krangodance

i finally put him on ignore last week. i've never deemed somebody worthy of the ignore feature until now. at some point, it becomes obvious that he's not even reading the responses to his pandering because he posts the same thing over and over and over again even though it's been thoroughly addressed. that line about "respecting the ncaa deadline" for example. i think it's been made clear by many posters that there is no respect for the deadline, but the deadline is a fact we all have to live with; we have no say in the deadline whatsoever. to argue that we'd like the sbohe and und to at least respect that deadline and give both tribes until that deadline to get a vote together is a perfectly legit argument and has nothing to do with respecting the deadline, yet mplsbison insists on asking that same question over and over and over and over....... if everybody just puts him on ignore, then at worst he'll be talking to himself and the few trolls who come along once and a while. at best, he'll just go away. i mean, let's face it, he has nothing to offer and refuses to participate in civil debate. why waste your time reading posts from somebody who's only trying to get under your skin, has no interest in seeing your point of view, and will say whatever necessary to create frustration or confuse the issue at hand?

insightful post. another road block to healthy debate on message boards is the existence of posters who try to "pigeonhole" the debate by not accepting that one's opinions might expand beyond his/her original feelings on a matter based on conditions that are out of his/her hands. for example, let's say the u.s. is considering going into battle with another country. let's assume i am against the proposed war and post my reasoning on a message board. certainly others are going to come along and engage me in debate, which is perfectly fine and i invite such debates provided both sides are respectful of the other's opinions. now, let's say a decision is made to go to war with the aformentioned country. at some point during the war i may have an opinion on how we should handle a certain aspect of the war. well, without a doubt, one of the posters who originally engaged me in debate will come along and post something like "wait, first your agasint the war, now you're telling everybody how it should be fought?" to which i would reply with something like "well, yeah, i didn't want to go to war to begin with, but now that we're there, i just want to see it handled properly so as to minimize collateral damage and maximize the positives that could ultimately come from this war". fair logic, right? i mean, most people would understand, and probably accept, such an explanation. however, there is alwasy one or two people out there who will say something like "whatever, you're just flip-flopping so you don't look stupid when this war proves to have been beneficial". obviously any logical thinking person would realize i haven't flip-flopped, i was simply forced to adjust my thinking because of conditions outside of my control. should those conditions create an opportunity that i hadn't considered, that's great as far as i see it, but that one guy or those few guys (or gals) won't hear of it. i was originally againt the war so anything i say after that will be judged accordingly in their minds. that's what i call pigeonholing the debate. those individuals who engage in such tactics are also notorious for making assumptions of others personalities and/or motives, which is just plain rude and uncalled for, but what are you gonna do? eventually you just have to realize what these people are doing and let it go. the rest of the board knows that those folks are annoying anyways and don't assign much weight to their words. fortunately, most people on ss.com seem cool to me and are willing to accept that another has a different view of things and, sometimes, people will even change their opinion on a matter based on solid logic presented by another.

i enjoy healthy debate. my last post was basically to put an end to what might be unhealthy debate and rather give those willing to engage in friendly debate on opportunity to contact me personally knowing i will play ball, provided it's kept positive and worthwhile.

this conversation is intriguing to me. i feel as though my position on the matter has been well established, i've been consistent in my logic, and i've been more than forthcoming in addressing all questions presented to me on the topic. in no way am i trying to avoid any point and i will gladly provide clarification on anything i may have not addressed or on which one believes i was not clear. as i see it, one of two things is going on here. 1. i am running into a legitimate communication barrier with mplsbison, mooncountry, or anybody else who doesn't see the logic in my position, regardless of whether or not they agree with my logic. or 2. those posing the questions to which i'm trying my best to answer clearly are simply choosing not to recognize my point of view and, instead, are forcing me to talk in circles in an attempt to discredit my view of the situation. if the latter is true, then so be it, obviously that scenario leaves no room for me to clarify anything so i see no point in continuing this conversation. however, if the former scenario is true, then i invite anybody to send me a personal message on the matter, including exactly what point(s) you are confused on and i will gladly do my best to clear things up as well as take an objective view of your position. i have already sent a personal message to mplsbison asking him/her (not meant to be insulting, i just don't know who you are) to clarify what point it is he/she feels i'm trying to avoid addressing here; i haven't heard back from him/her yet. to save the rest of the readers of this thread the agony of reading my diatribes as i attempt to explain myself, something i only feel necessary for my own entertainment and peace of mind, i will discontinue replying to any posts on the topic left for me on this thread by those who feel i'm not being clear. if you're one of those individuals who is still not satisfied that i've provided a logical, clear explanation of how i feel and why i feel that way, i will consider any posts left here on the topic nothing more than a passive agressive attempt to continue a debate that you know i've already won, but are not willing to walk away from peacefully. however, if one of those individuals sends me a personal message on the matter, then i will accept that he/she truly does seek clarification on my position in this matter, or would like to continue a friendly debate on the issue, and i will gladly, and politely, offer a reply. if you don't care one way or another, i hope you didn't just waste your time reading this whole post. thanks much krangodance bong!!

i consider my posts just long enough to address the point, which i feel i've done well and consistently. what point is it you feel i haven't addressed?

i didn't pick the deadline. it was established almost three years ago in an agreement between und and the ncaa. my position is, and always has been, that und, the sbohe, and any other entity with influence on the matter should give the full alloted time for a decision to be made by both tribes. to do otherwise would be analogous with the electoral college choosing the president before the people even voted. if i got to pick and choose what worked for my agenda, as stated already, their would be no deadline and the name and logo would stay until one or both of the tribes, of their own free will and not because of pressure by the ncaa or any other organization, held a majoirty vote to retire the name and logo. now you tell me, mooncountry, since you're so convinced that my position is wholly self-serving, then what happens once the deadline has come and gone? let's assume no vote is held by standing rock and the name is retired. at that time, as i said in my first post in this conversation of which you wandered into the middle, i will drop it because i will consider it a done deal. if that possibilbity becomes a reality, in what way is my position self-serving? you state that i only support the november deadline because it buys more time for the nickname (a flawed logic since that was always the deadline). so if that date comes and the logo is retired and i speak no more on this board in reference to the topic, then will you admit you were wrong about me? i mean, if things go as i've laid out in this scenario, then somebody who only supports the november deadline because it buys more time would then choose another date in the future to wait for as to continue to buy more time, correct? i'm all about debate and hearing other sides, otherwise i wouldn't be on a message board. however, i do my best not to assume anything about somebody else or insult another person through name-calling and prejudice. i think i've done a very good job of this and i do so because i don't think it's fair to judge somebody i've never met or even spoken with based on their opinion on a topic that conflicts with my opinion on that topic. it seems, though, that so many others on this board are willing to pass judgement so quickly without anymore knowledge of me then i have of him/her. i consider my reasoning for supporting the november deadline sound. if it wasn't for the fact that i can claim the higher ground by not resorting to name calling and assumptions of character and motivation, i'd find your assessment of my support of the november deadline insulting. carry on, though, i can catch your stones all day and night and i promise not to throw them back.

respect for the ncaa deadline? i had no say in the deadline. however, if it comes and goes and both tribes have not given approval to continue using the name, then the name is required to be changed per the agreement und has with the ncaa. if i had my way, the name would stay until one of the tribes held a vote to get rid of it. plus, knowing what i know now, i would encourage und to continue working with the tribes to get a long term agreement signed so there wouldn't constantly be the threat that one of the tribes would vote to get rid of the name. as it is, i had no say in the agreement that und made with the ncaa, but obviously i have to live with it. once the date has passed, that agreement will be followed through on based on the provisions of the agreement. no amount of griping will change anything at that point, which is why i would drop it at that point. what you're suggesting would be like trying to fight the destruction of an historic building after it's been imploded, which is strange since you've been the loudest voice for tearing down the building even though it's not yet necessary and may, ultimately, not be necessary at all (analogously speaking of course). is anybody besides mplsbison not getting this? i feel like i'm having a conversation with a parrot here.

is this from an oprah transcript?

i doubt the passion for the nickname will vanish, but it will be nothing more than that...passion. the ncaa has established a deadline to gain tribal support for use of the nickname and logo. i'm not sure what you're getting at with these posts. there's a deadline set. either it's met or it's not met. as an analogy: once election day for the presidency of the united states came and went, obama was elected. some people were thrilled about that. some people were up in arms over the results. regardless of how anybody felt, though, the deadline to vote had come and gone. anybody who wanted to bitch about the results was certainly welcome to do so, but that's the extent of their influence by then. i view the nickname issue the same way. once the deadline has come and gone, then if a vote was not conducted, it's too late. if you're asking if i think people will continue to fight to keep the name if a vote is in after the deadline, then i have to say...maybe, but those people are confused because it's too late. if you're asking if i think people will continue to present arguments as to why the name should not have been retired, well i'm most certain they will. i won't be part of their ranks because i'll consider it a dead issue at that point, but if others want to continue talking about it, then that's their option. if the name is retired and an opportunity arises to get the name back someday, then i'll definitely support that option, but that's not likely. my hope is that standing rock will get a vote in before the deadline and the results of that vote will be an overwhelming show of support for the nickname and logo. if that happens, i'm confident the name will be retained. i'm also confident that in any other scenario, barring a re-negotiation of the terms laid out by the ncaa, will result in the nickname and logo being retired. am i clear yet?

it would be out of the sbohe's hands at that point. und would not have fulfilled the ncaa requirement to keep the name. if your scenario did come true and the ncaa agreed to give und permission to continue using the name, then of course i'd support that decision, as the sbohe likely would. your scenario is highly unlikely though.

if the november deadline comes and goes and standing rock has still not held a vote, then we're all just going to have to accept the consequences. they'll have had three years by then to put a vote together. i hope they do get a vote together, but i for one will be ready to give up the fight if the vote can't get done in time to beat the november deadline. let's just hope for the vote before then, which i think will happen.

ha. yeah, that could make for an interesting twist, huh? at this point, i think it will play out as it should. if standing rock gets a vote put together in time, their decision will be honored (i say their decision without including the decision of spirit lake since both tribes need to approve and spirit lake already approved. therefore, it's all on the standing rock decision. i don't mean to undermine the decision already made at spirit lake). if standing rock doesn't get a vote put together before the november deadline, then the name will be retired. it seems like everything is going in the right direction at this time and i'm all for getting rid of the name if standing rock either votes to retire or doesn't vote at all.

my wife is jewish. she doesn't understand why some think the term "jew" is offensive since that is how you refer to people who are jewish. if you're using it in a context that is meant to be demeening, then obviously the context is inappropriate. the word itself, though, is not. to say that somebody who is jewish is a jew is the same as saying that somebody who is british is a brit or somebody who is turkish is a turk. i realize that in those examples i'm using nationality and being jewish isn't an attribute of nationality, but you could be an american of spanish descent and say you're a spainaird. just as with the sioux nickname, it's not the members of that group who are assigning negative connotations to the word, but rather those who are confused and believe that there is something negative associated with the word; a fact which is offensive to members of that group. my wife certainly doesn't think there's anything wrong with being a jew. members of spirit lake and standing rock don't think there's anything wrong with being sioux. it's the same pretentious people who think they're qualified to speak for these minority groups, even though they don't belong to those groups, who would have us believe those words are "bad". it really is shameful that people will take a whole group of people and decide for them that names and icons that represent that group are abusive. why not let them decide for themselves if something paying homage to them is being used in poor taste? and if it is, let them decide how such a thing should be changed as to reach its goal of paying homage. if they'd rather get rid of it all together, then i'd support that. i certainly don't want to associate myself with something a love and respect so much if those who are meant to be honored are offended. i feel like i'm in opposite land on this board sometimes. i support the sioux name and logo as long as the sioux support it. yet those on this board who don't think native americans should be able to decide for themselves how to feel are telling me, and others like me, that we're the ones who are disrespecting native americans. it's like me saying that women shouldn't have a voice in roe vs wade and then calling those who think women should be the primary voice in that debate sexist. it's all backwards and the worst part is i know there's no getting through to these pig-headed folks and yet i continue to try to use logic to get them to see the light. i'm like some kind of idiot who does the same thing over and over and expects different results. i don't know, maybe i actually do get through to some of those people, or at least hope i will some day. that's what i'll have to accept because saying nothing just forces me to stew in the illogical arguements presented to the contrary.

ha! making fun of somebody's grammar on a message board? didn't you know that's the number one no-no in the forum rule book. by law, you can't post for one year. see ya next year.

well, hockey fans and native americans. but you don't care about their opinion, right?

well, with those lofty goals, no wonder we're in a hurry to retire the name. just imagine, we could someday say we had a team participate in the first round of an ncaa tournament. oh wait, we've already won national championships. nevermind. name's still worth more.

thank you, professor obvious.

i don't see this happening, but i'd support the idea if und/sbohe proposed it.

i had the same experience at the twins game last friday when i wore a sioux sweatshirt. sure, i was in gopher territory so i got some razzing, but that was always followed by something along the lines of "what a terrible thing it is that they have to get rid of the logo". one gopher fan even called it a tragedy. of course, there were many sioux fans who took notice as well and made sure to shout out a loud "go sioux!".

if georgia state can get alabama in their first year ever playing footbal, it kind of makes me think und and ndsu haven't been trying hard enough to schedule good fbs teams. texas tech is alright, but they're no alabama.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1074089

barring a miracle that saves the name, i wonder what fssn will be called next season?

yeah and that's the thing, starting next year, you're better off finishing 3rd and losing your play-in game. it seems like the team that finishes 3rd in the wcha always gets an at-large bid and that will probably be even more true once there are 12 teams in the wcha. better yet, if you know you're a shoe-in for an at-large bid, simply throw the best-of-three series and get the full two weeks off. even if if you lose in one of the thursday play-in games, then you get 2 extra days off compared to the teams that compete for the wcha champoinship. in my opinion, those two teams should not be at a disadvantage come ncaa tourney time, which is why i'm proposing the extra week off after the conference tournaments.

i thought about the sunday thing too, but this plan puts the semi-final games on a friday instead of a thursday so it's pretty much a wash as far as weekend nights go. plus, the football and basketball championships are always on mondays or thursdays and they do just fine.

the 4th is a sunday. no basketball.