[Riverman]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

Riverman, on Jan 7 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

You mind explaining the "taking off your hood" comment? You're on very thin ice.

Yeah "walking barbarians" or "barbarians walking" = Gothmog's.
Have feelings you know!!

OK, whatever you say!

What's in a name. gothmog, do you really think that UND picked Fighting Sioux to mock the Sioux nation?

You picked a unique or what you thought was a unique name. gothmog really is two words.
Clarifying gothmog into two words breaks down to goth a noun or goti or gota, anyway were Germanic or one might say "barbarians".
I choose to use mog as being a verb and not a noun. So we all now that mog or mogging as a verb means to walk.


See how easy it is gothmog to turn words around to fit what just one person thinks of your name?
Oh never mind..

[Gothmog]

Riverman, on Jan 7 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

Riverman, on Jan 7 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

You mind explaining the "taking off your hood" comment? You're on very thin ice.

Yeah "walking barbarians" or "barbarians walking" = Gothmog's.
Have feelings you know!!

OK, whatever you say!

What's in a name. gothmog, do you really think that UND picked Fighting Sioux to mock the Sioux nation?

You picked a unique or what you thought was a unique name. gothmog really is two words.
Clarifying gothmog into two words breaks down to goth a noun or goti or gota, anyway were Germanic or one might say "barbarians".
I choose to use mog as being a verb and not a noun. So we all now that mog or mogging as a verb means to walk.


See how easy it is gothmog to turn words around to fit what just one person thinks of your name?
Oh never mind..

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not.

Second, are you actually suggesting that Native American objections to UND's nickname are some sort of cynical linguistic trick? That "Sioux" doesn't really refer to the Dakota people?

[Riverman]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

Riverman, on Jan 7 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

Riverman, on Jan 7 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

You mind explaining the "taking off your hood" comment? You're on very thin ice.

Yeah "walking barbarians" or "barbarians walking" = Gothmog's.
Have feelings you know!!

OK, whatever you say!

What's in a name. gothmog, do you really think that UND picked Fighting Sioux to mock the Sioux nation?

You picked a unique or what you thought was a unique name. gothmog really is two words.
Clarifying gothmog into two words breaks down to goth a noun or goti or gota, anyway were Germanic or one might say "barbarians".
I choose to use mog as being a verb and not a noun. So we all now that mog or mogging as a verb means to walk.


See how easy it is gothmog to turn words around to fit what just one person thinks of your name?
Oh never mind..

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not.

Second, are you actually suggesting that Native American objections to UND's nickname are some sort of cynical linguistic trick? That "Sioux" doesn't really refer to the Dakota people?

Nope, I don't see that I typed that at all.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not.

That's not the issue. Do you think UND selected the Fighting Sioux nickname for the purpose of mocking, disresprespecting or otherwise dishonoring the Sioux tribes? Yes or no?

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jan 7 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not.

That's not the issue. Do you think UND selected the Fighting Sioux nickname for the purpose of mocking, disresprespecting or otherwise dishonoring the Sioux tribes? Yes or no?

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

[Chewey]

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not.

Second, are you actually suggesting that Native American objections to UND's nickname are some sort of cynical linguistic trick? That "Sioux" doesn't really refer to the Dakota people?
[/quote]

I think that the name change advocates have argued that "Sioux" means "snake" and that this name was imposed upon them by other parties. As far as choosing the name to "mock" something or someone, it's pretty well accepted that institutions and teams do not attempt to do anything to mock themselves. Whatever else the officials who chose the name believed, I think it's a pretty fair bet that mockery was not present when the name was selected. I really don't see why you believe your first point does not need further elaboration because it is unclear. What you may have been getting at was that you do not believe that whitey cared at all about whether the Sioux themselves believed they were being mocked when the name was selected.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

It answered a question nobody asked.

[Gothmog]

PCM, on Jan 7 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

It answered a question nobody asked.

Actually, you're wrong again. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

[Gothmog]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

PCM, on Jan 7 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

It answered a question nobody asked.

Actually, you're wrong again. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

On second thought, I was a little loose with that sentence. What I should have said is "UND didn't really care whether its choice of a nickname offended the Sioux tribes or not."

[DamStrait]

No tribe or tribal government has the right to censorship, whatever their feelings may be towards UND's use of "Fighting Sioux". Quit being willfully ignorant Gothmog. I strongly suspect that your position is due to your being a 'SU backer that hates all things UND.
Jim please show Gothmog and his thinly veiled trolling the door.
Everyone else - DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

[sioux7>5]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

PCM, on Jan 7 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

It answered a question nobody asked.

Actually, you're wrong again. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

On second thought, I was a little loose with that sentence. What I should have said is "UND didn't really care whether its choice of a nickname offended the Sioux tribes or not."

Once again you are wrong. The name was choose to honor the Sioux Nation. Learn about something before you start making statements that you can not back up. The Sioux Nation should be honored and what better way then to have a major university celebrate their history and heritage, they also make sure that there are programs that are specific to NA. WOW, once again more schools need to look at how UND is celebrating the Sioux nation and learn from them.

[PCM]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

On second thought, I was a little loose with that sentence. What I should have said is "UND didn't really care whether its choice of a nickname offended the Sioux tribes or not."

What evidence is there to suggest that any of the Sioux tribes were offended?

[PCM]

DamStrait, on Jan 7 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

No tribe or tribal government has the right to censorship, whatever their feelings may be towards UND's use of "Fighting Sioux". Quit being willfully ignorant Gothmog. I strongly suspect that your position is due to your being a 'SU backer that hates all things UND.

What's so pathetic about the Gothmog's of the world is that they are quite happy to allow the NCAA to run roughshod over member schools they dislike, refusing to understand that the same flagrant abuse of power that hurt UND can just as easily be used against the schools they like.

[dakotadan]

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:45 PM, said:

Your first point is basically a very weak slippery-slope argument that if the NCAA prevails on this issue they will inevitably impose some sort of politically-correct tyranny. There is not one bit of evidence to support that.

There isn't?

Brand wants more black head coaches

Group wants men out of women's practices

Yet when a literal brawl breaks out at a football game Brandt proceeds to make this statement:

Quote

The handling of individual incidents is properly the job of the local college or university.

Seems that Brandt is more worried about his "Politically-correct tyranny" than he is actually controlling what sports teams do on the court, ice or the field.

Gothmog, you really need to open your eyes and mind.

[SiouxMeNow]

sioux7>5, on Jan 7 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

redwing77, on Jan 7 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

As far as UND, someday, convincing the majority of tribes to "work with" the university. UND has had 30+ years to do just that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will be able to do so in 30 more years. Do you really want decades more of this?

Just a quick question, If UND regardless of the nickname has no hope to work with the tribes over the next 30 years, does that mean the University is wasting money on those 30 Native American only programs they fund?

If so, I could really think that the University would be best suited by removing that funding and putting it into a general scholarship fund for anyone and everyone qualified to earn financial aid. You know, it would help people of all ethnicities, backgrounds, and all handle the growing and overwhelming costs of collegiate education.

Please, if you are blind to what the University is doing to help the Native Americans of North Dakota and even Minnesota, then you truly are wrong. Those programs alone (and I'm sure there are more than just those programs) are a standing testiment to UND's stance in the education of Native Americans. I think their INMED program is absolutely top notch! Let's get to being more realistic: We know you are anti-nickname. We know that there is nothing we can say or do short of changing the name to change your mind (something that has already been admitted). We know that this issue will never go away (let's face it, it is impossible to make everyone happy. That's why majority rules came about. Sure, it has its problems, but whatever makes the MOST people happy is the policy everyone seems to strive for. And that means there will be a minority that may not necessarily be happy about the outcome. However, pleasing the minority to the disregard of the majority's opinion is rather backwards and even more damaging) even if we do change the name.

My return question to you is: How much longer do you want to disregard the majority's opinion to forward the minority (even if it is the minority of a minority) agenda? Is there a voice of the majority in this? I mean, obviously, if the board's members voted on whether or not they liked "gothmog" as your nickname and all but 2 liked it, does that mean that, because those two don't like your nickname that you must change your nickname? Are you serious about that type of resolve? Talk about a slippery slope!

I think we all understand the concept of representative democracy. The plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of Sioux tribes have, through their tribal governments, expressed opposition to the nickname.

You've got a losing argument.

I think you are wrong. I have always heard that it is only the tribal leaders and a few others that make a big stink over the nickname. The majority of tribal members supprt UND and like the nickname. I am beginning to think that Gothmog is actually GK in disguise.

REEAALLY??? (if it is...he'd be "borrowing" someones identity again...oops forgot! I'm on "thin ice" )

[The Sicatoka]

dakotadan, on Jan 7 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:45 PM, said:

Your first point is basically a very weak slippery-slope argument that if the NCAA prevails on this issue they will inevitably impose some sort of politically-correct tyranny. There is not one bit of evidence to support that.

There isn't?

Brand wants more black head coaches

Group wants men out of women's practices

Yet when a literal brawl breaks out at a football game Brandt proceeds to make this statement:

Quote

The handling of individual incidents is properly the job of the local college or university.

Seems that Brandt is more worried about his "Politically-correct tyranny" than he is actually controlling what sports teams do on the court, ice or the field.

Gothmog, you really need to open your eyes and mind.

Toss in
http://board.uscho.com/showpost.php?p=2222...amp;postcount=8
for good measure.

[sioux7>5]

The Sicatoka, on Jan 8 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

dakotadan, on Jan 7 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Gothmog, on Jan 7 2007, 01:45 PM, said:

Your first point is basically a very weak slippery-slope argument that if the NCAA prevails on this issue they will inevitably impose some sort of politically-correct tyranny. There is not one bit of evidence to support that.

There isn't?

Brand wants more black head coaches

Group wants men out of women's practices

Yet when a literal brawl breaks out at a football game Brandt proceeds to make this statement:

Quote

The handling of individual incidents is properly the job of the local college or university.

Seems that Brandt is more worried about his "Politically-correct tyranny" than he is actually controlling what sports teams do on the court, ice or the field.

Gothmog, you really need to open your eyes and mind.

Toss in
http://board.uscho.com/showpost.php?p=2222...amp;postcount=8
for good measure.

I hope you are kidding. There is no way the NCAA actually believes that they can control the local papers. So let me see if I udnerstand. I might be confused or just stupid. If the local papers do not have has many stories about womans sports as they do mens, a school could have sanctions against them. Please tell me I missunderstood you.

[The Sicatoka]

sioux7>5, on Jan 8 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

I hope you are kidding. There is no way the NCAA actually believes that they can control the local papers. So let me see if I udnerstand. I might be confused or just stupid. If the local papers do not have has many stories about womans sports as they do mens, a school could have sanctions against them. Please tell me I missunderstood you.

Why would they waste their time looking at it if they didn't have something in mind.

The NCAA can't control the local paper (assumably), but what about a member school's sports information department? If you don't run equal number of stories on your website on women and men ....

Sound crazy? No moreso than "no men in womens practices". And look where we're at already.

[redwing77]

SiouxMeNow, on Jan 8 2007, 12:40 AM, said:

REEAALLY??? (if it is...he'd be "borrowing" someones identity again...oops forgot! I'm on "thin ice" )

We're pro-nicknamers here. So, we're racists anyways. Why not be on thin ice too?

You have to remember the types of people that are the most vocal against the nickname (these aren't all of them, but the most vocally anti-nickname for sure) see those who voice opinions on the other side of the aisle as doing so out of racism and intolerance towards the Native Americans.

I think many of us have tried again and again to explain our side of the story but really, it's as Gothmog says: A waste of time. These people cannot handle an opinion different than their own. They see it, not as a dissenting opinion, but rather a personal attack on them or their identity. And they end up throwing out the race card.

So all we can do is keep on explaining our side, even if it falls on deaf ears, or worse, manipulative personalities. I hope we don't grow apathetic to it or give up.

[choyt3]

redwing77, on Jan 8 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

SiouxMeNow, on Jan 8 2007, 12:40 AM, said:

REEAALLY??? (if it is...he'd be "borrowing" someones identity again...oops forgot! I'm on "thin ice" )

We're pro-nicknamers here. So, we're racists anyways. Why not be on thin ice too?

You have to remember the types of people that are the most vocal against the nickname (these aren't all of them, but the most vocally anti-nickname for sure) see those who voice opinions on the other side of the aisle as doing so out of racism and intolerance towards the Native Americans.

I think many of us have tried again and again to explain our side of the story but really, it's as Gothmog says: A waste of time. These people cannot handle an opinion different than their own. They see it, not as a dissenting opinion, but rather a personal attack on them or their identity. And they end up throwing out the race card.

So all we can do is keep on explaining our side, even if it falls on deaf ears, or worse, manipulative personalities. I hope we don't grow apathetic to it or give up.

Oh, so you mean like when people criticize how Joe Finley has been playing to this point? Or Lamoureaux? Or any of the freshmen?