Architects make "statements" all the time, often meaningless. Suspended roofs are nothing new; to believe there was an airplane envisioned is, as stated earlier, a stretch for me. You like it and see airplanes, I don't see airplanes unless you're talking about an upside down space ship, what difference does it make? If the architects wanted it to be evocative of old ships sailing the river right outside what difference does that make? As for the helmet, I never said I didn't see the tailfin, I just said it wasn't done well enough to keep me from seeing a shark fin (which is from whence much aircraft design has evolved.) I will state unequivocally that logo never should have been used, even for the short period of time it did. And I'll also state that your getting all worked up over this baffles me - you're never going to get everyone to have the same opinion as you and that's fine.
Indeed but we only respond in kind, I responded to your post of "HUH" when somebody else said it had a look of our old helmet tail fin blah blah blah, in all honesty I couldn't give two fks what you think really, it is the internet and a chance for a bit of banter. Go sharks
Looking the fool? I had even suggested there may be an architect's "vision" out there. Are you the type of fool that clicks on every link he runs across?
You posted right after the link was posted and if you are going to make comments such as "I would imagine that if an airplane was the inspiration the architects and their PR people would have suggested that in their pitch - I never saw that and for me it is a "huge stretch.", then I would think any rational person would have at least done a minimum amount of research before making such a comment. I don't click on any link I come upon, but if I am posting on a forum and I see a link that is easily identified as pertaining to the subject at hand, posted by a long time poster on said forum, then I am certainly going to click on that link before I make a ridiculous comment. This keeps me from looking the fool. You on the other hand, seem to feel the need to always post a contrary opinion, often with absolutely no facts to back you up. This continues to make you look the fool.
Men, brothers... Must fight over everything? Can we not agree as gentlemen that in every time, dimension, in every decision past and future, and in every way until our sun burns out and earth is no more that it sucks to be a Jets fan? Are we not all here together in THE MIDDLE OF GOD DAMN JUNE because our hearts bubble over with Jets green. Shall we not perhaps take solace in the fact that we are not alone??
What is the big fucking deal, boy? I was responding to the OP and his three pictures and his characterization of the Jets uniform. That is quite a bit different than the link posted later that I did not click on because I wasn't that interested. Now that you've made a federal case about it I have clicked the link and see them loosely referring to an "iconic" wing which is a horizontal surface. The OP had made reference and even later illustrated his reference to a tailfin which, you should know is a vertical surface. Yeah, the whole thing is still a "huge stretch" for me and for everybody else because it was simply a discarded design concept for a failed proposal. I don't need facts to voice an opinion. As for your comment, bolded above, it hasn't worked.
It's really strange to me, boy, that you and O'B have a problem with someone voicing a clearly identified opinion on a forum dedicated to sharing opinions. What is so threatening about my doing so that causes you to show up three days later with your infantile personal attacks and not even get involved in the topic of discussion?
