PCM

For some reason, this just makes me laugh. And this, too.

Somehow, I can't see Al Davis wearing these.

That must be why The Sicatoka is having such a difficult time letting go.

Fixed your post. Al lost his touch years ago.

That's a possibility, except the jury should be wise enough to see that it wasn't his MO in past abductions. I stumbled upon this blog entry, written not long after Dru's disappearance, which seems to fairly accurately desribe Rodriguez's standard MO: For me to believe the "sexually charged" angle leading to overkill, I'd need to see some evidence that this is how Rodriguez behaved in the past. All indications I've seen are that he used the secondary crime scene plan that he's used before.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but according to what's been in the papers, the issue of transportation isn't completely clear. This is from the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Here's another quote from Lillehaug in an AP story: Here's the federal statute that applies (emphasis added): If I were a juror, I would find it much easier to believe that Dru was still alive when the transportation began than I would believe that she was dead before Rodriguez car moved an inch. Otherwise, why keep her bound? Why stab her and slash her throat? It's clear that he kidnapped Dru. It's clear that he killed her. It's clear that he took her across the state line. And the law is quite clear that it doesn't matter if she was alive or dead when the car entered Minnesota from North Dakota. The defense is trying to get Rodriguez off on a technicality of whether Sjodin was still alive before the car moved because that's all they've got.

Yes.

From the Sporting News: North Dakota players share the time

I'll third it.

I believe the restaurant has changed owners.

Harmeson holds seats on three key WCHA committees. And you are correct that as important as hockey is to UND, the university can't afford to risk turning that part of the job over to someone less qualified and less experienced.

I'd like a nice clean towel. Do you deliver?

This is not very PC writing. But then again, they are the Crusaders.

It's also frightening to see Rodriguez in Target. Notice how he looks toward the young blond woman who's having a conversation with her friend just before he sits on the bench facing them. Notice that another young blond woman pushing a shopping cart exits Target just before Rodriguez comes out. From the time stamp, you can see that he gets up suddenly and makes his way out the door, as if he was following the woman with the shopping cart. It really makes you wonder if he wasn't stalking young women with certain characteristics. Imagine being one of those women and seeing yourself in that video.

This item was in today's UND University Letter:

UND: Always thinking of the customer.

I'd recommend hip waders. And it probably wouldn't hurt to keep a snorkel handy.

I'm shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that you think I do this. I never thought I was sneaky about it.

Just think of all the time you'll have to stare at your tickets!

In reading this thread, it's important to keep two points in mind. No. 1: Anyone can say anything. No. 2: Nobody knows everything. Carry on.

My problem is that I don't know which IowaBison to believe. Is it the the one who made the hypocritical "double standard" accusation or the one who made the disingenuous Larry the Cable Guy apology?

IowaBison, did you or did you not write the following? In these posts, you: A. You excused Bison Dan's original smack post as being funny and something that should have been expected. B. You claimed that Sioux fans were equally culpable in contributing to the smack talk initiated by a Bison fan. C. You claimed that your role in expanding the smack talk in a direction that had nothing whatsover to do with the original topic (athletic department financing) or Bison Dan's provacative post was no different from the Sioux fans who responded to Bison Dan. One more time, I will explain why your position is hypocritical: It's like saying that when a person opens fire on a group of people minding their own business, there's a double standard when some in the crowd return fire in response. In other words, it's okay for Bison fans get to take potshots at Sioux fans, but Sioux fans who respond in kind are engaging in a "double standard."

Which is what I attacked. I don't care about all the irrelevant garbage you wrote after that.

And this explains your "double standard" accusation how...?

Then help me see it. Instead of quoting posts you wrote that have nothing to do with what I wrote, explain to me how it's a double standard for a Sioux fan to respond to a provacative smack talk posting initiated by a Bison fan. You're the one who leveled the double standard charge. All I'm doing is asking you to please explain what the double standard is within in the context of this thread.