Jump to content

NFL Changes 2015


Gothamite

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's not a news site that claims to be impartial. It's a freaking free blog discussing sports uniforms and logos - hardly the most serious of topics, yet one that we all find interesting for our own reasons. I think you'd have more of a case if you wanted to complain about his work on ESPN or from the Voice days. I disagree completely about "pushing" an agenda. Having and expressing opinions and pushing an agenda are two totally different things.

I'm curious about this unsolicited snarky email - this was you personally?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, piffle. That's only if you're scared of people.

There's nothing wrong with having opinions. Even on controversial subjects, and even if this options aren't shared by the whole of humanity.

We get it. You're Paul. The charade's over, Goth.

It's not a news site that claims to be impartial. It's a freaking free blog discussing sports uniforms and logos - hardly the most serious of topics, yet one that we all find interesting for our own reasons. I think you'd have more of a case if you wanted to complain about his work on ESPN or from the Voice days. I disagree completely about "pushing" an agenda. Having and expressing opinions and pushing an agenda are two totally different things.

I'm curious about this unsolicited snarky email - this was you personally?

That's because you agree with him. You even said it before...it's more noticeable if you don't agree with him. And I'll give a little and say he should have more freedom on his personal blog than ESPN articles.

And yes. He sent me an unsolicited snarky email. Just a little while ago. And I'm not afraid to say I responded in kind.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! We actually live just about a mile apart, but any Brooklynite will tell you South Slope isn't the same as the North Slope. ;)

And sure I agree with him on some subjects. But not all. And when I disagree, I skip right over it. Because it's his blog, not mine. Nobody gives a :censored: about my blogs, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! We actually live just about a mile apart, but any Brooklynite will tell you South Slope isn't the same as the North Slope. ;)

And sure I agree with him on some subjects. But not all. And when I disagree, I skip right over it. Because it's his blog, not mine. Nobody gives a :censored: about my blogs, sadly.

Fair enough :) I do enjoy the Packers blog though. Always have.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with him. I think there's a distinct difference between expressing opinions and pushing an agenda. To me, pushing an agenda would mean that is the primary goal, and the uniform content is really just there as a way to draw an audience for him to express his beliefs. Kind of like how fund raisers work - people may go to the event because they're fans of whatever activity it is, but that's really just a veil for the main purpose which is to sell whatever cause it's for. I think shows like Limbaugh are "pushing an agenda" because they're veiled as legitimate news shows or legitimate call-in shows, when in reality it's something different (I'd like to think I'd have that opinion even if I agreed with his agenda.)

I feel that while PL is very opinionated (like we all are) and certainly mixes in his opinions with his content,. It's not nearly the same as pushing an agenda - he's not looking for ways to work in political (again - I don't event think they're political) comments in to a discussion about the Browns stupid new pants. The driving force of the blog is the uniforms, with a side of commentary.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over the numbers already. At least they match the helmet numbers now. And yeah yeah that doesn't make them good in your opinion, I get it. It's been about 20 years!

Actually, they don't match since the helmet numbers aren't italics.

As for Lukas, I've only read his blog a handful of times. Honestly, anything worthwhile he posts is shared on this site. Plus, the few times I've read his stuff he has come across as a douche. I am personally "take it or leave it" with regards to stirrups, and I think his purple jihad is absurd. I just looked through this list now, and I think many of the teams are way, way off. So whatever. If he breaks uniform news, then I'll give him credit. But I won't give him the time of day again with regards to ranking uniforms, because ultimately he has his likes and dislikes just as we do, and he's not an "expert" on uniforms. I never read mindless "power rankings" page fillers, either, and this is the same thing.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I readily admit that if he was using his blog to talk about things I don't agree with, I am pretty sure it would make the reading of it less enjoyable. It's part of why I don't like country music.

But to me, he's really just a guy who likes sports logos/uniforms who did some things (and had some luck) to have a platform to discuss what is a very niche item. His opinions, good (fairly traditionalist) and bad ("I hate purple") are really neither here nor there. We all have tastes. That he's able to learn some things before I do and that he's generated discussion on this topic are the most positive things for me.

Regarding the politics, it's a blog but he does put that out there at the risk of alienating some people. I have a few business I don't patronize for similar reasons. I don't complain about them but they did push me away through risky behavior. Again, it's easy enough for me to swallow and I don't know how I'd react if I was on the right. But either way, he does it as a risk. And I think it's OK for people here to complain about it (without getting into the specifics that will risk violating the no-politics policy) as a negative of the blog.

Regarding the "Douchyness" I don't see it. Then again, if I had a nickel for everyone I knew who considers all liberals "douchy"... Hell, Lisa Simpson was labeled a "liberal douche" on another thread. I just have not noticed any "douchyness" there...the closest I can think of is that he made a negative comment about smoking once. I don't ready every word, though.

Regarding rude replies to tweets and emails, that's too bad. I'd honestly not have guessed it. I've never corresponded with him. But, taking what some of you say at face value, there's no need to be a jackass to those who correct/disagree with you; it looks insecure.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why having an opinion and freedom of speech is so frowned upon around here. It's his blog, he can have whatever content he wants; if you don't like it, don't read it.


You know what would be awesome? If New Era donated a huge chunk of the revenue from these Memorial Day caps to the Wounded Warriors foundation. It would go a long way and perhaps calm some of the tension.

Memorial Day is not about the wounded, it's about those lost. Right attitude, wrong holiday.

87Redskins.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of other boards for that. I come here for logo and uniform news, and would rather not have to sift through political rants before finding something worth reading.

Midway.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always Darren Rovell for you, then.

One of only two people that I have blocked on Twitter.

I'm not a twitterer, so what is the purpose of doing that? Is it symbolic, or was Darren Rovell actually tweeting and harassing you?

In regard to Rovell, I blocked him for a few reasons: 1.) We've had some exchanges both publicly and through email about his lack of crediting a source (including me), taking all credit for himself. He threw a fit to my editor when he was forced (through threat of legal action) to credit me and the website I wrote for in one of his tweets and subsequent articles. A few months later, he reached out to me to have a beer with him when he visited campus to give a speech to the business school, but ultimately did not show up; and 2.) Blocking him means that he'll no longer show up on my timeline when retweeted by those that I follow, including Phil Hecken and Paul Lukas through their and his affiliation with ESPN.

The other person was more symbolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, piffle. That's only if you're scared of people.

There's nothing wrong with having opinions. Even on controversial subjects, and even if this options aren't shared by the whole of humanity.

You can certainly discuss religious and politics in polite company if the context is right, and you're certainly entitled to having strong opinions on such matters if you can discuss the topics at hand respectfully.

Chris feels that politics and religion be kept at arms length on this forum. If you want to express your opinions on those matters there's any number of other places, both in the real world and on the web, where you can discuss them to your heart's content.

We have bent the rule in the past, so long as members are conducting themselves respectfully (and would have no need for such a ban in the first place if that were the default state of things when such topics come up). That being said? When I popped in last night I saw a guy going on about "liberal white guilt" and "pc nonsense." At that point? The discussion needs to go. It's no longer respectful discourse.

Ice Cap - I'm not trying to get the last word in or anything and then run, but it seems that PL is one of those topics that gets brought up and seems to instantly derail threads. Maybe not as much as politics or Washington football, but whatever the next tier down from there is. Obviously I'm continuing the derailment with this post, but it might be a good idea to consider stepping in when it looks like the thread is turning in to a PL debate - or just ban PL talk all together (personal discussions - not discussions of specific blog posts or ESPN articles.)

First off, as I stated above, the no politics policy comes from Chris. Not me. Those who have been here a while know I can be politically outspoken. As a mod on Chris' forum though? It's my job to enforce his policies as he sees fit.

Secondly, you're either trying to get the last word in after a moderator told everyone to let the political discussion die, or you're trying to restart the discussion after a moderator had ended it. Either way, sorry. No. Politics.

Finally, no one's banning Paul Lucas as a topic. At the end of the day? Paul is like any one of us. He just has a larger platform. If someone wants to sing his praises? They're allowed to do that. If someone wants to call him an idiot, they're free to do that too.

Besides, Paul's a big boy. And he visits the forums. If he wants to defend himself? He's more then capable of doing so.

The only thing I'd like to stress is that you leave the man's politics out of it.

Which brings me to...

Just stopping by to remind you all that we like to avoid political conversations, especially when they veer into the direction of "political correctness" and "insert native themed nickname/logo" discussions.

Discuss the pros and cons of Paul Lucas' blog all you want, but keep politics out of it.

With all due respect, his blog really does often have a specific political tone to it, which IMO is a valid complaint. I agree that this thread is not the place for partisan bickering, and I refuse to engage in it here, but is that really the same thing as merely expressing disapproval of how Lukas uses his blog as a political soapbox regardless of one's own personal ideology?

Paul is allowed to run his blog as he sees fit. He sees fit to inject a bit of his political leanings into it. That's his right. Chris, likewise, has the right to run his forum as he sees fit. And Chris wants a no politics policy. So here we are. If you want to criticize Lucas do so on the basis of his opinions re: sports design and aesthetics. Not his political leanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate is a far better endeavor than censorship and supressing debate to have some kind of happy utopia where everyone agrees and no one gets their feelings hurt...because that cannot actually exist.

Wrong. The no politics policy exists for two reasons. The first is become some parties are unable to have that discussion respectfully. The second is...

There are plenty of other boards for that. I come here for logo and uniform news, and would rather not have to sift through political rants before finding something worth reading.

...this. It's Chris Creamer's Sports Logos Community. People should be free to browse the forums as part of their hobby without having to deal with off-topic political discussion.

If you feel you absolutely have to have a political debate on the internet? Do so elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.