PCM

You just have to be different, don't you?

They just missed getting my house and my office in the same picture.

Here's some of my old photos. 1999-2000 Season 2000 Frozen Four

Which is technically an airplane.

It's a plane! It's....

Now I need a tissue.

It was a bagel with honey and a glass of grape juice. Thanks for all the concern about my diet.

Can't be. BC or BU would be No. 1.

I remember when you didn't feel the need to make an insulting reply to every one of my posts.

I remember the good old days when people from the SUs came here to accuse UND of not thinking big. Now, apparently, UND is thinking too big.

May 1, 2007/For Immediate Release WCHA Maintains Moratorium On Expansion MADISON, Wis.

Sorry, but I can't give a penny over $225,000.

That's what I was thinking, too. Maybe they could taper it in the middle and add some dry ice to make it resemble a Three Mile Island cooling tower.

I'm not sure if that's him, but he must be somewhere in the picture.

HockeyDB.com shows no player by that name, either.

I grew up hearing my father using "rube" as one of his favorite insults. That's probably why I've never been able to accept it as a term of endearment.

I think you're getting senile, Diggler. I never interviewed Commodore when he was at UND.

You zee? Dees ees vaht happeens ven you call me "Commie" all dose yeers.

Is that the consensus opinion or are you just trying to tick me off?

It's not an assumption. I base my statement on four things: 1. National, independent, scientific polls. The few that have been done show that 80 to 90 percent of American Indians nationwide aren't offended by sports teams using Native American nicknames. Only about 10 percent are offended by the nickname "Redskins." 2. A statewide, independent, scientific poll. The Fargo Forum poll showed that roughly two-thirds of American Indians in North Dakota either weren't offended by UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname or didn't care about the issue. 3. Personal experience. I've lived in Grand Forks for 15 years. I can count the number of protests against the nickname during that time on one hand and have fingers left over. None of those protests has ever drawn more than 100 people. That's with 400 American Indian students at UND and a substantial number of Native American faculty on campus. 4. Enrollment statistics. When UND's student enrollment was going up, the number of American Indian students enrolling went up, too. If most American Indians truly believed that UND was a racially hostile and abusive school, I'd expect NDSU, USD and SDSU to have a far greater American Indian enrollment. But in spite of its allegedly terrible reputation among Native Americans, UND tops them all.

All I have to do is cite one instance to prove you wrong. Most Sioux hockey fans like fighting in hockey. I do not. I've been posting on and debating the subject for years. Some of the arguments have gotten rather heated. And yet, nobody has ever threatened to ban me for not agreeing with consensus opinion. So, once again, you are wrong.

That's completely false. I've been engaged in many debates on this board in which my opinion did not match the consensus opinion.

That is only partially correct. I've written too many posts on this subject to provide links to a few that state my position. Here's a thread on some of the legal aspects of a case filed against the University of Illinois by the Illinois Native American Bar Association. Here's another thread in which I noted the serious issues affecting college athletics in which the NCAA claims to have no power or control to correct. Here are a some of the opinion pieces I've written on the subject: Hey, Hey, NCAA, Censored Logo Leads The Way Hostility and abuse the NCAA way Down the NCAA rabbit hole An open letter to NCAA President Myles Brand The free speech aspect is only one part of why I don't believe UND should change it's nickname and logo at this time. You need to ask the NCAA. They're the ones who thought it was important to make the distinction. Based on what others with far more legal expertise have said, the "hostile and abusive" standard is more difficult to prove than the "offensive" standard. Right now, the legal battle isn't about whether UND's name and logo are hostile and abusive, even though that's the battle the NCAA would prefer to fight. It's about whether the NCAA Executive Committee violated the organization's constitution and bylaws to enact the policy.

No, you are. Have you listened to the teleconference that the NCAA Executive Committee held on the day it announced its policy on American Indian nickname, mascots and imagery? Because if you had, you'd know that the it was explained then why the association decided to move the issue out of the realm of "offensive" and into the realm of "hostile and abusive." I didn't do that, the NCAA did. And it was precisely to avoid the fact that offensive speech is constitutionally protected while hostile and abusive speech is not. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You and others continually attempt to compare situations that aren't similar or relevant and then claim that offensive speech isn't constitutionally protected when the courts and the ACLU have said that it is. Can I go into work and use racial slurs or make sexually suggestive comments? Not if I want to expect to keep my job. Don Imus found that out the hard way, even though he said nothing illegal. Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? No. Can incite a riot and expect to get away with it? No. So quite obviously there are situations in which people can't use the First Amendment to justify their actions and get away with it. We understand that. Nobody is arguing the point. The point being argued which triggered the debate in this thread was whether the mere fact that some American Indians are offended by UND's nickname and logo means that UND should be required to change it. None of the examples you continue to cite apply to that situation.

Well, sparky, what you touched on doesn't matter because it was the NCAA that moved the goal posts of the argument for you. It was the NCAA which decided on its own that it wasn't enough for UND's logo and nickname to be merely "offensive." It had to be "hostile and abusive." Why, in its infinite wisdom, did the NCAA Executive Committee do that? Well, it's because as the ACLU notes and the courts have upheld: offensive speech is constitutionally protected. So if you're going to engage in discussions in this forum about the Fighting Sioux nickname and North Dakota's lawsuit against the NCAA, it would be wise to understand why the "hostile and abusive" standard applies regardless of what you might think. Then perhaps you should reference my ACLU post in the proper context. Because you made an agument and then pretended that my post was intended to address the argument you were making when, in fact, it wasn't. Obviously, MiniaturizedBison, you're a person who loves to dish it out but can't take it. If you don't want me to act like a dick to you, don't be a dick to me by referencing one of my posts out of context and don't be surprised when I call you on it. I don't pretend to know enough about your education to take a cheap shot at it. But you are certainly sensitive and defensive about your education. Is there a reason for that? Miss the point much? Oh my. Did I just take another cheap shot at you and your education?