82SiouxGuy

I've used the ignore all signatures for a couple of years. It is much cleaner and easier to scroll through pages.

Here are some pictures to illustrate what a fighting hawk logo might resemble. Give these to a good artist and they could come up with something interesting.

When you are asking someone for large sums of money you don't do it by making a public statement. You ask those questions in person, in private. And normally those questions are asked after a period of prep time. That's why most large fundraising projects raise a majority of their funds before they make a public announcement. You fill in the remainder with smaller amounts from the public.

For clarification, the high school in Ames is the Little Cyclones to differentiate from the Iowa State Cyclones.

You weren't paying attention, so now you're upset? Any name option, including the no nickname option, could have been eliminated at any of the meetings. They made that very clear. But you weren't paying attention because you just assumed that the option you liked would be on the final list. One of the factors people on the committee used when making decisions was the input they got from the general public. The committee eliminated the no nickname option at their last committee meeting, according to a vote they took it should have been eliminated at the previous meeting because it ranked very low. After it was eliminated by the committee and people got upset, President Kelley agreed to listen to the public to see if someone could give him good reasons to put the name back on the list. "I want it on the list" is not a reason. Neither is "I don't like the other names the committee came up with". Obviously no one gave him good reasons that he agreed with enough to change the list given to him by the committee. I'm willing to bet that insulting him constantly or demanding he make the change "or else" probably didn't help either.

People must have missed this part of the GF Herald article.

Berrios probably isn't going to get called up at all this season because they are trying to control the number of innings that he is pitching. Before this year, the highest number of innings he has ever pitched in a year is 140, which he pitched last year. He pitched about 100 the year before. The original plan for the year was to have him pitch 160-180 because they don't want to increase the number of innings per year too quickly. He is at 155 already this year. That gives him 1 to 3 starts left for the year. It's possible that they could call him up to use him in the bullpen during the September roster expansion, and only use him a little bit. But, it is highly unlikely that he will be a starting pitcher for the Twins this year because of concerns about over-taxing his arm with too many innings.

That was released by UND. You can tell by the logo in the middle of the paper. If you saw the very bottom of the page you would see the schedule for the next game. Here is the same page from the UND Sports web site, http://www.undsports.com/pdf9/3742006.pdf.

All you had to do was read 2 more posts to see my response, which was to tell him that yelling Sioux at a sporting event was not protected by the First Amendment. Are you claiming that I chewed you out by asking a simple question? Or that I chewed you out by quoting the First Amendment? Or that I chewed you out by providing more information about the First Amendment and how it applies?

The NCAA wouldn't say a word to the fans. They would tell UND that by not choosing a new nickname the school obviously hasn't done enough to move away from the Fighting Sioux nickname. Their chosen option would be to put UND back on the same sanctions as they would have been on if they had kept the Fighting Sioux nickname. And UND wouldn't tell the fans what they can cheer. If the NCAA puts UND back on sanctions, UND would move quickly to choose a new nickname to get off sanctions. Yell Sioux all you want, no one is going to tell you to stop (other than the people that think it is disrespectful to yell anything during the National Anthem).

Have you ever read the 1st Amendment? It doesn't say anything about schools, or organizations such as the NCAA, limiting speech in some way. As a matter of fact, the courts have upheld multiple cases where schools have limited speech.

Stanford is one of the best known schools in the country, and they don't base their reputation on sports. Not exactly a good comparison for the University of North Dakota. But a whole lot of people still know that they are the Cardinal. Yelling Sioux at a sporting event is not protected by the First Amendment.

I'm pretty sure that those are the players that are injured and being held out of practice. Most probably have minor injuries unless they have casts, walking boots, crutches or other aids to healing.

I agree that UND is relatively small-time in terms of exposure and awareness. That is part of the reason it needs to work every angle possible. In that particular case it was the Brien Sioux logo. I always remember the conversation because he said that a lot of college students in the Boston area knew and liked the logo. He said that some of them bought t-shirts and sweat shirts with the logo and wore them around Boston. This was after the NCAA announced their policy, but it was before the lawsuit was settled. He knew that UND was in Grand Forks, and knew where North Dakota was although he had never been anywhere close. It was an example of how a good logo can help increase awareness.

Yet the National Park guy I talked to in Boston 10 years ago wanted to talk to me about the UND hockey team after seeing the UND logo on my sweatshirt (before I said anything more than hello). Maybe nicknames and logos do make a difference with some people. If names and logos didn't make a difference in marketing you wouldn't have the logos below or any of the million other logos on products, or the nicknames and logos for every other sports team in the US.

Like the UND game with Washington that has been on the schedule for a year or 2?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/letters/3822135-letter-no-nickname-und-games-just-arent-same

Sorry you don't like to hear facts. The actual election is the only "poll" that counts. We have the results of the elections. I do know the truth, and the truth is that it is time to move forward by selecting a new nickname rather than extending this mess indefinitely.

I don't have to agree with the President, or with the Congress, but I do have to follow the laws that they establish. Those are the rules. The opinions of the people are not what decides issues, the actions of the elected officials make the decisions. The Standing Rock Tribal Council has acted on the issue several times, and since 1992 they have been constant in their opposition to UND using the Sioux nickname. You are the one belittling people with your "only 4 people" thing. I don't believe I'm belittling you when I point out facts, and you don't. That is part of debate. You said I was wrong about the Standing Rock Tribal Council coming out against the Sioux nickname in 1992, and that a member of the group that participated in the pipe ceremony was part of that Tribal Council. The facts say otherwise. I keep saying that the Tribal Council has acted on the issue, you go back to saying that only a small number of people were involved even though that is exactly how the process is supposed to work. You bring up the petition with 1004 signatures. I mention an opposing petition with 1010 signatures and you ignore it. You say that maybe tribal members don't vote in elections, if they actually want their opinions to count that is the process to make it happen. Putting their opinion on Facebook does not really count. How are any of those hard to understand? As tSic and others have pointed out, nothing in that book is new, none of it was hidden. Everything was published by the regular media as it happened. Or it is taken out of context. Or it ignores how the legal system actually works. It doesn't prove what you think it does. Try Google, or Bing, or one of the multitude of other search engines and get more information. I have been watching and/or participating in this debate for almost 50 years, almost the entire time that the Sioux nickname has been debated on campus. It was talked about when I was a student in the late 70's and early 80's (I'm SiouxGuy82 because I graduated from UND in 1982), plus I grew up in the area and remember it being discussed going back before that. I don't know if I'm an expert or not, but I do know quite a bit about the subject, from both sides.

You mean a list where Ermines was submitted 35 times? Or where Flickertails was submitted more than 180 times? A list that we know included a large number of submissions by NDSU fans to try to interfere with UND getting a new nickname? That sounds like a real accurate portrayal of interest, doesn't it.

It probably applies to both.

You really need to educate yourself on the facts, not just pay attention to one book. Aljoe Agard was Tribal Chair at Standing Rock from 1961-1969, and was part of the group that participated in the pipe ceremony. He was a member of the Tribal Council in 1992. That Tribal Council passed a resolution asking UND to quit using the Sioux nickname. He voted for that resolution. Those are facts, look them up. He must not have believed the ceremony was "sacred", and neither did the rest of the Tribal Council. You think that the tribe is in favor of the nickname because of a petition where they got 1004 signatures. You don't mention the fact that an opposing petition which asked the Tribal Council to continue supporting the 1992 resolution against the nickname got 1010 signatures. 1010 is more than 1004. Maybe they aren't as in favor as you think. Then you say that they didn't vote for the nickname because it wasn't a priority to them. It was part of a regular election. They didn't have to go out of their way for a special election. It wasn't even important enough for them to go to a regular election and vote to keep the nickname. That doesn't show me that it is very important to them at all. You also don't seem to realize how government works. The Tribal Council is very similar to the operation of the United States Congress or the North Dakota Legislature. Representatives are elected to make decisions for the entire group. Regular people don't get to vote on every decision. Actually, at the federal level the only decisions that the people get to vote on are to decide who is going to represent them. The same is true in over half the states. The tribal members don't get to make decisions on how their tribal government is run, they elect a Tribal Council to do so. The tribal members showed that they had very little interest in keeping the Sioux nickname by their very low turnout at the election where they had a chance to vote on it. This mirrored the little interest in keeping the nickname showed by the Standing Rock Tribal Council. Just because a small group has been vocal doesn't mean that they have a lot of people that support them. Again, try doing a little more research on the subject and learning more of the facts.

No one knows what the outcome would be if it were on the ballot. My guess is that it would meet the same fate as when the Sioux Forever group wanted to keep the nickname and it went to a statewide ballot since there are a lot more than 4 people that want it to end, and want UND to move on with a new nickname. It is time to end this long, long, long, long waste of time.

A ceremony that the Standing Rock Tribal Council has ignored since about 1992. I believe that was the first year they came out against UND using the Sioux nickname. That group included someone that was part of the ceremony. I would guess that the Standing Rock Tribal Council knows much more about that pipe ceremony than you do. It must not have been as "sacred" as you and others believe. Do those Standing Rock Tribal Council members fit in your PC group? And how about the tribal members from both Spirit Lake and Standing Rock that voted to get rid of the nickname in 2012. It passed in all counties, including the counties where the reservations are located. And it passed in the precincts on the reservation. I guess those tribal members must also be PC and abusing a "sacred" ceremony.

The developers will end up paying for most or all of the streets and sewers in that area through special assessments, adding a bridge to that might be difficult. In the past the Federal Highway funds would have paid for at least 80% of the bridge in most cases. Most of those dollars are gone now so they are looking at options. I don't think that anyone has the answer right now. But I don't think it's a vanity project. If they put in a frontage road system there is a pretty good chance it will fill in just like it did along I29 through south Fargo. It could be a good location for something like Fleet Farm, Costco, or other large scale operations that need the space. Putting in the 47th exit would help them develop in stages rather than having to pave the frontage road all the way from Furniture Row to the Merrifield Road all in one stretch.