DamStrait

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....

We are the aggrieved party here - does any sane person (PC zealots are not sane, in case that clarification is needed) really believe the NCAA negotiated in good faith? Maybe the stubbornness borne from the blood of my Scottish ancestors flowing through me is responsible, but it was the NCAA and their PC zealot allies that picked this fight - if they didn't want it, they shouldn't have picked it. I fully recognize that I am likely to lose in the end (indeed almost certainly have already lost), but I am not going to yield anything willingly - if the PC bastards want it, I'm going to make them fight for every bit of it, not lay down like some beaten dog - you want to take something from me, you might get it, but I'm going to fight you all the damn way. This is one (probably the main) reason why I prefer no nickname into perpetuity - even though one will likely be chosen either now or in the future. I'm not willing to go all the way to a new nickname without a fight. I think that fight is based on principle and is worth it - and I do not believe going without a nickname causes any harm to UND, its athletes, or its fans - I personally like the new no nickname apparel and have purchased several items. It's not as appealing as the old Fighting Sioux items, but I prefer it to anything with any other nickname on it and will likely purchase only "UND" items ever again. New students coming to UND will have to buy something, so they will buy the no nickname items if that is all that is available and if the items were to branded with a new lame name or logo, I do not believe it will benefit sales. I do not believe fans of UND and its athletics will care less for either if UND were to continue with no nickname. And at the end of the day, if we are forced at gunpoint to select a new name, I think the current process is converging on an alternative, so this whole process has not been "for nothing", as some contend. As I say, I believe there is a principle involved, and I believe further that the cost for continuing to fight for that principle is negligible - that being the case, if this process is going too slowly for the NCAA, Bobby Kelley and all the other PC zealots, and that causes them discomfort and makes them unhappy - GOOD - that is entirely what they asked for and I am perfectly willing to provide it. Some - perhaps many - perhaps even most of you - will think I am being stupid - I don't care what anybody else thinks - I think I am being honorable and no amount of arguing, belittling, cajoling, pleading etc. is ever going to have me think otherwise. PS - The time to have confronted Kelley was at the time of his response to the "You can take our name but not our pride" sorority sign incident. At that time he should have been shouted down from all quarters, put in his place and run out of town on a rail. Instead there was nothing - we should all hang our heads in shame.

Uhhhh, no - most if not all of the polls allow the selection of more than one option, so there is no way to tell which is each participant's favorite. Even if only one option was allowed, many may opt for no nickname if their favorite does not make the final list of three, but the no nickname option does.

Buck up buttercup - if this is really causing you misery, you must have it pretty good, because you clearly must not have anything else to complain about. All the angst about this process, what the NCAA might do, what the PC zealots say and think of us is completely overwrought IMHO.

I think the solution is pretty simple, really. It looks pretty clear that continuing with no nickname or adopting Roughriders are going to be the two most popular choices - since I believe there needs to be three for the voting process, pick a token third - not Cavalry, since that would really put the PC zealots in full hysteria and therefore will never be selected as an option for the voting process; not North Stars, since UND is not in Minnesota - so let's say Explorers. Whatever receives the most votes gets adopted - if it is Roughriders, all the chicken littles will be able to breathe again - if it is no nickname, UND goes with that, and IF the NCAA has a problem with it, a respectable effort to bring their heavy-handed ways to full light should be undertaken. If at the end of the day we are further forced into more abject PC stupidity, all should be content that the good fight has been fought and all that could be done has been done, and we can at that point effortlessly adopt the second most popular option, i.e. Roughriders. This may cause the rabidly anti no-nickname crowd untold amounts of additional wailing and gnashing of teeth, but you know, I'm okay with that.

I think the ND should have a flat finish too.

YOU do not want UND to be a school without a nickname - please refrain from speaking for me or others that think otherwise. Not specifically referring to you, but some seem to be arguing that it is just a nickname - pick one and be done with it - these seem to be some of the same people that are saying that UND MUST have a nickname. If the nickname itself isn't important, how can having one at all be important - seems like talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

1. North Dakota - in a landslide - not because I'm a "hockey only" fan (which I am not), but mostly because the rest of the field is so incredibly weak. 2. Rough Riders - distant, distant second - it's too bad RRHS felt the need to go with a nickname that had no ties to the city, but was merely alliterative. To make this clear - it has ties to the state, and UND is a school for the entire state - but not the city, so would be much better for UND than RRHS. 3. Cavalry - mostly because would be poking a middle digit in the eye of the NCAA and all the other PC zealots which are too numerous, nauseating and undeserving to be listed by name. But does not work with our green and white athletic colors, which should not become yet another victim of this misguided process - and will never be selected due to the very reason I find it attractive. 4. Explorers - surprised this made it, as it has pretty undeniable connotations to the Lewis & Clark expedition, which of course was the beginning of the end for native domination of the West, therefore will never be allowed by the PC zealots. I thought "Pathfinders" would have been more unique and marketable, but also likely more undeniably associated with the Lewis & Clark expedition, so odds are that that is why it was axed. Pathfinders would have been my #2, slightly less distant than Rough Riders. Any other selection is reason to conclude the fix was in from the beginning, and is strong evidence that we are living in an age of abject stupidity.

Since you are on record as saying that "Fighting Sioux" is racist, any opinion of yours must be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

And you would have been the very first to rip Hak afterwards if Johnson was put in and immediately gave up a couple of goals.

She should cite some of this so-called abundant research - as far as I'm aware, there isn't any that has passed the peer review process - it has all been puff pieces by PC hacks with an axe to grind. Anyone that has to resort to calling those that hold a different viewpoint from her "racists" and "uninformed" really ought not be listened to. If she is so thin skinned that she can't stand to live in a non-PC world, maybe it's time for her to grow up and let it go.