PCM

I did a little research on Sudie Hofmann's column in which she claimed, "One post said that nickname protesters at UND should be run over with a truck." I found one post in a thread called "Protest at Homecoming." So it sounds as if Sudie might be on to something, right? Unfortunately, there's this thing called "context" that people like Sudie often ignore. The first thing to keep in mind is that Diggler rarely expects anyone to take his posts seriously. (If I have offended poor Diggler in any way, I deeply and sincerely apologize. ) But the most important part is that anyone who bothered to read the thread would understand that Diggler's post had nothing to with "protestors at UND." It was in reference to this piece by Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten: Bike-riding mob owns the streets of Minneapolis. Diggler was not advocating running over UND protestors with a truck. He was expressing his desire to run down the lawless, bike-riding mob in Minneapolis with a truck. Unfortunately, the subtlety and nuance of Diggler's prose is often too much for the average person to comprehend.

I'm just glad Tom Buning wasn't there Friday night. The egos of many Gophers fans couldn't have survived such humiliation.

It reads like a form letter he copies and pastes from Word into his e-mail.

Believe it or not, there have been some good discussions on this board between people who support the nickname and those who oppose it. So I don't buy your claim that "anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away." From my perspective, it's simply not true. Yes, you probably do need a thick skin if you're going to defend a viewpoint that most posters here oppose. So what? If I went on Gopher Puck Live and tried to convince Minnesota fans that Zach Parise is the greatest college hockey player who ever lived, I'd have the same problem. Lots of Gopher fans would disagree with me and some of them wouldn't be very civil about it. Nor would I expect a friendly reception if I walked in a bar to preach about the evils of demon rum. Umm...no. My point went directly to the heart of your original premise. You don't get to introduce a different premise and then claim my argument is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow your new and different premise. You're the one claiming that people who post here in opposition to the Fighting Sioux nickname are threatened with physical violence or hounded off the board. All I'm saying is that if you can't take the heat, don't come into the kitchen. Actually, I agree with you. But does that mean UND should be forced to change its nickname every time someone says they don't like it?

You're still here. It's a board for fans of the Fighting Sioux. Therefore, it shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that most people who hang out here favor keeping the nickname. But the vast majority of people who post here dont' preach hate and don't advocate violence against the protestors or American Indians.

It wasn't a photo. It was a video. A Gopher player sits down in the penalty box and takes "his" helmet off, only to reveal that it's a woman. It gives the appearance that you're seeing a live feed from the penalty box. But obviously, it's not.

That appears to be the case. The EERC's hydrogen research facilility has been built on the southeast corner of the old Ralph. So it appears the EERC received the land it needed for the new building and, I assume, that it will pick up some additional parking from lot on the east side of the arena. As I recall, property for the hydrogen research facility and additional parking were the two primary concerns of the EERC.

That's a good point. It's also important to note that when someone makes a post that might be construed as racist, it's often greeted with disapproval by most people here. So it's not as if this site is a bastion of hatred and bigotry that promotes violence against protestors or minorities, which is certainly the perception that Ms. Hofmann intended to create.

I suggest that Mr. Branch hold his breath while waiting for his idea to happen.

You can think whatever you want, but he was quite adamant the it was a good call. Usually he won't make any comment about officiating, even when you can tell that he's not happy about it. Hak was more ticked that a Sioux player brought the puck in when it should have been chipped out.

I guess we better tell the PA guy at UND football games to stop encouraging Sioux fans to stand up and make noise on third down. And he should also stop saying, "Tackled by virtually the entire Fighting Sioux defense." I'll bet that ticks off the opposing team and their fans because it's usually not true.

Hakstol said after the game it was a good call because a UND player carried the puck into the zone.

Sioux-cia, I thought of your situation with GrahamKracker as I read the column in the Herald. I rememberd how neither the Herald nor the Dakota Student would publish your letter to the editor about the incident.

This quote was in a [url="http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=59952

Actually, I didn't see him whine after Malone's goal. He whined after Kaip's goal, which seemed strange.

Yes, Kozek was being checked, but it didn't appear to me that the check forced him into the crease. It look to me as if he went in on his own. But I suppose if they didn't blow the whistle for man in the crease before the puck went in, there was no other way to call it if there was no goalie interference. Wisconsin scored a similar goal on the Sioux last season, so I guess they're being consistent in their calls in that situation. I'm just saying that if the officials wanted to be picky about the goal, they probably could have.

Some thoughts on last night's game after watching the third period again: 1. Mark this down as another game that Lamoureux stole. Without his outstanding effort in the first and second periods, the Gophers could have been up 3-0 or more after two periods. The only way Minnesota could score on him was with the man advantage. 2. Chay Genoway's goal was huge. It was great to see him come back and play so well after being done for the year. 3. Rylan Kaip has a great shot. I wish he'd use it more. 4. Matt Watkins had a solid game. I thought he was consistently good for UND all night. 5. As Hak said after the game, Malone's goal was a big one because of the momentum it provided the Sioux and the demoralizing effect it had on the Gophers. I thought the Sioux were lucky not to be called for a man in the crease on that goal as it appeared to me that Kozek was in before the puck arrived. But I'm not going to complain. I think that was an officiating break for the Sioux. 6. Oshie ripping off Barriball's helmet might have cost the Sioux a goal. I'm not sure why he did it, but it looked unnecessary. 7. The crowd throwing stuff on the ice was dumb, stupid, moronic, classless, idiotic, foolish, embarrassing, etc. It could have cost UND the game. But I guess that's what we should expect from people who think that buying a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want. The beer probably doesn't help, either. 8. I thought the tripping call on LaPoint was legit. In fact, I thought it was a good penalty for LaPoint to take. By bringing his stick up to trip the Gopher, he prevented a clean breakaway. My wife and daughter were watching the replay with me and they both agreed it was a trip without me even commenting on it. 9. The charging call on Kaip was iffy. But as one of my fellow media jackals said, he has a reputation now and he's going to get called for marginal penalties. He just needs to be a little bit smarter about the way he plays the physical side of his game. 10. Mentioning Holy Cross on the PA? I thought it was funny at the time. In retrospect, it probably wasn't a good idea. The score of the Blais-Woog bubble hockey game was legitimate news, however. 11. Don Lucia carries a man purse - not that there's anything wrong with that. Someone needs to do a study on the effects of big-city living on college hockey coaches. Between Gwozdecky's pink ties and gardening gloves and Lucia's hair styles and murse, it appears to have a metrosexual effect on some.

Wilford Brimley? Is it really you?

It figures. When I did an article on Marc Ranfranz for USCHO, our buddy GrahamKracker claimed that Marc wasn't "Sioux enough." And then there were those who were offended that a non-Sioux artist designed UND's logo, as if they would have supported it otherwise. So it follows that someone who thinks it's "a stretch" for the Oshies to support the Fighting Sioux nickname or that T.J. might inspire Native American youth would believe that only the opinions of 100 percent Sioux should matter. It's interesting that when certain non-Sioux American Indians speak out about the Fighting Sioux nickname, nobody tells them to shut up.

Here we go again.

Already posted and being discussed here... http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?showtopic=9643

This is going to be great! Everyone who worked on it deserves our thanks and appreciation.

See how much fun this could be?

Stop horsing around.

If UND becomes the "Fighting Nokotas," we'd have the option of being either "The Horse of the North" or "The Force of the Horse."