Do you believe in patents? The right to ownership of intellectual property? Because that's how you protect them.
Can be. I'd guess about 10% :chuckle: It is simply "identity." Mean/evil people will make them using derogatory, nice/good people will use terms for thier observations and mean it as a compliment. The dictionary, imo, is wrong on this fact. Daniel Webster didn't write that entry, people who are trying to be PC did, and that particular bias is showing. As such, the purpose of the dictionary no longer functions as intended. I think I'm going to have to start compiling terms for a proper dictionary. I'm not sure who'd buy it.
Well, example then, but it is kind of like Hitler, blacks, race, and women's rights, they tend to get over-used and in this case the connection wasn't readily made to mind, so thank you for expounding for meaning here.
You jumped in here, remember? Apparently you cared but were being ingenuine last post. Thank you for making this one more meaningful. I appreciate you re-evaluating and not trying to be trite or personal. Such makes for much more meaningful conversation (and give dignity and respect as well). Thank you. :up: I appreciate it.
I think I'm following that point. Thanks.
When I was doing research I came across an article talking about that and how the general popular opinion has been shifting toward a negative view on the use, but still a minority view.
Really? Who were they, what are their political leanings and when did they make the decision and, to your mind alteration. Because without that you're just reading in an interesting bit of fiction into what we actually can know here.
The purpose of a dictionary is to reflect usage. You could argue that for some time more people than not appear to think of it more positively, but you'd also have to note there's been a steady shift in that opinion toward the negative. Or you could just note it has been, historically and therefore usually used in a less than flattering manner.
Well, I'm not buying it so far.I think I'm going to have to start compiling terms for a proper dictionary. I'm not sure who'd buy it.
A pleasure. :cheers:
You must know, up front, I'm not for affirmative action. Why? Because it deals with minorities on both sides but makes a ruling for/against the majority. Such is accomodating and I only believe it viable if such is necessary, and by necessary, I mean that it must be shown to adversely affect a populace. Lacking that, I am not for capitulations. It is too untowardly and out of balance. I'm against big-government including big court needs as well. I don't believe people in the city should be voting about hunting rights either (unless they hold hunting and fishing licenses). Fish and Game and hunters should be allowed to monitor and govern themselves because the rest of us have no vested interest other than thinking animals are pretty or whatever. We are not in the environment, we have no business voting on environmental issues that do not at all affect us. As far as the Redskins, we can probably let Indian Affairs and the WA Redskins hammer this out amongst themselves. Other than the same identification concerns, there really isn't a vested interest by the rest of us. I'm just saying I think this a frivolous unnecessary lawsuit. In a nutshell, there are Indians, like here in the NW, that amalgamate with society and there are some that are still bitter. As such, this is a tip of the iceberg issue. There is good reason for the bitterness, I've followed my Nation's complaints (Blackfeet). Re-education/resettlement efforts from both religion and the U.S. were bitter pills and the effects are still present such that there is angst. Those wouldn't see "Redskin" as a compliment and it doesn't matter what the term means, they'd prefer a large portion of the United States all to their own and are bitter that cannot happen. So, I'm sympathetic. This suit then, would be a push in that direction, kind of like the Jews being given back Jerusalem. Maybe such will come to a head and there will be two sovereign nations eventually in America?
Even if it accurately defined the terms mentioning 'trending?'The purpose of a dictionary is to reflect usage. You could argue that for some time more people than not appear to think of it more positively, but you'd also have to note there's been a steady shift in that opinion toward the negative. Or you could just note it has been, historically and therefore usually used in a less than flattering manner.
Well, I'm not buying it so far.
His blessings, brother (might have to talk Knight into exchanging the Cheers icon for a peace-pipe)
I can understand the thinking that brought it about, but I can't see it as an institution and it as it isn't and I haven't raised it, I'll leave off at that.
I think that's a little like letting the coal industry regulate themselves. I'm not comfortable assuming the long term interest of everyone will outweigh a short sighted desire.
It's an ecosystem. What we do to one part affects the rest. I don't want a collection of city states and rural collectives. But there you go.
We have a vested interest in the sort of world our children inherit. A number of Native American Groups, including the Congress, is in support of the recent attempt to deny patent.
In this case the plaintiff prevailed. So that's a prima facie case against your interpretation.
Or, instead of being bitter you could simply agree with the dictionary and think our nation's capital's team in the sport that is for all practical intents and purposes our national pastime should have a better face on than one that pointlessly insults a segment of the people it represents.
I'd say the fairest reading would note the historic usage, the upturn and the fall away, but that's probably too much verbiage. :think:Even if it accurately defined the terms mentioning 'trending?'
I only smoke when I'm on fire, but who doesn't hoist a frosty mug of rootbeer once in a while? :cheers:His blessings, brother (might have to talk Knight into exchanging the Cheers icon for a peace-pipe)
-Lon
Well, we are off the beaten path (no pun), but in some ways still peripheral to it. Washington voters have messed up farming and other environment issues because they are not a well-informed voting populace. I think the solution is to vote in a measure of self-regulation for farmers, hunters, fishermen, anyone else carrying a game card, and Fish and Game.
Exactly. We can probably let Indian Affairs and the WA Redskins settle up without us too. This isn't the first team to have to have a name-change but it seems a waste of money. There are needy Indian communities that would have been MUCH better served by the money, resources, time, and effort that was put into this grievance. I hate anything that ignores needs and pushes toward absurd. In comparison, this is certainly that. That said, we don't have a lot of say in what the Nations do. We will influence people in our little corner of the TOL world is all.
Some tribes are still in terrible shape. As we are giving them money, we should be able to monitor a tiny bit that kids are taken care of. They don't need welfare, they need people to care, restore dignity.
Yes, but we don't always get it right and we are currenly a sue-happy country. The court cases are still ongoing and the WA Redskins have a bit more $ to toss at the ruling, yet. We can wait and see, this particular isn't earth-shaking though it is getting a LOT of TOL press!
Again, in the grand scheme of things, WA's owner
That's the better approach imho, but I'm old school. My Webster's comes in volume
You are missing out. Smoked fish and meats are very Native and excellent! :cigar: (I don't smoke either).
Sorry about the extra it in there. Else, I'll give you the last word on the point and move on.
He'll make money. All the new logo merchandise. And the old stock will likely sell like pancakes too, being snapped up before it's gone.
Lon you could say that about nearly anything. You could spend the time and coin here on feeding the hungry. I imagine the many offended might answer that there's no price on their dignity and it's foundational to addressing a host of issues.
That's because it doesn't bother you. I doubt the people it does feel that way about it and they're the ones actually being impacted by it.
That's a little misleading. Certainly we're higher in in terms of suit filing per thousand than our European cousins. Two to one over England by the last study I know about.
Well we have a creek nearby, so I am not far...yeah, that was bad.
