On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Dave Hendrickson wrote:
> The key to all of this IMO is what consitutes "offensive". "Redskins" seems
> clearly offensive along with logos like the Cleveland Indians. But what is
> negative about Chiefs or Warriors? If nicknames like the Cowboys or Generals
> are considered ok, then why not Chiefs or Warriors? Even more so, if a
> Canadian team can name themselves "Canucks", a term considered so pejorative
> that the rumor that he *might* have used it was a precursor to Muskie bowing
> out in the '72 presidential election, then perhaps the PC police should relax
> and stop finding offense where none exists.
>
I was wondering if anyone would bring up the Canucks! Anybody know how
that name was chosen?
Even so, yes, the word Warrior in itself needn't be offensive.
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
GO MERRIMACK! GO ARGUS! /\
/ \
/(*) \
/ \
/________\