82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
Actually no, that reason is not obvious at all. I don't know of anyone who thinks that officially sanctioned, continued use of "Fighting Sioux" will ever be an option if a new name is not chosen. And fans will continue to wear their old Sioux jerseys long after a new name is chosen. Personally, I prefer not choosing a new name at all (or going with G and W) in the interest of not having to assume any more of a new identity than necessary, and I suspect many have that favor no name do so for the same reason.
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.
-
1
-
-
We should make top 50 in attendance this year too. And that came without having any blowout attendance games like against NDSU.
Can't seem to find the 2013 top 50, but we should be striving to another UNI, Wichita St, or Creighton in attendance and performance.
http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/w-volley/spec-rel/011414aaa.html
37th last year, about 93 per game more than this year. The NDSU home game probably explains most of that difference.
-
Be one thing if they had a minnesota Id, bit they are obvious residents of ND. Why does it matter if I vote in Grand Forks after work or go out of my way to vote in some small town like arvilla or emerado where my id says my district polling place is because I live in the country?
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
-
Honestly, I was just asking the question to spur discussion, not taking a hard stance. I registered and voted in college before moving out of state 2 years later, albeit for a national election, but the key word is registered.
To discuss the points you brought up:
Point 1; If they are staying, let them get the ID, like you did when you moved around, or vote where they hold permanent residency. I'm going to reject your second point. Each person gets to vote in their district, no one just gets to take their place. I have family in MN, I didn't get to go vote in place of one of them while visiting. Also, what if the "replacement" student doesn't agree with the prior vote? They don't get a recall. Your point 3; see point 1. When you live there, you may intend to be short term, but a circumstance can change to make it long term. You are currently a permanent resident (ID and everything - probably even license plates if you obey the law), and can act like one. If you're moving next week, whether you vote would likely depend on how strongly you feel about an issue, but many may not care who the next mayor is and would skip it. You mentioned deserving to vote - I'm guessing that's just a word choice, since everyone over 18 has the right to vote (unless they lost it due to criminal activity, or never had residency), we're just discussing where and what ID they need. The better voter question is a trap - just think about what you proposed - if we let people come in and vote from out of state...
All too often, this is all too true!
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.
-
Getting proper ID to vote in an election is not a ridiculous requirement and does not put an undue burden on a citizen. What is a burden apparently to those folks who didn't have proper ID or didn't take the time to make the required changes to their address and update their ID is the fact that we are required to understand how our government works and follow those rules. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and in these cases saying "I didn't know" is not a valid point in my honest opinion. You have the right to vote, but not the right to plead ignorance in your civic duty to ensure your vote is counted.
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.
-
You are assuming college students have a clue, which is a huge stretch.
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.
-
OK, let's open that can of worms; if a college student isn't from the city/county/state the college is in, and isn't changing their address to reflect that they now live in said college town, why should they vote in a mid-term election? They're not voting for the President, but just for local reps of a place they appear to be only temporarily visiting for school...
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?
-
You have people voting in multiple districts, sometimes multiple states. You also have people that aren't citizens voting in elections as well. One person, one vote.
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.
-
Central used their colors for a year or two as a nickname before the spring of 1994 when Knights was voted in for that fall. I think sportswriters are using green and white as a filler until the new nickname takes place next year. I can't see UND using it as a permanent name. It would suck for merchandising as is the current "no nickname".
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.
-
You're missing the point, entire conversation or no. The point is "positioning statement" or not, the informal use of the Fighting Sioux nickname by fans yelling this or that and the lack of a nickname is not offensive or hostile and abusive or otherwise. The school is not using the nickname or imagery associated with it and that's what was "hostile and abusive" as per the NCAA and the professional pouters. The nickname is "North Dakota". If fans associate "Fighting Sioux" with it, how's that "hostile and abusive" on the part of the school or its teams? It's not. End of story.
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.
-
So what? UND has officially retired the Fighting Sioux nickname. They have met the legal requirements of the NCAA. If the fans continue to use the Fighting Sioux name, I believe this is still the United States of America and we still have something called the right of free speech. You seem to be so worried about appeasing the NCAA and the perpetually aggrieved. UND has. I sir, and I believe many other fans and alumni, are not, nor do we have to.
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.
-
So what? As long as the university's teams are not going by it, there's nothing hostile or abusive. Just having "North Dakota" is a perfect solution. No imagery. No offensive displays of hostile and abusive monikers around campus or on the facia of the Ralph.
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.
Nicknames are antiquated, they come from a different time in the world of higher education. Today nicknames have become a source for insults, slurs, inappropriate chants and slogans. Therefore UND is choosing to focus on its entire community and promote and celebrate the entire University by choosing to NOT have a nickname. We are North Dakota.
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.
-
1
-
-
These things won't stop with a new name. They may dwindle a bit in how often but I would expect most of these to be around for 15-20 years....maybe forever on the "Sioux" at the end of the anthem.
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.
-
How about this for a positioning:
Nicknames are antiquated, they come from a different time in the world of higher education. Today nicknames have become a source for insults, slurs, inappropriate chants and slogans. Therefore UND is choosing to focus on its entire community and promote and celebrate the entire University by choosing to NOT have a nickname. We are North Dakota. (Of course the NCAA will B**tch Slap us back into reality but hey it's something to talk about).
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.
-
5 years ago, I think UND was light years ahead of FU in the TV department. Today, not so much sadly.
Midco has around 200,000 subscribers. How many of those customers subscribe to Midco Sports Net is anybody's guess. Bison football games on "NBC North Dakota" are available to anybody that has a TV in North Dakota, NW Minnesota, and probably Northern South Dakota.
I have a pretty elaborate set-up in my Man Cave that includes 4 TV's, 3 satellite receivers, 2 OTA antennas, and a high-speed broadband internet connection. I'm happy I can watch the games on BigSkyTV, but I'd be happier if I could just flip on the TV and have the game be there. So would my aging folks.
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.
-
Oh cool, thanks! So a 7:37 game on a Saturday huh?
Yep. Might be because it's not a regular series.
-
Does anyone know what radio station on iHeart radio I can get the UND hockey game? The Fox is currently broadcasting the football game and they still have the 4th quarter to play.
Hockey game doesn't start for another hour.
-
not if the %GOBC has anything to say about it, right?
I'm sure there would be nothing to worry about then.
-
Ironic comment coming from a fan of an institution that used the Chicago Blackhawks logo for 30 years.
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.
-
1
-
-
I heard Standing Rock majority, but the chairman has the final say and has yet to approve or deny, he just been mute. Once the approval is given from him their will be major news if NCAA doesn't follow their agreement which was the 2 tribes.
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.
-
Huh? NDSU sold out a game against Incarnate Word. You're not going to see many UND people in the Dome next year.
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.
-
This is a football topic thus talking about football makes sense.
Buttfootball was a phrase stolen by UND and used by NDSU fans to describe you bringing up hockey at any possible opportunity. Really original. For the record, check out how successful NDSU has been in men's basketball, track, softball and baseball in recent years. Furthest thing from a football only school.
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.
-
It is interesting that, in a poll you posted, 76% of ND residents said that the Legislature should not mandate that the two teams play each other.
I know, it's not that same thing as saying that two should not play each other. But 76% is a huge majority. And that was a scientific poll..
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.
2014-2015 NHL Season
in Non-collegiate sports
Posted
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.