[PCM]

GeauxSioux, on Jan 4 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Josh's Response

Thanks. I assumed that they were under one of the topics directly related to the nickname issue.

[sioux7>5]

Goon, on Jan 4 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

Hey PCM Josh responded to your letter on the Double A zone:

Quote

I have to admit, I didn’t think that any of the questions asked in the most recent post about mascots were meant to be answered. They seem to be rhetorical in nature because any answer I give isn’t going to be in line with all of your passionate beliefs.

My personal opinion about mascots isn’t directly in accordance with the NCAA position taken by the Executive Committee. For instance, I don’t see much of a difference between Fighting Sioux and Fighting Irish. I know leprechauns aren’t real, but the word “fighting” seems hostile to me. That’s my personal opinion, but the Executive Committee, which is comprised of presidents and chancellors, doesn’t agree with me.

With regard to the questions about Pontiac and Theodore Roosevelt, I can only share my personal thoughts. I do believe there’s a difference between a car company and a sports mascot imitating an American Indian. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for the establishment of the NCAA, and I see no reason we can’t have an award named in his honor.

You all are going to disagree with me and that’s certainly fine. You’re all passionate, believe the Executive Committee made a poor decision and are looking for hypocrisy in every nook and cranny of the NCAA. I understand the points being made, but personally feel that we’re discussing different situations.

I am not walking a company line – I agree that there are inconsistencies. I can’t imagine how North Dakota fans are feeling and I won’t try to put it in words. I am confident, however, that there are folks up there who are offended by the use of the Fighting Sioux moniker, and I think it’s important to remember that they should have a say as well.


Posted by: Josh Centor | January 3, 2007 02:40 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me get this straight, it is OK for the NCAA to make money from using a sponser like Pontiac. But they think it is wrong to cheer for a team with a name no different then Pontiac. The NCAA just does not get it. UND uses the name Fighting Sioux with Pride and Dignity. They use the sponser for money, which is worse. I honestly think that the NCAA could take a lesson from UND on how other schools should use a Native American nicknames. Sorry for the rant. This is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I doubt it!

[ScottM]

sioux7>5, on Jan 4 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

Let me get this straight, it is OK for the NCAA to make money from using a sponser like Pontiac. But they think it is wrong to cheer for a team with a name no different then Pontiac. The NCAA just does not get it. UND uses the name Fighting Sioux with Pride and Dignity. They use the sponser for money, which is worse. I honestly think that the NCAA could take a lesson from UND on how other schools should use a Native American nicknames. Sorry for the rant. This is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I doubt it!

As well as for the NC$$ to make money from the schools' names/logos who it has originally deemed "hostile or abusive", whether they've received a dispensation from Herr Brand or not. Apparently, if you give enough money to the NC$$ you can do what you want.

[Chewey]

sioux7>5, on Jan 4 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

Goon, on Jan 4 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

Hey PCM Josh responded to your letter on the Double A zone:

Quote

I have to admit, I didn’t think that any of the questions asked in the most recent post about mascots were meant to be answered. They seem to be rhetorical in nature because any answer I give isn’t going to be in line with all of your passionate beliefs.

My personal opinion about mascots isn’t directly in accordance with the NCAA position taken by the Executive Committee. For instance, I don’t see much of a difference between Fighting Sioux and Fighting Irish. I know leprechauns aren’t real, but the word “fighting” seems hostile to me. That’s my personal opinion, but the Executive Committee, which is comprised of presidents and chancellors, doesn’t agree with me.

With regard to the questions about Pontiac and Theodore Roosevelt, I can only share my personal thoughts. I do believe there’s a difference between a car company and a sports mascot imitating an American Indian. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for the establishment of the NCAA, and I see no reason we can’t have an award named in his honor.

You all are going to disagree with me and that’s certainly fine. You’re all passionate, believe the Executive Committee made a poor decision and are looking for hypocrisy in every nook and cranny of the NCAA. I understand the points being made, but personally feel that we’re discussing different situations.

I am not walking a company line – I agree that there are inconsistencies. I can’t imagine how North Dakota fans are feeling and I won’t try to put it in words. I am confident, however, that there are folks up there who are offended by the use of the Fighting Sioux moniker, and I think it’s important to remember that they should have a say as well.


Posted by: Josh Centor | January 3, 2007 02:40 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me get this straight, it is OK for the NCAA to make money from using a sponser like Pontiac. But they think it is wrong to cheer for a team with a name no different then Pontiac. The NCAA just does not get it. UND uses the name Fighting Sioux with Pride and Dignity. They use the sponser for money, which is worse. I honestly think that the NCAA could take a lesson from UND on how other schools should use a Native American nicknames. Sorry for the rant. This is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I doubt it!

That's no rant. Stating the obvious over and over to people in denial and/or to people who have selective application of "morals" is very frustrating. Hypocrisy itself is a very self-centered and self-absorbing concept and the NC00 is full of it.

[PCM]

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

From the believe it or not department: UND athletic director Tom Buning was never greeted by Dartmouth College athletic director Josie Harper at the Ledyard National Bank Classic last week in Hanover, N.H.

Buning said he did talk with a senior associate athletic director during the awards ceremony after the tournament. This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament.

Buning sat right below the press box with his green suit on. Wonder if they knew who he was? They knew he wasn't a member of the Dartmouth Big Green club.

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

[Goon]

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

GeauxSioux, on Jan 4 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Josh's Response

Thanks. I assumed that they were under one of the topics directly related to the nickname issue.

Sorry PCM that was posted for the main page that it was on. I should have been more specific. I will never let it happen again

[The Sicatoka]

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament. ...

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

What's with the "shadow" treatment?

[Goon]

The Sicatoka, on Jan 4 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

What's with the "shadow" treatment?

Maybe Bunning should have looked for her and made a point to show her what a rude __%^ she was being. I am sick and tired of these petty empty shirts. I would have had the Media right behind me recording how petty she was being. I am sure the Dartmouth Review will be on this one.

[PCM]

Goon, on Jan 4 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

Sorry PCM that was posted for the main page that it was on. I should have been more specific.

GeauxSioux gave me the link. I submitted a response, but it hasn't been posted yet.

Quote

I will never let it happen again

Yeah, and I also believed it when Zach Parise promised me he would never miss scoring on a breakaway again.

[Riverman]

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

From the believe it or not department: UND athletic director Tom Buning was never greeted by Dartmouth College athletic director Josie Harper at the Ledyard National Bank Classic last week in Hanover, N.H.

Buning said he did talk with a senior associate athletic director during the awards ceremony after the tournament. This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament.

Buning sat right below the press box with his green suit on. Wonder if they knew who he was? They knew he wasn't a member of the Dartmouth Big Green club.

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

That's odd she did an interview on the web cast me and a few friends watched...

[Siouxmama]

Riverman, on Jan 4 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

From the believe it or not department: UND athletic director Tom Buning was never greeted by Dartmouth College athletic director Josie Harper at the Ledyard National Bank Classic last week in Hanover, N.H.

Buning said he did talk with a senior associate athletic director during the awards ceremony after the tournament. This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament.

Buning sat right below the press box with his green suit on. Wonder if they knew who he was? They knew he wasn't a member of the Dartmouth Big Green club.

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

That's odd she did an interview on the web cast me and a few friends watched...

I saw the interview, too. Not a word mentioned about the visiting teams or the name controversy. She was there, so she had every opportunity to visit with whatever AD's were in attendance.

[Goon]

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

Yeah, and I also believed it when Zach Parise promised me he would never miss scoring on a breakaway again.

Has to go through the Handliers, I was tired when I got home from work last night at Mid Night it will never happen again today .

[PCM]

My comments to Josh Centor at the NCAA's Double-A Zone blog were posted here.

Quote

Josh, while I appreciate that you recognize some of the inconsistencies in the NCAA’s policy against American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery, your approach is all too typical of NCAA thinking. You simply pick and choose what supports the position with which you agree and ignore all else.

For example, I’m told that the University of North Dakota should be prevented from using the word “Sioux” as part of its nickname because:

A) It belongs to the tribes that comprise the Sioux nation and they alone can use it.

B) It is “cultural genocide” as it represents the theft or misappropriation of Native American words, symbols and culture.

C) It unfairly stereotypes, demeans and objectifies American Indians.

D) It enables non-Indians to profit from Native American culture.

E) Nobody should use Native American words, imagery, artwork, etc. without the expressed consent or permission of the tribes who claim to own them. (Is this not the NCAA’s official stated position on the matter?)

F) The student-athletes themselves cannot represent themselves as “Sioux” if they aren’t actually enrolled members of a Sioux tribe.

I wish someone from the NCAA could please explain why all these reasons apply to UND, but not to Pontiac, the association’s hand-picked sponsor.

How is it that an auto manufacturer that isn’t owned by any American Indian tribe and that presumably hasn’t received permission from Chief Pontiac’s tribe or any of his living descendents can simply appropriate his name for the purpose of selling cars for profit? How is using a stylized American Indian symbol to sell cars any different from UND’s use of an idealized image of a fictional Sioux warrior (designed by an American Indian artist who graduated from the university) to promote its athletic teams? How is it that the NCAA has no interest in Pontiac’s appropriation of an American Indian name and image? Has the NCAA required Pontiac to provide written proof that it has permission from a tribal entity to use the chief’s name and an American Indian symbol? And exactly how many Native Americans must object to Pontiac’s appropriation of the name and logo before the NCAA begins to care about it?

The blatant double standard is there for anyone who cares to look at all the facts objectively. The irony was almost too much when, on March 24-26, 2006, during the NCAA West Regional hockey tournament, I watched Pontiac commercials played repeatedly on the video scoreboard of UND’s Ralph Engelstad Arena. That’s a venue now banned from hosting NCAA events because it dares to display the Sioux name and logo without tribal permission, thus creating a “hostile and abusive” atmosphere for Native Americans.

Josh, you are correct that there are people offended by the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. Nobody disputes that. However, there’s a big difference between giving them “a say” and using the considerable power and influence of the NCAA to force member institutions to accept their opinion.

Those who oppose UND’s use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo have had their say for more than 30 years. Despite that, they haven’t even been able to convince the majority of Native Americans in North Dakota that UND’s use of the name and logo is offensive, let alone “hostile and abusive.” Despite the fact that there are approximately 400 American Indian students enrolled at UND, every nickname protest that’s been held in Grand Forks over the past 15 years (and there have been very few, indeed) has attracted under 100 participants, many of them non-Indians and some of them bused in from other campuses.

Yet, I’m told repeatedly that this is a burning issue dividing the university and the community, a civil rights issue of the same magnitude as slavery and a human rights issue that demands NCAA action. Without ever setting foot on UND’s campus, the NCAA somehow discovered discrimination against American Indians where investigators from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found none following a two-week visit. How is it possible that trained investigators from a federal agency responsible for enforcing civil rights laws can miss seeing discrimination while on the UND campus, but the NCAA Executive Committee can spot it all the way from Indianapolis?

When I point out that very few people actually care about this issue and that not even a majority of those who are the alleged victims of UND’s nickname and logo are concerned or offended, I’m told that if even one American Indian is offended or hurt, then UND must change its nickname. Is that a reasonable standard upon which rational people can agree?

If so, let’s discuss the NCAA and Theodore Roosevelt. I understand that the NCAA may think it’s perfectly reasonable to honor the man responsible for the organization’s founding. However, I know for a fact that he is a reviled figure among many American Indian historians, not only for making a statement that seemed to advocate genocide, but also for calling the Sand Creek massacre of Indians in Colorado “a righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."

Knowing that, how can the NCAA continue to honor the man and use his image in its official publications? How does that square with the organization’s principle of nondiscrimination and “dignity and respect” for all? Will the NCAA end its tradition of paying homage to Roosevelt if even one American Indian objects? And don’t bother hiding behind the association’s utterly transparent excuse of “nobody has complained.” Anyone who knows how to do a Google search can easily learn the Native American view of Roosevelt. The NCAA can condescendingly position itself as “a catalyst for social change” as long as it isn’t the organization being forced to change, give up the right of free expression or bear the expense of the change. How very convenient.

I’ll also point out, Josh, that in using this blog to “set the record straight” about NCAA-related “misinformation,” you used misinformation to unfairly accuse UND of having a mascot when, in fact, it does not. I look forward to you setting the record straight on that point.


Posted by: Patrick C. Miller | January 4, 2007 03:20 PM

[sioux7>5]

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

My comments to Josh Centor at the NCAA's Double-A Zone blog were posted here.

Quote

Josh, while I appreciate that you recognize some of the inconsistencies in the NCAA’s policy against American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery, your approach is all too typical of NCAA thinking. You simply pick and choose what supports the position with which you agree and ignore all else.

For example, I’m told that the University of North Dakota should be prevented from using the word “Sioux” as part of its nickname because:

A) It belongs to the tribes that comprise the Sioux nation and they alone can use it.

B) It is “cultural genocide” as it represents the theft or misappropriation of Native American words, symbols and culture.

C) It unfairly stereotypes, demeans and objectifies American Indians.

D) It enables non-Indians to profit from Native American culture.

E) Nobody should use Native American words, imagery, artwork, etc. without the expressed consent or permission of the tribes who claim to own them. (Is this not the NCAA’s official stated position on the matter?)

F) The student-athletes themselves cannot represent themselves as “Sioux” if they aren’t actually enrolled members of a Sioux tribe.

I wish someone from the NCAA could please explain why all these reasons apply to UND, but not to Pontiac, the association’s hand-picked sponsor.

How is it that an auto manufacturer that isn’t owned by any American Indian tribe and that presumably hasn’t received permission from Chief Pontiac’s tribe or any of his living descendents can simply appropriate his name for the purpose of selling cars for profit? How is using a stylized American Indian symbol to sell cars any different from UND’s use of an idealized image of a fictional Sioux warrior (designed by an American Indian artist who graduated from the university) to promote its athletic teams? How is it that the NCAA has no interest in Pontiac’s appropriation of an American Indian name and image? Has the NCAA required Pontiac to provide written proof that it has permission from a tribal entity to use the chief’s name and an American Indian symbol? And exactly how many Native Americans must object to Pontiac’s appropriation of the name and logo before the NCAA begins to care about it?

The blatant double standard is there for anyone who cares to look at all the facts objectively. The irony was almost too much when, on March 24-26, 2006, during the NCAA West Regional hockey tournament, I watched Pontiac commercials played repeatedly on the video scoreboard of UND’s Ralph Engelstad Arena. That’s a venue now banned from hosting NCAA events because it dares to display the Sioux name and logo without tribal permission, thus creating a “hostile and abusive” atmosphere for Native Americans.

Josh, you are correct that there are people offended by the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. Nobody disputes that. However, there’s a big difference between giving them “a say” and using the considerable power and influence of the NCAA to force member institutions to accept their opinion.

Those who oppose UND’s use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo have had their say for more than 30 years. Despite that, they haven’t even been able to convince the majority of Native Americans in North Dakota that UND’s use of the name and logo is offensive, let alone “hostile and abusive.” Despite the fact that there are approximately 400 American Indian students enrolled at UND, every nickname protest that’s been held in Grand Forks over the past 15 years (and there have been very few, indeed) has attracted under 100 participants, many of them non-Indians and some of them bused in from other campuses.

Yet, I’m told repeatedly that this is a burning issue dividing the university and the community, a civil rights issue of the same magnitude as slavery and a human rights issue that demands NCAA action. Without ever setting foot on UND’s campus, the NCAA somehow discovered discrimination against American Indians where investigators from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found none following a two-week visit. How is it possible that trained investigators from a federal agency responsible for enforcing civil rights laws can miss seeing discrimination while on the UND campus, but the NCAA Executive Committee can spot it all the way from Indianapolis?

When I point out that very few people actually care about this issue and that not even a majority of those who are the alleged victims of UND’s nickname and logo are concerned or offended, I’m told that if even one American Indian is offended or hurt, then UND must change its nickname. Is that a reasonable standard upon which rational people can agree?

If so, let’s discuss the NCAA and Theodore Roosevelt. I understand that the NCAA may think it’s perfectly reasonable to honor the man responsible for the organization’s founding. However, I know for a fact that he is a reviled figure among many American Indian historians, not only for making a statement that seemed to advocate genocide, but also for calling the Sand Creek massacre of Indians in Colorado “a righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."

Knowing that, how can the NCAA continue to honor the man and use his image in its official publications? How does that square with the organization’s principle of nondiscrimination and “dignity and respect” for all? Will the NCAA end its tradition of paying homage to Roosevelt if even one American Indian objects? And don’t bother hiding behind the association’s utterly transparent excuse of “nobody has complained.” Anyone who knows how to do a Google search can easily learn the Native American view of Roosevelt. The NCAA can condescendingly position itself as “a catalyst for social change” as long as it isn’t the organization being forced to change, give up the right of free expression or bear the expense of the change. How very convenient.

I’ll also point out, Josh, that in using this blog to “set the record straight” about NCAA-related “misinformation,” you used misinformation to unfairly accuse UND of having a mascot when, in fact, it does not. I look forward to you setting the record straight on that point.


Posted by: Patrick C. Miller | January 4, 2007 03:20 PM

Great letter PCM. That was just perfect.

[Goon]

PCM, on Jan 5 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

My comments to Josh Centor at the NCAA's Double-A Zone blog were posted here.

Quote

Josh, while I appreciate that you recognize some of the inconsistencies in the NCAA’s policy against American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery, your approach is all too typical of NCAA thinking. You simply pick and choose what supports the position with which you agree and ignore all else.

For example, I’m told that the University of North Dakota should be prevented from using the word “Sioux” as part of its nickname because:

A) It belongs to the tribes that comprise the Sioux nation and they alone can use it.

B) It is “cultural genocide” as it represents the theft or misappropriation of Native American words, symbols and culture.

C) It unfairly stereotypes, demeans and objectifies American Indians.

D) It enables non-Indians to profit from Native American culture.

E) Nobody should use Native American words, imagery, artwork, etc. without the expressed consent or permission of the tribes who claim to own them. (Is this not the NCAA’s official stated position on the matter?)

F) The student-athletes themselves cannot represent themselves as “Sioux” if they aren’t actually enrolled members of a Sioux tribe.

I wish someone from the NCAA could please explain why all these reasons apply to UND, but not to Pontiac, the association’s hand-picked sponsor.

How is it that an auto manufacturer that isn’t owned by any American Indian tribe and that presumably hasn’t received permission from Chief Pontiac’s tribe or any of his living descendents can simply appropriate his name for the purpose of selling cars for profit? How is using a stylized American Indian symbol to sell cars any different from UND’s use of an idealized image of a fictional Sioux warrior (designed by an American Indian artist who graduated from the university) to promote its athletic teams? How is it that the NCAA has no interest in Pontiac’s appropriation of an American Indian name and image? Has the NCAA required Pontiac to provide written proof that it has permission from a tribal entity to use the chief’s name and an American Indian symbol? And exactly how many Native Americans must object to Pontiac’s appropriation of the name and logo before the NCAA begins to care about it?

The blatant double standard is there for anyone who cares to look at all the facts objectively. The irony was almost too much when, on March 24-26, 2006, during the NCAA West Regional hockey tournament, I watched Pontiac commercials played repeatedly on the video scoreboard of UND’s Ralph Engelstad Arena. That’s a venue now banned from hosting NCAA events because it dares to display the Sioux name and logo without tribal permission, thus creating a “hostile and abusive” atmosphere for Native Americans.

Josh, you are correct that there are people offended by the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. Nobody disputes that. However, there’s a big difference between giving them “a say” and using the considerable power and influence of the NCAA to force member institutions to accept their opinion.

Those who oppose UND’s use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo have had their say for more than 30 years. Despite that, they haven’t even been able to convince the majority of Native Americans in North Dakota that UND’s use of the name and logo is offensive, let alone “hostile and abusive.” Despite the fact that there are approximately 400 American Indian students enrolled at UND, every nickname protest that’s been held in Grand Forks over the past 15 years (and there have been very few, indeed) has attracted under 100 participants, many of them non-Indians and some of them bused in from other campuses.

Yet, I’m told repeatedly that this is a burning issue dividing the university and the community, a civil rights issue of the same magnitude as slavery and a human rights issue that demands NCAA action. Without ever setting foot on UND’s campus, the NCAA somehow discovered discrimination against American Indians where investigators from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights found none following a two-week visit. How is it possible that trained investigators from a federal agency responsible for enforcing civil rights laws can miss seeing discrimination while on the UND campus, but the NCAA Executive Committee can spot it all the way from Indianapolis?

When I point out that very few people actually care about this issue and that not even a majority of those who are the alleged victims of UND’s nickname and logo are concerned or offended, I’m told that if even one American Indian is offended or hurt, then UND must change its nickname. Is that a reasonable standard upon which rational people can agree?

If so, let’s discuss the NCAA and Theodore Roosevelt. I understand that the NCAA may think it’s perfectly reasonable to honor the man responsible for the organization’s founding. However, I know for a fact that he is a reviled figure among many American Indian historians, not only for making a statement that seemed to advocate genocide, but also for calling the Sand Creek massacre of Indians in Colorado “a righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."

Knowing that, how can the NCAA continue to honor the man and use his image in its official publications? How does that square with the organization’s principle of nondiscrimination and “dignity and respect” for all? Will the NCAA end its tradition of paying homage to Roosevelt if even one American Indian objects? And don’t bother hiding behind the association’s utterly transparent excuse of “nobody has complained.” Anyone who knows how to do a Google search can easily learn the Native American view of Roosevelt. The NCAA can condescendingly position itself as “a catalyst for social change” as long as it isn’t the organization being forced to change, give up the right of free expression or bear the expense of the change. How very convenient.

I’ll also point out, Josh, that in using this blog to “set the record straight” about NCAA-related “misinformation,” you used misinformation to unfairly accuse UND of having a mascot when, in fact, it does not. I look forward to you setting the record straight on that point.


Posted by: Patrick C. Miller | January 4, 2007 03:20 PM

I am wondering what classic response is coming? The kid is definately in over his head.

[Goon]

Joe's Dartblog article check it out.
This makes for an interesting read.

[ScottM]

Go Pat!!!

[dagies]

I'm pretty sure I'm never going to get into a public written pissing match with PCM on a subject he's passionate about.

[Sioux-cia]

The Sicatoka, on Jan 4 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament. ...

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

What's with the "shadow" treatment?

To protect the masses from any possible 'hostile and abusive' behavior that out AD may have been compelled to exhibit.

[Goon]

Sioux-cia, on Jan 5 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

The Sicatoka, on Jan 4 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

PCM, on Jan 4 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Here's an interesting item from GF Herald sports editor Keven Fee's blog, Fee Throws:

Quote

This same person stood behind Buning most of the time during the two-day tournament. ...

Someone might want to tell the president of Dartmouth that's no way to treat a visiting AD.

What's with the "shadow" treatment?

To protect the masses from any possible 'hostile and abusive' behavior that out AD may have been compelled to exhibit.

I suppose that is probably from all the push ups and cheers that he has been doing. I think their AD is a hack, I have talked with Bunning a few times and I have to say that I am impressed with the COL Bunning. I sure she would have been out of her league.