Medlock Released By Redskins/Pickett Signs in Calgary

8) Former Argo kicker Justin Medlock was released today by the Washington Redskins, and Argo GM Adam Rita has stated that he would love to have Medlock back in an Argo uniform again, if possible.
  Former Argo QB Cody Pickett was signed by Calgary today, after being released by Montreal a few days ago.

Medlock's a good one and would certainly be a good pickup for any team needing a kicker, and the blue team would have to be at the top of that list.

Pickett? Nah. I doubt he'll beat out Champion or Tate. Training camp fodder is all.

Because the racist-named Redskins also have an amazing history in making idiot and costly free agent signings and letting great players go somewhere else including even in their own division, I am looking forward to them having yet another sorry kicker in awful Washington and seeing Medlock succeed again in the CFL assuming he does not go to another NFL team. :thup:

Has Santos signed in some other league? I thought the consensus was he had more upside than Pickett.

As if Boreham's career wasn't hanging by a thread already.

Says the person wearing the badge of another team named after natives.

ZING! Lmao!!

For the Eskimoan peoples as a whole; the only inclusive term is Eskimo.


Eskimo has come under strong attack in recent years for its supposed offensiveness,

and many [ North ] Americans today either avoid this term or feel uneasy using it.

It is widely known that Inuit, a term of ethnic pride, offers an acceptable alternative,

but it is less well understood that Inuit cannot substitute for Eskimo in all cases,

being restricted in usage to the Inuit-speaking peoples of Arctic Canada and parts of Greenland.

In Alaska and Arctic Siberia, where Inuit is not spoken, the comparable terms
are Inupiaq and Yupik, neither of which has gained as wide a currency in English as Inuit.

While use of these terms is often preferable when speaking of the appropriate linguistic group,

none of them can be used of the Eskimoan peoples as a whole; the only inclusive term remains Eskimo.

• The claim that Eskimo is offensive is based primarily on a popular but disputed etymology
tracing its origin to an Abenaki word meaning “eaters of raw meat.?

Though modern linguists speculate that the term actually derives
from a Montagnais word referring to the manner of lacing a snowshoe,

the matter remains undecided, and meanwhile many English speakers
have learned to perceive Eskimo as a derogatory term

invented by unfriendly outsiders in scornful reference to
their neighbors' unsophisticated eating habits.

Yes, Ron. I never said Eskimo is a bad or insulting name. Nor is the term Redskin. Both are used to describe a people. Not degrade them.

PaoloX seems to have the same argument many do that simply naming a team after natives is racist. I was merely pointing out that he is using an EE avatar while writing that.

I wonder if the docile, friendly tiger cats of the world are offended we choose to portray them all as blood thirsty killers?

Speaking of thirsty, I'm offended the university of Notre Dame makes us Irish out to be drunks looking for a fist fight.

The most offended must be those from north west Turkey in what was formerly known as Troy. Modern symbols of Troy include USC athletics, computer viruses, and prophylactics.

I would expect this sort of "logic" from you Zen having run into your previously confirmed uninformed state of mind on here before. Let me guess you get baked sometimes too? :roll: Don't answer please :lol:

Ron explained the matter of the use of the word "Eskimo" just fine.

Otherwise your insinuation of the term Redskin not being defaming is not only ignorant of the racist history of that team but patently offencive. More power to you if you don't think it is offencive, but then you ought not be the one making a comment as you did dude.

Redskins is a clear demeaning reference to skin colour and nothing more with most folks I have met on here and in the US, save for some of the hypocrites in Washington agreeing on the racist nature of the team name notwithstanding the highly racist legacy of the Washington Redskins that most know nothing about all the same. Read up on that before you allege that the term is not offensive or demeaning.

Also it helps that I lived in Washington DC for 7.5 years as well for that matter so know the turf way better than do most on here.

Most tribes to this day in the US in the Lower 48 refer to themselves as "Indians" and not "Native Americans" as preached by usually uninformed East Coast folks, for the latter is considered offencive as well.

Educate yourself a bit more Zen before you fire off like that about the Redskins or otherwise, but of course that's probably your woeful agenda on here in your likely baked state anyway. :thup:

No idea about Santos, was wondering that myself.

Never having seen him play, I really can't say what upside he may have. . all I know is that having seen Pickett play, I don't see any upside there at all.

Speaking of agendas ... perhaps this can serve as a lesson on the effects of introducing a complete red herring into a thread that had been about nothing more than player movements.

Point well taken ExPat thanks happens when you have opinions whether they are "red herrings" or not ...I'm catching on to that notion more though never imagined calling the Redskins "racist" would be deemed "controversial" or "objectionable" by someone but there we go there's as many (expletives) out there as there are opinions. :lol:

Even in Canada online where I don't run across near as many as I did and have in Washington DC, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and a few choice other spots in the US more than others for that matter. :roll:

Zenstate - You are my hero!!!!

Thank you for laying the smack down on posters who bring their political and racial agendas to "FOOTBALL" forms. Totally agree with the Eskimo comment as well.

Only difference is Daniel Snyder would balk at any minority group asking him to change the teams name. God I love the USA sometimes.......

8) How very right you are "ExPat". :thup:
 It's unbelievable on here at times.   <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->

I read an article in the Sun that stated the special teams coach for Washington remarked to Medlock that he would have a tough time making the team because he is a left footer.

Can someone tell me why that would make it difficult to make the roster as long as he is kicking field goals?

^^^^ because then you have to reverse the whole kicking scheme and holding, I guess they're basically saying they don't want to waste their time on doing that.

Thanks for the reply Drexl...I guess you could say Medlock made the Argos last year because they were in reverse already??? :slight_smile:

PaoloX loves to give essay responses. I guess he feels if he throws a few hundred words at me that it will negate what he already said. He thinks his truths are everyones.

If YOU PaoloX don't want people in your face then stick to the topic at hand and stop sharing your opinions where they don't belong.

I didn't even bother to read his long winded reply.. there are Eskimo forums you know. You know.. the team with the good native name..