[SiouxPride0303]

Siouxmama, on Jun 27 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

PCM, on Jun 27 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

WiSioux, on Jun 27 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

Just thought I would share a neat experience with everyone. I was just outside walking my dog; and I live in Madison, WI; I have my Sioux Crew shirt on and a Sioux hat on... one of the people that passed me noticed and was asking me questions about going to school at UND. When we parted ways he said "I hope you get to keep your logo." I thought that was really neat. Rivals in the WCHA, allies against the NCAA...

I had something similar happen during the 2006 WCHA Final Five in St. Paul. I was buying a Coke at a concession stand in the X while wearing my black Sioux hockey jersey. Out of the blue, the guy waiting on me said, "I really like the way North Dakota's jerseys are put together. They're very sharp. I hope UND gets to keep the Fighting Sioux name."

I was so taken aback that all I said was, "Thanks. I do too."

It's probably safe to assume that this person wasn't a Sioux fan. I thought it was great that he went out of his way to say that.

I also was at the Final Five this year and went to the t shirt vendor and a girl (30 something) walked up next to me, got right in my face, and said "Sioux Suck". Total stranger, took me off guard, I just looked at her told her she was a perfect example of why so many people dislike the MN fans. I stressed that it's not the team, it's the fans. After a bit of a tounge lashing from me, her boyfriend/husband tried to smooth things over by being extra nice to me. Had to just shake my head and walk away. Not worth the breath talking to people like her.

I'm in Chicago and I was in Union Station getting a water before my train ride to the Frozen Four. The gal (who was a minority) that took my money commented on my Sioux jersey and wanted to know where it was from. I explained and why I was wearing it and where I was going. She just said how beautiful the logo is and how lovely the colors are etc etc. It was such a nice thing to hear.

[Sioux-cia]

Maybe 'f-@#$%^' means 'buddy' in the Duluth Indian language. I mean he was complementing you on a 'bunch of awards' right?!

[Sioux-cia]

I was at the United Center in Chicago for the Blackhawks/Oilers game and I had on my white Sioux hockey jersey. As I walked down the concourse, this guy yelled, "Go IRISH".

[redwing77]

Sioux-cia, on Jun 28 2006, 12:41 AM, said:

I was at the United Center in Chicago for the Blackhawks/Oilers game and I had on my white Sioux hockey jersey. As I walked down the concourse, this guy yelled, "Go IRISH".

That's too bad, but that's also Chicago. VERY isolated city. My brother lives there.

When I went to the MCI Center to watch the Caps play the Wings, I had two people go out of their way to talk to me. THe first said that she watched the Frozen Four in Boston (IIRC where we lost to DU in the NC game). The second just yelled "GO SIOUX!"

[sioux7>5]

My wife and I went to dinner at the Cheesecake Factory before going over to Joe Senser's to watch a game. There was an 1 1/2 hour wait to get a table. I went up to the counter to get a glass of water and a guy asked me about my jersey and what we were doing. Told him where we were going after eating and he said how long is the wait, told him. Then just about 5 minutes later he and the hostess walked up and sat us right away. Found out he was the manager and he later told me that he loved my jersey, and that he had one just like it at home. My wife was just blown away that we got a table because I was wearing my jersey. It was a really nice thing for him to do. But it just goes to show that it pays to wear your jersey everywear...

[dagies]

Chief Illiniwek Supporter, on Jun 27 2006, 10:59 PM, said:

dagies, on Jun 21 2006, 04:32 PM, said:

I not only wrote to Coleman, but also the the Strib's Reader's Representative. Click on the "Reader's Representative" link just above the column for an email address:
Her response:

Quote

I've reviewed your concerns about the Coleman column. They strike me more as issues of opinion and commentary than of fact. He makes it clear in the first item that he's opining that the benefactors would wear chicken feathers "if they still could." To the second point, the UND president's letter gives his view of the situation, just as Coleman's column gives his. On the third point, Coleman doesn't say Ralph Engelstad is a Nazi. He writes that Engestad collects Nazi memorabilia * something you also noted. And, he says Englestad celebrated Hitler's birthday by serving cakes decorated with Swastikas. That description is based on reporting of that incident. Based on that, I don't plan to recommend a correction.

Kate Parry
Reader's Representative

IIRC, the quote was that wealthy benefactors would wear chicken feathers to a cocktail party if they could. What stops them? I went to a cocktail party (a bunch of people drinking beer) last weekend and nothing stopped me. The benefactors clearly still can do the same. Has the editorial writer ever witnessed this? What basis does he have for this opinion?

Sorry, that response by the "readers representative" was clearly non-responsive.

JMHO, but rather than writing the "readers representative" you might want to start writing the advertisers.

I asked her 2 things, because I didn't believe her answer was any sort of explanation, but more a defense of Coleman being able to write whatever he wants because "it's his opinion".

My point to her was that Coleman was cleverly trying to leave a false impression with the reader about how UND benefactors act, what kind of person Ralph Engelstad was, etc. I felt that tactic by Coleman was unethical, even though it was his "opinion".

She had mentioned that the Hitler birthday parties were fact, and that Coleman had clearly indicated his other inferences were his "opinion".

So I asked her the following:

1. What stops UND benefactors from behaving the way Coleman says they would? Have they ever acted that way? Is there a law or a policy that PREVENTS them from acting this way? The answer to the former is nobody knows, even Coleman. And the answer to the latter is no. Therefore, I believe Coleman's inference is irresponsible and even offensive.

2. What did Ralph's collection of Nazi memorabelia have to do with this story? Nothing. In addition, he completely ignored Ralph's total collection of WWII memorabelia including stuff from Stalin and Patton's papers, etc. Yet he inferred Ralph was a Nazi with "tainted" money.

She no longer responded after my email responding to her answer. I thought as the "Reader's Representative" she would be interested in a discourse with an upset reader. IMO, and I realize this could be flawed because I'm a little ticked off about it, she acted only as a defender of Coleman. I don't expect she needed to agree with me. But I would have expected her to address my on-going questions. Instead, I felt that her first response was a dismissal. I never asked for a correction, I asked for an apology and she didn't seem to grasp this. She essentially scolded me by saying that I had admitted some of what Coleman wrote was fact, and therefore because of that, and the fact that he'd acknowledged the rest was his "opinion" she wouldn't recommend a correction. I asked for an apology because I felt he had been unfair and even offensive in his tactics. I didn't ask for him to correct anything.

Again, she doesn't have to agree with me for me to be satisfied. I don't believe she adequately addressed (understood?) my complaints, and she failed to respond to my follow-up questions. That doesn't fit my description for a "reader's representative". That's what is burning me as much as Coleman's hack job.

[sioux7>5]

dagies, on Jun 28 2006, 08:51 AM, said:

Chief Illiniwek Supporter, on Jun 27 2006, 10:59 PM, said:

dagies, on Jun 21 2006, 04:32 PM, said:

I not only wrote to Coleman, but also the the Strib's Reader's Representative. Click on the "Reader's Representative" link just above the column for an email address:
Her response:

Quote

I've reviewed your concerns about the Coleman column. They strike me more as issues of opinion and commentary than of fact. He makes it clear in the first item that he's opining that the benefactors would wear chicken feathers "if they still could." To the second point, the UND president's letter gives his view of the situation, just as Coleman's column gives his. On the third point, Coleman doesn't say Ralph Engelstad is a Nazi. He writes that Engestad collects Nazi memorabilia * something you also noted. And, he says Englestad celebrated Hitler's birthday by serving cakes decorated with Swastikas. That description is based on reporting of that incident. Based on that, I don't plan to recommend a correction.

Kate Parry
Reader's Representative

IIRC, the quote was that wealthy benefactors would wear chicken feathers to a cocktail party if they could. What stops them? I went to a cocktail party (a bunch of people drinking beer) last weekend and nothing stopped me. The benefactors clearly still can do the same. Has the editorial writer ever witnessed this? What basis does he have for this opinion?

Sorry, that response by the "readers representative" was clearly non-responsive.

JMHO, but rather than writing the "readers representative" you might want to start writing the advertisers.

I asked her 2 things, because I didn't believe her answer was any sort of explanation, but more a defense of Coleman being able to write whatever he wants because "it's his opinion".

My point to her was that Coleman was cleverly trying to leave a false impression with the reader about how UND benefactors act, what kind of person Ralph Engelstad was, etc. I felt that tactic by Coleman was unethical, even though it was his "opinion".

She had mentioned that the Hitler birthday parties were fact, and that Coleman had clearly indicated his other inferences were his "opinion".

So I asked her the following:

1. What stops UND benefactors from behaving the way Coleman says they would? Have they ever acted that way? Is there a law or a policy that PREVENTS them from acting this way? The answer to the former is nobody knows, even Coleman. And the answer to the latter is no. Therefore, I believe Coleman's inference is irresponsible and even offensive.

2. What did Ralph's collection of Nazi memorabelia have to do with this story? Nothing. In addition, he completely ignored Ralph's total collection of WWII memorabelia including stuff from Stalin and Patton's papers, etc. Yet he inferred Ralph was a Nazi with "tainted" money.

She no longer responded after my email responding to her answer. I thought as the "Reader's Representative" she would be interested in a discourse with an upset reader. IMO, and I realize this could be flawed because I'm a little ticked off about it, she acted only as a defender of Coleman. I don't expect she needed to agree with me. But I would have expected her to address my on-going questions. Instead, I felt that her first response was a dismissal. I never asked for a correction, I asked for an apology and she didn't seem to grasp this. She essentially scolded me by saying that I had admitted some of what Coleman wrote was fact, and therefore because of that, and the fact that he'd acknowledged the rest was his "opinion" she wouldn't recommend a correction. I asked for an apology because I felt he had been unfair and even offensive in his tactics. I didn't ask for him to correct anything.

Again, she doesn't have to agree with me for me to be satisfied. I don't believe she adequately addressed (understood?) my complaints, and she failed to respond to my follow-up questions. That doesn't fit my description for a "reader's representative". That's what is burning me as much as Coleman's hack job.

At least you got a response, I did not get a response at all. Coleman is a idiot and it just goes to show that he is more interested in his bashing and leaning journalism then anything that would represent the truth. He missed that day in journalism classes. I mistakenly thought that journalist were to report the truth, if not it should be in the editorial page and not in the sports section.

[dagies]

sioux7>5, on Jun 28 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

At least you got a response, I did not get a response at all. Coleman is a idiot and it just goes to show that he is more interested in his bashing and leaning journalism then anything that would represent the truth. He missed that day in journalism classes. I mistakenly thought that journalist were to report the truth, if not it should be in the editorial page and not in the sports section.

Did you write directly to the Reader's Rep, or to Coleman? Coleman didn't respond to me either.

I will only say one thing. Coleman is a columnist, not a reporter. PCM is better able verify if this is write, but columnists comment on situations and that's going to include their opinions, rather than just report the truth like reporters/journalists. I'll give Coleman that much latitude. But it doesn't give him an excuse for falsely trying to defame supporters of UND.

IMO Coleman walked a fine line, a fine line that IMO the Reader's Rep was fooled by. Either she was fooled or I'm overly sensitive, something few people would accuse me of (though I'm guilty of emotionally reacting to some things before thinking them through too). Coleman, like some others that post on these boards very cleverly write small "outs" into statements that make that try to falsely color a situation. When called on it they can claim "I only said it was my opinion" when in context it's very clear what impression they are intending to leave with the reader. The whole idea is that unless the reader is paying very close attention and parsing the words used by the writer very closely, they often won't catch the "out" and end up believing what they read was fact.

IMO it's clear Coleman was doing this and the Reader's Rep, Kate Parry, let him get away with it. Heck, I give money to UND and compared to a segment of society I could be considered "wealthy". Therefore, when I read what Coleman says I would do at a cocktail party "if I still could" I get offended. I don't get offended very easily, but it's clear his intent was to stereotype anyone who supports the UND Fighting Sioux nickname as racist, vulgar, fascist, etc etc etc. I think that is at the least an irresponsible thing to do, and possibly much worse that that. That's why I asked for an apology.

I'd kind of let this go but now this morning I'm kind of ticked off again, and feel like complaining to someone else at the Star Trib.

I'd be more than happy to have someone offer a perspective correcting mine. I'm not above being wrong.

[PCM]

dagies, on Jun 28 2006, 09:36 AM, said:

I'd be more than happy to have someone offer a perspective correcting mine. I'm not above being wrong.

There's no need to correct you. You pretty much nailed it.

[sioux7>5]

dagies, on Jun 28 2006, 09:36 AM, said:

sioux7>5, on Jun 28 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

At least you got a response, I did not get a response at all. Coleman is a idiot and it just goes to show that he is more interested in his bashing and leaning journalism then anything that would represent the truth. He missed that day in journalism classes. I mistakenly thought that journalist were to report the truth, if not it should be in the editorial page and not in the sports section.

Did you write directly to the Reader's Rep, or to Coleman? Coleman didn't respond to me either.

I will only say one thing. Coleman is a columnist, not a reporter. PCM is better able verify if this is write, but columnists comment on situations and that's going to include their opinions, rather than just report the truth like reporters/journalists. I'll give Coleman that much latitude. But it doesn't give him an excuse for falsely trying to defame supporters of UND.

IMO Coleman walked a fine line, a fine line that IMO the Reader's Rep was fooled by. Either she was fooled or I'm overly sensitive, something few people would accuse me of (though I'm guilty of emotionally reacting to some things before thinking them through too). Coleman, like some others that post on these boards very cleverly write small "outs" into statements that make that try to falsely color a situation. When called on it they can claim "I only said it was my opinion" when in context it's very clear what impression they are intending to leave with the reader. The whole idea is that unless the reader is paying very close attention and parsing the words used by the writer very closely, they often won't catch the "out" and end up believing what they read was fact.

IMO it's clear Coleman was doing this and the Reader's Rep, Kate Parry, let him get away with it. Heck, I give money to UND and compared to a segment of society I could be considered "wealthy". Therefore, when I read what Coleman says I would do at a cocktail party "if I still could" I get offended. I don't get offended very easily, but it's clear his intent was to stereotype anyone who supports the UND Fighting Sioux nickname as racist, vulgar, fascist, etc etc etc. I think that is at the least an irresponsible thing to do, and possibly much worse that that. That's why I asked for an apology.

I'd kind of let this go but now this morning I'm kind of ticked off again, and feel like complaining to someone else at the Star Trib.

I'd be more than happy to have someone offer a perspective correcting mine. I'm not above being wrong.

I did write to the readers rep....No response. I also understand that Coleman is a columnist but he should still do the research and get his facts straight before writing a biased piece. I think it is just ehtical to do so. Just my opinion I could be wrong.....But I doubt it.

[dagies]

sioux7>5, on Jun 28 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

I did write to the readers rep....No response. I also understand that Coleman is a columnist but he should still do the research and get his facts straight before writing a biased piece. I think it is just ehtical to do so. Just my opinion I could be wrong.....But I doubt it.

Geez, she wouldn't even respond to you? I think that's pathetic. That's what she's there for (I think).

Whether it's fact or opinion he's offering, we both agree that what he writes should be ethical and I think we both agree that at the best he danced on the wrong side of the finest of lines, and at the worst he plunged way over it. I bet our opinions on that are similar too.

[WildSioux]

dagies, on Jun 28 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

sioux7>5, on Jun 28 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

I did write to the readers rep....No response. I also understand that Coleman is a columnist but he should still do the research and get his facts straight before writing a biased piece. I think it is just ehtical to do so. Just my opinion I could be wrong.....But I doubt it.

Geez, she wouldn't even respond to you? I think that's pathetic. That's what she's there for (I think).

Whether it's fact or opinion he's offering, we both agree that what he writes should be ethical and I think we both agree that at the best he danced on the wrong side of the finest of lines, and at the worst he plunged way over it. I bet our opinions on that are similar too.

I too wrote to the racist Coleman and to the readers rep. Neither of them responded and I wrote pretty much what everyone else has stated that he needs to check his facts before reporting it as truth. Coleman and the Strib lost all credibility with me and rank right up there with the New York Lies...I even let them know about that too.

[WildSioux]

Sioux-cia, on Jun 28 2006, 01:33 AM, said:

Maybe 'f-@#$%^' means 'buddy' in the Duluth Indian language. I mean he was complementing you on a 'bunch of awards' right?!

Seriously, I thought I was in North Minneapolis down at the Canal Park watching the ships come in and go out. Between the thug teenage gangster wannabes talking about their glock, 9mm, and their 50 (pronounced "fity") down at the pier by the lighthouse, and the Indian mumbling about some F-@#$%^ awards. I was confused for a few minutes

[PCM]

It looks like Dr. K has a new fan in Texas.

North Dakota fighting NCAA's name game

Quote

If I was to make a list of my favorite college presidents (and trust me, it would be a short list), Charles Kupchella would be in the top three.

Never heard of Dr. Kupchella? He's the president of the University of North Dakota. Less than a year ago, North Dakota was one of the schools put on notice by the NCAA's Politically Correct Police.

[THETRIOUXPER]

PCM, on Jul 5 2006, 08:42 AM, said:

It looks like Dr. K has a new fan in Texas.

North Dakota fighting NCAA's name game

Quote

If I was to make a list of my favorite college presidents (and trust me, it would be a short list), Charles Kupchella would be in the top three.

Never heard of Dr. Kupchella? He's the president of the University of North Dakota. Less than a year ago, North Dakota was one of the schools put on notice by the NCAA's Politically Correct Police.

If I were Dr. K I would try to use my new found fame to my advantage. You know, change your name to something cool like "K-Dog", go on tour and get yourself some groupies, but that's me.

[The Sicatoka]

THETRIOUXPER, on Jul 5 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

If I were Dr. K I would try to use my new found fame to my advantage. You know, change your name to something cool like "K-Dog", go on tour and get yourself some groupies, but that's me.

No, no.
With this new "rock star" fame, he's going by "C-Kup."
He'll be introducing a new line of fashion for the ladies very soon.
The slogan is, "Every lady wants to fill out a C-Kup."


PS - "Dirty" and "PCM" are again battling, this time to be C-Kup's agent.

[PCM]

The Sicatoka, on Jul 5 2006, 10:06 AM, said:

PS - "Dirty" and "PCM" are again battling, this time to be C-Kup's agent.

There is no battle between The Real Deal and the wannabe.

[THETRIOUXPER]

C-KUP

[Sioux-cia]

So many have said that when the NC$$ has been sued, the NC$$ is unbeatable. I like this statement.

Quote

The NCAA's recent track record in court cases features more losses and out-of-court settlements than favorable rulings. If the Fighting Sioux sue, North Dakota, seemingly, has a winnable case.

[Diggler]

PCM, on Jul 5 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

The Sicatoka, on Jul 5 2006, 10:06 AM, said:

PS - "Dirty" and "PCM" are again battling, this time to be C-Kup's agent.

There is no battle between The Real Deal and the wannabe.

At least you admit you stand no chance against me with your old and feible mind. Plus I have The Oshie on my side and it was a good move on your part to just concede. Take some Ginkgo Biloba and call me in the morning, Grandpa.