loogodude90

The other thing that bugs me are people wearing fakes who come over and check the price of legit ones to "see how much they saved". Well, they spent less, but since they didn't buy a real jersey, they didn't "save" anything, they just paid less for something that is worth less. Big difference.

Absolutely, these are ignorent people with no knowledge of jerseys, sports logos, or anything else to do with them. Im sure most people on these boards pity these people. They will never know the joy of purchasing an authentic jersey, knowing its the real thing and being able to know why.

It's hard for me to not make a joke about misspelling "ignorant." You walked right into that one. But I won't say anything else about that.

I disagree with you guys, I consider myself to be very knowledgeable about sports logos, but that wouldn't necessarily stop me from buying a fake. I mean it's not like I actually play for the team. As long as the fake doesn't have blatant errors, I would have no problem buying and wearing it. I think I would get more "joy" out of buying a fake and being able to buy something else with the money I saved, than supposed joy gotten from buying an authentic. And I guess that's what makes people different.

I always thought anachronistic jersey/player combos like that were just kind of a fashion thing, though. Not necessarily because the wearer thinks that that player actually wore that jersey.

This would make a cool concept, but...

Product Name:NHL New York Jets #10 HAWERCHUK WHITE

What I really want to know is if these really sell. I mean, even someone who didn't know anything about sports would recognize the upside-down M used as a W. Who in their right mind would buy this jersey?

Actually, it looks like they're heading to the playoffs.

Death to the Ball-In-Glove logo

Agreed.

And, I hate the following:

Anything Minnesota Wild

Anything Baltimore Ravens

Anything Atlanta Thrashers

Anything Tennessee Titans

The Original AZ D'backs - looked like a bad prison tattoo.

Steelers round jersey font.

Mets black drop-shadows.

Pinstripes on basketball jerseys.

Pinstripes on any jerseys for me... The yankees get a pass.....all others would be better off without in my (probably unpopular) opinion.

For basketball, I think the Orlando Magic actually look better with pinstripes. Remove the pinstripes and they would look very boring and dull. I think their two pinstripe-less sets were their worst.

That said, I think the N.O. Hornets looked better w/out pinstripes.

I really like the current Toronto Blue Jays uniforms, colors, and logos.

I like the black Athletics jersey.

I liked the Royals' set when they had black in their identity.

I liked the Anaheim Angels pinstriped/Disney set (not sure how "unpopular" that was though).

I liked the Texas Rangers' set when they had black in their identity.

I think the current Milwaukee Brewers' set is far superior to the ball-in-glove era. I also liked the mid-late 90's Brewers' identity better than the BiG era.

I didn't mind the Pitt Pirates' red vests.

I don't mind the O's "O's" cap.

I like the BuffaSlug.

I like everything about the Charlotte Bobcats' identity.

I like everything about the L.A. Clippers' identity.

I like everything about the NJ Nets identity.

I've grown to like the OKC Thunder's logo/colors/uniforms.

I like the Washington Wizards colors and logo.

I don't mind the Mets using black in their identity. I do think they should tone it down a little.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

This isn't a good discussion point because it's stretched so incredibly thin. I hear it a lot as the last refuge of people who know they are wrong--most commonly, software pirates. "Ok fine, it's wrong for me to download games illegally, but you probably break the speed limit so shut up. I still win nyah nyah"

I actually agree with hockey week on this... I mean he's really just saying that almost everyone is a lawbreaker. Do you honestly disagree with that?

I honestly disagree. I think while the observation is basically true, there needs to be distinctions made. This statement paints an unfairly cynical view of humanity, when a lot of people really do strive to do what is right. A person who is ethical and lawful in every respect except for occasionally exceeding the speed limit is not the same as one who is able to justify theft.

That said, this argument is perfectly reasonable when attacking any argument made from moral authority. Moral authority does not exist and can not be the basis for any argument, because this observation is true. Arguments must be made using logic and pragmatism. I try to live what I see to be an honorable life. I think we all define for ourselves what is honorable and moral and ethical. And I think we all do our best to stay within the lines we set up for ourselves. So for the most part, I see everyone as moral and ethical, even if they don't make the same decisions I would make.

I agree that people strive to do what's right, but I think everyone is guilty of something. George Bush thought what he was doing was right, and many thought he was wrong. Barack Obama tries to do what he thinks is right, and many think he is doing what's wrong. I try to do what I think is right, and many (I guess) think it's wrong. The definition for "right" is very vague.

With your comment about the speed limit thing, I disagree. Going over the speed limit is the cause of many accidents. So how is going over the speed limit not as wrong as theft? In many ways, I can see speeding as being even worse than theft - in that speeding is an actual danger to the safety of yourself and others.

Nice sig btw... NHL '94? I'm not even a much of a hockey fan and I loved NHL '95 and '96 for Genesis.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

This isn't a good discussion point because it's stretched so incredibly thin. I hear it a lot as the last refuge of people who know they are wrong--most commonly, software pirates. "Ok fine, it's wrong for me to download games illegally, but you probably break the speed limit so shut up. I still win nyah nyah"

I actually agree with hockey week on this... I mean he's really just saying that almost everyone is a lawbreaker. Do you honestly disagree with that?

For the 6th time, we (you and me specifically) aren't supposed to be arguing on the forums, as per moderators request. But, since you responded to something I posted (which wasn't directed at you at all)

And for the 6th time, that's not true, we were asked to stop the mosque argument. Please stop bringing out that old line everytime your views are debated.

...At the expense of behaving like tyrants towards the natives, on the natives' land.

The damage to the Indians was done long, long before the Constitution - from the early fighting in Jamestown to King Philip's War in New England. Therefore the Founders aren't at fault for English/Indian tension.

See: slavery.

Not in the east.

WTF is your obsession with the mental hospital these days? I didn't go to one. You're very misinformed anyway if you think a mental hospital lets those in need of their help out after two days.

"And for the 6th time, that's not true, we were asked to stop the mosque argument."

And for the 7th time, it is true. I'm not going to dig it up but at one point a moderator did state on a forum that we (you and me specifically) need to stop arguing over the threads.

"Not in the east."

Slavery was widespread in Massachusetts, among other eastern states.

"WTF is your obsession with the mental hospital these days? I didn't go to one. You're very misinformed anyway if you think a mental hospital lets those in need of their help out after two days."

I mean when it comes down to it, they are generating profit and success for themselves by exploiting masses of people, and doing so illegally.

Did you learn any American history at all in school? The Founding Fathers were all about freeing Americans from English tyranny and creating a small republican government that wouldn't act exactly like the king did. As far as profits were concerned, they wanted people to be able to keep the fruits of their labors, but they weren't interested in sucking every dollar out of Americans to make money like you're suggesting.

Granted, some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves which would fall under the exploiting people part of your statement, but that has nothing to do with their motives for breaking away from England.

For the 6th time, we (you and me specifically) aren't supposed to be arguing on the forums, as per moderators request. But, since you responded to something I posted (which wasn't directed at you at all), I'll respond.

"Did you learn any American history at all in school?"

Yes, I did.

"The Founding Fathers were all about freeing Americans from English tyranny and creating a small republican government that wouldn't act exactly like the king did."

...At the expense of behaving like tyrants towards the natives, on the natives' land.

"As far as profits were concerned, they wanted people to be able to keep the fruits of their labors,"

See: slavery.

"but that has nothing to do with their motives for breaking away from England."

I didn't say the exploitation had anything to do with motives. That doesn't change the fact that they did in fact exploit people.

Now my question for you... Did YOU learn anything in history class?

And here's another one - Weren't you supposed to take a break from this site because you were going to a mental hospital or something? I mean if your back already thats fine, and I hope you are doing better. (Sorry, just pre-empting because I have a very strong feeling this discussion is going to end with you claiming that I am insane. So figure I might as well get that out of the way.)

grown men shouldnt wear jerseys anyway.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one.

Is there a reason for that? I don't understand. PArticularly on a website for people obsessed with logos, uniforms, and sports in general.

Not to mention some "grown men" who wear jerseys earn more in one year than you will probably see in your life time.

I'm really surprised that nobody's played devil's advocate here and said something to the effect of "the American founding fathers were committing illegal acts when they declared independence." Could there be a positive aspect, one of protest perhaps, to the illegality angle?

Do not make the mistake that "legal = ethical" and vice-versa. While I am not an American and probably have not studied your history as much as many of you have, the actual "Declaration of Independence" may have been illegal, but at its heart is not "unethical". The Nuremberg Laws and "Jim Crow" type laws & enforcement may have been "legal", but they are certainly not "ethical".

Smoking or possessing marijiana is illegal (even though I don't do it) and you may be supporting organized crime if you purchase it, but does that automatically make it "unethical"?

I don't think it's unethical, but I am sure a lot of people do, including law enforcement, judges, etc. One could make the argument that any inhalant that clouds your judgment causes you to be a danger to others. I think introducing the term "ethical" throws everything out of the window, because then it all becomes about what you think is "acceptable" vs. what others think is "acceptable." It's like bringing religion into the conversation... nothing really to do with illegal vs. legal (necessarily). I mean heck we might as well make it a conversation about abortion then (and I said that for example, please let's not get into a discussion about abortion).

This is what happens when you take an italicized number and try to force it to be something its not.

A clear example of why you should live and let live.

I have a Penguins jersey from the Mellon Arena official team store whose crest is bubbling. Idk if that's from so much use and washing, or if there's something wrong with it. But, bubbling should not be your only indicator.

I'm really surprised that nobody's played devil's advocate here and said something to the effect of "the American founding fathers were committing illegal acts when they declared independence." Could there be a positive aspect, one of protest perhaps, to the illegality angle?

again, this is coming from an avid jersey collector who spots fakes all the time, and to my knowledge, has no fakes. I'm just trying to see all sides, and so far, nobody has challenged those who have been touting the illegality argument

I'm not sure I equate the loft Enlightenment-inspired ideals of America's Founding Fathers with the Chinese counterfeiter's desire to make a quick buck on other peoples' trademarks and fan ignorance.

I wouldn't equate those two, but I would say they are pretty similar situations.

I mean when it comes down to it, they are generating profit and success for themselves by exploiting masses of people, and doing so illegally.

No pic just yet, but Modano is said to have accepted an offer for a one year deal with the Red Wings. I just can't imagine him not wearing Green and yellow/gold

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Modano hasn't worn a green or gold jersey in ages.

He didn't say the jersey was green or gold. Nitpick fail.

How silly of me to assume he meant Dallas' undetectable green and gold trim. Nitpick fail nitpicker.

Yeah, it was quite silly of you. If its that "undetectable" then you need to get your eyes checked, im not kidding.

P.S. Pointing out blatant mistakes isnt nitpicking.

double post

No pic just yet, but Modano is said to have accepted an offer for a one year deal with the Red Wings. I just can't imagine him not wearing Green and yellow/gold

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Modano hasn't worn a green or gold jersey in ages.

Well, he just said wearing green and gold, that doesnt mean the entire JERSEY has to be green and gold.

I still hear a lot of negativity regarding the Lewiston Maineiacs logo. I love it though, it's always been one of my favs.

I've never seen that before, but i love it, as long as its not for a pro team...

I actually liked the Dallas Stars' "Mooterus" logo.

And I agree with you about the Nordiques logo. Looking at it nowadays, it just seems so dated and old. Though I actually like the Jets and North Stars logos.

I liked the mooterus too. I think there are just too many perverts out there.

Cool idea for a thread. I have a feeling we'll see a lot of "you know, i never really liked that either, but i didnt say anything because i thought i was the only one".

Anyway, I'll go with the new Capitals identity, even including the alternate logo that it seems like everyone loves. I realize that r/w/b makes a lot of sense for DC but i still think their old identity was more intimidating and stronger.

Alonzo Mourning as a New Jersey Net:

how do you speak a logo? (logo in speech bubble)

Well, it looks like the bottom is supposed to resemble a comic strip or something... And the Nets bubble is on the right, which is usually the "punchline" of a comic strip. Maybe they were foreshadowing what a joke the Nets were going to become.