[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not at all. I'm just not trying to force the poll to say more than it actually does.

You seem to be dismissing it completely.

Well, I'll grant that elected or governing bodies sometimes do not reflect the opinions of those who elect them or of their members. What is your evidence that is the case here?

Tribal elections don't turn on whether the candidates care about the Redskins football team. They turn on much more personal issues such as tribal gaming, business directions, tribal benefit priorities, etc.

I didn't ask you if you would do it or if it was a pointless risk. I asked if you if you thought it would be appropriate or professional.

If it was the early 90s and silk print ties were still okay, I'd have no objection wearing to wearing a Washington Redskins tie.

Of course, it might be the same answer—no, because it might offend someone. Which leads me to wonder whether it's a real risk if only an "outlier of a minority" finds the word offensive, as you keep saying.

That's the only data we have. Feel free to discard it, but until you have better data, I'm the only one bringing facts into this discussion.

And why would I not take that risk? Because I don't take people's money to fix their problems and expose them to unnecessary risk.

Really? Denying a trademark is imposing the "weight and force of the federal government"? Really?

Denying the protection of the law has the same consequence in reality as a cease and desist order. I'm sure you don't need the consequences of what the patents and trademarks office has done here explained.

And you still haven't backed up your claim that it's only an "outlier of a minority" who find the name offensive. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

I gave you the poll. The only poll there is on the subject. I would think if the Oneida Nation or any other Nation thought the poll might come out significantly different, they might pony up the cash to do another poll.