Cratter

You're welcome. Looks like there was already a newer topic on it at: http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...&pid=290761

Interesting to see how far we have come. Or not come for that matter. Still on the jlg architects website.

Bulbs are one issue to think about. The average bulb lasts 3000 hours at low power, 2000 hours at full lamp power. Which is about 7 cents an hour or so.

Picture quality up just as good as any lcd, but not as bright during the day time is about the only "issue" you can spend more money and get higher Lumens meaning an even brighter picture. That one is a Optima HD65. Type it into google and tons of reviews about it. It's one of the more popular projectors for that price range. And yes you need a screen to project it onto. Anything from a $5 4x8 painted white piece of drywall to $100 pull down screen.

I own this. 720p. 1600 Lumens. DLP. I like it cause its portable and only $650. Its hard watching anything less than a 100" tv now

(in my best Oprah voice) "You get free tuition, you get free tuition, you get free tuition." Come one. Come all. Text "NDSU" to 25000 and a $10 donation will be added to your phone bill to help bailout NDSU.

Well that works out good cause Memorial Stadium already has a track around the football field just like UND's new indoor practice facility will.

Can't they just "dome" Memorial Field? It seems like its already everything they want....not to mention seats and tradition.

I think its a road win for the Sioux based on the title of the thread. Congrats Sioux.

Maybe in the 80's? but that is not much money nowadays. There is quite a few houses sold in GF for $500,000. And that doesn't produce any revenue.

There is no doubt that a Buffalo Wild Wings would be wildly successful at the current former Suite 49 location. Its not a coincidence that BWW is going to build a new location in Grand Forks. Anyone with half a brain knew that Suite 49 was probably going to fail. Lets see: you have a market of 11,000 students within walking distance and you don't cater to them. Instead you advertised yourself as being "upscale" aka I cost a lot of money to go here . Its hard for anything upscale to work in GF let alone on the NorthEnd next to a place where students want "cheap."

Do you worry that once 51% of the population wants all guns banned that the other 49% will no matter because its what the majority wanted even though it was and has been their right all along? Maybe DC and other cities that have strict gun laws (NY & Chicago) can put it to a vote? What better way in a "democracy" than for the citizens to decide. After all if just one of those judges voted the other way guns would still be banned in DC and lead the way for other cities across the country and nation to start to ban guns (This happens so often when a new President appoints their Supreme Court Justices which broadly share their ideological views).

Let's not forget that UND played a basketball game against Bemidji St at the Target Center in Minneapolis last year.

Yes and no. I should have been more clear. It is against the law to discriminate mainly against certain groups/classes of people: race, color, religion or national original under the Federal Civil Rights Act and disabilities via Americans with Disabilities Act....after that its for the courts to decide. They then can refuse the right to serve people. Just have to come up with a "valid reason." A court held that it had the right to refuse service to a "motorcycle gang" because it was preventing fights against rival club members. Another case was a person with "poor hygiene." As in this case, it gets even more complicated when talking about a "nightclub" (or bar) because it caters to a specific clientele based on age/social status - hence the "bouncers" outside the clubs deciding who gets to go into the club. I almost didn't get into a downtown Minneapolis club once because of "something with myshoes." But was able to enter because of the people I was with.

You're starting to get it. The truth is a Bar is not public. It is indeed a Private Business that is why it has the right to serve only people it wants it has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Thanks to your new definition you are no longer against smoking in drinking establishments, just certain types. Gotcha ya ha Here's the slippery slope that many have mentioned that has started. You are okay with a private business that allows smoking. You say something with "members". The owners say members simply pay a cover charge every time they enter as many bars already do. This is how many businesses "get around laws." And the reason those laws shouldn't exist.

No, not at all. You're not against driving and talking. Check. So technically what you are really against is holding anything while talking. Be it a phone to ear while talking, candybar to mouth while talking, soda pop to mouth while talking. You're against holding something to your ear while talking. It is still a distraction to have to dial that hands free (because you are no longer watching the road) and takes concentration to have that convo and that other hand can now legally put their makeup on while commuting to work in the morning.....does that make you any safer? Another Great Law!

Left/Right. It shouldn't matter. It should be something we can all agree on....because its In the Constitution. It's to bad we get farther away from it everyday.

Ah yes, the Million Dollar (philosophical) question, "Do you believe in the humanity of your fellow man (or woman)?" Do you believe given a choice the average person would do "good" or "bad"; "right or wrong"? I like to believe my neighbor is generally "good" and would do "the right thing." Hence more individual choices and less government intervention/interaction. I know where you stand. (of course there is no "right" or "wrong" answer).

I understand there is controvery. I am not saying one way or another. Was just trying to make a simple point. But there is a reason they need to have websites about the safety of vaccines, because it is widely held for right or wrong belief that it may help lead to symptoms. Hence the controvery, and the arguement why one might want to opt out (not saying I would, just like I would obviously education my kids ) I understand that it may not cause it, but to say there is no way it can't or won't, Why would the Courts in the USA claim within the last year

As I have said, I plan to. I am glad it passed as I look forward to not stinking after going home and I don't smoke. I understand its a hard concept to grasp; someone standing up on principal: One that says a person who risks their (lifetime) capital to start a small business has the right to open a place where its customers come to enjoy a legal product where no one under the age of 21 would be allow....not a bar, just a place to come to solely smoke with other smokers.

I could make a case for every single one of these. In case you haven't heard, theses Mandatory immunizations have been known to lead children to develop Autism. (as a judge has admited hence financial payments) I think its sad the Government thinks they own your kids and tells you they have to shot your kid with "medicine." Let's say you don't believe it may have led to Autistic like symptoms, well it would at least be nice maybe if those who do had the choice to not vaccinate their kids with MMR because who knows, but maybe "better safe than sorry." No choice to live a "natural" God created life. A crazy answer I know - Being born and then "nothing." Oh yeah lets not forget the United States Court of Federal Claims created a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Thanks Government for that fine for my grass being too tall. Thanks for the law saying I can't have a pink house. What would we do without them. Its for the good of the community because my neighbors didn't like my choice of color or tall grass. Unlike me, they don't think it "looks good." Once again the Government thinks they know what is best for my children. Why is one forced to go to school til the age of 18, why not 16, 15, 14, 13? Even if they hate school, do nothing, and fail third grade for 15 years? (if that case were true I am sure the Government would take your child). Speaking of, don't be surprised if the USA passes a law similar to the One-child policy of China one day if it is ever needed, because the ground work has already been set in America. A law I would strongly oppose. "Oh its okay to have more than one child....if you pay a fine". Yeah, Water that is "natural" God Created without any chemicals added. Yeah that would be bad. Where does it end?

Great quote. The two party system is ruining our country. We feel we must pick a side and stick with what they believe. Not ourselves. We will fight the other side. The answer to your question is the Libertarian Party - The one that wants less government in peoples lives. The party of Real Change. The one party that would bring people together. Like others have said I am not "for smoking" (I don't smoke), I am "pro freedom of choice" on virtually every issue. We understand the "health" arguments, but those can be said about riding a motorcycle and smoking tobacco in general, not against government regulation....as others say it sounds more like outlawing the products. Take for example consuming alcohol in city parks in Grand Forks. It use to be that it was okay to do so. But then one day the GF Government said "No you can't do that, well at least without paying us money first (a tax). Then I guess it is okay otherwise we will give you a large fine for what you use to be freely able to do! Call me Crazy! I can't rely believe people here are saying "if you don't like it here move." Exactly the opposite of what this country believes in. I guess that is why so many people move out of ND and is one of the least populated states....I have heard people tell others a million times the same thing in ND, "if you don't like it move." Most do. Sorry I didn't respond earlier I left the computer. Health Care costs is a very complicated subject/topic. Should government get involved or not, etc. How are costs best handled. Very hard to answer. And I don't think it really ads to this arguement but No, Honestly, I don't have a problem paying taxes with everyone else to pay for someones (stupid) choice. I (along with everyone else) pay for someones choice to smoke, to eat Big Macs everyday, to go ride a bicycle without a helmet. We all pay for these choices. The choice for people to do stupid things that are totally legal. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I totally agree with everything above. I support wearing helmets 100%. I just don't support having a law forcing someone to wear one. I choose to keep my personal opinions seperate from the making and passing of laws that force others to think and/or act like me.

Again: We live in a (Constitutional) Republic in which the majority rule is tempered by the minority rights protected by law. Our Founding Fathers actually warned against a Democracy - A society where 51% would overrule the other 49% to protect them from ""tyranny of the majority." * I understand the USA is a representative democracy. As there are different types of Democracies.

Reminds me of something quite funny actually. Could one legally be able to buy tobacco but not legally be able to smoke it anywhere: any public place (already law in places), around young people (law against smoking in a car when children present), in your own home, even outdoors (at UND where they said you can't smoke outside - though not yet technically illegal yet), etc? Sound like it couldn't happen? Alcohol just didn't become illegal one day. First states passed laws banning "strong liquor." Then came health arguements in the name of safety (sound familiar). Of course knowing that you can help make people "safer and healthier" states began to ban it. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales. Then one day you right to have a cold beer was taken away nationally by the government. Another similar story could be had for the most widely used illegal drug, cannibas. It wasn't always illegal to smoke it (1937). But again the name of safety came up. So the government didn't make it illegal. They just made you pay a tax (Marijuana Tax Act) that the government would rarely issue. All fueled by the fact that tobacco companies knew they would see higher profits. Boom: less individual choice that only hurts the user (or all of society as some would argue ).