dagies

I'll never count Parise out, that's for sure. Who thought when he was in the USHL that he would play as well as he has at the D1 level? Who thought that his first year? He showed flashes, but he developed into an awfully good goaltender and the last 1.5 years was all any college program could ask for. Don't know what he'll do at the next level, but I won't make any predictions.

Those of us who have never served will probably never understand what the men and women of our armed services give for us. But don't believe we aren't grateful nonetheless. Thank you all, past and present.

What does that say about Bochenski that Ottawa traded him for Arneson and they just let Arneson walk?

I don't get it. Last winter while Parise was tearing it up I remember thinking people on this board were, in general, overly critical of Lammy's solid play. Now I'm hearing that we are overprotecting him because he's "local"? I don't buy it.

I'd go with two-bit, anyway.

I think there's going to be an income limit attached to this plan, but I don't know the specifics. That may or may not have any affect on the listed concern.

It's not like UND is out promoting themselves and saying "look at us". They are fighting the battle and the attention is coming to them. I see no issues with that.

You're smack dab in the middle of a puddle of research right here on SiouxSports.com. By reading through these threads you'll get very good ideas on what avenues you want to take to make your point. Read the links to Kupchella's letter, interviews by Pat Miller, and various newspaper articles that have discussed the 2000 Spirit Lake Resolution, the referendum results publicized by the judicial chair of the Standing Rock tribe, and you should be able to put together a fairly persuasive argument of your own. In this thread there are some good takes on the issues with how the NCAA implemented this policy from the start, so there you go. I have to run and can't collect all the links for you now. But I will pm you something.

I don't know about this. I saw him make some awfully nice pinpoint one-timer passes to an open Potulny on the power play that hurt awfully bad at the time. I think this is underrated.

Geez, she wouldn't even respond to you? I think that's pathetic. That's what she's there for (I think). Whether it's fact or opinion he's offering, we both agree that what he writes should be ethical and I think we both agree that at the best he danced on the wrong side of the finest of lines, and at the worst he plunged way over it. I bet our opinions on that are similar too.

Did you write directly to the Reader's Rep, or to Coleman? Coleman didn't respond to me either. I will only say one thing. Coleman is a columnist, not a reporter. PCM is better able verify if this is write, but columnists comment on situations and that's going to include their opinions, rather than just report the truth like reporters/journalists. I'll give Coleman that much latitude. But it doesn't give him an excuse for falsely trying to defame supporters of UND. IMO Coleman walked a fine line, a fine line that IMO the Reader's Rep was fooled by. Either she was fooled or I'm overly sensitive, something few people would accuse me of (though I'm guilty of emotionally reacting to some things before thinking them through too). Coleman, like some others that post on these boards very cleverly write small "outs" into statements that make that try to falsely color a situation. When called on it they can claim "I only said it was my opinion" when in context it's very clear what impression they are intending to leave with the reader. The whole idea is that unless the reader is paying very close attention and parsing the words used by the writer very closely, they often won't catch the "out" and end up believing what they read was fact. IMO it's clear Coleman was doing this and the Reader's Rep, Kate Parry, let him get away with it. Heck, I give money to UND and compared to a segment of society I could be considered "wealthy". Therefore, when I read what Coleman says I would do at a cocktail party "if I still could" I get offended. I don't get offended very easily, but it's clear his intent was to stereotype anyone who supports the UND Fighting Sioux nickname as racist, vulgar, fascist, etc etc etc. I think that is at the least an irresponsible thing to do, and possibly much worse that that. That's why I asked for an apology. I'd kind of let this go but now this morning I'm kind of ticked off again, and feel like complaining to someone else at the Star Trib. I'd be more than happy to have someone offer a perspective correcting mine. I'm not above being wrong.

Because your kids have peanut butter?

I asked her 2 things, because I didn't believe her answer was any sort of explanation, but more a defense of Coleman being able to write whatever he wants because "it's his opinion". My point to her was that Coleman was cleverly trying to leave a false impression with the reader about how UND benefactors act, what kind of person Ralph Engelstad was, etc. I felt that tactic by Coleman was unethical, even though it was his "opinion". She had mentioned that the Hitler birthday parties were fact, and that Coleman had clearly indicated his other inferences were his "opinion". So I asked her the following: 1. What stops UND benefactors from behaving the way Coleman says they would? Have they ever acted that way? Is there a law or a policy that PREVENTS them from acting this way? The answer to the former is nobody knows, even Coleman. And the answer to the latter is no. Therefore, I believe Coleman's inference is irresponsible and even offensive. 2. What did Ralph's collection of Nazi memorabelia have to do with this story? Nothing. In addition, he completely ignored Ralph's total collection of WWII memorabelia including stuff from Stalin and Patton's papers, etc. Yet he inferred Ralph was a Nazi with "tainted" money. She no longer responded after my email responding to her answer. I thought as the "Reader's Representative" she would be interested in a discourse with an upset reader. IMO, and I realize this could be flawed because I'm a little ticked off about it, she acted only as a defender of Coleman. I don't expect she needed to agree with me. But I would have expected her to address my on-going questions. Instead, I felt that her first response was a dismissal. I never asked for a correction, I asked for an apology and she didn't seem to grasp this. She essentially scolded me by saying that I had admitted some of what Coleman wrote was fact, and therefore because of that, and the fact that he'd acknowledged the rest was his "opinion" she wouldn't recommend a correction. I asked for an apology because I felt he had been unfair and even offensive in his tactics. I didn't ask for him to correct anything. Again, she doesn't have to agree with me for me to be satisfied. I don't believe she adequately addressed (understood?) my complaints, and she failed to respond to my follow-up questions. That doesn't fit my description for a "reader's representative". That's what is burning me as much as Coleman's hack job.

No, the 70's. The hair was much to frilly for the '80's, don't you think DaveK?

I wonder what awards he was referring to.

I'm willing to accept that, just like the 2 gopher national championships "IT JUST NEVER HAPPENED". Seems like a fair trade.

stalking?

The only letters to the editor in the Star Trib on Coleman's column all ripped Coleman: http://www.startribune.com/563/story/510175.html http://www.startribune.com/563/story/510172.html http://www.startribune.com/563/story/510171.html

Correct.

Agreed, I made a mistake on how I posted that, and then changed my original post to be more accurate. Thanks.

Interesting to hear that William & Mary is joining UND in the lawsuit. Seems like there can be strength in numbers.

Scott Hennan said today that William & Mary has joined UND in the lawsuit against the NCAA. Kupchella didn't seem to be knowledgeable of this.

No, they like that place. Their Pontiacs fit right in in the parking lot.

Hull was out smoking again?

you guys are making this all up, right?