I think saving your money for a name change would have been more important
if they had used the term "skunk bears" instead.   Thanks for your
thoughtful expostion of your arguments and bringing up new issues about who
pays for all this.  I do think an organization that is steered by money
grubbing folks who are not ignorant stumble bums may be more likely to take
advantage of good luck.  Bob Hamilton

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Griebel
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: UND trial moved to Dec 07


>Eric J. Burton wrote:
>> I am not sure what you guys expect from my school in the law suit
process? The NCAA over stepped its bounds with its policy, our school isn't
going to just back down and change our logo because the NCAA wrote a policy.
Other schools did that is there perogative.  Also, I am sure our lawyers
will conduct their selves in a professional manner. Its been said that there
are a lot of other interested parties that are supporting the school behind
the scenes. I don't think the NCAA wants this case to go to court.
>>
>
>What I actually "expect" is a judicial contest conducted in a
>professional manner by attorneys and a court who, frankly Scarlett,
>don't give a damn, . . . at least not in the sense that they're
>emotionally tied to their preferred outcome just because some represent
>one side professionally.  In that respect, the appropriate decision
>process for a fairly significant social issue will differ from the
>various processes of those who are high on emotion or low on
>consideration for others or both, for whatever motives.  However, an out
>of court compromise would fall short of "deciding the issue."
>
>What I'd "like" is the benefit of a written decision from a fairly high
>court, setting forth all the relevant arguments and the basis for the
>decision.  I'd expect to find things I hadn't considered and reading it
>makes for a wild Saturday evening now that Saturday Night Live turned
>mediocre.  I don't know who foots the legal bill for that.  It's
>somewhat inequitable if it falls to the people of North Dakota while we
>all benefit, though I don't see much benefit from a state court decision
>and none at all from an out of court compromise.  Don't look to me for
>dollars; I'm saving mine for my school's legal fight if we ever find
>there's actually one wolverine still living in the state and he's
>fightin' mad and won't take it any longer.
>
>I can't cavalierly jump to the conclusion that the NCAA "over stepped
>its bounds with its policy."  There have obviously been many schools
>that voluntarily initiated such changes because they felt it was the
>morally responsible thing to do.  Presumably, some didn't really need to
>go to the length they did but considered it the better path.  Just as
>surely, there are bound to be some that should have but didn't.  I don't
>think it's unreasonable for an association providing means for increased
>visibility to its voluntarily subscribed members to contemplate the way
>it allows its resources to be used.  I can understand a leadership group
>with the highest credentials for competence deliberating the questions
>of where the line should be drawn for identifying those "who should have
>but didn't" and what moral or legal responsibility the association
>leadership has for initiating a process for getting a properly drawn
>line.  I see the court process as an expected component of the
>line-drawing process that affords the obligatory due process.  If this
>policy was actually initiated by a bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant
>stumble-bums, then that bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums
>has credit due them for stumbling into the same decision that would be
>justified for a capable leadership group.  As much as I might hate
>seeing money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums get credit by pure luck,
>well, . . . . . . . .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>Bob Griebel