A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[seemslikeadream]

AND YOU ARE NATIVE AMERICAN? but I won't know that just like YOU don't know my full heritage

I don't claim to be one.....haven't claimed to be one, and I have no stake in this. I'm neither for or against the name. But the Chief, who is a Native American, has said in no uncertain terms that he doesn't have a problem with it and doesn't want to see the name changed....and he goes further to say 98% of his tribe feel the same way.

You do know there are other tribes in this country ...don't you? Or are you under the impression there's only one?

Within the U.S., there are 562 Native American tribes. The largest are Navajo, Cherokee and Sioux. More than 3 million people in the U.S. are Native people.

yeah he speaks for all 3 million

[Carol Newquist]

You do know there are other tribes in this country ...don't you? Or are you under the impression there's only one?

Yes, and they can speak for themselves, they don't need you to do it for them...in fact, I'd bet most would prefer you didn't. FYI, most prefer you refer to them by their nation name, not as Indian or Native American, although there are some members of the various nations who prefer Native American and even some who prefer Indian, but they're fewer than you would think, or would be led to believe.

Aside from that, the nations mentioned in the article are located in Virginia and the Redskins are their team. They like the name and don't want it changed. Do you not see the irony?

[seemslikeadream]

You do know there are other tribes in this country ...don't you? Or are you under the impression there's only one?

Yes, and they can speak for themselves, they don't need you to do it for them...in fact, I'd bet most would prefer you didn't. FYI, most prefer you refer to them by their nation name, not as Indian or Native American, although there are some members of the various nations who prefer Native American and even some who prefer Indian, but they're fewer than you would think, or would be led to believe.

Aside from that, the nations mentioned in the article are located in Virginia and the Redskins are their team. They like the name and don't want it changed. Do you not see the irony?

well you seem to think you can speak for all babies

note to mods I am not calling her a baby ...this is in reference to a post made by her in reference to the long term memory of all babies

[seemslikeadream]

Change the Name of the Washington Redskins
Posted by Malcolm Mafi
Target: Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder

Goal: Change offensive football team name

Ten members of Congress recently made a bipartisan plea to Dan Snyder (owner of the Washington, D.C. based pro football team, the Washington Redskins) to change the name of the team to something less offensive to Native Americans. In the words of their letter, the members of Congress stated that “Native Americans throughout the country consider the ‘R-word’ a racial, derogatory slur akin to the ‘N-word’ among African Americans or the ‘W-word’ among Latinos.” Indeed, there is little doubt that a team nickname so offensive to other racial or religious groups would never be tolerated—and yet, for the only the race native to this country, despicable tradition abides. Given the long-suffering history of Native Americans in this country, and their unique claim to this land, this racist name is especially wrong.

In the past, Snyder has repeatedly insisted that he will never change the team’s name or its mascot. He has received requests for a team name change not only from members of Congress, but from Washington, D.C. city leaders and from various representatives of Native American tribes—and yet he has claimed that the National Football League team’s “tradition” trumps all such requests. Even a cursory glance at the history of the Washington Redskins lays bare the fallacy of appealing to “tradition,” as it was the last NFL team to integrate in 1962. Please sign the petition below to ensure that Snyder will not keep his team rooted in a shameful past as his predecessors did on the issue of racial integration.

Sign the Petition:

[Carol Newquist]

well you seem to think you can speak for all babies

That is true. I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them. I find your smug confidence in the context of this forum as it relates to babies to be grotesque in the extreme. It's a known fact that victims of MC visit these haunts. In fact, there's a thread open right now about victims of MC. Many of these victims were tortured and abused as young children, some no doubt even before they started encoding conscious memories. For you to smugly assert this at this forum to score points is callous disregard for those who have suffered trauma at the hands of monsters. I'm equally disturbed that the topic of the thread is what MC survivors should do. One would think one thing they could do is step up when someone diminishes, marginalizes and dismisses a young toddler's or infant's capacity to be scarred by trauma.

[seemslikeadream]

well you seem to think you can speak for all babies

That is true. I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them. I find your smug confidence in the context of this forum as it relates to babies to be grotesque in the extreme. It's a known fact that victims of MC visit these haunts. In fact, there's a thread open right now about victims of MC. Many of these victims were tortured and abused as young children, some no doubt even before they started encoding conscious memories. For you to smugly assert this at this forum to score points is callous disregard for those who have suffered trauma at the hands of monsters. I'm equally disturbed that the topic of the thread is what MC survivors should do. One would think one thing they could do is step up when someone diminishes, marginalizes and dismisses a young toddler's or infant's capacity to be scarred by trauma.

quit making up crap ...trying to discredit me with lies...please stop it...that is not at all what the discusion was about so let's all be clear on that ...and I will be back with the evidence on what really transpired between us and not your made up verision

Here is what transpired ...a BIG difference from what CN tried to pawn off as reality....CN has been doing this not just to me but other people here and she really needs to STOP IT

She constantly grossly misrepresents what people have posted with her lunatic rhetoric


The discussion had nothing to do with ritual abuse or traumitize toddlers

IT WAS ABOUT A ONE TIME 5 MINUTE EPISODE IN A 18 MONTH OLD'S LIFE

the child was unharmed and taken to a hospital IIRC

Funny that. Unharmed. Yeah, right. Mommy being shot and killed by the Men in Black wouldn't harm the child's psyche in anyway.

the baby was only 18 months old...... most memories in babies are only short term...... real memory doesn't start till around age 3...not to worry... no bad memories of the men in black

I don't have to research it ...I've lived it

Okay, then you prove my point.

Recount for us your recollections...how you were so traumatized when you were pushed out of that birth canal?

oh let's do some damn research if you insist...

Memory Encoding in Children
To form memories, humans must create synapses, or connections between brain cells, that encode sensory information from an event into our memory. From there, our brains organize that information into categories and link it to other similar data, which is called consolidation. In order for that memory to last, we must periodically retrieve these memories and retrace those initial synapses, reinforcing those connections.
Studies have largely refuted the long-held thinking that babies cannot encode information that forms the foundation of memories. For instance, in one experiment involving 2- and 3-month-old infants, the babies' legs were attached by a ribbon to a mobile [source: Hayne]. By kicking their legs, the babies learned that the motion caused the mobile to move. Later, placed under the same mobile without the ribbon, the infants remembered to kick their legs. When the same experiment was performed with 6-month-olds, they picked up the kicking relationship much more quickly, indicating that their encoding ability must accelerate gradually with time, instead of in one significant burst around 3 years old.
This memory encoding could relate to a baby's development of the prefrontal cortex at the forehead. This area, which is active during the encoding and retrieval of explicit memories, is not fully functional at birth [source: Newcombe et al]. However, by 24 months, the number of synapses in the prefrontal cortex has reached adult levels [source: Bauer].
Also, the size of the hippocampus at the base of the brain steadily grows until your second or third year [source: Bauer]. This is important because the hippocampus determines what sensory information to transfer into long-term storage.
But what about implicit memory? Housed in the cerebellum, implicit memory is essential for newborns, allowing them to associate feelings of warmth and safety with the sound of their mother's voice and instinctively knowing how to feed. Confirming this early presence, studies have revealed few developmental changes in implicit memory as we age [source: Newcombe et al]. Even in many adult amnesia cases, implicit skills such as riding a bicycle or playing a piano often survive the brain trauma.
Now we know that babies have a strong implicit memory and can encode explicit ones as well, which indicates that childhood amnesia may stem from faulty explicit memory retrieval. Unless we're thinking specifically about a past event, it takes some sort of cue to prompt an explicit memory in all age groups [source: Bauer]. Up next, find out what those cues are.

Language and Sense of Self in Memory-Making
Our earliest memories may remain blocked from our consciousness because we had no language skills at that time. A 2004 study traced the verbal development in 27- and 39-month old boys and girls as a measure of how well they could recall a past event. The researchers found that if the children didn't know the words to describe the event when it happened, they couldn't describe it later after learning the appropriate words [source: Simcock and Hayne].
Verbalizing our personal memories of events contributes to our autobiographical memories. These types of memories help to define our sense of self and relationship to people around us. Closely linked to this is the ability to recognize yourself. Some researchers have proposed that children do not develop self-recognition skills and a personal identity until 16 or 24 months [source: Fivush and Nelson].
In addition, we develop knowledge of our personal past when we begin to organize memories into a context. Many preschool-age children can explain the different parts of an event in sequential order, such as what happened when they went to a circus. But it isn't until their fifth year that they can understand the ideas of time and the past and are able to place that trip to the circus on a mental time line [source: Fivush and Nelson].
Parents play a pivotal role in developing children's autobiographical memory as well. Research has shown that the way parents verbally recall memories with their small children correlates to those children's narrative style for retelling memories later in life. In other words, children whose parents tell them about past events, such as birthday parties or trips to the zoo, in detail will be more likely to vividly describe their own memories [source: Urshwa]. Interestingly, autobiographical memory also has a cultural component, with Westerners' personal memories focusing more on themselves and Easterners remembering themselves more in group contexts [source: Urshwa].
More detailed explanations exist regarding childhood amnesia. But brain structure, language and sense of self are its foundation. To learn more about amnesia and memory, don't forget to read the links on the next page.

Adams, Jane Meredith. "What it feels like to be a baby." Parenting. November 2007. (April 21, 2008)
Bauer, Patricia J. "Remembering the Times of Our Lives." Routledge. 2006. (April 21, 2008)http://books.google.com/books?id=BsJ9Qoq74dcC
Fivush, Robyn and Nelson, Katherine. "Culture and Language in the Emergence of Autobiographical Memory." Psychological Science. 2004. (April 21, 2008)
Geraerts, Elke; Schooler, Jonathan W.; Merckelbach, Harald; Jelicic, Marko; Hauer, Beatrijs J.A.; Ambadar, Zara. "The Reality of Recovered Memories: Corroborating Continuous and Discontinuous Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse." Psychological Science. July 2007. (April 21, 2008)http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/psci/2007/00000018/00000007/art00002
Goswami, Usha. "Blackwell Handbook of Cognitive Development." Blackwell Publishing. 2002. (April 21, 2008)http://books.google.com/books?id=0bNZJURnV-QC
Hayne, Harlene. "Infant Memory Development: Implications for childhood amnesia." Elsevier. 2003. (April 21, 2008)http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ard/bssh/school/nr521/childhood%20amnesia2.pdf
Janov, Arthur. "Primal Healing: Access the Incredible Power of Feelings to Improve Your Health." Career Press. 2006. (April 21, 2008)http://books.google.com/books?id=nHmknPNeIeoC
Newcombe, Nora S; Drummey, Anna Bullock; Fox, Nathan A.; Lie, Eunhui; Ottinger-Alberts, Wendy. "Remembering Early Childhood: How Much, How, and Why (or Why Not)." Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2000. (April 21, 2008)http://www.education.umd.edu/EDHD/faculty/Fox/publications/04.pdf
Peterson, Karen S. "Can Trauma Hide in Back of the Mind?" USA Today. Sept. 12, 2002. (April 21, 2008)
Simcock, Gabrielle and Hayne, Harlene. "Breaking the Barrier? Children Fail to Translate Their Preverbal Memories Into Language." Psychological Science. 2002. (April 21, 2008)
Solms, Mark. "Freud Returns." Scientific American Mind. 2006. (April 21, 2008)

http://www.sharecare.com/health/functio ... g-memories

Psychologists have found that children as young as 3 months old and as young as 6 months old can have long-term memories. The difference, however, comes in which memories are retained. It appears that babies are born with more intact unconscious, or implicit, memories. However, explicit, or episodic, memory -- the kind of memory that records specific events -- does not carry information over that three-year gap, which explains why people forget their births.

http://3boysandadog.com/2012/02/when-wi ... er-things/
Conscious, long lasting memory develops when your little one is fourteen to eighteen months old. This is when she starts to remember specific events. At two years of age your child will have the ability to remember facts and events for example, going to the circus or the park with her grandmother. Observing your child grow and develop her memory you will notice how she will begin to link experiences in her past to her current experiences. By recollecting her experiences she will start to have expectations of what will happen in the future.

http://www.babycenter.com/404_when-will ... gs_6888.bc
Long-lasting conscious memory of specific events won't develop until your baby is between 14 and 18 months old.

http://children.webmd.com/news/20110511/when-do-kids-form-their-first-memories

Checking Children’s Memories

In an effort to better understand how children form memories, the researchers asked 140 kids between the ages of 4 and 13 to describe their earliest memories and then asked them to do the same thing two years later.

On both occasions, the children were also asked to estimate their age at the time of each memory, and parents were questioned to confirm that the events happened.

The researchers found that children between the ages of 4 and 7 during the first interview showed very little overlap between the memories they recalled as “first memories” during the first question session and those they remembered two years later.

“Even when we repeated what they had told us two years before, many of the younger children would tell us that it didn’t happen to them,” Peterson says.

Conversely, a third of the children who were age 10 to 13 during the first interview described the same earliest memory during the second interview. More than half of the memories they recalled were the same at both interviews.

The researchers are now studying why children remember certain events and not others.

Peterson says traumatic or highly stressful events made up only a small percentage of the earliest memories reported by children in the study.

Why babies can forget about memory
by TIM UTTON, Daily Mail
They get to know mum and dad through daily visual contact.
But babies do not learn much else before their first birthday because they have no long-term memory, researchers have found.
A study suggests parents who try to teach their children in their first year of life may be wasting their time.
Trying to instil an early love of classical music, for example, will simply not work as regions of the brain associated with memory are not yet fully developed.
Research at Harvard University in the U.S. found that six-month-old babies can remember something for just 24 hours.
At nine months, they remember events for around a month.
But it is only by the time they are 17 months and older that they start to develop powers of recall over four months or more.
Findings show that the frontal lobe of the brain - the region associated with memory retention and retrieval - doesn't start to mature until the end of the first year.
By the end of the second year it is fully developed, suggests the report in the journal Nature today.
The Harvard team performed simple tasks in front of children aged nine months, 17 and 24 months.
The tasks - such as wiping a table or 'making' a rattle from two toys - were given a name which the psychologists repeated frequently, to encourage the children to remember the name and imitate the tasks.
Prompted with the names, the youngsters were asked to repeat the tasks again four months later.
Those who had seen the tasks at the age of nine months failed to remember them. But the two groups of older children did much better - showing 'robust memory' for the events of four months earlier.
This showed that memory retention developed much more sharply after the first year of a child's life, said the researchers.
Dr Conor Liston said the results dispelled the belief that babies develop memory simply by everyday experience. The ongoing development of their brains as they grow also plays a major part, he said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z2gieDIsaT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And yeah, chances are that child won't remember this. Just seriously f'ing sucks they won't have their mom. This woman needed counceling and it sucks she had to die.

Don't underestimate the effect this traumatic incident could have on this child. Yes, it may not remember it consciously the same way a ten-year-old might, but the stressful effects of this event will be encoded and embedded in its psyche and will have a permanent effect on its formation.

http://gizmodo.com/5494516/could-a-traumatized-baby-become-batman

Could a Traumatized Baby Become The Joker?

A 7-month-old baby witnessed her parents' murder in Brazil Mexico. Can a baby remember a horrific event like a 10-year-old who might recall the horrific sight and sound, in graphic detail? Yes and no, Slate explains.

You can't create conscious memories until you're about 2 years old, but babies do respond to to traumatic events—deafening sounds, stress in people around them—with their own stress reactions, and dead bodies freak them out, even if they don't understand the concept of death, exactly. Also, according to some theories, they might have an implicit memory, where a baby who sees somebody stabbed to death with a knife might get agitated when they see a knife months later. There might be mid-term psychological effects, too, like being more violent playing with toys months later, or less outwardly emotional. So it's possible a baby Bruce Wayne might still have become Batman. Say, if his parents had left the theater because he was crying as an infant, even though he wouldn't remember exactly what happened, he might still have developed the same sense of guilt, and still be plagued by many of the same requisite psychological issues that led him to become Batman. In other words, memories don't have to be etched into our brains in precise detail in order to haunt us, even the faintest impressions they leave behind might be more we wish.

And yeah, chances are that child won't remember this. Just seriously f'ing sucks they won't have their mom. This woman needed counceling and it sucks she had to die.

Don't underestimate the effect this traumatic incident could have on this child. Yes, it may not remember it consciously the same way a ten-year-old might, but the stressful effects of this event will be encoded and embedded in its psyche and will have a permanent effect on its formation.

http://gizmodo.com/5494516/could-a-traumatized-baby-become-batman

Could a Traumatized Baby Become The Joker?

A 7-month-old baby witnessed her parents' murder in Brazil Mexico. Can a baby remember a horrific event like a 10-year-old who might recall the horrific sight and sound, in graphic detail? Yes and no, Slate explains.

You can't create conscious memories until you're about 2 years old, but babies do respond to to traumatic events—deafening sounds, stress in people around them—with their own stress reactions, and dead bodies freak them out, even if they don't understand the concept of death, exactly. Also, according to some theories, they might have an implicit memory, where a baby who sees somebody stabbed to death with a knife might get agitated when they see a knife months later. There might be mid-term psychological effects, too, like being more violent playing with toys months later, or less outwardly emotional. So it's possible a baby Bruce Wayne might still have become Batman. Say, if his parents had left the theater because he was crying as an infant, even though he wouldn't remember exactly what happened, he might still have developed the same sense of guilt, and still be plagued by many of the same requisite psychological issues that led him to become Batman. In other words, memories don't have to be etched into our brains in precise detail in order to haunt us, even the faintest impressions they leave behind might be more we wish.

maybe I missed it but I did not read the AGE of the BABIES that they are talking about... all babies at all ages are not alike..your silly article is just that silly

There might be mid-term psychological effect

according to some theories, they might have an implicit memory

might still have developed the same sense of guilt

wow those are some concrete facts you got there

yeah I'd always go to

Brian Palmer is Slate's chief explainer. He also writes How and Why and Ecologic for the Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter.

for expert advice on babies

When Do Babies Develop Memories?
Oct. 30
By Amanda Onion
What's your earliest memory?

Chances are if you think your earliest memory dates from your first year or even early in your second year, it's not real — or at least not one you formed from the actual experience.

Researchers have learned that the area of the brain thought to play a key role in encoding long-term memory matures in spurts. And a study published this week in the journal Nature demonstrates that a major spurt happens after a person's first year and then takes a second year to fully mature.

"Components of early memories may be accurate," says Conor Liston, a graduate student who conducted the Nature study while at Harvard University. "But memories recalled from the first or second year of life are probably not that reliable."

The development of memory in children becomes evident within the first 2 to 3 years of a child's life as they show considerable advances in declarative memory

Why do we forget our early years? And how can this time in our children’s lives be so important when they won’t remember much of it at all?

Most adults can conjure up memories from preschool. Yes, some of us swear we remember our cribs, while others say they’ve blanked on everything until school age, but researchers more or less agree that adults’ earliest memories date back to age three or four. We have a dense amnesia for the first few years of life, and then a period of relatively sparse memories for a few years after that.

The reason we can’t access our early days is a source of debate, and there seems to be not one, but multiple explanations. For example, some psychologists say that for memories to be properly coded long term, a child needs advanced language skills to both store and retrieve her experiences. If you ask a 20-year-old to remember a family trip she took at age two, you’re both using language to pose the question, and asking her to recount the memory back to you in spoken words. Both of these could be a challenge, since she didn’t have language back when the event occurred. And it’s true that memories do seem to stick around the time when fluent language develops.

Another possible explanation for childhood amnesia is that memories develop alongside a child’s self-concept. Little children take time to grasp the idea of themselves as separate beings. The true notion of “me-ness”— being a person with her own thoughts and feelings independent from others — is a work in progress in toddlerhood. Many argue that you can’t log experiences into an autobiographical memory system until you’re able to fully see yourself as a distinct individual.

Of course there’s the simple fact that little brains are still immature, and it’s possible that the machinery needed to code memories, or transfer them from short- to long-term, simply doesn’t exist until later years. The hippocampus — a curved ridge deep in the brain — is central to forming lasting memories. Scientists think that as it matures and strengthens connections to the rest of the brain through childhood, memory storage improves. We know how important the hippocampus is to memory in part because of the famous patient H.M.

Early memories
While this initial finding is fairly modest, the use of this procedure has led to all sorts of new findings about infants’ memories. For example, subsequent studies have later substituted a different mobile for the original to see if the infants can spot the difference, thereby testing whether or not they really remember.

In one experiment infants only 8-weeks-old were trained with the mobile over a period of 3 days for 9 minutes each day. Twenty-four hours later the infants only kicked at above their baseline levels when the same mobile was above their heads. This showed they remembered the particular mobile they had been trained with and not just any old mobile. It was an especially exciting finding because it had previously been thought that long-term memory (and 24 hours is long-term for psychologists) didn’t emerge until as late as 8 or 9 months.

Our memory systems actually work quite well from very early on.Because of this experiment and others like it, we now know much more about infant memory. Our memory systems actually work quite well from very early on. Infants’ memories also seems to work in much the same way as adult memories – it’s just that infant memories are much more fragile.

Carolyn Rovee-Collier argues it is doubtful whether infantile amnesia really exists (Rovee-Collier, 1999). It certainly appears our brains can lay down long-term memories even in the first year of life. The reason it is unusual to retain memories from that time into adulthood is probably because of the limited capacity of our early memory systems and the intervening years during which we inevitably forget.

» This is part of a series on 10 crucial child psychology studies. Read more on the emergence of self-concept, learning, attachment, social behaviour, theory of mind, object permanence, language, play and knowledge.

Rovee, C. K., & Rovee, D. T. (1969). Conjugate Reinforcement of Infant Exploratory Behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 33-39.

Rovee-Collier, C. (1999). The Development of Infant Memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 80-85.

we are now at 10 to 1 as far as sources/facts go for you silly opinion

according to you we would all be insane if a 5 minute one time experience damaged us

[Wombaticus Rex]

I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them.

I don't think this argument has to do with anything being brought up here. Please chill on this lunatic rhetoric. Please refrain from sniping. Please dis-engage from personal arguments. Please stop poking SLAD and acting shocked when you get a reaction. Please. Stop.

[Carol Newquist]

I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them.

I don't think this argument has to do with anything being brought up here. Please chill on this lunatic rhetoric. Please refrain from sniping. Please dis-engage from personal arguments. Please stop poking SLAD and acting shocked when you get a reaction. Please. Stop.

It's just words, WR. Right? What are you getting defensive about? Why do you feel a need to defend SLAD if it's just words? Those are your words, by the way, to me in another thread. But somehow there's a double-standard at play.

The first off-topic comment in this thread came from SLAD. I'll do your job and point you to it here, since apparently you didn't look, or if you did, you purposely overlooked it.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&t=37290&p=524074#

I responded to that. Had that not been interjected into an otherwise on topic conversation, then you wouldn't have posted what you did. It started with that. There were no pokes before that. It was all valid debate. Or maybe you can prove to me how it wasn't. And what I said in response to SLAD is in no way lunacy. What's lunacy is that you don't see it because of Group Think and all that entails.

[Rory]

Canadian_watcher LIVES!

[seemslikeadream]

I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them.

I don't think this argument has to do with anything being brought up here. Please chill on this lunatic rhetoric. Please refrain from sniping. Please dis-engage from personal arguments. Please stop poking SLAD and acting shocked when you get a reaction. Please. Stop.

It's just words, WR. Right? What are you getting defensive about? Why do you feel a need to defend SLAD if it's just words? Those are your words, by the way, to me in another thread. But somehow there's a double-standard at play.

The first off-topic comment in this thread came from SLAD. I'll do your job and point you to it here, since apparently you didn't look, or if you did, you purposely overlooked it.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&t=37290&p=524074#

I responded to that. Had that not been interjected into an otherwise on topic conversation, then you wouldn't have posted what you did. It started with that. There were no pokes before that. It was all valid debate. Or maybe you can prove to me how it wasn't. And what I said in response to SLAD is in no way lunacy. What's lunacy is that you don't see it because of Group Think and all that entails.

They're not just words ..your words are fucking LIES

BTW your link is not correct

[Wombaticus Rex]

Carol, you seem to be aware that I am a moderator here - kudos on your observational skills, btw - so your first paragraph serves no purpose aside from being an exercise in the reflexive sniping you've already turned into a trademark move in just a few short, busy days of posting here.

I would be warning SLAD instead of you, were circumstances different. Yes, SLAD has followed you into *several* threads to harass you and re-ignite your spat. But it is your curious eagerness to fight fire with thermonuclear weapons that drew my attention to you: it seems like you've never met an argument you didn't want to escalate.

I do not believe you are C_W, but I am not sure you are here operating in good faith, either. I have seen you bring some great material to the table and I am hopeful that side of you will win out in the days and weeks to come. Please make a mental note that "I did this because [X] made me do it" is not a viable excuse for your behavior.

Especially when we are dealing with, as one of the greatest sages of this or any other era once phrased it, "words on a screen."

[Wombaticus Rex]

"They're not just words ..your words are fucking LIES

BTW your link is not correct

Perfect example of a negative contribution to a thread. You have added nothing new and reduced the overall level of the conversation in the process.

[Carol Newquist]

WR, that was an excellent response. I agree. I'll put my thermo nukes away and avoid these confrontations like the plague. I'm standing down per your request. The strap-on's coming off and going back on the shelf to gather irradiated dust.

[82_28]

Jack, I wasn't "Jew counting" and I also gave at least two disclaimers in my post. Maybe you guys don't have to deal with football, golf, basketball, hockey, soccer all the fucking time where you work, but I do. So I was passing along an anecdote. Yes I also cater to Native American fishermen and otherwise. However, the topic was brought up numerous times yesterday in my life -- Redskins changing the name and like I said, I get the point in the OP, there happened to be a further point made at the end that may or may not have been "apropos of nothing". I just ran a search for "Jewish influence in the NFL". Lo and behold. I thought it interesting enough to share. I didn't write it and I provided a link to a very non-racist or anti-semitic website where I found it. Holocaust -- Redskins. Get it why I did bring it up yet?

[JackRiddler]

Jack, I wasn't "Jew counting" and I also gave at least two disclaimers in my post. Maybe you guys don't have to deal with football, golf, basketball, hockey, soccer all the fucking time where you work, but I do. So I was passing along an anecdote. Yes I also cater to Native American fishermen and otherwise. However, the topic was brought up numerous times yesterday in my life -- Redskins changing the name and like I said, I get the point in the OP, there happened to be a further point made at the end that may or may not have been "apropos of nothing". I just ran a search for "Jewish influence in the NFL". Lo and behold. I thought it interesting enough to share. I didn't write it and I provided a link to a very non-racist or anti-semitic website where I found it. Holocaust -- Redskins. Get it why I did bring it up yet?

It's fine. It was irresistible.

Everyone knows no great changes hinge on the name of a football team. The name is still fucked up and racist. (Even if our Carole has discovered a chief who feels otherwise, and ignores all the American Indians cited in the other article.)