Blackheart Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 However, for some reason, you seem to believe that lemmings headed over the cliff and ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are worthy of praise because of their willingness to self-immolate for blind loyalty and for their absolute refusal to deal with reality. I’m guessing that you’re also a great admirer of General George Armstrong Custer, who divided his force and led his troops to slaughter, despite warnings from his scouts about the imminent danger ahead. But, hey, it was all good because Custer stuck to his convictions to the bitter end, right? There's no winners here, but I just keep reading page after page of people preaching on what the 'right way' to vote was on this issue. The nickname will be retired but everyone has to get their last shot in...It wasn't that long ago that we were all telling the NCAA to shove it up their a$$...Then they changed the rules and split the SIOUX fans into two groups, nickname only supporters vs UND D1 transition supporters...here's hoping that WE can all come together and support our teams AS WELL AS recognize and cherish the history that we enjoyed as Fighting Sioux! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So, in other words, ScottM thinks that saying "I'll kill you" is the same thing as actually carrying out a murder? Alrighty then, par for the course. Nah, I'd have to to tutor you in the finer points of criminal law as to when an utterance rises to the level of a crime. But then again, your idiotic comments make this board worth coming to in the off-season. Keep dancing Dave and there'll be nice a nickel in your tin cup ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You're entitled to your opinion. You happen to be badly misinformed on many facts, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still entitled to your opinion. Carry on. Dave, lets just take one FACT and you tell me how we have been misinformed on it. Here we go: If UND keeps the name, one of the sanctions will not be able to host NCAA playoff games. Now, if we don't get to host playoff games, there is a less than 1% chance that the football team will ever win a National Championship. You think that this won't hurt recruiting? Who would want to come to a school that had a slim to non chance to win a Championship because they can't host a playoff game?? So the result would be losing good players to other schools, ad we get the leftover players whos talent level is not even close to competitive schools. Please ell me how I have been misinformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Chewey, will you be helping Soderstrom with his appeal? I suggest you tell him to try the "Chewbacca defense". It'll be as solid as what I saw in front of Judge Erickson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Sicatoka Posted June 21, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 21, 2012 Watchmaker and his side have convictions and they stuck to them ... Guess what. I do too. I look out for the University of North Dakota first, and above the rest. PCM can vouch for me, but long ago I said (to him), "The minute the moniker becomes a net negative to UND it has to go." Well, NCAA sanctions, risk losing the Big Sky, the damage already out there in recruiting (per Dale Lennon), not to mention the "political football" aspects PCM brought up, the math says the moniker hit 'net negative' so it was time for it to go. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, NCAA sanctions, risk losing the Big Sky, the damage already out there in recruiting (per Dale Lennon), not to mention the "political football" aspects PCM brought up, the math says the moniker hit 'net negative' so it was time for it to go. But that was all propaganda spread by lies, disinformation and a refusal to drink Al Carlson's special party punch. In fact the brain washing of the North Dakota voter was so complete the North Koreans are taking notes and will be starting a cultural exchange program between Bismarck and Pyongyang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PCM Posted June 21, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, you have to admit that using that terminology in the context you were using it was wrong. When he divided his forces and got justifiably whacked by Sioux, Cheyenne, etc., he was a Lieutenant Colonel. So all the biographies about Custer in which it's noted that he was known as the "boy general" are wrong? Whatever. I know he wasn't a general at the time of Little Big Horn, but he is popularly referred to as "General Custer." Why? Because he had been a general at one time. That's a fact. And, Custer did not have convictions except to stoke his own ego and do things that would vault him one day into politics and sustain his name for posterity -- a consummate egoist. Bad example for your point, PCM. No, it's a great example of someone who was too blind and egotistical to see that he was leading those who depended on him into a catastrophe. It's one thing to put yourself at risk by pursuing a foolish goal and another thing to take those who follow your lead over the cliff as well. Your Custer quote reinforces my point. There is nothing wise, noble, honorable or laudable about those with tunnel vision who refuse to see disaster looming ahead because they'd prefer to pursue their own selfish goals at the expense of everyone else. Sometimes the wise thing to do is turn back before it's too late. Watchmaker and his side have convictions and they stuck to them and did not let people ignore them. True, and I admire their perservearance. But don't make more out of it than it is. After 40 years of publicly debating the nickname issue, a mere 7 percent of the electorate agrees with them. They've been totally ineffective at swaying public opinion to support their arguments. What they were successful in doing is enlisting the help of the NCAA, the biggest, baddest bully on the block, a bully who was willing to use the nuke in his back pocket to mandate a change that a minority of a minority wanted. Until you can sell me on a realistic idea of how to fight the bully without damaging UND's future and harming its athletics programs, you're not going to have me as a supporter in your fight. You worked for Dorgan, if memory serves me correctly from your statements here. Absolutely false. I have no idea where you came up with that. I've never worked for any politician. Why didn't you and the Alumni Association, SBoHE call out the members of Congress? A more relevant question is: Why haven't the voters of North Dakota held its Congressional delegation and other elected officials accountable? Why haven't the voters at Standing Rock held their elected officials accountable? The obvious answer is that in the grand scheme of things, the Fighting Sioux nickname is a minor issue compared to other issues facing the state, nation and the reservations. The politicians skated on the nickname issue because they knew they could. They haven't and won't suffer at the polls for their inaction. Have you seen Heidi Heitkamp's ad bashing Rick Berg for his lack of action on the nickname issue? Neither have I. If as much energy, even at the 11th hour, had been put to doing that as opposed to engaging in fear mongering and duplicity, perhaps we would not have had to retire it at all. This statement emphasizes the difference between us. I remember a time when many on these forums confidently predicted that there was no way in hell that the NCAA would dare to involve itself in the American Indian nicknames issue. It occurred to me at the time that the NCAA was expending a great deal of time and effort to study an issue that it intended to do nothing about. Sure enough, the NCAA did get involved. The threat that so many chose to ignore was real. The threat that you are now choosing to ignore is real. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You're entitled to your opinion. You happen to be badly misinformed on many facts, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still entitled to your opinion. Carry on. Good thing you saved all that money on not renewing your season tickets Dave, maybe you can use the funds to buy yourself a clue... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'm trying to figure out on which page in this thread the horse died.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 He was a major general in the Civil War. Demoted though after the Civil War and did not lead the 7th Calvary as a general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Guess what. I do too. I look out for the University of North Dakota first, and above the rest. PCM can vouch for me, but long ago I said (to him), "The minute the moniker becomes a net negative to UND it has to go." Well, NCAA sanctions, risk losing the Big Sky, the damage already out there in recruiting (per Dale Lennon), not to mention the "political football" aspects PCM brought up, the math says the moniker hit 'net negative' so it was time for it to go. Which occured 7 years ago and you kept going for the next 6 years though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Demoted though after the Civil War and did not lead the 7th Calvary as a general. Don't worry. I fixed my post to satisfy the forum historians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 What the heck are we talking about now??? The military ranking of General Custer?? Seriously!! Watchmaker do you just like to argue about everything? You were not getting the point being made. The point was how Custer;s selfish desires and inabbility to see the disaster right in front of him led to his downfall. That is the anology. Wuit trying to pick thru a small detail and argue that instead of the basis of the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Which occured 7 years ago and you kept going for the next 6 years though. The math didn't go "net negative" until there was no doubt the NCAA wouldn't budge (and that the Big Sky was starting to make noise). Once that changed, so did I. More amazing to me is that in all of this the only thing you could create a retort to is Custer's rank. Too much time out in the sun? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Demoted though after the Civil War and did not lead the 7th Calvary as a general. Calvary or Cavalry? If you're going to nitpick silly things, so can the rest of us. More amazing to me is that in all of this the only thing you could create a retort to is Custer's rank. Too much time out in the sun? You're not the only one amazed by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Don't worry. I fixed my post to satisfy the forum historians. It is common mistake that 99.999% of people make. He is referred to as a General way more than as a Lt. Colonel. I would bet that you have heard him called General Custer way more often than Lt. Colonel Custer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Calvary or Cavalry? If you're going to nitpick silly things, so can the rest of us. You're not the only one amazed by that. My bad it is still early in the morning here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The math didn't go "net negative" until there was no doubt the NCAA wouldn't budge (and that the Big Sky was starting to make noise). Once that changed, so did I. More amazing to me is that in all of this the only thing you could create a retort to is Custer's rank. Too much time out in the sun? I do have a nice tan though. As if they ever were going to change their mind to start with. Try this out for size. Call Rick Berg's office and ask to talk to him and they will tell you he is busy. Then call Rick Berg's office and say you have a 100K donation to make and see how fast you get to talk to him. Simply put it is the power structure of who has the power and who does not. This could go for any politician. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 As if they ever were going to change their mind to start with. We couldn't be sure until Al's Traveling Road Show got sent packing from Indianapolis. How dare I say that? The NCAA created a namesake exemption that got some schools off the hook back in 2005. That's "give".The state got three years to seek approval from two Sioux tribes without NCAA interference. That's "give". Seems there was some "give" potential there ... until Al's Traveling Road Show proved there was no more "give" from the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It is common mistake that 99.999% of people make. He is referred to as a General way more than as a Lt. Colonel. I would bet that you have heard him called General Custer way more often than Lt. Colonel Custer. It's a mistake to say this as well: "Custer was not a general." What's next? Are you going to tell my that Gen. George C. Patton (Archie Bunker reference) didn't exist and that the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Chewey, will you be helping Soderstrom with his appeal? I suggest you tell him to try the "Chewbacca defense". It'll be as solid as what I saw in front of Judge Erickson. [media=] That is pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'm trying to figure out on which page in this thread the horse died.. I was thinking a couple days ago it will be nice now that the issue has moreless been settled and the UND fans on all sides of the issue would get back to concentrating on the teams and start getting along again...and then the last 2 days have been as bad as any leading up to the vote. We need football and hockey to get started in a big way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 I was thinking a couple days ago it will be nice now that the issue has moreless been settled and the UND fans on all sides of the issue would get back to concentrating on the teams and start getting along again...and then the last 2 days have been as bad as any leading up to the vote. We need football and hockey to get started in a big way. We still have that potential ballot measure that would enshrine the name and logo into the ND Constitution. If it gets on the ballot, we will have to take it seriously and not assume it will be defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 We still have that potential ballot measure that would enshrine the name and logo into the ND Constitution. If it gets on the ballot, we will have to take it seriously and not assume it will be defeated. No way it even gets on the November ballot as a Constitutional amendment. Even if the measure would have been defeated by a small margin like 55-45, people are more hesitant to make a change to the constitution. But since it went down 67-33, what do supporters of putting it on the ballot for constitutional amendment think is going to happen? Are 18% or approximitely 30,000 people are just going to change their minds? Plus there are more people voting in the November elections. Is the percentage going to be drastically different? I think that the Constitutional amendment is dead if you ask me. If somehow it gets on the ballot, it will be defeated by at least the same margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 We still have that potential ballot measure that would enshrine the name and logo into the ND Constitution. If it gets on the ballot, we will have to take it seriously and not assume it will be defeated. After the ass-kicking the voters put on the initiative this month, it would be adding insult to injury to let it happen again, but as I've said many times nothing would surprise me anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.