dmksioux Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Sioux County is run by the Sioux County Commission and is a part of the State of North Dakota. Standing Rock Nation is a soverign nation (as Canada is a soverign nation) recognized by the US Government. The NCAA wants to hear from Standing Rock, not Sioux County. It's in writing in the settlement agreement. One minor adjustment...The NCAA wanted to hear from Standing Rock, Not Sioux County...and they did. Quote
Hayduke Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 On Measure 2? Property taxes still exist. Did you mean Measure 4? If so ... Nothing. The NCAA wants to hear from Standing Rock Goverment, not Sioux County. And it's probably too late anyway. Why are people confusing the Tribal Government with Sioux County? Just because you live in Sioux County does not mean you are member of the tribe. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Somewhat funny is all of you sat on the other side with DaveK, Fetch, and Chewey when we tried to tell you what would happen and you dismissed us. Now you are singing the same song we sang and pretend you wrote the lyrics. It's funny, you've been a member for 6 months. Are you saying that you have been telling us for a whole 6 months now? Or were you banned with another name and now you are here to try and say "I told you so"? A troll by any other name is still a troll. I'm not quite sure why you are attacking people that are trying to accomplish something that it seems you have wanted for a long time. That seems counterproductive, and maybe the sign of a bitter person. Quote
darell1976 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 The NCAA told the delegation from North Dakota last August that they were going to follow the settlement and that they don't care if Standing Rock changes their position. Contracts and legal settlements have deadlines, and they are meaningless if the deadlines aren't followed. The NCAA wants to get rid of as many Native American nicknames as possible. Why would they let UND have one back if they don't have to? As far as the NCAA is concerned it is a done deal. And all Al Carlson, and the save the nickname at all cost people heard was blah, blah, blah. Quote
watchmaker49 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 It's funny, you've been a member for 6 months. Are you saying that you have been telling us for a whole 6 months now? Or were you banned with another name and now you are here to try and say "I told you so"? A troll by any other name is still a troll. I'm not quite sure why you are attacking people that are trying to accomplish something that it seems you have wanted for a long time. That seems counterproductive, and maybe the sign of a bitter person. Just because the goal is the same the reason for trying to reach the goal are different. Furthermore, why did you always attack people who were saying for years what you have only been saying for a month? Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Somewhat funny is all of you sat on the other side with DaveK, Fetch, and Chewey when we tried to tell you what would happen and you dismissed us. Now you are singing the same song we sang and pretend you wrote the lyrics. We all wanted to keep the name initially when this all came out. We wanted the tribes to give their approval. They did not. So as a result we have to retire the name as per the settlement. Everything changes after the deadline was passed. After November 30th 2010, there was no way to keep the name without being sanctioned by the NCAA. They have a legally binding settlement. So the reason our tune has changed is before November 30th, 2010 there was still a chance to save the name with tribal approval. After the deadline the game changed. It was either change it or you are santioned. Quote
UNDBIZ Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 It's funny, you've been a member for 6 months. Are you saying that you have been telling us for a whole 6 months now? Or were you banned with another name and now you are here to try and say "I told you so"? A troll by any other name is still a troll. I'm not quite sure why you are attacking people that are trying to accomplish something that it seems you have wanted for a long time. That seems counterproductive, and maybe the sign of a bitter person. I've suspected for some time that Watchmaker is Almostheavenin2011. It appears Watchmaker believes the name is racist and is very bitter that we don't believe the same. We have also marginalized her "fight against racism" by making the retiring of the Sioux name about sanctions rather than race. 1 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 We all wanted to keep the name initially when this all came out. We wanted the tribes to give their approval. They did not. So as a result we have to retire the name as per the settlement. Everything changes after the deadline was passed. After November 30th 2010, there was no way to keep the name without being sanctioned by the NCAA. They have a legally binding settlement. So the reason our tune has changed is before November 30th, 2010 there was still a chance to save the name with tribal approval. After the deadline the game changed. It was either change it or you are santioned. You just can not get the fact that the game did not change after November 30th, 2010. The outcome was decided a long time before this and you chose to try running with the big dogs while you all were still pissing like a puppy. Then one day you realized that you were just the little pissing puppy and the big dogs left you behind to sniff at their piles. Only then did you finally come to the conclusion that damn they really are going to teach us a serious lesson on the pecking order of life and found out that you did not matter. Then it became now we have to save the university and forget that we all helped getting the unversity into the mess. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Just because the goal is the same the reason for trying to reach the goal are different. Furthermore, why did you always attack people who were saying for years what you have only been saying for a month? Saying for a month? You really haven't paid attention. I first said that it may be time to retire the name about 3 years ago, when the State Board of Higher Education first started looking at moving up the deadline. More than 2 years ago I was pointing out that Standing Rock wasn't going to change their position and didn't have time to change their constitution to allow a vote, so it wasn't going to happen. More than a year ago I was writing to North Dakota legislators, and having in person conversations with local legislators to try and defeat Carlson's Folly. I did some of the same before the special session in November. And have been posting vigorously the past 6 months or so. Not exactly last minute on the bandwagon. But it doesn't matter to me when people have accepted the reality of the situation. It is just important that enough people realize the situation before they make it even worse by putting the law back on the books. 1 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 I've suspected for some time that Watchmaker is Almostheavenin2011. It appears Watchmaker believes the name is racist and is very bitter that we don't believe the same. We have also marginalized her "fight against racism" by making the retiring of the Sioux name about sanctions rather than race. You have not "marginalized" nothing. To deny that Grand Forks and the state of North Dakota is not racist is hilarious. That is like saying Sheriff Paul Babeau deals with facts. Quote
UNDBIZ Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 You have not "marginalized" nothing. To deny that Grand Forks and the state of North Dakota is not racist is hilarious. That is like saying Sheriff Paul Babeau deals with facts. I never denied there being a lot of racist people in North Dakota. Nice try though. Oh, and I assume since you always say what you mean, that when you say we "have not marginalized nothing" that you really do mean we have marginalized your fight. Quote
homer Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 roll over is all these guys want to do It will be interesting how UND & people like 82 have alienated a couple generations of Fighting Sioux Fans & they will lose many of those Fans There have been plenty of schools that have changed their nickname and haven't lost "many" of their fans. There are examples all across the country but there is an example right in Dickinson. When they changed their name from the Savages to the Bluehawks people weren't happy about it but the strongest group of supporters are those that were there when the name change took place and the generation before and after. People still attend games. Again, you have no facts to back your claims. Quote
PhillySioux Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 You have not "marginalized" nothing. To deny that Grand Forks and the state of North Dakota is not racist is hilarious. That is like saying Sheriff Paul Babeau deals with facts. As in everyone? Just a few people? Half? 5%? 20%? Is my five year old racist? I need some clarification....... Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 As in everyone? Just a few people? Half? 5%? 20%? Is my five year old racist? I need some clarification....... Actually, if you read the statement carefully, he said that Grand Forks is not racist. "Deny that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious" Quote
watchmaker49 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Actually, if you read the statement carefully, he said that Grand Forks is not racist. "Deny that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious" Copy the whole quote instead of changing the qoute. If you could read carefully I said TO deny that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious. If you read more than a sports section you would be able to understand what I said. Quote
WeAreNorthDakota Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Copy the whole quote instead of changing the qoute. If you could read carefully I said TO deny that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious. If you read more than a sports section you would be able to understand what I said. Adding "to" to the beginning of the quote doesn't change its meaning whatsoever. I think you may be confused by your own use of a double negative. You said that denying that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious. Which I assume means that you agree that Grand Forks is not racist. Is that what you were going for? Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Copy the whole quote instead of changing the qoute. If you could read carefully I said TO deny that Grand Forks is not racist is hilarious. If you read more than a sports section you would be able to understand what I said. I believe that you meant "to deny that Grand Forks IS racist is hilarious". You kind of have the double negative thing going there, which makes it a positive. You are saying that you find it hilarious that others would deny that Grand Forks is not racist. That translates to saying that you find it hilarious to agree that Grand Forks is racist. Quote
dmksioux Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 "Watchmaker," Notice how both "82" and "WeareND" were able to point out the fault of your post without resorting to name calling? Perhaps you can try to do the same... Quote
Rick Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 The NCAA wanted to hear from the Standing Rock Government by November 30, 2010. They don't care if they ever hear from Standing Rock or Spirit Lake again at this point, the deadline is past. Actually, I think the NCAA wanted to hear from Standing Rock and Spirit Lake when they thought the tribes wanted to get rid of the name. Once the NCAA found out that the tribes wanted the name to remain and that they actually felt honored by the name is when they quickly kicked them to the curb and didn't want to hear from them anymore. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Actually, I think the NCAA wanted to hear from Standing Rock and Spirit Lake when they thought the tribes wanted to get rid of the name. Once the NCAA found out that the tribes wanted the name to remain and that they actually felt honored by the name is when they quickly kicked them to the curb and didn't want to hear from them anymore. Contractually they had to listen to both tribes until November 30, 2010. But both tribes had to agree to keep the name. After that date they don't have to listen to either and they don't care. Quote
scpa0305 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Actually, I think the NCAA wanted to hear from Standing Rock and Spirit Lake when they thought the tribes wanted to get rid of the name. Once the NCAA found out that the tribes wanted the name to remain and that they actually felt honored by the name is when they quickly kicked them to the curb and didn't want to hear from them anymore. Yeah....exactly. Quote
TBR Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Let me see if I can clear things up a bit. There ain't no double negatives that are clearly understood with difficulty. Glad I could help. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 To deny that Grand Forks and the state of North Dakota is not racist is hilarious. The entirety? Seriously? No. Are there individuals that are? Yes. So do you see individuals or just groups. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Contractually they had to listen to both tribes until November 30, 2010. But both tribes had to agree to keep the name. After that date they don't have to listen to either and they don't care. There's the problem: The NCAA now has all the power in this situation because they have a signed settlement agreement. And honestly, Standing Rock isn't going to change their stance so does the NCAA's stance matter? Quote
Rick Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Contractually they had to listen to both tribes until November 30, 2010. But both tribes had to agree to keep the name. After that date they don't have to listen to either and they don't care. I know what they had to do contractually, that's not my point. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.