krangodance

ha, yeah "worship". hey, goon, get your toga on and hurry up or we're gonna be late for our daily prayer session toward vegas. don't forget, we're holding a candlelight vigil at the ralph at 10 tonight where we'll, once again, attempt to summon engelstad's spirit; afterwards, there'll be punch and cookies shaped like ralph's penis. just because we disagree with your choice to bash engelstad in response to a story about his daughter's charitable donations does not mean we worship anybody. get a clue, lady.

amen. why in hell did anybody even bring that into the conversation? as if slamming ralph in response to a post about his daughter's generosity isn't lame enough, to use this story as a platform to tout one's views on unions is just beyond petty. i mean, really? somebody gives money to a great cause and somehow that has anything to do with the fact that her father didn't like unions? clearly somebody's just here to stir the pot by any means possible and, since i'm replying, i guess it's working. so...nice work. hey, let's try this, pretend i posted a story about warren buffett donating 50 billion dollars to charity. now let's play a game similar to the kevin bacon game. how few steps does it take a sioux-hater to go from a warren buffett charitable donation story to ralph engelstad blowing hitler.

a lot of people in that generation had and still have some very messed up views on equality and human rights. we all know that. you're not telling us anything new. we've all seen gran turino. most of us probably still have that wwii era relative who makes off-color jokes and remarks (and not all of them are even racist, they just talk that way cause it was the norm where they grew up). however, each generation over the last 200 years has/had fewer and fewer of these people who hold ignorant prejudices. so, whether ralph just made a stupid decision because of his detachment with modern society or whether he was a neo-facist asshole, that doesn't incriminate every member of his family for the rest of time. nobody's defending his actions on the nazi-themed party front. however, kris engelstad did a very good thing here, which was shared with the sioux fan community and all you can do is slam her father for something she has no control over. you're only making yourself look petty and foolish by posting your dronings, all of which everybody here has heard a million times. get over it and get over yourself.

http://www.gamedayscrubs.com/North-Dakota/...kota-scrubs.php

i have no bubbles

sad

oh my God, what did i create here?!

i don't disagree that the victim card exists, i disagree with it's use, which i believe was your point when you first mentioned the victim card. this conversation has gone on way too long and gotten way to serious for me.

mmm...milf

old and sexy

i don't agree with the "victim card" either. i thought my original post was humorous. apparently you didn't view it that way and thought i was trying to make a political statement; something i have no interest in. nuff said.

come on now, redwing. you've seen my posts, do you really think i'm some left-wing radical cry-baby? i cetainly hope not. breaking such a contract would clearly not be legal and whatever happened in the past should not, and would not, change that fact. the irony if the argument came up would still be humorous (the irony, not the argument). don't you agree? of course you do.

there's not likely going to be any new information on this thread's topic for a couple more months, so some filler material is fun to read; for me anyways. it's pretty juvenile though, and it clearly stems from the fact that one person involved is a fan of an opposing team and the others are hard-core homers. if they met under different circumstances, they'd probably get along fine. it's pretty easy for things to get personal on message boards where you don't have to face the other person. it reminds me of this stretch of road i drive every morning. the freeway splits so that two lanes go downtown and one lane enters another freeway. most people who are entering that other freeway get into that lane as soon as possibel and wait there turn, thereby keeping the other two lanes from getting overly congested. there's always a couple people, though, who cruise right to the split and want to get in, causing the other two lanes to come to a dead hault. pretty selfish if you ask me. every time i see that i wish i had the time to follow one of those people and cut in front of them in line everywhere they went that day. then i could see if that person had the balls to say anything or if his/her driving habits are only as they are because they know they don't have to deal with a face-to-face situation where they could get called out for their actions. wait a minute, this is way off topic too. sorry.

play it cool. i'm just pointing out the irony. i'm in no way promoting some sort of retribution here. after re-reading my post, it seems you really stretched the meaning of my words to come to your conclusion. i'm completely of the opinion that the past is the past and the only way to truly progress is to change the now, not try to make up for mistakes in the past. please don't twist my meaning again. thanks

a 30-year contract is a "continuous agreement". once that contract expires (if such a contract is ever approved), then this issue could be revisited. until then, a contract is a contract. it would be quite ironic, however, if we bitched about a native american community wanting to break a contract since early europeans in this country did just that like it was their hobby.

unfortunately, it has felt that way for some time. i still have a shred of hope though since there's clear support from the sioux community and that's really the key. however, it may not matter this late in the game. we'll see.

hypothetically, let's say this plays out: 1. charlie murphy wins the general election, which i heard was to take place on 9/30. 2. charlie murphy announces he will put the nickname issue to a vote within the standing rock tribe. would it be too late anyways? since the votes won't be counted until 9/30 and approved on 10/1, how could a vote even happen before the name would be retired? does anybody from the board of higher education who has any pull even look at these forums? if so, what are you going to do about the above scenario? it seems to me that any logical person or board would have to extend the retirement date until standing rock has an opportunity to vote on the issue. i mean, we are talking about 80 years of tradition here. if we do get that close to gaining the permission we need to keep the name under ncaa regulations, it seems like the board of higher education would have to basically be admitting that they don't care what the native american community has to say on the issue if they chose not to extend the retirement date. i realize the summit league is an issue now as well, but is the summit league commissioner really so obtuse as to not give us a little more time if we do get so close to gaining the permission they say we need in order to keep the sioux name and still join their league? honestlly, what can it hurt? the reality is that the ncaa gave us until october 2010. spirit lake has already shown their support. if charlie murphy comes out as a supporter of the name and he still wins the general election, wouldn't that make it clear that both tribes support the name? once that has been established, it only makes sense to give the tribes time to decide whether they want to approve a 30-year contract. basically i'm pleading to anybody on the board of higher education and/or anybody in the summit league's commissioner's office to be reasonable here. this is too important to take lightly. if we do get as close as it looks like we very well could in the next few months, it seems like the only logical thing to do is give it a bit more time. the summit league could even allow und in under the provision that they have until the ncaa deadline of 10/2010 to get a 30-year contract agreement from both tribes. if that date comes and goes and the issue still isn't resolved or a 30-year contract is explicitly shot down, then fine, we retire the name as per ncaa regulations and we remain in the summit league without the name. however, if the issue is resolved and a 30-year contract is approved, then we keep the name, which satisfies both the ncaa provision and the summit league provision, provided the summit league can give us the necessary extension. this is an extremely sensitive topic and to supercede the arrangement already established by the ncaa at a time when we could very well be less than six months shy of satisfying the ncaa requirements for keeping the name almost seems vindictive. i certainly hope that's not what's going on here.

man that's a big "if". i agree, it will never happen. however, i don't think the bthc will ever happen either unless the big ten is willing to accept other universities into the conference who don't compete in the big ten in other sports. i mean how many b10 schools are there in all of college hockey? 5?

maybe you're right. it doesn't matter anymore though. uno and bsu are in and that's good for the future of all of college hockey. now we need to figure out a way to trick the ccha into trading us osu for uaa.

straight from the script of anchorman, i have to say, "that doesn't make any sense". look closely at the two lines you quoted. they say opposite things and you only replied with "or not!". which part are you or notting? anyway, uno and bsu are in and i think it's a grand thing.

based on the blogs i've seen over the past few hours, it sounds like omaha might be playing a bit of hardball as mplsbison predicted. likely, things will still work out to where uno joins the wcha, but at this point it doesn't seem out of the rhelm of possibility that they stay in the ccha. if that happens, then uaf will very likely be switching conferences. if that happens, i think a lot of folks who repeatedly berated mplsbison for suggesting such a thing owe him an apology. at the same time, if omaha gets in, which as i said is still likely, then everybody is free to continue such berating. i'll steer clear in either case. to me, it's too similar to a football coach making a bold call; if it works, he's a genius. if it fails, he's an idiot. i've always opposed the mouth off now and apologize later, if necessary, approach, but i guess it does make for some good drama sometimes.

anybody know the results yet?

this thread is sounding a lot less like a "uaf to wcha" thread and more like a "things you might hear in a junior high cafeteria" thread.

that would be sweet. unfortunately i'd see it going like this und, uaa, cc, du

oh, man, i was way off.