Teeder11

9-4 UND early.

Addition by subtraction, IMHO, at least as we head into next season. It will be tough to be two warm bodies down the last games of this year, however. I had high hopes for Mills her freshman year based on her tenacious defensive play. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but that's the way I see it. EDIT: Wish them both well in their pursuit in finding new opportunities to play closer to home.

Yeah, they're regular Woodward and Bernsteins!

First off, I have rarely attacked anyone on this forum in my nearly 10 years of active posting. Maybe, DaveK and Fetch, a little bit, but I'd like to think they had it coming. I certainly have not attacked you. I thought we were having a spirited online discussion about "sensationalism" in journalism. In one post, you allude to sensationalizing by the media, and the Herald in particular, then you mention a "rally" of UND faculty for that Marxist Angela Davis. All I did was call you out on your inaccurate, maybe sensational, description of a public event that took place at the Chester Fritz Auditorium. You accuse someone one of something in one post, then turn around and do the exact same thing that you accused the other of in your next post. Secondly, in all the coverage that I have seen in the Herald about Davis' visit (and it wasn't much, and rightly so), she was described as a "communist" and a "radical" and "Black activist." All of the stories I saw were very brief and did not give much background about anything. I think the local media gave it about as much attention as it deserved, a little but not much. As far as UND, all of the promo materials I saw also referenced her communistic and Black Panther affiliated past as well as her FBI most wanted status. There was not much PC revisionist history going on that I could see by either the university or the media. Thirdly, yes, I would surmise there are a lot of liberal leaning UND faculty members who've got great reverence for Davis, just as there are a lot who are more right-learning that don't care for her at all, and many more that are probably right in the middle that are pretty indifferent to the whole ordeal. The university has hundreds of professors, and I would imagine like society, there politics run from one extreme to the middle to the other.

I said I HOPE we will. That is what fans do. I'm not one to give up too easily. Did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor -- No! Hell No!

I'm not a journalist. As for being a poster with integrity, I will leave that up to the opinion of the beholder. If the shoe fits, I'll wear it. As for Angela Davis, not a huge fan at all of her tactics and/or politics; but from a historical perspective and her place in it, I think it's valuable to listen to viewpoints that differ from my own. I'm not a big fan of echo chambers and only listening to those that are of like mind. Lastly, I would defend her right under the first amendment to gather and profess whatever she wants, and I would defend anyone who wishes to assemble and listen to her speak or to debate her politics. Whether she would do the same for me and my politics, is another matter, but I don't care; I'm not like her, and she's not like me. That's the beauty of America.

And if you get an answer, then what? What point will it make for the benefit of all and the good of this discussion?

Because I'm a fan. Why wouldn't I? Is there something you don't get about being a fan of something? You don't necessarily have to check your realist card at the door but you also don't have to give up on being an eternal optimist and a glass half full guy. It's what make life fun and bearable. I do that because I don't very much enjoy going over to other people's yards and shitting on their parade. And besides where in my post did I display any sort incredulous statement about how bad our track team might be? I thought I was being quite realistic and honest about things, especially for a homer like me. I thought I made it pretty obvious that I was well aware of the current state of affairs, and that I only HOPE things might be starting to turn around.

Defensive? I merely agreed with your general assessment of the veracity or, lack there of, of Herald reporting, and suggested your inaccurate (hardly sarcastic) description of a public event would make you an awesome fit for that bastion journalistic integrity. (:

It's in their heads again. How elusive confidence can be.

It wasn't a rally with faculty. It was a public Q&A style "Great Conversation" at the Chester Fritz Auditorium, sponsored by the UND Black Student Association and the UND Multicultural Center in celebration of Black History Month. About 800 people of all walks of life were there to see the event. Not just faculty. Talk about sensationalizing. You'd fit in well at the Herald.

'Course there's no scoreboard to speak of on tge webcast so I was doing it all in my head.

Thanks bin. I'm on video blackout again.

Well I hope they use my money to purchase a better network. Consider it a donation.

They took my $8 bucks and gave a frozen screen in return. );

Would Nash have played in the scrimmage too? That's another warm body that might be contributed back then that we won't have this afternoon.

I see our teams are breaking "UND" or "personal" records left and right, based on the headlines on UNDsports.com. This is all fine and good, I guess, when you consider our caliber of athlete must be improving. But, when you consider that when one of ours breaks a "UND" record, they're still finishing in 7th or 8th place sometimes against the other Big Sky competition, it shows we have a ways to go. It will be nice when we start seeing some headlines about breaking conference records. Go UND!

Measure his (Hooker's) talent and composure when he gets here and then sit him, start him or sub him accordingly.

Agreed. I think I've heard similar discussions about the word "suck" over the years. There is a talk radio guy in Grand Forks who used to say the word "suck" a lot on his show, as in, "that sucks," that is until someone called in and railed on him for using such an "obscene" word on the air. The caller went on to say that the word is a reference to a pornographic act. The host was incredulous at first, but eventually swore off using the word on the air. Now, while the word "suck" has found its way into our common vernacular, it would seem there are still some out there that think, either rightly or wrongly, that it is inappropriate speech in polite society. There must be a few out there that also think "choke job" is obscene. Goes to show you where their mind is!

Good point. However, my guess is that the administration treated the exchange between Paul and Jones as an employee matter in which one employee used objectionable and/or off-color language with another employee. I think this discussion and the whole debate that has gone national got derailed from the get go when the assumption was that Paul was suspended for being overly critical. One explanation that I got is that that the term "choke job" is perceived by some (including some in the administration, obviously), and erroneously so, in my opinion, as a description of a pornographic act. If that was the consensus by the administration and it was decided that Paul's language toward a fellow employee was at the very least off-color or at worst obscene, then, it would make sense that, by university policy, Paul would get some sort of disciplinary action. In this case, as Tom put it, the penalty is akin to a couple days vacation with pay. I also don't think Jones would have had to complain about the exchange in this instance due tot the public nature of it all. Now, I must also say that I have done a little research on the words "choke" and "choke job" as it pertains to sport and no where could I find any reference that they stemmed from pornographic origins. So, it's still all very baffling even to me. Whatever happened here, I also truly believe that there is some extreme over-sensitivity going on within the administration or possibly just an overzealous interpretation of university human resources codes and policies.

No offense taken. I like the discussion. I just thought that Tom's piece laid out some concrete facts that were missing from the debate. It set a nice foundation, albeit, a couple days late. I think the reason it was made public the way it was is because UND is a public institution that, for good and for bad must do things in the open, and can't get away, all the time, with what the private sector can, and because the public would presumably miss Paul and wonder about his absence, and in this town, when it comes to our local media "celebs," that gets tongues wagging. So the statement was brief, factual and to the point, but unfortunately, because of those things, it didn't allow for it to be the end of it. So here we are.

I think Tom Miller nailed it here. A good summation of a not-so complicated but very misunderstood situation. Discuss. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/257042

There must be a clause in Paul's contract with UND that perceived derogatory comments against his employer or representatives of his employer (UND players, coaches, teams) are grounds for disciplinary action. I think this is one of the reasons why Swyg resisted so much when Sean Johnson was going around and "recruiting" the old radio play-by-play guys to come on board and work for UND. It's a common practice across the college sports landscape but it makes for uncomfortable situations like this. Swyg said his meeting with Johnson to come on board was a bit terse and to the point, as in "join the club or take a hike." Swyg stuck to his principles and took the latter. Good for him.

Same score. 2:11 to goo

57-58 NAU. 3:51 to go