Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:17 pm
Well take this from a first hand account...I sit in 109 and I saw them take a (Bevis and Buthead) sign taken from a fan in 107
@ Beevis and Butthead.. awesomeThe-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era
Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Skins Not Allowing Any Anti-Snyder Gear into Fed Ex
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:20 pm
Yea B, I didn't think about that one at all. @ Beevis and Butthead.. awesome
@ Beevis and Butthead.. awesomePosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:30 pm
<cues voice> FIRE....FIRE....DANNY
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:39 pm
lowtharofthehill wrote:I actually do not have a problem with the redskins banning negative signs. Most companies would do the exact same thing and it really doesn't help the team to have these negative signs.
In addition, it is snyder's team and snyder's stadium so you have no right to come into his house and be disrespectful. Just like I wouldn't let you come into my home with a sign saying I am an idiot.
I also saw lots of signs at the game on monday night so i am not so sure about the truth of this reporting.
If you went to a politically rally for the Elephant and you had a pro-Ass poster you would be kicked out. Just like what happened when anti-Ass person showed up at an Ass rally.
If our politician don't allow free speech, why should our team owners!
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:40 pm
Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
Speculation without proof of what's on the other side ... Is that all you have to show to cast doubt ???
There will always be apologists or quai-apologists for ANY action taken by the Front Office. I could not be more disappointed Bob. This is LOW.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:42 pm
So, shut up and put up. Right?skinsfan#33 wrote:If our politician don't allow free speech, why should our team owners!
You can set an example here then. I am not kidding.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:57 pm
Redskin in Canada wrote:Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
Speculation without proof of what's on the other side ... Is that all you have to show to cast doubt ???
There will always be apologists or quai-apologists for ANY action taken by the Front Office. I could not be more disappointed Bob. This is LOW.
Come on RiC. It's completely plausible, and there's NO WAY IN HELL that they would admit to it if there WAS anything on the other side. It wouldn't be the first time the whole truth didn't surface and an uproar came about for a 1/2 truth.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:31 pm
Redskin in Canada wrote:So, shut up and put up. Right?skinsfan#33 wrote:If our politician don't allow free speech, why should our team owners!
You can set an example here then. I am not kidding.
Except that's not how it works in sports. This goes against years of tradition for fans of terrible teams. As long as you're still paying to come to the games, you can bring a sign making fun of your team.
You're the fan who still cares enough to go to the stadium! This is Dannyboy making up new rules because he couldn't win with the old ones.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:44 pm
when you have a business, you want your customers to give you their toughts on the service they are paying for, so you can do better or fix what's wrong. If you don't let them express their opinions, in a short period of time you'll be out of business.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:01 pm
Redskin in Canada wrote:Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
Speculation without proof of what's on the other side ... Is that all you have to show to cast doubt ???
There will always be apologists or quai-apologists for ANY action taken by the Front Office. I could not be more disappointed Bob. This is LOW.
Sorry RiC... you know where I stand on this, but you have to call it as you see it. Look at the sign...
If you were going to hold that up for a loved one in the 'Stan... wouldn't you put his or her name one it? Wouldn't you put your name on it???
Sometimes both sides cheat. There is plenty of evidence against the Danny without needing to resort to this crap.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:19 pm
I am gonna keep an eye on who all posted in this thread and see if you all are still here in the next few days just in case Danny sends any of you to the salt mines. I hear you can't get NFL Sunday Ticket in the gulag.
Seriously, Snyder has way, waaay overstepped the mark here. Sadly, it seems like every day there is new craziness to report on.
Seriously, Snyder has way, waaay overstepped the mark here. Sadly, it seems like every day there is new craziness to report on.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:18 pm
Mike Wise said he fished it out of a trash can. On his blog he has a whole bunch of other anti-Snyder and Vinny posters so why would he try to cover this one poster up? I think some of us still underestimate how big of a jerk Danny is. But if I were the security guard and this sign is legit with nothing else on it I would have showed some morality and let the lady in with her sign. The security officer who took this sign should be ashamed.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:19 pm
Countertrey wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
Speculation without proof of what's on the other side ... Is that all you have to show to cast doubt ???
There will always be apologists or quai-apologists for ANY action taken by the Front Office. I could not be more disappointed Bob. This is LOW.
Sorry RiC... you know where I stand on this, but you have to call it as you see it. Look at the sign...
If you were going to hold that up for a loved one in the 'Stan... wouldn't you put his or her name one it? Wouldn't you put your name on it???
Sometimes both sides cheat. There is plenty of evidence against the Danny without needing to resort to this crap.
Wait a second? So because she wrote on the side with the price tag you think it's a fraud? It's a blank posterboard! Blank on both sides... that's how you buy them.
Come on man... there's cynical and then there's whatever this is.
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:46 pm
i have now made up a new shirt for myself saying the following.
the front says WE CAN,T BARE TO WATCH wit the redskins emblem covering his face on the front and back. i also had the following on the back of the shirt also.
DAN YOU ARE EMBARASSING US FANS.
if you want a custom shirt made up go to choiceshirts.com and have some fun with it ..
love the redskins ,hate the freakin owner. might be my new one too.
this is a disgrace
the front says WE CAN,T BARE TO WATCH wit the redskins emblem covering his face on the front and back. i also had the following on the back of the shirt also.
DAN YOU ARE EMBARASSING US FANS.
if you want a custom shirt made up go to choiceshirts.com and have some fun with it ..
love the redskins ,hate the freakin owner. might be my new one too.
this is a disgrace
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:36 am
gibbsfan wrote:i have now made up a new shirt for myself saying the following.
the front says WE CAN,T BARE TO WATCH wit the redskins emblem covering his face on the front and back. i also had the following on the back of the shirt also.
DAN YOU ARE EMBARASSING US FANS.
if you want a custom shirt made up go to choiceshirts.com and have some fun with it ..
love the redskins ,hate the freakin owner. might be my new one too.
this is a disgrace
I'm not trying to be rude, but I hope you spellchecked what's actually on the shirt.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:08 am
FireVinny wrote:Countertrey wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
Speculation without proof of what's on the other side ... Is that all you have to show to cast doubt ???
There will always be apologists or quai-apologists for ANY action taken by the Front Office. I could not be more disappointed Bob. This is LOW.
Sorry RiC... you know where I stand on this, but you have to call it as you see it. Look at the sign...
If you were going to hold that up for a loved one in the 'Stan... wouldn't you put his or her name one it? Wouldn't you put your name on it???
Sometimes both sides cheat. There is plenty of evidence against the Danny without needing to resort to this crap.
Wait a second? So because she wrote on the side with the price tag you think it's a fraud? It's a blank posterboard! Blank on both sides... that's how you buy them.
Come on man... there's cynical and then there's whatever this is.
Yeah because the media has never "sensationalized" anything before right?
Yeah, we should just gobble up the little pellets of news they decide is important without ever doing any thought for ourselves. The Washington Post would never lie or exaggerate anything...right?
Obviously this lady put a lot of time and effort into writing this; musta taken her what, about 15 whole minutes? A lot of love and care went into this sign and she wanted to make sure that her husband knew it was her!
So much so that she didn't even bother to put his name, or his unit on there! just a generic "hello!" that a camrea wouldn't even care about enough to put on TV.
I'm not disputing or even arguing about whether it's right or wrong to ban signs; what I am saying is that I trust the Washington Post even less than I do Snyder, and I certainly don't believe that the sign is as "innocent" as it appears.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:48 am
VetSkinsFan wrote:gibbsfan wrote:i have now made up a new shirt for myself saying the following.
the front says WE CAN,T BARE TO WATCH wit the redskins emblem covering his face on the front and back. i also had the following on the back of the shirt also.
DAN YOU ARE EMBARASSING US FANS.
if you want a custom shirt made up go to choiceshirts.com and have some fun with it ..
love the redskins ,hate the freakin owner. might be my new one too.
this is a disgrace
I'm not trying to be rude, but I hope you spellchecked what's actually on the shirt.
thanks i did and even if it,s spelled wrong it still describes dan snyder.
thanks vet
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:15 pm
Redskin in Canada wrote:Why does this remind me of the Emperor's New Clothesstory by H.C. Andersen?
How fitting!!! Please read it people.
Was thinking the same thing. Nice reference.
And if you are from Manchester you may appreciate this, but I was also thinking animal farm (e.g. no signs, sueing fans, not addressing fans, sending Zorn to the glue factory, etc.) by one of my favorite authors, George Orwell. I love his novels (or at least his last 2) so much, I can even look past the democratic socialism thing.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:24 pm
Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not so sure about that sign (the Afghanistan one). Just like there are two sides to every story, we can't see what was on the other side of that sign. You'll notice in the lower corner of the sign, you can see the bar code. That is typically considered the "back" of the board.
There were signs there. They showed them on TV.
Sure, none of them said "Snyder Sucks" or "Sell the Team" but I wouldn't be so sure that the sign in the picture was as innocent as it appeared.
This is exactly what Danny boy wants people to speculate. Thinking like this will just set the fans back. Don't be a pawn. A bar code? I didn't know that white construction board had front and backs. Besdies, did you read the yahoo article? It's not about one sign; this was merely a good example of how Snyder is taking the team away from their fans. Nothing more.
And as far as seeing other signs, I heard a guy call into 106.7 and say that his wife was the person with the Snyder ESPN sign. They got it into the stadium through her blanket. They weren't letting people in with signs. That "unconditional love" sign was probably set up by the management group anyways. Their "new" platform on signage is just an example of the propaganda machine that is Snyder and his little man complex.
I have serious fears that unless Danny boy gives in, he will wash away the great pride this city has in THEIR team. If one of the other 3 pro sports teams starts winning consistently, I wouldn't be surprised to see a major shift away from the skins and to that particular team. Could you imagine if the Nats started winning and going to the World Series (which I know is very very unlikely)? The nats would be the new and only game in town ---- much like the skins have been for the past 30 years.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:44 pm
Bob 0119 wrote:
Yeah because the media has never "sensationalized" anything before right?
Yeah, we should just gobble up the little pellets of news they decide is important without ever doing any thought for ourselves. The Washington Post would never lie or exaggerate anything...right?
Obviously this lady put a lot of time and effort into writing this; musta taken her what, about 15 whole minutes? A lot of love and care went into this sign and she wanted to make sure that her husband knew it was her!
So much so that she didn't even bother to put his name, or his unit on there! just a generic "hello!" that a camrea wouldn't even care about enough to put on TV.
I'm not disputing or even arguing about whether it's right or wrong to ban signs; what I am saying is that I trust the Washington Post even less than I do Snyder, and I certainly don't believe that the sign is as "innocent" as it appears.
right back at you
The Redskins have acknowledged that they changed the policy... they acknowledged that they weren't letting signs in the stadium, regardless of content. They have acknowledged that IF a woman had brought that sign to the gate, with nothing on the other side, that it is team POLICY to confiscate that sign.
Yeah, it's a shoddy sign... but is that the first time you've seen a crappy sign brought to Fed Ex? Seriously? You're really stretching for a conspiracy theory when there doesn't need to be one. The Redskins OFFICIAL policy is to confiscate ALL signs, regardless of content.
Necessarily, that will include signs of family members saying hello to overseas military personnel. The fact that this crappy sign appeared in WaPo doesn't negate the fact that according to the policy this is the RULE: even these signs get thrown away.
Even if you were right... according to the policy stadium security is supposed to treat that sign the same whether there's something on the back or not!
And, by rule of the new policy... if someone brings a sign that lives up to your
standards saying hello to a husband in Afghanistan, then that sign has to be taken away. HELLO???Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:55 pm
Bob 0119 wrote:FireVinny wrote:
Yeah because the media has never "sensationalized" anything before right?
Yeah, we should just gobble up the little pellets of news they decide is important without ever doing any thought for ourselves. The Washington Post would never lie or exaggerate anything...right?
I don't think the poster was a set up, but I'm 100% with you on the snot rag that goes by the Washington Post. I spent 22 years in the Navy and my last 3 were at Patuxent River NAS. I was so exited to be able to get the Wash Post and got a subscription, but cancelled it because it was apparent that they have an anti-Redskins aggenda.
Look at how misleading the stories were about the team "selling" to brokers and the one about them sueing the fans. They were totally misleading and bordered on liable, but since they barried the truth in them with all of the other nonsense, half truths, and misleading info, I doubt the Skins had any recourse.
The team does plenty to make itself look bad, but the Post does everything in its power to paint things in the worst light possible. They are going to screw up one of these times and actually commit liable and I hope the Danny sues their pants off.
The Washington Media in general has been on full attack mode for years. Heck, Dan own radio station relentlessly bashes him! This team could start doing everything right tomorrow and it would take years before the local media would stop killing the team.
I'm sick of it, I'm sick of people believing everything they read and hear from the Post and local radio like the info is true and reliable. Most fans have stopped thinking for themselves and are following the media like brainless fools.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:02 pm
Bob 0119 wrote:I'm not disputing or even arguing about whether it's right or wrong to ban signs;
Well, this is what this thread is about. And it is WRONG on so many levels that it is appalling to see you find excuses to doubt the evidence in front of you.
Bob 0119 wrote:what I am saying is that I trust the Washington Post even less than I do Snyder, and I certainly don't believe that the sign is as "innocent" as it appears.
The Washington Post may be guilty of many things: sue them if you feel that they are liable. Or better yet, ask Danny to do so.
But given that your faith is cast on Snyder rather than the post, I ask one question:
Shall we blame the Post for the RECORD of this team too? What have they done to deserve such treatment? If they lie, would they not have been taken to court?
You are the PERFECT example to illustrate how the Snyder propaganda and marketing work. What an untenable and ridiculous attitude. Truly indefensible.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:29 pm
This is a situation where the media doesn't have to "paint" a dog-gone thing.
They produce so much "bad" news because things ARE that bad. It's an accurate reflection of what's going on.
They produce so much "bad" news because things ARE that bad. It's an accurate reflection of what's going on.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:39 pm
Since there was a debate over the legitimacy of the Afghanistan sign women. Seems to me the real crime here is that she married an Eagles fan.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... .html#more
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... .html#more
[/img]Greetings to Afghanistan
I've mentioned her case before, but I finally talked to Jada Bello, the 20-year old lifelong Redskins fan from Harford County whose husband Travis--a Philly fan and Army medic--can only watch the Eagles when they're on national TV.
So when Jada decided to go to this particular Monday Night game, she told Travis, who's been overseas since January and who missed the birth of his child. He expressed jealousy.
"I told him I'd bring him a sign to kind of represent for him, to tell him that I love him and that I'm proud of him," she told me.
She hadn't heard about the new policy, so she brought her sign, and she got through the first line of security, but then was called back and told that her sign broke the rules.
"I just think it's ridiculous," she said. "Now, I could understand if my sign would have offended anybody, but there's NO WAY my sign could have attended anybody. It was a personal sign between me and my husband."
And the safety and obstruction concerns?
"I wasn't intending on holding it up the whole time," Jada told me. "If somebody would have told me it was blocking their view, I would have had no trouble putting it down. I poked myself in the eye twirling my towel. The poking in the head [argument] is ridiculous."
Travis's mother, Deborah Snyder, also e-mailed me, unprompted.
"My son and all the other military personnel...deserve to be said hello to whatever way possible," she wrote. "A simple sign from a loved one, what better way, I ask you?"
Jada's whole family (aside from her husband) roots for the Redskins, but she's not sure about going to future games.
"it feels like you can't go to a game any more and have fun, because there's so many restrictions on what you can and cannot do," she told me.
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:06 am