I agree that people are really offended by the moscot thing. However there also seems to be those that are not offended by it. I was responding to your claim that is someone is offended by something it has to go (im paraphrasing, think I have it right). While some Native Americans are offended, some are not. If the mascots have to go [/i]that have the approval of the tribes because another group does not approve then where is the line drawn? There is always a group making a scene about something they find offensive. IMO it is a no win situation for anyone involved. Obviously the schools lose, but some Native Americans who felt they were being tributed lose as well. So in a way it is a phony offensev (in certain schools cases). If the tribe being used is not offended then why the is it being removed? In no way am I condoning the use of derogatory mascot names. Those should go; the ones with universal disapproval. However the one's that are not derogatary, and are supported should be allowed to stay. I hope this makes sense.