NanoBison

Drag it out in public? Please, all I've said is I've been threatened to be banned. If that's some breach of conduct on my part, heaven forbid. No need to be overly melodramatic. I just presented the point as I saw it from my view. In terms of your two "warnings" : 1.) Generic attacks on the membership of this board? Show me a post of something that was crossing the line were I wrote something abusive towards one of your members. I'm sure I can go and find numerous posts from your other members towards me that get to the same level. All I can recall is telling PCM not be a dick, which he was being at the time. 2.) Stop trying to drag NDSU into every discussion? You've got to be kidding me, if you think that I am the instigator on most of the things here. Go back to many of my posts and you'll see a Sioux fan posted some snide remark about NDSU or its fans. I only simply responded to them returning the favor. If you want me to stop, then you'd best go and tell your other posters to quit "fishing". I've already covered your moderation standards in my private message to you. Your completely wrong on your assumption above as well with my membership at the other boards. I sure appreciate the insinuation that you've TOLERATED me longer than the Bison board did. I've already covered this several times. I walked away from the Bisonville website. I've never been banned from it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it. Sure you've given a general open invitation to come in and voice my opinion about what UND does wrong, but you and I both know that it's nothing more than a broken promise full of holes, with numerous contractual terms applied to me that probably will be overlooked on your other posters. That's something that I just don't want to be part of. So, as in the Bisonville case, I'm walking away. Hope you guys are happy. You won't have to deal with me anymore.

Uh, no it's not. Many, huh? I think pretty much ALL of mine have been opinions that did not match the consensus. But that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I'd suggest just agreeing to disagree, but I don't even think we'd agree on that!

Good grief, I DID state that my opinion is in the minority, hence the "common thoughts" of the board statement. You even quoted me on it. Did you read what you quoted me on? What's really disgusting is that this is how you guys wish to run this board. Everyone has to agree with the consensus. Otherwise, you'll get threatened to be banned, like I did last night. It's called a Bulletin Board. But the way this one is being run, it should be called Bridge Club. Do you really want to be reading comments on a board where everyone agrees with you 100%? I should be able to present my differing view without threats from your administrators. You guys dish out the $h*t towards me, but then get ruffled when I return it back? Sure my arguments may irritate the hell out of most of you, but at the same time, I don't think I've come close to crossing the line with insults with any of you. If I'm mistaken so be it. Ban me, I'll leave and you can get on to posting on your "happy" board with 1 less user that doesn't agree with you. Otherwise get used to the fact that I don't need to praise the Fighting Sioux to post on this board.

Fine, ignoring all the other posts you made which veer from this argument. Let's stick to SIMPLY this argument. So what your saying is that even if a few American Indians (I'm assuming your meaning Sioux) are offended, UND should maintain it's right to use the "Fighting Sioux" logo/mascot? From what you've written earlier I can only assume it's based upon "free speech"? Correct, or is there a different view? Pardon me if this is incorrect. If it is, fully explain your view, or provide me a link to it. I can see how you are saying there's "offensive" speech and then "hostile/abusive" speech. But is there really a difference though? Is one more severe than the other? Does it matter? I can see how White Supremacists protesting in a downtown area could be considered "hostile/abusive" to certain groups of individuals and at the same time "offensive" other groups. I would imagine no matter what, it would all be grouped into protection under the 1st Amendment. The other item is, even if the NCAA "moved" this from "offensive" to "hostile/abusive", and even if UND was to win the legal battle, what would the stance be on those Indians who deemed it so before this began? What would the result be?

Oh ok, you've turned the tables on me, now apparently it's if NDSU can manage the move to DI. Yes, we just seem to be absolutely miserable right now. Conferences for ALL sports, increased attendance, easier scheduling, plans for several expansions of athletic facilities. Rumblings? What the heck are you talking about? That's as stupid as me saying "there's rumblings that UND athletics is barely scraping by financially as it currently is, in fact they have to cook the books to just get barely in the black." If you're going to say something like that, at least back it up, and don't tell me about how one year the athletics budget was saved by an anonymous ~$45,000 donation right at the last minute. I've already heard that one and it's nothing big. On terms of criticizing Kupchella. I haven't done so in this post. You put those words in my mouth. I will say one thing though. I'm terribly said to see him go. He did such a wonderful job of holding back UND and has allowed (get ready... here the can of worms getting opened...) NDSU to come out on top. Fire away! star2city -> <- NanoBison

Welcome to DI sports. There's so much more you're not going to like... pulling out of schedule games is another... you can ask our good pals at Montana State about that one... or how about the fabulous transition Northern Colorado has been having... great press year. All of this comes with the turf. It's worth it though, to play at this level.

star2city, I'll just come out and say it, since you accuse Bison fans of being "nervous" of UND's goals. The only thing that makes me nervous about UND, is if they are unable to successfully fund their DI move, that the state (and taxpayers) will in some form have to "pick up the tab".

I've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are incorrect in YOUR assumptions. No, I'm pretty used to these types of responses on a board that chastises those who don't agree with the over-all general consensus. You're basically showing your true colors, as I'm sure I be heavily criticized, yet once again, for showing mine. When it all comes down to it, I already know that no one is going to effectively change your guy's minds. I know many of you are the die-hard Fighting Sioux fans, and even if you do lose the legal battle and have to change the name, you'll be the people that continue to show up at the games wearing your Fighting Sioux gear.

Well you went ahead and shoved the debate down my throat, so I gave you my take above. Now in terms of you accusing me to "pretending that your post was intended to address the argument I was making when, in fact, it wasn't"... We'll here's your original argument that you made. In fact it's really nothing much. Your simple one line statement is : I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong and even the ACLU disagrees with you. (as shown below) Sure that's great and all, but TRex did have an extremely valid point. You would be pretty ignorant to believe that ALL speech is protected, no matter what. You'd also have to be pretty ignorant to believe that there are no legal ramifications or consequences for simply spouting your mouth off, as you so please. There are many rules and statutes on the books, and they are being added constantly in the response to people or groups of people who simply takes their rights to the extreme edge. A good example would be the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at fallen soldiers funerals, or the Virginia Tech victim's funerals. I think that it's perfectly fine to limit people like these. I've always believed in the "your rights end where mine begin" approach. There are simply certain things that should not be tolerated. Now, with the point of view you are presenting, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if they showed up at a funeral of one of your loved ones claiming "this is God's will because the United States losing it's religion". There's other situations, that have been mentioned before, that you simply just DO NOT DO: You don't say sexually abusive things at work or in public. You don't yell "fire" or "bomb" in a theatre or other crowded public place. You don't make threats against the President of the United States of America and not expect the Secret Service to show up at your door. You don't mouth off to an individual of authority (i.e. policeman), thinking you can claim "free speech" and all will be well. I could go on and on and continue to list things that are just common sense things that are under the umbrella of what society deems unacceptable things to do. Finally, if you think the ACLU is the says-all be-all voice on freedoms of Americans, guess again. SO there you go. See? I was directly addressing what you said in my argument. You were wrong once again. Thanks for the accusal though.

You are simply wrong here PCM. The NCAA didn't move the goal posts, you did. You're positioning them into my arguments as it suits your needs. It's a common theme on the SS bulletin board. People present you guys with a different take on the matter, everyone usually blasts them out of the water for not agreeing with the "common thoughts" of the board. What's going on between the NCAA and UND is simply UND's problem. They created this headache for themselves back when they changed their name in response to NDSU changing their name to the Bison. In a way it's many North Dakotan's problem as well, since I think this sheds a negative light on the state in general. Hence, my concern. Sure you may think you're fighting the "big bad NCAA" on the matter of "Free Speech". While many of you believe it may be the noble thing to do, perhaps you should take a step back and think about what are you really fighting for. From what I just read, in PCM's remarks above, he makes the arguments that, even if anyone is offended, UND has a right to continue using the name, because the ACLU and the courts have continuously upheld that everything is protected under free speech. Sure I can agree with that, but isn't that simply going against the purpose of using the name to begin with? To honor the people/tribe of the name you're using? Seems a bit hypocritical and arrogant to me. All I've read in the papers lately has nothing to do with working with the Tribes to come to an agreement. It all has to do with jubilations that the judge keeps siding with UND when it comes to hiding documents. It's disgusting really.

Oh oh oh oh let me try that.... <- PCM <- Nano

Hey there bucko. I didn't even touch the "offensive, hostile and abusive" PC crap you so directly tied into the legal battles, in the above statements, between UND and NCAA over your logo/mascot. I simply corrected Chief Illiniwek Supporter, and gave my take on some other argument in the topic. I didn't once touch the LOGO debate in this thread. Don't shove it down my throat. When people such as myself question you and others on the board to present another side to the issue, as did a few individuals earlier in this thread, there's no need to act like a dick when responding back. And is there even a point to your last statement? I know it was simply a cheap shot at me and my education. But hey, I'm pretty used to that by now from posting on the SS boards. I could care less what you do with the flag. It's just a symbol.

Or about as crazy as UND thinking they'll establish a $500 million endowment in a few short years. (I'm sorry, there weren't any clever Smiley's that held their breath)

If you read the entire column, you would have seen this little particular item : While you may think that everyone is entitled to free speech, no matter how vulgar or offensive, many places and municipalities already have added or are in the process of adding statues to the books, to block things that are just simply WRONG. I'm not saying that I believe in limiting free speech, but at the same time, when it's doing irreparable harm to somebody, say for example... families in grieving, I have no problems with limiting @$holes like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at funerals. They are the scum of the earth. Now if you want to protest something legally and go through the appropriate measures (getting permits from the police), that's fine by me. Irritating or offending an individual is fine, but you cross the line when you show up at a funeral and mock/dishonor the deceased. Especially when it's in the hopes that "something happens" so your litigation team can sue and get money to continue your church's operations (which is what these slimebags do). Sure, free speech is one of the great rights every American has, but at the same time, with rights come great responsibilities, hence why we have a common understanding of what's considered socially acceptable to say. Someone earlier commented on what words you shouldn't use and someone else countered with the ACLU strongly disagreeing. Sure that's fine, but I would challenge you to go into the a work place and utter those words and see if the ACLU is willing to fund your case brought against your employer after they can your ass.

So is using replies like this to address valid concerns.