DamStrait

I don't know, I'm not one of them. Why don't you ask those that are?

I think it's possible for others to care just as much for the university as you do and favor having no nickname - but that's just me.

You are nothing if not relentless - unconvincingly so, but relentless nonetheless.

I understand your clarification on the social media aspect. Thanks Otherwise, I have put into bold what I consider to be the key portions of the rest of your post - I've always loved the argument "damn the will of the majority - I know what is best" - it does have the unfortunate side effect of opening one up to the criticism of acting like a pompous ass, however.

About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say? Based on what, might I ask? If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.

If the "no nickname" option makes the final ballot and wins, and IF and when the NCAA et al were to make a stink, then the next most popular option could at that point be adopted quickly and without additional fuss.

Also, for those that are adamant that UND pick a new nickname, as Brad Schlossman has said, the best way to get past no nickname is to have it on the final ballot, and then have it voted down.

As Dave St. Peter said recently, "I thought there was something incredibly powerful and unique about having the words 'North Dakota' stand alone without a nickname." I think it can be made to be even more so with a clever marketing campaign. Wisconsin, adds a modified Budweiser jingle to the end of one of their school songs ("Varsity", I believe - but I could be mistaken), to wit, "When you've said Wisconsin, you've said it all." If UND were to continue without a nickname and do the same (When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all), it would actually have meaning and fit far better. I'd like to have a marketing plan along the lines of the following: Famous alums or persons associated with the university used in short video messages. Some examples: Show Jimmy Kleinsasser saying " When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all", then folds his massive arms in front of him in a defiant pose. Have Howard Walker, who you know is still rockin' a fu manchu and looking evil, say "North Dakota - wanna fight about it?" Matt Greene, "Just North Dakota, baby". Dave Hakstol and his stare - no sound, just the words "North Dakota", then go to a black screen where first the words "It's no good turning away" appear, followed by "You know he's still there". Others along these same lines are possible, using those such as Dave Osborn, T.J. Oshie, Zach Parise, Jonathan Toews, Commie, perhaps even the heretofore useless Phil Jackson could finally make himself useful. In this way I believe we can make not having a nickname interesting, create a following, and ultimately turn a weakness into a strength.

Not enough info to say that it is a majority, but that and "Roughriders" seemed to garner quite a bit of popular support and for that reason both should have made the final round. Now all we'll know is that a lot of people feel as if they haven't been listened to at all - again (or should it be "still").

I took Jim's post to mean that that was what was said at the committee, which other sources seem to corroborate (that is was stated, not that the statement was true).

Pretty much exactly how I see it - for the record, I would have been just as upset if Roughriders were to be eliminated from contention, as that too seems to have a lot of popular support, but it seems not many of the Roughrider supporters see the heavy-handedness of how things have played out - a case of " well that's someone else's ox that was just gored, not mine, so what's the problem?".

Yes - it should have given pause to those that were quick to laud these very same people that eliminated the no nickname option.

Your opinion - absolutely nothing more.

Yes, because if it were between only "no nickname" and "Roughriders", and "no nickname" was to win, it would be a shame if the majority actually had a say - for the very first and only time throughout this whole sorry exercise.

Cornell, 1970.

I took your post to mean that you feel I object to the statement that more want any nickname than want to go without, but was somehow "okay" with those claiming a majority want no nickname. I repeated the key sentence of my post to show that I am not "okay" with that assertion either.

Key sentence repeated for your benefit: "The only thing that can be concluded from your referenced poll is than not very many people that participated in it like "Spirit" or "Sundogs" or perhaps even "Fighting Green", or felt passionately enough about them to vote for them repeatedly - at least compared to some of the other options available in the poll".

Your condescension not withstanding, The bolded statement above is not supported by the facts. There is simply absolutely nothing to suggest that if those that chose a particular name had to choose another because their original choice was no longer available, that they would choose a different nickname over "no nickname". The only thing that can be concluded from your referenced poll is than not very many people that participated in it like "Spirit" or "Sundogs" or perhaps even "Fighting Green", or felt passionately enough about them to vote for them repeatedly - at least compared to some of the other options available in the poll.

That poll was not conducted in such a way that can support the statement "any nickname is favored over no nickname" - even if multiple voting was not possible (and it was). What was said above was that if the final options were "Sundogs" (which satisfies the "any nickname" category) and "no nickname", then "Sundogs" would prove to be more popular. I think that unlikely, but because participants were allowed to vote multiple times, it's impossible to say with any certainty. Also those responding to a newspaper website poll do not necessarily provide an accurate cross-section of those that will be allowed to vote on the issue, or even of the overall population.

Uhh.... No.

You seem to be equating everyone that is advocating continuing without a nickname as advocating the Fighting Sioux nickname, and therefore are all claiming to quit donating or switch their loyalty - this is not the case. I believe because you don't agree with continuing without a nickname, you have tended to lump all who hold that opinion into least flattering segment of that entire group. Those that are advocating returning to the Fighting Sioux nickname are at best uninformed.

You may not be aware, but you have a real knack for coming off as obnoxiously self-righteous. Just because someone may hold an opinion that differs from yours does not mean they care any less for UND or its best interests.

I like your thinking, but I fear that it is all too likely that the answers will quickly be spread on the internet, resulting in this approach becoming completely undermined as well.

Mick Garry should not think of quitting his day job to go into marketing - actually, he doesn't appear to be very good at his day job either - perhaps he should just be thankful that someone has taken pity upon him and is willing to give him a paycheck for absolutely nothing in return.

Ummm....I'm not the one wilting here.....sssoooo your response doesn't really make any sense....just so you know....