Should the Washington Redskins Change Their Team Name?

[South Pender]

Opposition to Redskins name follows team to Minnesota
Posted by Mike Florio on November 6, 2013, 1:53 PM EST
Browner AP

Regardless of whether the Redskins were or weren’t concerned about protests that did or didn’t happen inside FedEx Field on Sunday, the opposition to the team’s name will follow the team to Minnesota for its Thursday night prime-time game against the Vikings.

Oneida Indian Nation has purchased advertising time on KFAN in Minneapolis, with a spot opposing the name to be broadcast on Thursday.

“Americans agree that hateful, derogatory slurs against ethnic groups are unacceptable and yet the Washington NFL team continues to perpetuate such speech on a national and international stage.” Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said in a release. “The Change the Mascot campaign to end the use of the damaging R-word is not going away.”

The support of the name isn’t going away, either, and it primarily consists of: (1) pointing out that Native Americans aren’t saying they’re offended by the name; and (2) denigrating and/or disregarded those Native Americans who say they’re offended by the name.

Meanwhile, former Vikings safety Joey Browner, who says he’s 3/4ths Native American, plans to participate Thursday in a “conscience walk” organized by the American Indian Movement. The walk will span the one mile from the AIM headquarters to the Metrodome to oppose the team’s name.

“It should be changed,” Browner told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “It should have been changed a long time ago. [The Redskins are] making multi billions over a word that was something they put a bounty up [historically] for hunting season for [indigenous] scalps. . . . Other organizations have changed their names and come back thriving. . . .

“I want to show that I’m indigenous and I want to show a conscious awareness to the world. We need to change the imagery presented to our children.”

And so we’ll now wait for someone who supports the name to attack Browner’s claim that he’s 75-percent Native American, or to perhaps point out that Browner’s opposition to the name comes from the 25-percent of him that necessarily is hopelessly liberal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and:

Home » NewsOne Original » D.C. Council To Washington Redskins’ Owner, NFL: Drop The Name
D.C. Council To Washington Redskins’ Owner, NFL: Drop The Name
Nov 6, 2013
By Terrell Jermaine Starr

washington redskins name change

Verlin Deer In Water, a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shows his t-shirt during an interview in Washington, Monday, Oct. 7, 2013, calling for the Washington Redskins NFL football team to change its name, prior to the start of the Oneida Indian Nation’s Change the Mascot symposium. During an interview, President Barack Obama suggested that the owner of the Washington Redskins football team consider changing its name because, the president said, the current name offends “a sizable group of people.” (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

On Tuesday, the Washington D.C. City Council joined a growing consensus of supporters who want the capital’s NFL team to change its name by approving a resolution supporting such a move.

Take our poll below!

Lead by council member David Grosso (I-At Large) who first introduced the name-change resolution in May, the council overwhelmingly made their voice clear that “Redskins” is not an appropriate name for a modern-day football team.

“Native Americans throughout the country consider the term ‘redskin’ a racially derogatory slur akin to the ‘N-word’ among African-Americans or the ‘W-word’ among Latinos,” Grosso said in a speech. “Enough is enough.”

Ten out of the 13 council members voted “Yes” in favor of the measure, while two were absent during the vote, according to CNN. One council member, Yvette Alexander, voted present. No one voted against the measure.

It is a development that a spokesperson for the Oneida Indian Nation calls a “huge shift” towards growing support for a name change.

“At this point, you have civil rights organizations, religious leaders, Native American governments and groups, members of Congress from both parties and even the President who has come out and said that this offensive, racial slur should be retired as the name for the Washington football team,” the spokesperson told NewsOne. “The action taken by the D.C. Council is an important statement and they are really adding their voices to a growing chorus who is insisting that this name be changed.”

One of the high-profile members of Congress to speak out against the name is D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

“I don’t see how I can spend all my time as a black woman and then use a derogatory term when it comes to another ethnic group,” she said on WJLA back in April. “I would like to hear the argument for holding on to that name. I hope our team lives up to the admiration to which they are held all over this region and all over this country by just ditching the name.”

While the council vote may draw more intense scrutiny on Washington Redskins‘ owner Daniel Snyder, it may not have much impact on whether he will bend to public pressure. Just last month, Snyder sent a letter to season ticket holders defending the name, calling it “a badge of honor.”

And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reportedly is not pressuring Snyder to change his team’s name, according to the Washington Post. Another issue slowing a name change is that there seems to be a passive acceptance of marginalizing American Indians, as I previously discussed in a recent op-ed.

Despite numerous hurdles, name-change advocates are not relenting. A small group of name-change protesters made their voices heard outside of the Sports Authority Field at Mile High in Denver, when the Washington Redskins visited the Broncos last week.

“The name ‘redskin’ is not anything of honor. It’s to remind us of how our ancestors were treated, how we were butchered, how our skin was taken to cover books,” Gerald Montour, one of the protesters, said.

Over the past several decades, the number of high schools, universities and professional teams using mascots has dropped from more than 3,000 to roughly 1,000. Though there are at least 11 who call themselves the “Savages.”

Here's a video of the DC Council meeting from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/n ... 6/3449223/

Hard to say what effect this council decision will have. The council cannot force Dan Snyder to change the name. However, there was some talk on that video of "bringing the team back to DC," something I wasn't aware of. At the moment they play in FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland (which isn't that far from DC). It may be that there's been activity to build a new stadium in DC for the team. If so, the city council's objection to the team name might work against any agreement to build the new stadium. That's exactly the kind of thing (money) that might move Dan Snyder off his so-far-intractable position on a name change. We'll see how this all plays out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, on Friday (Nov. 8), we have (from Pro Football Talk):

Hundreds rally against Redskins name in Minnesota
Posted by Mike Florio on November 7, 2013, 10:38 PM EST
Washington Redskins v Minnesota Vikings Getty Images

After multiple demonstrations at Redskins road games in 2013 never really generated much buzz, an effort to protest the team’s name in Minnesota on Thursday reportedly generated a crowd of hundreds.

According to the Associated Press, the throng rallied outside the Metrodome to call for the name of the visiting team to be changed. Organized by the American Indian Movement, protesters chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, Little Red Sambo’s got to go.”

Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura spoke at the event, and Minneapolis mayor R.T. Ryback said in a statement that the team name represents indigenous people.

“This name is wrong. It’s just plain wrong,” Ventura said.

Thursday’s developments show that the movement isn’t subsiding but spreading. The ongoing question will be whether the movement ever generates enough momentum to compel the league to push the Redskins to change the team name.

[South Pender]

Here's a link to a somewhat deeper, more intellectually-oriented, short essay, by Steven Salaita, on the "Redskins" controversy from Salon magazine:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/nothing ... privilege/

[South Pender]

Here's a piece from the Washington Post, encouraging Dan Snyder to consider his legacy as an owner:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

This story has some interesting history of the team from when the owner wouldn't hire black players.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, here's a piece from what appears to be an ABC Affiliate, WJLA in Virginia, supporting a name change--but to the Virginia Redskins!

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/11/lo ... 96608.html

[sj-roc]

On the other hand, here's a piece from what appears to be an ABC Affiliate, WJLA in Virginia, supporting a name change--but to the Virginia Redskins!

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/11/lo ... 96608.html

The Onion beat them to this punch line last month:

Washington Redskins Change Their Name To The D.C. Redskins

[sj-roc]

I guess this potato chip company in Quebec wouldn't have any objections to the Redskins name:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-chi ... -1.1546320

[South Pender]

A number of interesting takes on the Washington Redsk*ns name controversy brought together by the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/washi ... ontroversy

Click on each article or blog title to get the full story. I kind of like the one titled, "Would You Call Me a Redsk*n to My Face?"

[South Pender]

Oneida Indian Nation to air Thanksgiving radio ads in Detroit and Baltimore
Posted by Mike Florio on November 26, 2013, 11:18 AM EST
Redskins AP

The only silver lining in the recent Redskins dysfunction is that the internal strife has pushed external complaints regarding the team’s name to the back burner.

That changes this week, with Oneida Indian Nation launching radio campaigns in Detroit and Baltimore. The first ads not tied to the Redskins playing a game in a given city, the spots to be aired on Detroit’s WXYT-FM and Baltimore’s WBAL-AM commemorates the coming day of thanks and reflection.

“Thanksgiving is a holiday emphasizing the ideals of inclusion and mutual respect, and is a time when we give thanks,” Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter said. “We would like to express our appreciation to everyone who has spoken out about the important moral and civil rights issue of changing the Washington football team’s name. Change the Mascot supporters have sent a powerful message to the NFL that no group deserves to be treated as the target of a hurtful racial slur, and that Native Americans should be treated as what we are: Americans.”

The full ad can be heard here.

The NFL, the Redskins, and the Oneida Indian Nation remain at impasse regarding a name change.

[South Pender]

From Pro Football Talk:

Oneida Indian Nation to air Thanksgiving radio ads in Detroit and Baltimore
Posted by Mike Florio on November 26, 2013, 11:18 AM EST
Redskins AP

The only silver lining in the recent Redskins dysfunction is that the internal strife has pushed external complaints regarding the team’s name to the back burner.

That changes this week, with Oneida Indian Nation launching radio campaigns in Detroit and Baltimore. The first ads not tied to the Redskins playing a game in a given city, the spots to be aired on Detroit’s WXYT-FM and Baltimore’s WBAL-AM commemorates the coming day of thanks and reflection.

“Thanksgiving is a holiday emphasizing the ideals of inclusion and mutual respect, and is a time when we give thanks,” Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter said. “We would like to express our appreciation to everyone who has spoken out about the important moral and civil rights issue of changing the Washington football team’s name. Change the Mascot supporters have sent a powerful message to the NFL that no group deserves to be treated as the target of a hurtful racial slur, and that Native Americans should be treated as what we are: Americans.”

The full ad can be heard here (drop down to the link in the article):

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e/related/

The NFL, the Redskins, and the Oneida Indian Nation remain at impasse regarding a name change.

[Toppy Vann]

How did they make out changing the name of Squaw Valley where a winter Olympics was held or the other Squaw Valley in Fresno, CA? So far, nada.

The original Squaw Valley was named that way by western settlers who when they got their found that native American women were living there while their husbands were off hunting. Squaw was not a bad term then either like Redskins wasn't a bad term to start as squaw was a native word for women. Now it is associated with a repugnant meaning.

The argument that some use to say that they should not call a team "Indians" or "Braves" is that this makes them identified with the less noble species --- animals - bears, lions, tigers, etc. It is a stretch for me as I know the Washington Redskins name is like the old Stanford Indians, Milwaukee Braves and Cleveland Indians were to represent the BEST of what native Americans are all about . As Phil Jackson noted in the book Sacred Hoops, native tribes when they went to war even had respect for their opponents as well as for the battle itself. He used that to define his philosophy that says in business or sport you should respect your competition, the game (rules) and your opponent so you play hard, play fair and play now.

[South Pender]

How did they make out changing the name of Squaw Valley where a winter Olympics was held or the other Squaw Valley in Fresno, CA? So far, nada.

The original Squaw Valley was named that way by western settlers who when they got their found that native American women were living there while their husbands were off hunting. Squaw was not a bad term then either like Redskins wasn't a bad term to start as squaw was a native word for women. Now it is associated with a repugnant meaning.

The argument that some use to say that they should not call a team "Indians" or "Braves" is that this makes them identified with the less noble species --- animals - bears, lions, tigers, etc. It is a stretch for me as I know the Washington Redskins name is like the old Stanford Indians, Milwaukee Braves and Cleveland Indians were to represent the BEST of what native Americans are all about . As Phil Jackson noted in the book Sacred Hoops, native tribes when they went to war even had respect for their opponents as well as for the battle itself. He used that to define his philosophy that says in business or sport you should respect your competition, the game (rules) and your opponent so you play hard, play fair and play now.

Was there a movement by Native Indians to change the name of Squaw Valley? To point to other uses of racial slurs as an argument to continue with one that is bothering a lot of people seems illogical to me. It's like making the argument that we should tolerate oil pipeline disasters in BC because Louisiana does so.

As for the terms "Indians,""Braves," or "Chiefs," the difference (and it is a big one) is that these terms were never used as racial epithets. In the US, the term Indian or American Indian is accepted by the reference group. [Here in Canada, the same people have asked to be referred to as (a) aboriginal people, and, then more recently, as (b) First Nations people.] Not so in the US, so the terms I've noted (and you noted, Toppy) are not racial slurs to American Indians. On the other hand, the term "Redskin" IS MOST DEFINITELY a racial slur--roughly equal in force to n*gger.

As for the argument that the terms "Indians" or "Braves" "makes them identified with the less noble species --- animals - bears, lions, tigers," this is hard to see. But those who see these terms as equivalent to "Redskins" are completely missing the core of the argument that is being put forth by American Indians. If "Indians" and "Braves" "were to represent the BEST of what native Americans are all about," as you note, the same definitely cannot be said for "Redskins." It matters not how the term first came about; it is today (and has been for over a century) nothing more than a racial slur--as any dictionary or source book will attest.

I think that for white folks to claim the right to decide whether a term should be offensive to a minority group or not is simply insulting paternalism. It's saying that we white people know best how you should feel, and you're wrong to see the word this way. But who should care what you or I might think about the word? If a sizable minority group feels demeaned, insulted, less than human by seeing their group referred to by the word, then we simply shouldn't continue to use the word. As Cromartie stated colorfully and pithily in the second post in this thread, use of the term is really no different than using n*gger with black people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this today from Pro Football Talk:

Native American leaders speak out against Redskins name
Posted by Mike Florio on November 27, 2013, 2:51 PM EST
1379639089000-AP-REDSKINS-PACKERS-FOOTBALL-58463880 AP

When opposition to the Redskins name first intensified earlier this year, supporters of the name pointed out that Native Americans aren’t offended by it. When Oneida Indian Nation became one of the loudest voices arguing for change, supporters of the name pointed out that Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter isn’t a real Native American. (The federal courts have concluded that he is.)

Now, the National Congress of American Indians has joined in the opposition, issuing a video [link given below] that consists of leaders from seven different tribes: Cathy Abramson, Councilmember, Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Al Goozmer, President, Tyonek Native Village of Alaska; Brian Cladoosby, Chairman, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and President, NCAI; Edwina Butler Wolfe, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Leander McDonald, Tribal Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe; Dennis Welsh, Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes; Candace Bossard, Councilmember, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.

We’ll now wait for the supporters of the name to suggest that one or more of these people aren’t real Native Americans, or that the name shouldn’t be changed until all or most Native Americans say that they are offended by the term.

Or maybe until the team trots out some more World War II code talkers for a contrived in-game honor.

Here's the video:

[Toppy Vann]

This does not address Redskin but Squaw and for this this then U of Conn now Penn State person got death threats. A great read. I did post one time where Redskin came from and it was originally not a bad term. It expresses my sentiments exactly on this. The N word was never used by whites in a positive way and rappers, etc using it is a head scratcher when it gets in CDs etc.

This is a brief powerful read and she even cites Hitler and how he made the swastika bad. When I see it at Buddhist shrines in HK I admit that gives me pause but it is offensive to their religion and them to question it. Just try it sometime as for them it has only a good meaning.


http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html

Reclaiming the Word "Squaw"
in the Name of the Ancestors

copyright by Marge Bruchac, Northampton, Massachusetts (November, 1999)

Kwai kwai. Greetings. I write to you as an alnobaskwa, an Abenaki woman, questioning the motion to gut our original language in the name of political correctness. Over the past few decades, in my travels as a traditional storyteller and historical consultant, I have met many indigenous speakers and elders who are concerned at the efforts of otherwise well-meaning people to remove the word "squaw" from the English language.

Any word can hurt when used as a weapon. Banning the word will not erase the past, and will only give the oppressors power to define our language. What words will be next? Pappoose? Sachem? Pow Wow? If we accept the slander, and internalize the insult, we discredit our female ancestors who felt no shame at hearing the word spoken. To ban indigenous words discriminates against Native people and their languages. Are we to be condemned to speaking only the "King's English?" What about all the words from other Native American languages?

Let me tell you a story. A good friend, a revered New England Algonkian elder, gave her granddaughter a traditional name that ended in "-skwa" meaning "powerful little woman." That poor girl came home from school in tears one day, asking, "Why did you name me such a horrible name? All my teachers told me it's a dirty word." When our languages are perceived as dirty words, we and our grandchildren are in grave danger of losing our self-respect. That school is now being taught that squaw is NOT a dirty word, but an indigenous term that has been misused and misunderstood, and that it is an appropriate, traditional, and honorable part of this girl's name.

Some American Indian activists have written to me saying, "well, YOU can use the word if you want, but WE consider it obscene." This labeling of my indigenous language as obscene is a racist statement. It makes no sense for Native people to cling to and accept a wrong translation. We must stop now and educate, rather than tolerate the loss of our language due to ignorance.

[quote]The issue of Indian mascots and appropriate usage of Indian statues, images, words, names, etc., in non-Indian communities is far more complex than some activists wish to believe. [/quote]

The real issue for American Indian people today, across America, is not just words and mascots, but the forging of new relationships based on mutual respect and understanding, in traditional homelands, beyond the stereotypes. And the more pressing issues, of adequate food, housing, shelter, and opportunity, will not be served by attacking traditional languages in the name of political correctness.

A more useful resolution of place names issues would be one that acknowledges and enforces respect for indigenous peoples and languages. Before we erase names, we must erase misunderstandings. How do we rename every "Squaw Rock," without forgetting the history? One way is to reclaim the original language. "Squaw Peak" might become "Ktsioskwa," "great woman," or another appropriate name chosen by the indigenous people.

[Toppy Vann]

Contrast the Marge Bruchac, Ass't Prof now at Penn State teaching native studies with the case of those arguing eloquently but on a different wave length about the name Redskins which Bruchac says is a complex situation when dealing with place names, etc.

http://naresourcesnews.blogspot.hk/2013 ... s-her.html

The Redskins, playing in the nation’s capital and the country’s wealthiest league, have remained steadfast as many other teams have changed their nicknames, dating to the 1960s, when the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, opposed desegregation. Edward Bennett Williams, who owned the team in the 1970s, met with American Indians to discuss the team’s name, but little followed.

“There are so many milestones in this issue,” Ms. Harjo, 68, said Monday at an event held by ChangetheMascot.org, a group urging the Redskins to change their name. “It is king of the mountain because it’s associated with the nation’s capital, so what happens here affects the rest of the country.”

Someone doesn't like the word Vikings either but the same person wants her REP in Congress to focus on the budget!!! Yah, something important.

Ms. Harjo, Mr. Halbritter, Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota and others who attended the event said that they would continue to call on Mr. Snyder and the N.F.L. to change the team’s name. Ms. McCollum, via social media and letters, has received the brunt of the backlash from some fans who think the Redskins should not change their name. (“I’m offended by the name Vikings as I have family from Denmark,” one person wrote on Ms. McCollum’s Facebook page, imploring her to “concentrate on a budget and don’t worry about the Washington Redskins.”)

[South Pender]

"Vikings" was never a racial slur.

[Toppy Vann]

"Vikings" was never a racial slur.

Well the article went over your head - hardly a surprise when you see things so black and white and dogmatically.

I am prepared to acknowledge there are two sides to this issue and I very much found the native Prof. Marge Bruchac make some outstanding points about using these opportunities to educate and take back their language - not to let others continue to misuse it. Her point clearly eludes you - as I knew it would.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Redskins was not always a racial slur and that is not why the team picked the name. That would be rather silly.

That person was offended by the Vikings name as are others and it portrays their ethnic group in a way that most could less about but some might find offense with. It offended that person from Denmark as it portrays Vikings as fierce fighters - kinda like the Redskins and my high school - North Van Norsemen - hardly recognized our females.

Now this is light hearted but makes a point.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Spor ... Their-Name

THE MINNESOTA VIKINGS MUST DROP THEIR NAME

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) has asked state authorities to ban the use of the name "Redskins" when the Washington (_blank_) travel to play the Minnesota Vikings on Nov. 7. In the same spirit, and for many of the same reasons, I think it is time for the Minnesota Vikings to drop their offensive name as well.
First of all, the Vikings were the first group of Europeans to attempt to reach and settle the New World. That effort would culminate, centuries later, in the journeys of Columbus and the subsequent extermination of Native Americans. If "Redskins" is offensive, the name of their original would-be oppressors is even more so.

Second, the Vikings symbol is an inaccurate depiction of the people of Minnesota, who are quite diverse--only about one-third are Scandinavian. Furthermore, "Viking" is also a stereotype of Minnesota's Scandinavians, not all of whom are descended from Vikings, and few of whom are warlike plunderers with primitive weapons.

[South Pender]

"Vikings" was never a racial slur.

Well the article went over your head - hardly a surprise when you see things so black and white and dogmatically.

Hey, Toppy, are you sure you want to make this personal?

Obviously, the article didn't go over my head. But it looks as if it went over yours. The author was making a case for not seeing native American terms such as "squaw" in a negative light--in the process insulting the female native predecessors of today's American Indians. The term "redskin" hardly falls into this category, does it, Toppy, being invented and then imposed on native Americans by their white oppressors. Even you can probably see that retaining a nasty racial slur is unlikely to facilitate the advancement of native American pride or sense of self (which is the most important, and, in most cases, lacking, ingredient in the modern American Indian--or Canadian First Nations person--psyche).

Although most societal issues are layered and multidimensional, this is one that, in my opinion, is not. One could continue to present irrelevant points (like the hymn you mentioned a few posts ago, or the incorrect reading of the passage you just presented) to try to make a case for what? inaction on the issue? but its eventual resolution is pretty clear to most who have an open mind. Why you continually dredge up irrelevant (and in some cases, bizarre) material, quotes, etc., is beyond me, but it's a trend I've noticed in many of your posts. Why you perseverate on "vikings" and other irrelevancies is puzzling. It's not that this tendency of yours adds any real intellectual depth to the discussion, although you seem to think it does (and you want to talk about intelligence!). A more sinister explanation, I guess, would be that, by introducing seeming complexity into an issue that is one of the few that is, in fact, quite simple and straightforward, you are resorting to the tactic of throwing out endless irrelevancies and non sequiturs designed to obfuscate the issue. Kind of like the way the US Republicans tried to derail Obama's affordable health care act.

Perhaps you don't recall some of the earlier discussion in this thread, but it has been acknowledged that the team did not pick the name because it was a racial slur. (Whether it originally was used as such is, at this point, being debated.) You don't have to continue to perseverate on that theme. What's important, however, is that today (and for decades, actually) the term "redskin" is felt by native Americans as a racial slur. That's the point you continue to fail to understand, and the very point that argues for the retirement of the term once and for all. It simply doesn't matter what you and I think about the term, or what certain scholars are writing about it (although your inference from the Marge Bruchac piece represented a failure to understand the article's point); if its use upsets, insults, demeans a sizable minority group, then it should be replaced. It's the same basic argument for not using the term n*gger. Perhaps you can dredge up some irrelevant writing--maybe from the field of ebonics--to support the continued use of n*gger as well! You want to say to those receiving the insults and devaluation that they should just see the term the way you do and put up with it. Well, no.

Let me make a suggestion, Toppy. Let's agree to not reply directly to one another from this point on. This forum is designed for fun. You are welcome to have the last word here, but I won't be responding further to your posts, and I'd suggest you do the same.