troy_3223

I should have been more clear in my screed. I'm left of center myself - hell, my wife framed the front page when Obama was elected and we proudly have it on display on the wall in our living room. But there's liberal, and then there's Seattle liberal, which has fully embraced the Sounders. It has very little to do with politics, really (maybe you have to live here a while to fully understand). They are the people who insist on bringing their obnoxious dogs to the bars, people who proudly tell you they don't support organized sports outside of soccer (and some of them even insist on calling it football). Seattle liberals are notoriously passive-aggressive and self-absorbed. (for the curious, I'm sure you can find the "ask a Seattle Liberal" column from our alt. newspaper somewhere online). It is the same qualities which have ensured that my favorite pizza restaurant now offers a gluten-free menu (have you tasted gluten-free pizza? It tastes like sadness boiled in the tears of unhappy children). It is these qualities which would ensure a lack of support for the NHL in Seattle, rather than political ones. Don't get me wrong - I love Seattle. I don't think I can live happily in any other city on earth. I've spent 26 of my 34 years living here. I can live with the Seattle liberals. But I don't think the NHL can.

This. Here's the specifics I left out with my "Bellevue is Glendale" argument. Thanks, DG! I'd rather set fire to my tenders than drive into Bellevue for any reason. Especially if NHL traffic is added to the normal flow of distracted drivers. As much as I'd like to see the NHL return to my hometown, it's just not going to work out here. I think we all know the issues at hand by now. And Bellevue isn't a viable solution to those problems. The average Sounders-jersey-wearing-gluten-allergic-passive-aggressive-liberal Seattlites (who burned down or otherwise drove out every decent burger joint in the area with torches and pitchforks whilst I was away getting educated in Virginia) wouldn't support an NHL team. After two or three years, I'd be just like BLUELANDBeliever (no offense) griping about my team leaving town for Saskatoon (except that I wouldn't be able to truthfully blame it on mismanagement or backroom deals to save the Coyotes). It's a bit sour for me every time someone brings up Seattle as a viable option. We're a lot like Atlanta in one respect - we've had our chances. Granted an NHL franchise never touched the ice here, but there was the expansion deal in the late 70s, and the proposal to move the Islanders a few years later. There are more realistic markets, specifically Quebec, Portland (I can still cross my fingers for that one), and Houston. I'd put Hamilton on that list if bridges weren't burned there, and KC if the fanbase hadn't proved dodgy. I think the NHL would have to look at what TNSE did in selling season tickets as a benchmark for expanding/relocating. I think any of those three cities could sell 10000 season tickets. I don't see Seattle doing that. Hell, they couldn't even keep the Thunderbirds in town (they now play in Kent, which might only be 20 minutes south of Seattle, but is one hell of a commute after 5 from the city or from the eastside burbs).

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. That's basically how I see things. People strive to do what's right, and don't always succeed. It's even hard to stay within what we personally decide is right sometimes. I see speeding as unlawful but not unethical (except when it directly endangers other drivers). I see theft as both unlawful and unethical. Not that the law is without merit, as it is a safety issue. I would respond to the political thing, but this thread is already spawning too many tangents (except to say, it really irritates me that while both conservatives and liberals are necessary for honest and open debate, both sides have degenerated to the point that neither can believe that a sane and rational person would disagree with them and the world would be better off without the other side) Well, this was a really good discussion while it lasted. I think I'll go back to harmlessly lurking again. The sig is from NHL 94. I made a bunch of them a while ago with "modernized" uniforms. I think you can still dig it up in the concepts section.

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.

1) I wasn't saying the airline situation wasn't also unethical. It is. However, it seems to me to be fundamentally different from the situation of the counterfeit jerseys because it involves a third party infringing on the intellectual property of the first party. My point in making the distinction is that (to use your starbucks analogy) someone else has just put down a dollar for a five dollar drink and sold it to the guy behind him in line for three dollars. The person making the purchase didn't rip off starbucks, but he did give the guy ahead of him more incentive to continue ripping off starbucks. 2) Yes, people will always have the choice not to buy a jersey at all. My argument is that the league will likely wait until there are enough people buying counterfeits to show that there is a captive market before they do anything about it, thus ensuring doing so will be profitable. They don't want to make the same mistakes the RIAA did. 3) There have been a few arrests made, most of them dealing with counterfeit fashion merchandise, I believe, where actual consumers have been charged. 4) Of course Reebok is unethical in what they charge for their jerseys. The whole RBK Edge system (and cool base, and under armour, and whatever other "space-age" materials are being used) is just an excuse to charge a lot more for jerseys. Furthermore, Reebok has (in my opinion) used the whole counterfeit mess to justify lowering the quality of the replica jerseys. But I have no control over whether or not Reebok is behaving ethically. I only have the power to control my own ethics. 5) I try to beat the system every chance I get. I have my own lines, and choose not to cross them. I went through a period where I downloaded music in my twenties, using a lot of the same justifications I've read in this thread. I can't believe that was ten years ago. After a while, I started to see through my own justifications, and realized that I'd crossed one of my own lines. So I stopped. As for the internet feeds for the MLB games, I was just going to Kiro 710's website, then that went down. There were other mirror sites, but they went down the next day. I'm sure if I would have pushed the issue, I could have found a way around it, but it wasn't worth crossing my personal line. As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer instances where I am even tempted to cross the lines that I set up for myself. And most of my friends live by similar moral codes. So I assume most people are ethical. I wasn't this way in my twenties, and neither were most of my friends. My closest friend, for example, is out of work, and his wife had twins a year ago. He is an eletrician, and he could get work "under the table," but he chooses not to (even though we all tell him he's insane not to) because it's unethical, and if the laws were ever enforced, he could jeopardize his license and his union standing. So yes, there are people who refuse to resort to what they view to be unethical to beat the system. I wish I had always been that person, but really it's been in the last ten years. To clarify, I don't feel I have any moral authority to judge people who behave differently than I choose to. That is why I was trying to make a pragmatic argument, rather than a strictly moral or ethical one, that is, what are the long term consequences of this action, what are the likely responses the leagues are going to make, etc.

I respect your opinion and even agree with it to a point. What I find distressing, and this may or may not be you, but there are those who are self-righteous about this but think nothing of 'beating the system' in some other way that's to their benefit. That's why I posted earlier that we're all hypocrites to some degree. It just depends what it is. For example, in another thread someone asked about what's called hidden-city airline ticketing, where a flight goes from City A through City B to City C, but the fare from A to C is lower than the fare from A to B. Why can't they just buy a ticket for the lower amount (from A to C) and get off at B? The airlines' view is that it's cheating, customer's think that's crazy and do it anyway. That's just not cool, IMO. The argument that everyone is trying to beat the system is as valid as the argument that the products cost too much not to buy from copyright infringers. This particular analogy doesn't hold because the customer in this scenario is still giving money to the people legitimately providing the service. My problem with people buying counterfeit merchandise is that it perpetuates the growing problem of affordability in sports. I think this problem is best highlighted by MLB radio. When I first moved from Seattle to Virginia, I was able to listen to games for free, because no one thought to charge someone for listening to out of area radio broadcasts. Then the MLB realized that there were plenty of douchebags willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for something that was readily available and free. Rather than complain, those of us that could simply found less convenient ways to get the same thing for free (or for much cheaper). Rather than lower subscription rates, the MLB raised them, and then squashed the internet feeds. I see the same thing happening with the jerseys. A lot of us can't afford them. So we feel justified in buying cheap knockoffs. Then Reebok or whoever introduces space-age materials like the RBK Edge system or Cool Base or what-have-you, and people start producing and purchasing knockoffs. The leagues aren't doing anything about it. Yet. So it must be okay. But pretty soon, once the market is big enough to show a dependence, the leagues will crack down, and the people who are willing to buy counterfeit merch will be forced to buy from the leagues again, only this time at even higher prices than when they first rebelled. The bottom line is - it's illegal (but you probably won't be prosecuted for buying it) it's unethical (but not any more-so than downloading mp3s or having your layover in your actual destination provided you find a way to get your luggage to arrive at the same destination), but moreover, it worsens the situation that created the market for the fakes in the first place. People who try to live and behave as ethically and morally as possible (we are actually the silent majority, despite public opinion) get further screwed in the process.

NFL - I really like all of the monochromatic looks, especially the seahawks. I think the light blue chargers throwbacks are highly overrated. I have no opinion whatsoever about silver facemasks, which seems to be the least popular opinion of them all. NBA - I think the abbreviated city names work with the NBA jerseys. I really like the old Denver Nuggets rainbow uniforms MLB - I prefer the uniforms from the pullover era over the current one. The best Astros uniform is the pullover from 1987-1988, with the rainbow striping toned down and relegated to the shoulder. I think the Mariners (my favorite team) is in desperate need of a complete overhaul, but everyone seems to think their current look is one of the best in the league. The notion of home uniform with nickname and road uniform with city is somewhat silly. Anything that homogenizes the look of the league is doing damage. NHL - Asymmetric designs (old Ottawa red home uniform, Atlanta powder blue) Picasso Coyote uniforms The Burger King alt teams with different designs for home and away Why all the love for the mustard Preds jerseys? The logo was stupid, the color, while somewhat cooler when you can see it in person and see how the layers work together, was still pretty awful. Quebec, Hartford, and Winnipeg all had pretty bland uniforms, why do I have to keep seeing them?