A Matter of Ph**king Principle

[G-Fafif]

="metsguyinmichigan":1clc7wsc]Just noticed the writing on the tarp. What the heck is that? I'm assuming it's a giant ad. What does it say?[/quote:1clc7wsc] Sports SPDR or something to that effect. They're the sponsor of Mets rain delays. No, I'm not kidding.

Gwreck Apr 02 2009 09:49 AM

="batmagadanleadoff":kzvkayl1] ="Gwreck":kzvkayl1]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:kzvkayl1] Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:kzvkayl1] I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave. Nymr83 Apr 02 2009 09:56 AM ="Gwreck":2wlwkjea] ="batmagadanleadoff":2wlwkjea] ="Gwreck":2wlwkjea]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:2wlwkjea] Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:2wlwkjea] I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave.[/quote:2wlwkjea] as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns batmagadanleadoff Apr 02 2009 10:00 AM ="Nymr83":f5xc7li3]as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns[/quote:f5xc7li3] Understood. I assume that we're all posting hypothetically -- under the premise that we don't know for sure if and why the student was ejected. By the way, I dislike the idea that the Mets could impose a dress code in the press box, although they have the right to, if that's their choice. Otherwise, the slope really has slipped; does this mean that the Phillies broadcasters (e.g. Harry Kalas) can't wear Phillie gear? Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 10:08 AM You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out. Centerfield Apr 02 2009 10:43 AM Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread: The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear. As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on. Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him. Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 11:14 AM CF - "The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...." I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful. metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 11:21 AM No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it. It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here." But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing. Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge. The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 02 2009 11:24 AM It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos). It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?"). ="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle? Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.) metirish Apr 02 2009 12:40 PM How do we explain this to the Iraqis ? Number 6 Apr 02 2009 09:08 PM To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine. To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are? Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace. Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:16 AM No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2009 06:52 AM ="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field. Ashie62 Apr 03 2009 09:45 AM Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!

[Gwreck]

="batmagadanleadoff":kzvkayl1] ="Gwreck":kzvkayl1]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:kzvkayl1] Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:kzvkayl1] I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave. Nymr83 Apr 02 2009 09:56 AM ="Gwreck":2wlwkjea] ="batmagadanleadoff":2wlwkjea] ="Gwreck":2wlwkjea]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:2wlwkjea] Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:2wlwkjea] I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave.[/quote:2wlwkjea] as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns batmagadanleadoff Apr 02 2009 10:00 AM ="Nymr83":f5xc7li3]as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns[/quote:f5xc7li3] Understood. I assume that we're all posting hypothetically -- under the premise that we don't know for sure if and why the student was ejected. By the way, I dislike the idea that the Mets could impose a dress code in the press box, although they have the right to, if that's their choice. Otherwise, the slope really has slipped; does this mean that the Phillies broadcasters (e.g. Harry Kalas) can't wear Phillie gear? Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 10:08 AM You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out. Centerfield Apr 02 2009 10:43 AM Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread: The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear. As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on. Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him. Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 11:14 AM CF - "The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...." I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful. metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 11:21 AM No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it. It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here." But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing. Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge. The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 02 2009 11:24 AM It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos). It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?"). ="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle? Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.) metirish Apr 02 2009 12:40 PM How do we explain this to the Iraqis ? Number 6 Apr 02 2009 09:08 PM To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine. To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are? Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace. Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:16 AM No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2009 06:52 AM ="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field. Ashie62 Apr 03 2009 09:45 AM Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!

[nymr83]

="Gwreck":2wlwkjea] ="batmagadanleadoff":2wlwkjea] ="Gwreck":2wlwkjea]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:2wlwkjea] Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:2wlwkjea] I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave.[/quote:2wlwkjea] as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns batmagadanleadoff Apr 02 2009 10:00 AM ="Nymr83":f5xc7li3]as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns[/quote:f5xc7li3] Understood. I assume that we're all posting hypothetically -- under the premise that we don't know for sure if and why the student was ejected. By the way, I dislike the idea that the Mets could impose a dress code in the press box, although they have the right to, if that's their choice. Otherwise, the slope really has slipped; does this mean that the Phillies broadcasters (e.g. Harry Kalas) can't wear Phillie gear? Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 10:08 AM You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out. Centerfield Apr 02 2009 10:43 AM Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread: The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear. As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on. Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him. Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 11:14 AM CF - "The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...." I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful. metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 11:21 AM No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it. It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here." But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing. Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge. The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 02 2009 11:24 AM It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos). It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?"). ="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle? Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.) metirish Apr 02 2009 12:40 PM How do we explain this to the Iraqis ? Number 6 Apr 02 2009 09:08 PM To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine. To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are? Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace. Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:16 AM No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2009 06:52 AM ="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field. Ashie62 Apr 03 2009 09:45 AM Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!

[batmagadanleadoff]

="Nymr83":f5xc7li3]as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns[/quote:f5xc7li3] Understood. I assume that we're all posting hypothetically -- under the premise that we don't know for sure if and why the student was ejected. By the way, I dislike the idea that the Mets could impose a dress code in the press box, although they have the right to, if that's their choice. Otherwise, the slope really has slipped; does this mean that the Phillies broadcasters (e.g. Harry Kalas) can't wear Phillie gear?

Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 10:08 AM

You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out.

Centerfield Apr 02 2009 10:43 AM

Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread: The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear. As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on. Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him.

Rockin' Doc Apr 02 2009 11:14 AM

CF - "The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...." I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful.

metsguyinmichigan Apr 02 2009 11:21 AM

No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it. It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here." But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing. Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge. The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 02 2009 11:24 AM

It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos). It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?"). ="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle? Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.)

metirish Apr 02 2009 12:40 PM

How do we explain this to the Iraqis ?

Number 6 Apr 02 2009 09:08 PM

To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine. To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are? Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace.

Nymr83 Apr 03 2009 06:16 AM

No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2009 06:52 AM

="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field.

Ashie62 Apr 03 2009 09:45 AM

Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!

[Guest Edgy DC]

You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out.

[Centerfield]

Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread:

The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear.

As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on.

Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

CF - "The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...."

I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it.

It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here."

But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing.

Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge.

The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos).

It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?").

="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle?

Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.)

[metirish]

How do we explain this to the Iraqis ?

[Guest Number 6]

To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine.

To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are?

Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace.

[nymr83]

No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right.

Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field.

[ashie62]

Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!