Skins Not Allowing Any Anti-Snyder Gear into Fed Ex

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:09 am

How about writing "Sell The Team" across your chest?

riemlo · Post by **riemlo** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:18 am

I think everyone should go out, get a t-shirt large enough to put over a jacket or coat. Write your sign on the t-shirt. If you can't bring a sign wear a sign. I'd like to see them make you take your shirt off. The truth would be told. They wouldn't be able to say the signs were bing held up in the way of other fans. remember to keep your message clean. Don't give them that reason to make you take it off.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:25 am

Oh my Goodness:

Hey Vet, Countertrey and Bob ...

Did you see her face? She might be a sinister, manipulated and dangerous terrorist. She might be a secret mole planted by the Washington Post among the crowd. She is the enemy. She is guilty of doubt as charged by the three of you.

No? Just look at her! Maybe her smile is fake. Maybe she is not even a true Skins fan. Maybe ...

... you were wrong casting doubt after all. Because EVEN if she had an anti Danny Snyder sign on the other side she had the PERFECT right according to the Redskins regulations and constitution of the USA to exercise her free speech! But she did not even had that "other"side marked with an anti-Snyder sign.

As men who served and/or who had family who did, I wonder how you feel knowing the truth now. A woman and wife of a man putting his life on the line for all of us treated like that by instructions from the Front Office.

But other signs like "unconditional love" go in?

I hope you feel embarrassed enough about giving the benefit of the doubt to Snyder about the FACTS. I know that you are honest men. This thread is still open.

Bob 0119 · Post by **Bob 0119** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:41 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:Oh my Goodness:

Hey Vet, Countertrey and Bob ...

Did you see her face? She might be a sinister, manipulated and dangerous terrorist. She might be a secret mole planted by the Washington Post among the crowd. She is the enemy. She is guilty of doubt as charged by the three of you.

No? Just look at her! Maybe her smile is fake. Maybe she is not even a true Skins fan. Maybe ...

... you were wrong casting doubt after all. Because EVEN if she had an anti Danny Snyder sign on the other side she had the PERFECT right according to the Redskins regulations and constitution of the USA to exercise her free speech! But she did not even had that "other"side marked with an anti-Snyder sign.

As men who served and/or who had family who did, I wonder how you feel knowing the truth now. A woman and wife of a man putting his life on the line for all of us treated like that by instructions from the Front Office.

But other signs like "unconditional love" go in?

I hope you feel embarrassed enough about giving the benefit of the doubt to Snyder about the FACTS. I know that you are honest men. This thread is still open.

All I did was question the legitimacy of the sign.

If it's legit, that's one thing. You wanna call me out...that's something completely different. I'll see you in smack where that kind of stuff belongs.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:01 pm

You aren't permitted to challenge any of RiC's tenets, Bob... you know that. We should never be forgiven for asking a question.

Come on, RiC... this is exactly the kind of tactic that turns a discussion into a bar fight.

and, why is Travis' mother named Snyder?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:52 pm

Countertrey wrote:You aren't permitted to challenge any of RiC's tenets, Bob... you know that. We should never be forgiven for asking a question.

Come on, RiC... this is exactly the kind of tactic that turns a discussion into a bar fight.

and, why is Travis' mother named Snyder?

These were not questions. Read the thread and read the Bob's post in the Blog by BossHog. His beef is different. While he does not show the courage to approve of the disastrous policy, he is definitely not in favour of fans showing protest signs at Fed Ex.

Whether suggesting that fans could protest in another manner or casting doubt on the legitimacy of the story, the result is the same: Dan Snyder gets the benefit of the doubt. An honest man would see the evidence and evaluate his views in light of all the information available. I made that post under this premise.

It is pretty clear what happened now but I do not see the same rush to accept that those who did cast doubt were wrong. A matterof honesty, I assume.

I was and am not looking for a bar fight but I have never ran away from one either in my life and in this board. You guys know me. We can disagree but I am ready to handle things out one way or another in this forum and/or the other. No problem.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:02 pm

Frankly RiC, I don't know, nor do I care, at this point what Bob wrote. I do, however, know what I wrote, which, for some reason, attracted your ire, and included me in your intro. I'm consistent, one side or the other. You want to throw some evidence for your argument? Show that it's legit. Anybody can use a posterboard and colored pencils.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:24 pm

Countertrey wrote:Frankly RiC, I don't know, nor do I care, at this point what Bob wrote. I do, however, know what I wrote, which, for some reason, attracted your ire, and included me in your intro. I'm consistent, one side or the other. You want to throw some evidence for your argument? Show that it's legit. Anybody can use a posterboard and colored pencils.

I only mention Bob's post and what he wrote because your post was a reaction to it.

The articles by Dan Steinberg not good enough for you?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... .html#more

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcspor ... _zone.html

Don't you think that legal action would be immediately launched against those who have ran these stories if they were not true?

Come on Trey. I addressed my post based on the premises that you were wrong and you were honest men who could evaluate a position based on the facts.

You are correct that this action against this particular woman has inspired my ire. For the life of me I do not see why, you of all people, do not feel as bad or worse than I do and instead have questioned the legitimacy of the story.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:26 pm

Just a taste of the reaction so far ...

Violation of Fandom

My Redskins sign would say...

10 Year Debacle In Washington

Washington Sign Ban: Redskins Fans Lose Their Freedom of Speech

Sign of the Times: Repressive Redskins

Redskins Ban Signs From FedEx Field For Safety Reasons

Killing the Message

Cheap Seats Daily: Will ‘Dumb’ and ‘Dumber’ Shirts Be Allowed at Snyder’s ‘Night of Quarterbacks’?

Makowsky: Redskins spiraling out of control

Danny Snyder Doesn’t Like You Telling Him How Much He Blows

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:10 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:Oh my Goodness:

Hey Vet, Countertrey and Bob ...

Did you see her face? She might be a sinister, manipulated and dangerous terrorist. She might be a secret mole planted by the Washington Post among the crowd. She is the enemy. She is guilty of doubt as charged by the three of you.

No? Just look at her! Maybe her smile is fake. Maybe she is not even a true Skins fan. Maybe ...

... you were wrong casting doubt after all. Because EVEN if she had an anti Danny Snyder sign on the other side she had the PERFECT right according to the Redskins regulations and constitution of the USA to exercise her free speech! But she did not even had that "other"side marked with an anti-Snyder sign.

As men who served and/or who had family who did, I wonder how you feel knowing the truth now. A woman and wife of a man putting his life on the line for all of us treated like that by instructions from the Front Office.

But other signs like "unconditional love" go in?

I hope you feel embarrassed enough about giving the benefit of the doubt to Snyder about the FACTS. I know that you are honest men. This thread is still open.

You got me. I admitted that there was a possibility that there could be something on the other side. Which ring of hell shall I burn in for that, RiC? B/C media is always fair, unbiased, and truthful, right? Monkey

jadabello7 · Post by **jadabello7** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:11 pm

Bob 0119 wrote:
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.

Really listen I'm the one who wrote the sign and i'm sorry that its looks like I took 15 mins to draw it because I have no art skills and I didnt put his name on it because if he would have seen it I think he might know what his wife looks like and if you knew anything you shoul know that I cant put my husbands unit on it because that puts him more at risk because then they know where my husband is what his name is and what unit he's in yeah thats real smart and before you open your month again about this I didnt ask for my sign to be taken away I didnt ask for someone to find it and you HAVE NO IDEA what its like to have your love one risking his life every day and missing out on everything his girls are doing one who he only got to see when she was 2 weeks old and wont see again till shes 9 months old so dont run your month about crap you know nothing about yeah and the only thing on the back of my sign was the same thing I messed up even worse on the other side. Yes there was signs at the game because some of the people working there didnt know about the new rule and when they showed their sign security came and took right away so dont dare question my sign because all it was for was to tell my Husband that I love him

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:36 pm

So... your pissed. I can handle that. I spent 32 years walking that wall. I know what my wife, son and daughter dealt with. My son is walking on that wall... I know what his wife is dealing with. My son in law is walking on that wall... I know what my daughter is going through. I know what it means to miss births. First steps. The death of grandparents and parents. I understand. I know what you are going through.

The sign is legit. I get it. The problem was, there was no way to know that from that blog, and the original photo. And, if anything pisses me off... it's people trying to use the pain that our families go through to make a cheap point. Doesn't that piss you off too? It happens all the time, and I get sick of it.

Check my blogs. I apologize if my remarks caused you any additional distress. I know you don't need it.

Sir_Monk · Post by **Sir_Monk** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:55 pm

Geez, I feel bad I even posted that that deal from Dan Stenberg now. I know when I was deployed it would have been cool to see a sign in the crowd held by my wife. seeing that picture in the Post really bothered me more then most of the stuff that has happened on or off the field. At the end of the day, like most of you, I take to heart much that happens to the Redskins. But that the front office of this team is so concerned with the negativity of fans that it would ban signs, even ones that looked to cheer up a loved on overseas, I find very unsettling.

jadabello7 · Post by **jadabello7** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:59 pm

Countertrey wrote:So... your pissed. I can handle that. I spent 32 years walking that wall. I know what my wife, son and daughter dealt with. My son is walking on that wall... I know what his wife is dealing with. My son in law is walking on that wall... I know what my daughter is going through. I know what it means to miss births. First steps. The death of grandparents and parents. I understand. I know what you are going through.

The sign is legit. I get it. The problem was, there was no way to know that from that blog, and the original photo. And, if anything pisses me off... it's people trying to use the pain that our families go through to make a cheap point. Doesn't that piss you off too? It happens all the time, and I get sick of it.

Check my blogs. I apologize if my remarks caused you any additional distress. I know you don't need it.

I wasnt mad at what you wrote I was mad at what Bob wrote pretty much saying that it was BS and I felt it was very disrespectful to my husband

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:11 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:You got me. I admitted that there was a possibility that there could be something on the other side. Which ring of hell shall I burn in for that,RiC?

None Vet. You have done with this post the honourable thing.

B/C media is always fair, unbiased, and truthful, right?

No, the media is not all good and it is not all bad. But there is no question whatsoever that this is a disastrous policy by the Front Office and this action against this woman and many other fans was unfair, discriminatory and most of all: true.

The media does not need to invent negative stories when the Front Office is producing them in greater numbers and intensity as the crisis worsens.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:14 pm

Welcome to the board jadabello7.

It is a pleasure to have you with us. Your input is valuable and I Thank you for your assistance to help us dispel any doubts that any of us might have had about this sad event.

Your husband and his mates who serve are in our prayers.

Hail sister!
HTTR

FireVinny · Post by **FireVinny** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:26 am

VetSkinsFan wrote:You got me. I admitted that there was a possibility that there could be something on the other side. Which ring of hell shall I burn in for that, RiC? B/C media is always fair, unbiased, and truthful, right?

haha... I almost admitted that there *might* be something on the other side on my tirade over the fact that it doesn't matter. I decided not to give Bob the satisfaction.

FireVinny · Post by **FireVinny** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:33 am

jadabello7 wrote:Really listen I'm the one who wrote the sign and i'm sorry that its looks like I took 15 mins to draw it because I have no art skills and I didnt put his name on it because if he would have seen it I think he might know what his wife looks like and if you knew anything you shoul know that I cant put my husbands unit on it because that puts him more at risk because then they know where my husband is what his name is and what unit he's in yeah thats real smart and before you open your month again about this I didnt ask for my sign to be taken away I didnt ask for someone to find it and you HAVE NO IDEA what its like to have your love one risking his life every day and missing out on everything his girls are doing one who he only got to see when she was 2 weeks old and wont see again till shes 9 months old so dont run your month about crap you know nothing about yeah and the only thing on the back of my sign was the same thing I messed up even worse on the other side. Yes there was signs at the game because some of the people working there didnt know about the new rule and when they showed their sign security came and took right away so dont dare question my sign because all it was for was to tell my Husband that I love him

YEAH! Tell 'em!

Only thing you should have to explain is why you married a ******* Ig's fan!

Still, hope he comes home safe and sound to see his baby girl.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:13 am

FireVinny wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:You got me. I admitted that there was a possibility that there could be something on the other side. Which ring of hell shall I burn in for that, RiC? B/C media is always fair, unbiased, and truthful, right?

haha... I almost admitted that there *might* be something on the other side on my tirade over the fact that it doesn't matter. I decided not to give Bob the satisfaction.

Bob had what educated people call, "Critical thought." Exploration from all angles and perspectives. What's wrong with that? Sometimes, things are not as you first see them. Ever dated? Those girls were EXACTLY as their first impression alluded to. :roll:

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:18 am

gushogs wrote: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.

While what you say about customers voicing their opinion is required by businesses to be successful, can you give me any example ever of such a personal attack on management being allowed on the premises of any business in any industry? I seriously doubt it. While fans have mocked their teams, like the Aints fans putting paper bags on their heads, I don't recall ever seeing widespread posters personally attacking the owner/management ever in stadiums in any sport.

Then again I don't remember any owner removing the ability to call plays from the head coach either. So, I'm with Danny on the narrow point that having that across the nation on television would take the debacle that the Redskins have become to a new level. However, since I blame Danny for the debacle we are already at my sympathy for him on the broader situation is absolute zero.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:22 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
gushogs wrote: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.

While what you say about customers voicing their opinion is required by businesses to be successful, can you give me any example ever of such a personal attack on management being allowed on the premises of any business in any industry? I seriously doubt it. While fans have mocked their teams, like the Aints fans putting paper bags on their heads, I don't recall ever seeing widespread posters personally attacking the owner/management ever in stadiums in any sport.

Then again I don't remember any owner removing the ability to call plays from the head coach either. So, I'm with Danny on the narrow point that having that across the nation on television would take the debacle that the Redskins have become to a new level. However, since I blame Danny for the debacle we are already at my sympathy for him on the broader situation is absolute zero.

Outside of sports, I don't think we'll find much to relate to. And I can understand where Danny's coming from, but what good can relaly come from it? Strong arming the people that support you and sensoring what messages can come in? To me, this is irreparable damages, on par with the racism of John Preston Marshall. How long has he been gone and it still comes up rather frequently?

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:34 am

VetSkinsFan wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
gushogs wrote: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.

While what you say about customers voicing their opinion is required by businesses to be successful, can you give me any example ever of such a personal attack on management being allowed on the premises of any business in any industry? I seriously doubt it. While fans have mocked their teams, like the Aints fans putting paper bags on their heads, I don't recall ever seeing widespread posters personally attacking the owner/management ever in stadiums in any sport.

Then again I don't remember any owner removing the ability to call plays from the head coach either. So, I'm with Danny on the narrow point that having that across the nation on television would take the debacle that the Redskins have become to a new level. However, since I blame Danny for the debacle we are already at my sympathy for him on the broader situation is absolute zero.

Outside of sports, I don't think we'll find much to relate to.

I agree, but I was addressing his point on businesses in general, not raising it.

VetSkinsFan wrote:And I can understand where Danny's coming from, but what good can relaly come from it? Strong arming the people that support you and sensoring what messages can come in? To me, this is irreparable damages, on par with the racism of John Preston Marshall. How long has he been gone and it still comes up rather frequently?

I think we agree on this. I said while I agree with him on the narrow point on posters, he already made it a debacle. As you say that's a no-win and that's why I said I have no sympathy. We're essentially saying the same thing. It's a bad situation and Danny was hugely the cause so you're right there is no positive resolution at this point. Danny's experience is obviously micro managing low end cost driven organizations, not high end performance driven organizations. That is the root issue that must be addressed before any of the symptoms, like the signs, can be resolved.

FireVinny · Post by **FireVinny** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:21 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
FireVinny wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:You got me. I admitted that there was a possibility that there could be something on the other side. Which ring of hell shall I burn in for that, RiC? B/C media is always fair, unbiased, and truthful, right?

haha... I almost admitted that there *might* be something on the other side on my tirade over the fact that it doesn't matter. I decided not to give Bob the satisfaction.

Bob had what educated people call, "Critical thought." Exploration from all angles and perspectives. What's wrong with that? Sometimes, things are not as you first see them. Ever dated? Those girls were EXACTLY as their first impression alluded to.

No, you exhibited critical thought. You considered Bob's statement and realized that it *might* be true. Since there was really no proof to the contrary, this was the logical conclusion.

Bob blindly asserted that the sign was a fraud based on his bias against the Washington Post and perceived weakness of the sign. He didn't say that it *might* be a fraud, he was sure of it. He didn't explore from all angles and perspectives, he explored from one ultimately incorrect perspective.

And chill out with the personal attacks man. Ever dated? Come on.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:46 pm

FireVinny wrote:Bob blindly asserted that the sign was a fraud based on his bias against the Washington Post

The Washington Post clearly has an agenda. Actually multiple agendas. They hate Danny, rip the Redskins on the Sports page and hail our great black messiah president in the front section with clear slants ignoring facts that don't fit their agenda on each. The Post is a yellow journalistic rag. If you want to argue that doesn't automatically make the post wrong I'd agree with you. A broken watch is right twice a day. But if you're arguing the Post isn't biased then you need to start by taking the blinders off.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:36 pm