Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
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! /\ / \ /(*) \ / \ /________\