The Sicatoka

Cue up the old "Foreigner" vinyl; I've got "Double Vision." http://www.fightingsioux.com/sports/wvball...RELEASE_ID=4965

Going rogue? Hey, it's his choice. Going rogue and then developing a case of "selective memory" © IowaBison with the AG during a possible Century Code violation investigation? Poor form. And it will shadow him with some level of mistrust and skepticism with many for some time. Sadly, the shadow will cast over not just hime but the whole NDUS and SBoHE.

UND fans should be interested in this because this tainted (not for the better) the NDUS and the ND SBoHE. We now have a high-profile university president with "selective memory"

Fixed it. No charge.

That's not a true UND jersey from the Reagan era. The words "North Dakota" were not on the official team uniforms, nor was the word "Sioux" as is on today's jersey. Otherwise, that jersey is a close facsimile of the home jersey of that era. Reverse the green/white from the home and you have the roads of that era. UND didn't introduce the "third" (black) jersey until the mid (?) 1990s.

Cute, but are we sure Chapman's "selective memory" © IowaBison confirms any of this? But just the same, it's good to know now why when I think rodentia, I think NDSU. PS - UND's super-secret research dollars all go into cloning past great UND hockey players for the current team. PCM can explain.

What do all the ag plots around NDSU infer about a "go back to" name? "The earth is not your mother." -- Garage Logic Mayor Joe Soucheray.

There was a report on KVLY-TV last night that these critters have proliferated throughout the southside of Grand Forks.

Parts X: http://illinois.scout.com/2/545899.html XI: http://illinois.scout.com/2/546183.html C'mon PCM, you're slackin' if I have to keep this up to date.

No, try this instead.

はい。

Pick your favorite "star2city" post on this board. (It's in his signature.)

I thought part of the BSA at NDSU was state financed back in seventy-ought. No matter. I'm more interested in how the financing of bonds for athletic facilities are accounted at various places. In athletics budget directly? In university facilities overall? Through an outside foundation?

We practice via telephone in the off-hours.

AG's report:

How does one reconcile that with .... He's in the know, but doesn't know it?

It's quacking, flapping, and waddling. What is it?

This whole thing is a mess and taints everyone associated with it in a far from positive light. I believe the whole ND SBoHE, save for the newly installed members (as of July 1, namely Charles Murphy and the student member), should be removed by the Governor. Call it a "do-over."

The board supports a strong chancellor by an 8-0 vote. Then (from the AG):

So why didn't they support the office of Chancellor over the lone rogue university president of 11?

Page 2, paragraphs 2 and 4, "OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2006-O-11".

Come on, in light of the bigger picture of this, we're all just amateurs when it comes to playing politics with this. The real fun will come when the Legislature goes into session.

Indeed. The latest from: http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=132638

What's wrong with this picture? (Please correct me if I've got something wrong.) Potts gets good performance reviews (indicating that nobody on the SBoHE has any major problem with the job he's doing). After rumors circulate about Potts being fired to appease Chapman, the SBoHE unanimously passes a resolution supporting Potts. Paulson and Smith, who'd just passed the noted resolution, visit with Hoeven (who'd been in Fargo just days before). Suddenly, after being in Fargo (whom did Hoeven meet with in Fargo?), Hoeven has a problem with Potts' performance. And, now, Potts' leadership is called into question as well. Suddenly, for reasons that Chapman can't fathom, Potts issues an "it's him or me" ultimatium. Suddenly, Potts is gone. All that from a meeting between the governor and two board members. Just them. And yet, somehow, in late March there's this: Who is this "everybody" Chapman speaks of, and what did they say they would do? And where'd they get the notion? Clearly, by his own recollections to the AG, Chapman had no knowledge ("selective memory" © IowaBison) of 'ultimatums' or 'plans', yet, he made that statement to Thigpen.

Now why ever (other than the date of request from Heitkamp) would he put such tight box around the dates of interest, and be so 'explicit' that he's doing so? That seems rather rigid and overly formal.