How about this for a new chant. Yell Ticats only stretch it out in kind of a low rumble. TiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiCaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats.
Okay I'm just kidding. But I kind of agree with Ockham. I think a chant that targets another team sets yourself up as an inferior.
The chant is here to stay. The more any attempt is made to suppress it, the less successful the attempt. It's a misreading of big portion of fan base and their history.
Of course, as far as I know, only the MRX sites "censor" words such as "blow," or "suck" I'm fine with using the checker for profanity, but not for words that offend the personal of morality of a team's owner.
Attempts to reform Ti-Cat fan base into more cuddly, PC bunch is unlikely to fly.
That is a very good point, and one that perhaps needed to be brought up. While there is nothing very original or creative about that chant, there aren't many chants that can be described as original or creative. Can you get people anywhere to chant something that's that much more profound? Probably not. If there is such a chant, I'd like to hear about it.
And I'd like to point out that having said that, it does appear that at least some people who dislike this chant take it too seriously. With the rivalry we have with the team down the road, taunting of the other team and it's fans naturally occurs. Youn see it on discussion boards like these, and during games as well. This chant is simply a natural extension of that. And I'm not so sure if it's because of an inferiority complex. Keep in mind that some supporters of that team down the QEW sometimes have a chant that's exactly like this one, they just substitute the word "Ticats" for the first half of it. In fact, on a discussion board for fans of the blue team, there is a section with that title.
So I figure that chant of "Argos_suck" or similar ones will continue for as long there is taunting between the two teams. It's just a natural result of the rivalry.
Well, the fact that in Canada it's essentially decriminalized, the answer would be yes.
Think of what happens when you try and tell kids not do something. How often, do they treat that as something "forbidden"
and go ahead and do it anyway?
Bob can express his displeasure with the term if he chooses --- he's the owner/caretaker. He can't tho force fans to follow in lockstep. Remember what happened on old site when this first started? And as far as I remember, no one won the $1,000 for coming up with a better chant/slogan.
As my first post in my slightly new username, I must say...DAMN I'm pumped for this season.
And, let the chant live on!!! it's too much a part of our current vernacular to get rid of. Even if it wasn't a near-official chant, you'd hear it anyway.
it's really not offensive...or as low-brow as people make it out to be. It's really the simplistic nature of it that makes it so popular. Two words that a whole stadium can yell in unison to convey feelings. Copywriters live for that stuff.
So, Is that contest still on??? The one to think of something better then the Argos, you know **** thing! 8) That $1000 up for grabs? If not, it should be who knows, maybe this time someone might think of something??? :cowboy:
As to my other post, I do think that we need a " Get in your opponents face" chant. Oskee wee wee is great for poops and giggles but come on…we’re the Tiger Cats. They need to be a little afraid, don’t they? :oops:
…so, first you say argos $uck was juvenile, offensive and connected to drunken fan violence, implicating it as a cause of past attendance problems. Then, after we respond to these accusations, you switched to the slippery slope argument, saying that if you allowed this chant to go by, the next thing you know we’d all be yelling “argos are a bunch of fuc*in’ jerks.? Then, after we call you out on this, you change your defense to “I was misquoted.?
Now, I have a feeling that if the forbidden website actually did misquote you, we all would have found ourselves with much bigger problems than getting zingered on ticats.ca. In our naivete, we assumed that full disclosure of sources and 49 footnotes in our pro-chant manifesto would pre-empt any such allegations. But, for the sake of accuracy, please let us know exactly where this alleged bald misquote resides, so we can edit the document to more accurately reflect your stated position.
Is it this part?
“It all started when freshman owner and expatriate Hamiltonian Bob Young abruptly forbid employees of the Tiger-Cat organization from partaking in the chant.?
If so, I would say that’s an accurate paraphrase of your own statement of 8 November 2004 that “this will be the last time you will hear a member of the Tiger-Cats organization use that term.? But please let us know if you disagree.
Or maybe it would be this one? Even though this is an expressed opinion, not a quote (never mind a bald one), let’s treat it as such to give you the benefit of the doubt:
“Mr. Young then proceeded to leave the terra firma of the businessman’s prerogative and entered onto the much shakier ground of censorship and big brother-ism by campaigning with both carrot and stick to extinguish the “Argos Suck!? chant among fans as well.?
I would say that’s an accurate account of your self-described “personal campaign to reduce and if possible eliminate the use of that self-demeaning old insult-that-will-remain-nameless.? While you may not like to consider your anti-chant actions as censorship, many others did feel it was precisely that, and a greater number still were uncomfortable with their traditions and freedom of expression being impinged upon by the fiduciary powers of a corporate leviathan. Therefore, referring to your actions as entering “onto the much shakier ground of censorship and big brother-ism? accurately reflects the difference of opinion on this point. One person’s censorship is another’s $1,000 giveaway.
So, moving on, we take it your objection is not to the “bathroom humour? quote, as you posted these words yourself on ticats.ca. But again, let us know if we err in this case.
Then, there’s the part wherein we state:
“it was the insinuation emanating from Mr. Young that there was a direct correlation between the now-forbidden chant and drunken fan violence that finally stirred the board of directors of www.argos-s**k.com into action.?
Again, this is not a quote, and the word “insinuation? is used to make this clear. But even so, this statement is an accurate reflection of your following comments (documented thusly in our manifesto) to the Globe and Mail that:
"Many fans in the last two decades have grown up with it and consider it as much a part of cheering for the Ticats as 'Oskee Wee Wee' is to me," he said. "But there were only 11,000 of those fans left by the end of last year. The 16,000 new fans who came this year did not come in earlier years because of their concerns over the rough atmosphere at the stadium."
So far, any problems about misquotes need to be directed to your self or sportswriter Dave Naylor, not to the forbidden website.
Next in line then would be the following:
“By the spring of 2005, a sheepish-sounding Bob Young told the Hamilton Spectator that the $1,000 was still unclaimed, and that the whole anti-chant campaign had not only been a flop, but also a wholly unproductive public relations move.?
Again, not a quote, so this can’t be the misquote you allege. Sheepish-sounding? That’s certainly how we read it, considering the previous tenor of the $1,000 campaign announcement. And according to Ken Peters, you told him the $1,000 dollars was not paid out, so that can’t be the misquote either. And the fact that, in this same article, you back-peddled on the campaign due to the censorship accusations, the fact that the “contest? became a nostalgic in-joke, the fact that all this attention breathed new life into the chant, its adherents, and the forbidden website, and the fact that you remained silent on the contest issue/$1,000 until now, all lend legitimacy to the claim that “the whole anti-chant campaign had not only been a flop, but also a wholly unproductive public relations move.? Its not spin to say that the campaign was a failure, because the forbidden chant lives on, and, as one ticats.ca community member stated last season, the forbidden website had another great year, while the Ticats finished with one of the worst records in franchise history.
Oh please. Now it’s the popularity of Oskie Wee Wee that derailed the campaign? I once ate 100 chicken wings in one sitting, but even I have trouble swallowing that one.
Is the $1,000 still part of the deal then? Please let us know, so we can resurrect our counter-campaign.
However, we would like to reiterate the possibility for a different approach. As the forbidden website politely requested over a year ago, maybe now is the time to bring the argos-$uck demographic back into the fold, instead of continuing to cast aspersions on our character and intentions. Since this controversy began, we have approached it with humour and good will, we have steadfastly maintained our respect for yourself and other fans, and we have educated our own demographic about concerns over the time/place/appropriateness of our favourite chant. Maybe selling forbidden buttons, forbidden T-shirts and forbidden bumper stickers at the Roar Store (as was the norm) is still too much for you, and that is understandable. But would you not at least consider a truce? A moratorium? A summit perhaps? As the conclusion of our manifesto states, we support an inclusive and united Ticat community, and as we get ready to face off against Ricky and the dreaded argos five more times in this our year of redemption, unity has never been more important. What do ya say?
I went to the forbidden website, read the account and was impressed with the work and the citations. I am glad you elaborated here, because as much as I was skeptical regarding some of the material, I wasn't going to go to the library to check your references.
I'll just comment on one part of your rebuttal.
You claim this is "not a quote", but it certainly looks like one. "... Bob Young told the Hamilton Spectator ... the whole anti-chant campaign had not only been a flop, but also a wholly unproductive public relations move"
As you point out, you consider the campaign to have been a flop (and you state why) and you consider it to be a unproductive public relations move. Based on your sources listed, I don't think Bob has.
Your post was useful to me, because I now understand the purpose of your treatise.
“it was the insinuation emanating from Mr. Young that there was a direct correlation between the now-forbidden chant and drunken fan violence that finally stirred the board of directors of [url=http://www.argos-s**k.com]www.argos-s**k.com[/url] into action.?
People like me didn't read Mr. Young's quote the same way you did. I now get it. I see why you were offended.
I'm not Mr. Young, but let me apologize to you on behalf of the anti-chanters. I do not believe that the people who chant "Argos $uck" are the sole cause of drunken fan violence. However, I do see a connection - tenuous though it is.
If a large group of people continually yell at me: "You $uck", I get angry. Similarly, if a large group of people continually yell at me: "The "team that you have cheered for your entire life with unrelenting passion(*)" $ucks", I get a little ticked off. I feel more than a little uncomfortable. I wouldn't resort to picking a fight, but I'd probably not choose to visit again. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say some fans might resort to picking a fight.
(*) For the record, it is the Tiger-Cats that I have cheered for my entire life with unrelenting passion. I understand that there exist people in the world who feel that way about a certain Blue team - but I don't claim to understand that.
You know, shortly after I posted the question of how many chants used by many people are profound, I did start thinking about chants used by people outside of sporting venues. And so the ones used at antiwar demonstrations came to mind. And the one you mentioned there was simple, yet can be thought of as profound. But considering what the chant is about, it would have to be deep. When war is the topic, it’s definitely significant. But some would say that when the Ticats play the team down the QEW, it is war. And that’s the reason for any nastiness that occurs at games like these, not that I support it all.