82SiouxGuy

It is normally approximately 88% effective after 2 doses according to the CDC, so it doesn't work for everyone. And while most people get the vaccination in the US, not everyone gets it in other countries.

There are people that actually think the nickname will be an option again. But that isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to people that don't want a new name competing with the Fighting Sioux nickname. They don't want a new nickname because people will yell that at games and more people will stop yelling Fighting Sioux. They want to keep the old identity, the Fighting Sioux, on an unofficial basis rather than have anyone start using a new nickname. So it sounds like you are part of the group I was talking about that doesn't want a new nickname because you want to keep using the old one, even though it would be as the unofficial nickname with North Dakota being the "official nickname". That is why I said it is obvious why most people want to keep North Dakota, it is because they want to keep using Fighting Sioux on an unofficial basis not as an official name.

37th last year, about 93 per game more than this year. The NDSU home game probably explains most of that difference.

The main thing is that you are voting for at least some different races. Different legislators, different city officials, sometimes different measures. Students voting here are voting where they live most of the Year

College students are kind of unique when compared to other groups. They move often, so changing IDs often just to get a current address can be more of a hassle than what it is worth. That includes moving around within the community. I've known college students that moved 3 or 4 times in a single year. That is why some localities allow them to keep a permanent address with their parents, even if they know they will never move back. But they may have more interest in voting on issues or races where they are going to school. I have no problems with allowing them to vote where they go to school if they have more of an interest in voting there even if the paperwork lists them with a "permanent address" somewhere else. I don't see what we are gaining by making them get an ID here if they have a legal ID or drivers license from home and proof of being a student. You're just adding another step to the process for them. My main issue is just making sure that they only vote once, no matter where it is. I believe in making it as easy to vote as we can (while still limiting voter fraud) so that we increase the number of people participating in our elections, not making it more difficult so that you chase off voters. At some point I would think they would vote online when they can be sure they are limiting it to one person one vote. As far as them representing a segment of the population, no you can't be sure that the new student would vote exactly the same on an individual basis. However, the current group and the future group would most likely have the same interests and would vote in a similar manner in most cases. Living in a community 9-12 months out of the year is a little different from your example of someone visiting relatives for a few days. The current students are paying sales taxes, spending money and most likely paying rent in this community. Many of them hold jobs in the community. They deserve a voice in the decisions being made. Not allowing them to vote takes away that right and also may alienate them so they don't vote in the future. Those are both bad for the country. The system seemed to work pretty well for the last 125 years of statehood for North Dakota, it may not have needed to be changed. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on that little piece of plastic called an ID, when the same goal of identifying people can be done in more than 1 way.

North Dakota had a long history of having the most open voting policies in the country. No registration ahead of time, and you just needed some proof of address to walk up and vote. That is what people were used to. The Legislature changed the law in the last session and this was the first general election since the change. Not everyone got the message. That's why there was confusion on the day of the election, people had new rules to deal with. If people are used to doing something the same way over and over they don't normally go looking to see if that way was changed. I'm not sure the change was needed in North Dakota. It seemed to be working just fine. There were no reported attempts at voter fraud. The new law isn't a big deal, but I don't normally see a need to add a law when there isn't a problem.

Not really. Some do and some don't. The same can be said about the rest of the population. There are a lot of voters that don't have a clue. They vote for the person they've heard of and couldn't tell you one thing that either candidate stands for. People vote on measures based on something they heard in a commercial, whether it's true or not. A lot of people are not very informed when they vote.

First, a lot of them stay after they finish school. You don't know when they are freshmen or sophomores whether they are going to end up staying for a long time or not. Second, that specific individual may not stay for the long term, but when they leave school they are replaced by another student. So they are representing a segment of the population that will always be there even if the individual isn't there. Third, a lot of people not in college are only temporarily visiting the place where they currently live. Do they get to vote? I moved to the west coast and the Twin Cities when I was younger. I knew that I wasn't staying in either place. Did I deserve to vote in those places? They let me, just because I took the time to get a local ID, even though I had very little knowledge of local races or issues. Who makes a better voter, a person with an out of state ID that has good knowledge of the local races or issues, or someone with a local ID who doesn't even know what is on the ballot until they walk into the booth?

I don't recall any problems in North Dakota with people voting in multiple districts. This was a case of the Legislature creating a law to fix something that wasn't a problem.

The North Dakota Legislature changed the rules after many years when you could walk up and vote with a utility bill or almost anything that had your address on it. Most people weren't paying attention to that because they were so used to the ease of voting they had experienced before. I don't know why so many people didn't expect this to cause problems.

Sportswriters have used Green and White as a filler for years. UND isn't going to use that as the name. But if UND doesn't choose a new name, Green and White is the type of nickname that can become the unofficial name if it gets repeated enough. That happened with a lot of sports teams over the years. Eventually, the teams just went with the names. And as an unofficial name, anyone could print up merchandise to sell. That could cut into UND merchandise sales.

In this conversation, no one said anything about whether the nickname was offensive or hostile and abusive until you brought it up. This conversation has nothing to do with the NCAA and what they think. You are the one that brought those into this specific conversation. As a matter of fact, you could substitute any nickname for Fighting Sioux for the purpose of this conversation. This conversation was about the cover explanation that CM floated for continuing to just use North Dakota. For his cover story to sound genuine, you would have to only wear clothing that says North Dakota, not wear anything that says Fighting Sioux. For his cover story to be genuine, you could never yell Sioux during a game because you believe that using nicknames of any kind is wrong. If you state that UND should keep North Dakota as the nickname because nicknames are antiquated and can be hostile or cause racial issues, while at the same time you are wearing a Fighting Sioux shirt (or any other sports nickname shirt) then you look like a hypocrite. If you want UND to stay as just North Dakota, just say that instead of coming up with a cover story that makes you look like a hypocrite.

You are missing a very large part of what I am saying. I don't care if you wear Fighting Sioux clothes or yell Sioux at the end of the National Anthem. I still wear a lot of Fighting Sioux stuff and probably will for several years, until they wear out. Just don't tell me that you want to just use the name North Dakota because nicknames are antiquated or because they are a cause of insults and racial slurs while you wear that clothing. You would sound like a fool, because it would be obvious that the real reason would be so that you can keep using the Fighting Sioux without a competing name getting in the way. If you support using the name North Dakota, just be honest about the reason. Don't try to come up with some bogus explanation that is completely transparent. That is my point. At some point UND will end up with a new nickname. The school can choose it, or someone else will come up with something that catches on. That is how the use of nicknames for sports teams really got started. Many of them started with sportswriters coming up with some way to identify the team in a story. Green and White is an example of something that could catch on because it is used in sports stories. Some nicknames got started by fans yelling things at ballparks or stadiums. Those type nicknames aren't always flattering. Maybe the students will come up with something when they can't buy Fighting Sioux stuff any more and they want something they can call their own. UND would be better off coming up with their own nickname rather than waiting to see what nonsense someone else hangs on them.

Try reading the entire conversation. CM came up with a "positioning" statement to try and explain the use of North Dakota and not using a nickname. My point is and was that his "positioning" statement would be a waste of time because it is a completely transparent attempt to continue using the Fighting Sioux nickname. A 6 year old could see through this "positioning". No one is eliminating a nickname by UND using just North Dakota. The nickname just isn't on the uniform. Be honest about the intent, everyone can see it.

They probably will continue for quite a while. But CMSioux was trying to come up with a reason to give for UND not having a nickname and I was pointing out that the fans continuing to use the old nickname would show that his reason was a sham.

You might have a better chance with that argument if large numbers of people weren't still wearing Fighting Sioux clothing, weren't yelling Sioux at the end of the National Anthem, weren't yelling Sioux Yeah Yeah or other Sioux chants, etc. The obvious reason that people don't want a new nickname chosen is so they can continue to use the old one. No one is fooled by people wanting to just be North Dakota.

I believe that Midco Sports Net is available on all except the lowest level of limited cable. That would mean that the vast majority of those 200,000 subscribers have access to it.

Yep. Might be because it's not a regular series.

Hockey game doesn't start for another hour.

I'm sure there would be nothing to worry about then.

The difference is that UND and UND fans readily admitted that it was the Blackhawks logo. It was, and still is, called the Blackhawks logo. A lot of NDSU fans actually believe that NDSU fans invented the horns. Kinda goes back to that delusion issue that NDSU fans have.

The approvals had to be given and noticed provided to the NCAA by November 30, 2010 according to the Settlement Agreement. Approvals after that date mean nothing to the NCAA. The name isn't coming back.

Wasn't it the first home game of the season? And didn't they do some kind of sheet raising? Might those be related to a big crowd? And you can tell us all about how the football team chanted something about Incarnate Word during a trophy ceremony. Or how last year's homecoming royalty went to Incarnate Word to pull a prank. Yep, interest in Incarnate Word was just as high as interest in UND.

I know exactly where the term came from and it perfectly describes a very large number of "NDSU" fans. Your comment about volleyball fit with the buttfootball attitude.

And it means that North Dakota citizens believe that the Legislature has more important issues to deal with than scheduling a game. Things like oil revenue, potentially reforming taxes, dealing with increasing crime, infrastructure issues, housing, etc. Scheduling a game shouldn't be put in state law. Not even an NDSU fan can connect that poll with whether people want to see the game.