ScottM

Nah, I was merely pointing out your delicate, hypersensitive nature. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

If you think that pic is an "insult" or "attack", you haven't seen anything yet ...

In this recently uncovered photo, one of our resident Cassandras goes off to work.

I agree. They could have stayed home with you and Dave and a nice big box of Kleenex.

Funny how those tully caged/helmeted NFL players have been concussion-free for years now ...

And if they do, they don't cry about it ... unlike some folks in the peanut gallery.

Funny. Visors have been the norm for junior and MJ, and Euro teams for years. Parise went from cage to a visor in the pros, and the Olympics, and his biggest injury, so far has been a torn mensicus. Wonder why the NHL doesn't mandate shields/cages for its prized assets? Probably because everybody knows if their sticks or elbows go up, they can get the same medicine. Then again, you think the players should be bubble wrapped and they use a foam puck. "Get a clue". Pretty funny shiat from a spectator.

Says the guys who's never laced up hockey skates in his life. The logic is that if you might suffer the same type of stick action or elbows to the face without the protection of a full shield you are probably more likely to keep your own stick and elbows down. But it does increase the odds of a face wash. However, to your credit, you could probably play the game without a cup.

I tend to agree. While not perfect, I think players using visors tend to keep their sticks and elbows out of each other's faces.

Well, he certainly seems to have a few followers on this forum. Which isn't saying much ...

That's the NC$$'s end game, and I believe why they refuse to budge in the face of litigation, legislation and Al Carlson's womanly charms. if they let UND off the hook, they lose their ability to eventually tell the schools that currently have exemptions that those exemptions will sunset at some point. The hypocrisy of the NC$$ policy probably grates to no end on the nerves of those whose agenda is to remove NA imagery from high school, college and pro sports. At some point the NC$$ will eliminate that inconvenient little thorn in its butt. The possible upside to that move is that it may force enough people in Congress, including NoDak's always-MIA congressional delegation, to finally tell them "Enough is enough!".

Based on what? And relying on vain hope and aspirational desire don't count.

And even if SR & SL "gave" UND the Sioux moniker today and forever, the NC$$ would simply hold up the agreement and say "Tough darts! They should have done that years ago like it says at page ...".

The "wanted" to hear from them in 2005, and did so, in the negative. It amazes me that those who chirp about "hearing from Sioux County" so easily disregard the governmental structure on SR that has "officially" told UND "No" on at least one occasion. Minor detail, but these tribal governments are considered sovereign by the US government, even it that fact is painfully inconvenient for the anti-UND crowd.

I can't decide which noob is just trolling, and who's just ignorant. But it seems apparent that the junior high schools are out of session someplace.

Not to mention giving in to UND would probably mean losing whatever credibility they have left with member schools on a host of other issues, such as academics, BCS, TV revenues, etc.

Really? What color is the sky in your world? The NC$$ basically wins all of its fights with member schools, and if they don't at first they change the rules to "fix" it. Is this the point where you say "UND can join the NAIA!!!"?

Er no. UND and the state agreed to two-tribes' approval as part of the settlement agreement within a given timeframe. UND failed to achieve that marker and is now under sanctions. Perhaps if SL had gotten off its ass in 2005 and gave is permission to UND when it really counted, we may not be having this conversation. As it is, their misguided, and patently stupid, efforts in the courts have no effect on that agreement, and no amount of tribal ceremony and straw grasping will change that in the NC$$'s eyes.

Okay, who's "Fetch"? Is "Fetch" in the phone book? Is "Fetch" singularly named and recognized like "Madonna" or "Prince"? Identify "Fetch". Moreover, as I noted, "truth" is a defense to "libel". Your reading of law is ludicrous at best. As a practical matter, Fetch gives as well as he gets on this board. Perhaps you just need to dry your tears, pull your panties out of your crack and stick to your own baseless ignorance.

Dispute what? You trot out some article about a case that's been circling for a while and want to have an argument about concepts you deign to understand? "Everyday [you] see lawyering being done"? You would think some of that would have rubbed off on you. Then again, you really seem to have difficulty absorbing abstract concepts, let alone simple spelling.

Fortunately, Fetch, regardless of how we may disagree on some issues, has a thicker skin for this game than you. Now, why don't you leave the lawyering to people who know what they're doing, and run outside to play in traffic?

I rest my case.

Do you actually read the pleadings, or the decisions rendered? Or do you just "read about similar lawsuits" on the interwebs and take it as gospel? Since you're suggesting I'm committing libel in a public forum, perhaps you're actually commiting an "intentional tort" in your own right.

I really hope you didn't steal a degree from UND. If so, please return it.

"Life's tough, wear a helmet."- Denis Leary Moreover, "truth" is a defense to whatever amounts to "libel" in your mind. Given the dime store lawyering spewed by a few people around here you could probably get a few pointers from Dave. He's been batting .000 for a while on the legal front.