Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TrueBlue4ever

Members
  • Content Count

    1577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

TrueBlue4ever last won the day on July 7

TrueBlue4ever had the most liked content!

About TrueBlue4ever

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2294 profile views
  1. The words are facing the tower so that when Trump looks down from his penthouse he can see the words upright and not upside down. Although of you believe the rumour that he is illiterate, right side up vs. upside down really won’t make a difference to him. Either way, this is more about taking a shot at him rather than sending the over arching message about black equality.
  2. Careful throwing around the "stupid" label. That is unnecessary in my view. We are allowed to express opinions and should not be slagged if it differs for another's. There are people who believe in vaccination, but some who don't. Should we automatically change polio and measles protocols for kids because some are offended by vaccinations? That could be a parallel to your position. (I exaggerate of course, but the way to win that argument is to back up the scientific evidence pro and con in the vaccine discussion, rather than throwing out the "stupid take" vitriol as a fact when it amounts to opinion only). How about discussing why someone else's point of view may be misguided, not just calling it an incredibly stupid take because you don't see things that way. Cite the people who are offended and why they are offended, and not just assume they must be because you have decided for them. Discussion, not name-calling please.
  3. The bolded part is an open question I have. Who really are the "many who seem to think" that the name is offensive? I hear a lot of social justice warriors (Troy Westwood springs to mind) claim that the name is offensive to many, but have the actual potentially offended group actually been asked? Here is what Jordan Tootoo, Inuit NHL player, had to say, and it's a lot more eloquent and thought out than most people on either side of the debate who have taken a hard stand have presented: My position is this. We should all understand what the term means to the Inuk people. My father’s generation connects this term to describe who they are. He would refer to himself as an Eskimo. My generation refers to itself as Inuk. What is important to me is that people understand this. And, when referring to the Inuit people to the Inuit people, they respect that we refer to ourselves today as Inuk. I understand there are names of sports teams that bring back feelings of oppression for people and I can see why those names should be changed. So, this makes me ask the question, does the term Eskimo for the Edmonton franchise bring back feelings of oppression for Inuk people? For me, it does not. That is NOT a reason to keep the name. There could be others for whom it does create those feelings. But for me, it does not. I encourage the franchise to explain why they chose the name Eskimos in the first place. Was it racially charged, or, was it because of admiration for the ability of the Eskimos to thrive in cold climates, for their mental and physical toughness and for their resilience? My point is that context really does matter. And, they need to be honest with themselves and with the public. Truth goes a long way. In closing, the name of the Edmonton Eskimos is not objectionable to me. This does not mean they should keep the name. But, I think the discussion should be around how the Inuk people feel about it. Some might feel pride. Some might feel hurt. Either way, that is the group that should be consulted. My opinion is that the discussion is important, but that we should not knee-jerk react because someone tells me that others are offended without hearing from the supposed "offended" group, and I do see a lot of that happening. When North Dakota looked at the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, they actually talked with the 10 Native tribes in the area, and apparently 8 of the 10 were happy with the name and saw it as a sign of respect bestowed on the local indigenous peoples. Two did not share that view, and the name got changed. No one died as a result of the debate either way, so in the end this is not a big world issue. My concern is the slippery slope. Does Fighting Irish stereotype a sect of society? Yankee is considered a derogatory term for northern U.S.'ers from the south (or for the U.S. as a whole from foreign nations), but since the North won the Civil War, does it get a pass since the North is not marginalized as the victors? Or because Yankees are seen as mainly white people, and have not been subjected to institutionalized racism, so slang words for them are not deemed offensive? Canadiens either singles out French Canadians, or excludes English-speaking Canadians - either way you are marginalizing one group. Canuck was a Dutch term meant to insult French Canadians I have read somewhere, and it is often used by Americans as a jokingly derogatory term for all Canadians (oh those Yankees!), but if we are in on the joke, does that matter? The UN Human Rights Code describes discrimination based on its effect, and not its intent, so even if no one sees derogatory intent in the nickname "Canuck", even those it would want to disparage, I guess according to the UN that doesn't matter. But how far do we take all this? And the last time I checked, Native American groups in the US are fighting for their land and opposing an oil pipeline, and had to deal with systematic extermination from the white settlers, aided by the US Cavalry and cowboys, and that doesn't seem to garner the same concern as the name Fighting Sioux did. Perhaps we can fix the real problems and not get in a twist over the dog and pony show of team nicknames so we look like we are socially woke? I'm not saying "well we can't fix everything, so why fix anything?" and willing to ignore this issue, but let's be grounded in our discussions and not assume what others think, and deign to speak for them.
  4. All I said was Dunigan was not in my conversation of all-time best of the best QBs . Speed's rebuttal was to highlight one game. He was more than a one game wonder, less than the all-time top tier in my view.
  5. It was next to the Steinbach Credit Union at McGillivray and Kenaston, in the same block as the Canadian Tire. Went once, was very underwhelmed. Montana`s was way better, if I was to vote on it.
  6. Oh please. Alfred Jackson once had 308 receiving yards in a game. Fred Reid had 260 rushing yards. Sean Salisbury once threw for 454 yards and 6 TDs in a game. Danny Barrett hit 601 passing. David Archer and Kent Austin each had a season of over 6,000 yards passing. Would you put any of them in the "best of the best" category? One big game (or season) does not make an all-time elite.
  7. I would not actually put Dunigan in that conversation of “best of the best”.
  8. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ennio-morricone-death-intl-scli-style/index.html https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=bBixD-rTB_c&list=OLAK5uy_lw1v47HUiVD2huZiRBY2OyxOr-aPl0ipY
  9. Hopefully, no one who reads the facts of his suffering hopefully will ever again argue (A) that COVID is just another flu, or (B) recovery = all turned out well. I know of a local dancer who “recovered” but had her leg amputated after suffering blood clots due to her COVID illness, but did not die. Hardly the “she’s all better” that most would equate with “recovery”.
  10. They should just get rid of anthems before games.
  11. Favourite - I feel personally that this one gets locked in wheN you are young and impressionable and “hero worship” these players. So while I loved that Willard Reaves was so good and gave those footballs to the kids in wheelchairs after he scored, for me it will always be Tom Clements. Super smart, not graced with superpower ability but a massive football IQ, quiet, humble, winner. Plus loved his crack when he came back for his Bomber Hall fo Fame induction “Thanks for the beautiful framed jersey, now I can return the one I stole from the locker room on my way out when I retired”. Close second would be Mike Riley, who always found the silver lining even in a tough loss and just was someone you wanted to cheer for since he seemed so nice and genuine. A middling college coaching career and the Oregon State player sex assault scandal tarnished His rep a bit. Least favourite is more built up over time. When I started following the club, Bernie Ruoff was the villain around town for his pot bust and ejection from the club, but before my time so no problem with him. Brock was the big villain for a long time For his zoo comments and holdout, but he returned graciously and the shine has never come off his brilliant play. Charlie Roberts is high on my list for squandering all that talent in the big games with his partying, and his walkout, but our 2019 Grey Cup has washed away the anger, and his overall play makes him hard to dislike. Gerald Wilcox was great until he trashed the team on his way out of town after being cut, which is never a good look, but the club was proved right in the “I can still play” “No you can’t” war when Calgary cut him in training camp. And Troy Westwood bothers me more now as a broadcaster than he did as a player even factoring in the ‘01 Cup, but he’s doing a bit on the radio as the resident contrarian, so meh. That leaves me with 2 on the management side as least favourite. #2: I was never wowed by Mike Kelly as an O/C (that offence was mainly on Dunigan improvising and not so much the genius of the game plan) and was leery when he was given the head coach spot given his arrogance and seeming entitlement to the job, and he did not disappoint in displaying those very characteristics. Middling results but an embarrassing spectacle in the PR world, capped off with his criminal charges after he left. But even he pales in comparison to the train wreck that was Joe Mack at #1. I knew a well placed football person in the Province who said that they were essentially one of three people Mack would be forced to pick up the phone and take advice from even when he chafed at the idea, and they said the combination of arrogance and ignorance from him was unlike anything they had encountered. He fought everyone, played the “I’m the smartest guy in the room, just ask me” card all the time, and the results? I’ll skip the litany of bad draft choices, coaches under the bus, patronizing media conferences, and just leave it at “52-0”.
  12. BC - Don Matthews, such a sour man. I remember he got a shiner from taking a racquetball to the face one time, and the TSN commentators had to go out of their way to let people know that this was a pure accident, and no he did NOT get punched during a barroom disagreement like some had speculated. Kinda says something about the guy that this would be an expected assumption for many viewers, and required the media to stress that he did not get a whooping. Edmonton - Jason Maas. The ears, the attitude, the whininess, the phony "future considerations" trade with Hamilton that gifted the Esks the 2005 Grey Cup. Calgary - no one real despicable for me despite their run of success. I'm sure someone can remind me of someone to hate (Burris is tolerable for me) Saskatchewan - Have to agree with Jordan Reaves, too bad because I have met and like his dad, the sons are both high on my dislike list though for different reasons. Hamilton - Angelo Mosca, dirty player from yesteryear, then became a wrestling heel. When I see Joe Kapp punch an old man with a cane and say "wow, he totally deserved that, can't say I'm sorry he got dropped like that" I guess my dislike is still there. Simoni Lawrence is moving into contention. Toronto - Don Matthews, yep, again. Guess I really didn't like the guy. Ottawa - They were irrelevant for so long, hard to build up a dislike, but let's split between Horn Chen and the Glibermans for inept ownership, cheerleader dating, Mardi Gras flash the stands promotions, and shutting down 3 times. Montreal - Ed Philion for more dirty late hits than I can count. The blind side to Khari after an interception where he wasn't even a part of the play was the worst of all. The racist stuff with Westwood was a bad look too, if you accept Troy's version of events.
×
×
  • Create New...