events."

http://www.iwchildren.org/resolution/fivecivres.htm

As I said, I'm not really that fired up about sports team symbols. But I've never seen data suggesting that the question is settled among Native Americans in favor of leaving mascots alone.

"The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue.

Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions."

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

As I said, these activists should stick to tree hugging, pacifism and PETA. Leave our sports alone!

[Bucky]

<QUOTE>As I said, I'm not really that fired up about sports team symbols. But I've never seen data suggesting that the question is settled among Native Americans in favor of leaving mascots alone.

That's because he made it up. People do that to serve their own arguement.[/QUOTE]

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

HYH, for someone who lauds himself as the most intelligent poster on the board, I must say I am not surprised at your bold assumption.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

"The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue.

Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions."

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

As I said, these activists should stick to tree hugging, pacifism and PETA. Leave our sports alone!
Activisim flies in many colors. In some ways it does impact laws, culture and society even though the majority of people may be non-activists. For example, politicians and lawmakers are always adjusting for religious and social activists. We see it every day of our lives and in some ways it provides us with nightly entertainement.

Also, just because someone may not be offended by something doesn't mean that they don't want it changed especially if someone else is doing the hard work.

[HellYeahHokie]

First of all, I do not laud myself as the most intelligent poster on the board. Never have, and never will. Someone calling himself "The Researcher" or something like that said that, and gave superlatives to many posters. I don't claim it about myself. I think Hail2VictorsValiant is the only one who expresses that type of ego around here.

Secondly, you said poll after poll shows Native Americans don't care. You provided one poll. But there are certainly polls suggesting otherwise. In the recent NCAA ruling about nicknames, the North Dakata Fighting Souix have to lose their nickname, because the tribe did not approve of it. Conversely, the Florida State Seminoles can keep their name because the Seminole nation does endorce it.

So perhaps I was too strong to say you made it up, but you certainly overstated it, implying that all the polls conducted show they don't care. When in fact, that's not true. It's not poll after poll. It's just the one you read.

[Bucky]

I probably don't want to know what title the Researcher would give me...

But I guess my point is that if certain tribes object to a specific Native name, that's fine. It should be their right to object and have the name changed. But as a whole, when legislation is conjured up that objects to general Native nicknames like the Indians or the Warriors, that a problem. Especially when national polls show most Native American's are not offended in the least.

Here in Western Ohio, it seems like every other town, city and county is named after an Indian tribe. Indian nicknames make perfect sense.

[NCT]

Thanks for the response, but I would still like to see a cite to one of the "poll after poll" you mention. You gave me a cite to one source that cites one poll. But there's scant information in that source (SI) about the nature of the poll itself, so how can anyone with even only marginal critical thinking abilities take that "hearsay" poll at face value? It may be a legitimate survey, but we don't know.

In other words, objection; non-responsive. I'll wait for better (or any competent) evidence.

[Bucky]

Thanks for the response, but I would still like to see a cite to one of the "poll after poll" you mention. You gave me a cite to one source that cites one poll. But there's scant information in that source (SI) about the nature of the poll itself, so how can anyone with even only marginal critical thinking abilities take that "hearsay" poll at face value? It may be a legitimate survey, but we don't know.

In other words, objection; non-responsive. I'll wait for better (or any competent) evidence.

After being discredited for "making stuff up" to support my argument, I produce solid, concrete evidence to support my claim, or at least my side of a debate. It still isn't good enough for you, and the only reason I can figure is that it doesn't match up with what I assume to be your idealogical beliefs. The survery from Sports Illustrated was done by the Harris Research Institute. Believe me, they are established. Does the survey need to be administered by some Left-Winged organization in order for it to be legitimate? Maybe if it was a CBS/NY Times survey you would look at it differently. Just because something isn't done by liberals, doesn't mean it is "hearsay".

Here is more information for you if you so care:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/

[NCT]

As a matter of fact, I do so care.

Are you claiming that the "Peter Harris Research Project" is the same company as Harris Interactive? Are you sure? I've never heard of the Peter Harris Research Project. Harris Interactive arose out of a firm started by a former JFK pollster named Louis Harris. By the way, that link you provided to Harris Interactive explains all that. "Peter" is nowhere to be found.

So let's get this straight. You cite to a rightwing publication that cites a Sports Illustrated article (that you didn't cite) that cites a poll whose methods cannot be checked and that you attribute to a company that didn't conduct it, and this is your "solid, concrete evidence" to support your claim that "[p]oll after poll of REAL Native Americans have shown that a high majority are not offended by team nicknames." (my emphasis) And the only reason you can figure for why I don't accept this kind of "cited" support is that your claim doesn't match up to my ideological beliefs.

The only reason you can figure? Are you serious?

Doesn't your own reasoning process require more information than an article's cite to another article that cites "a poll" conducted by someone whom you don't know? And that's not hearsay?

In the meantime, here's another piece by real Native Americans expressing how they feel about the issue (and about your Peter Harris Research Project poll): http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1016807899

I'll say one more time that I, personally, am not too riled up about using Indian nicknames, but your crazy assertions are just too fun.

[Scarlet Hayes]

As a Reds fan, I can't wait for the day when displaced communists or "red" state voters begin to protest the team name as "intolerant, offensive, insenstitive, and trivializing our beliefs" You laugh...but admit it, it wouldn't surprise you.

IMO, we all need to lighten up a lot.

[NCT]

IMO, we all need to lighten up a lot.

True. Every year, my fraternity precedes its beach weekend with a big party at the house. In keeping with the fraternity's nickname ("Fiji"), we'd dress up in silly versions of what we imagined traditional South Pacific islanders would wear (grass skirts, loin cloths, leis, etc., and carrying spears and shields). Up until my freshman year, "black-up" was part of this tradition: the guys would paint their bodies black, head to toe, adding "war paint". Then we'd travel down Milledge Avenue picking up our winsome wahines (also dressed up, but not blackened up).

Well, when I was a pledge, the brothers decided that the "black-up" portion of the program was dangerously close to offensive blackface, even though there had been no complaints of which I'm aware. And one of our members was IFC president at a time when the black and white fraternity systems were merging (sort of). So it was decided that we would no longer paint ourselves black from head to toe, but purple (our fraternity color). This was entirely voluntary.

Now, I'm an outspoken liberal type, but I figured "purple-up" was just fine. And it worked for a few years. But we were eventually strongly discouraged from doing that. Word came down from above my senior year that we shouldn't do it. I went with a small group to visit with the president, but to no avail. Now, here is a group of guys with the highest GPA among fraternities, consistent high-performers (often first) in intramural athletics, well-represented in all the right honor societies and campus leadership positions, the record-holder for the most wins as the best Fiji chapter in the US (and Canada), a squeaky-clean record regarding hazing and drugs, but we couldn't paint ourselves purple and wear grass skirts because a black person might be offended (none with whom I spoke were).

Lighten up, indeed.

[Doc]

And he doesn't have the discipline to put down his knife and fork! Yes, its the doctors fault he's overweight!

[happjack]

After seeing a few shots of Weiss in the NY Giants America's Game episode he really packed on the pounds during the 1990's same with Bill Parcells.