bison73

Le Clair.

Actually people have been bitching about them for years and they were scheduled for replacement according to an article last year or the year before.. Dont care who got them first we really have needed them for a very long time.

Just passing along information. Didnt think the back lash would be this bad. I find it interesting that a few were ok that projects were delayed because of funding but other took it personal and couldnt be open mined enough to think there are issues. Goes with the territory I guess.

I dont care as I dont have a dog in this fight..

The company has to report the non-delayed-payment for those action to take place. They arent reporting because they arent going to bite the hand that feeds them even if the food truck is coming late. I guess the bigger question is why would UND knowingly break the law. Or they just know they wont be reported? Thanks. Youve brought up a very interesting legal quagmire.

If I told you the projects the source would be compromised. Try again.

So where do you go from here?

Has UNDs?

I will not compromise my source or the company. Even you can understand that.

Contractor---as in construction correct? Its not construction related.

I think most would agree.

I first need to clarify----my source told me about the company that didnt get paid. He knows the company and people very well. My sources company is the one whose projects were delayed. I asked that same question. Answer--because thats how they do business. They will get paid eventually but money is tight right now. They also have contracts in the future and dont want to jeopardize those. But will go through the same scenario with those. Plus they are delaying other projects because of money..

Shoddy work? Then why would UND keep doing business with that company? Your ignorance of the current situation at UND is astounding. It you who believes UND is above reproach in its business dealing without knowing the facts.

I dont need to make a request. The information is out there. Of course you would need to know where to look and which dept. But as Ive said--I already know so why would I need to make a request?

Fact is it was legal. No flag. Perry should have played to the whistle. Dont care what Bohl did or didnt do. Didnt see the show. My post has to do with it being a good play or not. Not trying to rewrite history. Ive had that same stance since it happened. Dont care what some Bison fans had to say about it. They have never payed the game ,because that type of action takes place on a regular basis and is a legal block..

That was a perfectly good play. The player was playing to the whistle and Perry let up just as the guy went low to cut him. But just because he got hurt their were some Bison fans that were upset about it and called it dirty etc.

Dont care. Hes at Wyoming.

Dont know.

Do you have a link for the replay?

Dirty means it was his intention to cause harm. I certainly wouldnt say it was a clean hit. If you want to quantify it I would say it was a bad hit.

Thats been happening to me also.

Yes it was a very bad in game decision. Just like blocking in the back etc which we had a few of during this game that caused some pretty good returns to be called back. Its a lack of discipline and they need focus on the fact that if you cant get your head in front of the defender you HAVE to let it go. I hope the coaches get on top of this. I dont know who the player is but it might be because the player hasnt gotten enough game time reps. That fact also leads to undisciplined play. I am not making excuses. He made a bad decision. But I dont think his intent was to hurt the player.

"""Hey Darell, I loled because I knew your kind would accuse malicious intent, not that the kid broke his leg. """

So whats the matter with that quote?

LOL LOL