NoiseInsideMyHead

Zip?

However you feel about having only one airline (it stinks), that's not the only problem…consider the singular hub. If DL would simply add a couple of SLC flights, westbound travel out of GFK would be markedly better. I bet it did to Delta. (Full disclosure, I was only one butt in one seat on one round-trip while it lasted, but I jumped at the chance to fly through Denver.)

If you had a crappy breakup a few years ago, would you reach out to your ex -- or worse, the sniveling bitch who wouldn't mind her own business and caused the breakup -- and ask her permission before making decisions about your personal life? Didn't think so. Because you have a pair, and you're not going to give her the satisfaction.

All I'm looking for is people to stop using fear tactics. If you're going to say UND needs a nickname because X, and X is specious on its face, then you'd better be willing to back it up and support it. Rank speculation is hardly called for here, and serves no one. If it's an opinion, state it like one.

So what you're saying is that recruiters have the same disregard for logic as the NCAA fear mongers on this site? Or is it the recruits? Call me naive, but I think that UND is better served by not having such simple-minded individuals enrolled as students.

And how, exactly, is a February 2012 news article evidence of "continuous" use?

Context is critical here. The word "continuously" implies that it is ongoing. OP says it as if it's gospel truth, but it's now been thrown out there at least twice without any substantiation whatsoever. The only person who came to OP's defense in April said explicitly that it was "in the past." At what point(s) in the nickname controversy and/or transition process did the alleged use(s) occur? Fair question.

Source? This is ridiculously inflammatory and so easy to say, but damn near impossible to prove. In fact, a few months ago I called out someone else for making the same naked allegation on another thread and the only response put forth in defense was:

From coke to choke. The Dustin Johnson Story.

Mudflap sales would definitely spike.

Not to be too morbid, but the first time Fox broadcast a NASCAR race, one of the sport's biggest superstars died on the track.

Time for a new thread?

But was "creative thinking" what the consultant was hired for? Seems to me that they were brought in not to come up with ideas but rather to facilitate a process. That process included unfettered (and protracted) public input and except for an initial screening, all decisions have been made by a hand-picked group of stakeholders. Nobody can complain about not having an opportunity to suggest as many creative names as they could think of. You are free to criticize the consultant for failing to 'think creatively' during the first round of cuts, but at least the consultant's work product was laid out on the table for public inspection, and everything thereafter is solely on the committee. Lots of decision-making processes are messy, expensive, and pointless, but people seem to feel better about them by building them into something bigger than they need to be. In fact, as a nation we're about to embark on another one…the 2016 presidential primaries. How much money are the taxpayers and also-rans going to spend on this ridiculous, entirely-too-long political farce? Like all non-consultants, I hate consultants with a passion. But I think the blame for your disappointment in the process may need to be placed elsewhere.

Kind of begs the question whether separating the nickname and logo selection processes was a good idea.

Ribbed, yes, but for her pleasure.

We can dream, right?

The fact that there's a contract that says "new nickname" doesn't have jack squat to do with the fact that there is a policy that says no Native American nicknames. A breach of contract (for which there is a legal remedy) is not a violation of the policy (for which there are sanctions). Simple logic seems to escape the NCAA tinfoil hat types.

It's not my belief. It's the facts. The settlement agreement is a contract. If one party to the contract feels aggrieved, there's really only one opportunity for redress. And that's litigation. Also, the NCAA is a member-governed body. Keep in mind that even the nickname policy had an out - get permission and you're golden. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA is going to be able to convince its members to agree to a sweeping new policy when it is already on the record saying that nicknames are the sole province of the institutions? And even if they did, it would certainly contain a grandfather clause. Because that's the American way. Associations are not immune to the rule of law. An association is just as obliged to follow its own rules as you and I are the laws of the land. And once and for all, please wake up and realize that not even the NCAA is going to try and impose sanctions for a rule that isn't being violated. That's called anarchy, and it is not going to happen.

The rule is written in plain English, the last time I read it. What more do you need?

The royalty rate on patches will be 99.9%

Here we go again…no nickname = no violation = no sanctions. And by "damages," I am referring to the NCAA. A breach of contract case requires the establishment of a contract, a breach, and harm. The NCAA has not been harmed. There is no economic incentive for the NCAA to bring the lawsuit.

Even if we concede that there has been a breach of contract, there are no damages. An order compelling UND to select a nickname seems remote. More like nominal damages and a subtle jab at the NCAA in the entry of judgment to give it up. UND has a serious case of battered spouse syndrome when it comes to the NCAA. Maybe that's the real reason CVIC opened up shop on campus. Are people afraid of the outcome…or the fight?

Isn't he a little dark for a Swede?

Another one bites the dust. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3766720-sweeto-burrito-finito-grand-forks You don't have to have loved their food to realize that the lack of options is what is really dragging the GFK QOL down.

Not a chance.