or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by teamroper60

69.8/124 from the tees I play (whites).   I think it needs re-rated though.   They have lengthened one of the par 5's, added a water hazard right in front of another par 5 and made some other changes to the course that, if I understand correctly, would at least warrant discussion about them.
Shot a new lowest score today, 82 (41/41).   I hit 8 fairways and 9 greens, which I thought was pretty good for me.   Needless to say, I am psyched about this round..   The thing that stuck out to me today was that I did a much better job of swinging with a good, smooth tempo.   
I swear, I could have typed this whole statement................      It literally describes my current issue with my driver perfectly.......     What kills me is, on the range, I have a great tempo with my driver and can pipe drives 250+ down range one after the other but the minute I step onto a tee box, it all goes away.
Ok, I said I was done but you directed this quesiton at me, so I will answer it and then I really am done. You brought up libel and slander.   Those are directed against an individual and for that individual to win, it will need to be shown that the individual has been personally damaged in some way.    A sports team name is not directed toward an individual and thus is far different that libel and slander.  One could argue that calling an individual a redskin might cause...
I disagreed with the part I highlighted in bold. And with that, I am done with this discussion.   My point remains that we have gone too far when we start chastising or censoring speech simply because somebody, somewhere, might be offended by it.
No.  Not right.   Libel is by definition a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Slander is a false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person.   Both of those pertain to an individual and in the case of slander, require proof of damage. Far different that a sports team name that has existed since 1932 and while perhaps offensive to some, has not damaged the reputation of any particular person.
I'll disagree with that.  Especially since the federal government has several definitions for what constitutes a Native American. 
Ok, you didn't specifically say allowed, but your angle on personal responsibility implies that it should not be allowed because it offended somebody.    As you also pointed out, just about anything said can be construed to offend somebody.    My belief (and argument here) is that we have gone too far when we reach the point that if anybody is offended by something said, it is an egregious offense. I am with you 100% in not wanting the courts involved but someone asked how...
And my point is that it should be up to Snyder to decide how much negative effects he finds in such a name.   You say that no one would make a correlation between a buckeye and a crazy person and you might be right.   But then again, because I knew about the nut produced by the Buckeye tree, I was able off the top of my head to come up with that analogy.   Don't you think some lawyer couldn't do the same if in fact someone wanted to sue over the name?  Now, I agree that it...
 Actually, hate speech is not protected only when it creates a threat of imminent violence.   Otherwise, it is still protected, regardless of how offensive any particular individual or group may find it............
New Posts  All Forums: