So, how about you just let me wear what I want to wear? I can keep wearing my cycling gear and you can keep wearing regular clothes on your bike. Maybe you can wear a suit and tie to the gym, too.

Roll your pants leg up…yeah, ’cause that doesn’t look dumb.

The headline proclaims that the post is about over-accessorized players. The text picks up a completely dead-horse thread about performance enhancers.

Bryan lists six items that either show that Carlos is over-accessorized, or “enhancing his performance” or both. It’s unclear which of these ideas really structures the post.

As Matt pointed out in post 31, the source of the humor here really isn’t the number of superfluous accessories Guillen has on. (One infers that a player is OVER-accessorized when he wears accessories that exceed his needs.)

The hat is needful because it is part of the uniform and is only brought in unde the performance-enhancement concept. The tape is likely needful because of an injury. The carcinogenic dip does not fit the “performance enhancement” concept and isn’t conspicuously needless because it’s so widely used in baseball. This group of three is unremarkable and would not have earned mention if found without the other three items.

The item about eyewear is funny, but falls under the “over-accessorized” concept rather than the “performance-enhancement” one. The joke is about how they exceed reasonable needs rather than how they confer some special benefit. So again, we’re switching between concepts.

The crosses and sleeves are treated as performance enhancers in a problematic way. The item abut the sleeves is syntactically ambiguous. Bryan writes: “And you thought the necklaces were dumb.”

1. Is Bryan talking about Titanium necklaces, like the ones on TV? If so, it actually makes more sense to put titanium on your arms than around your neck because your arms are more involved in throwing the ball and swinging the bat. (Of course, whether titanium confers any benefit at all is a separate question.)

2. Is Bryan talking about the cross necklaces from the previous item? If so, Bryan is belittling a personal religious observation by comparing it to a sham pseudo-science and I find that offensive. Cross necklaces, broadly speaking, are neither sold nor worn as talismanic charms. Bryan is clearly trying to drag up the “Performance Enhancement” thread that he drops elsewhere, but even so, I’d like Bryan to explain what about cross necklaces is “dumb” if that’s what he’s referring to. That remark is not mandated by the performance-enhancement concept.

That previous item, which specifically treats the cross necklaces, seems to corroborate the second of these interpretations. It also shows again how Bryan can’t stay clear on what he’s writing about.

What I perceive as the source of the humor about the necklaces is that there are so many of them and that, as a group, they look like they’d be unnecessarily heavy and cumbersome for someone involved in an athletic endeavor. This easily and inoffensively fits into the “over-accessorized” concept.

Instead, Bryan targets the necklaces’ religious function as performance-enhancing: “When the final hour approaches, the deity in charge won’t have any trouble finding Carlos.” Carlos is, one hopes, nowhere near his final hour in this photo, so that’s inapposite.

Bryan’s subsequent riffing about combining the titanium’s putative healing powers with those of the cross continues to debase the cross symbol as a trinket and a pseudo-scientific talismanic trinket for the gullible.

He conflates the cross with Jesus the person even though I don’t perceive a crucifix on any of Guillen’s necklaces and that’s not mandated by the performance-enhancement concept. Also, I find it offensive. He could have avoided this if he’d stuck with the titular “over-accessorized” concept and joked about how numerous and heavy the necklaces seem. But I’m still not clear exactly what the overriding concept was here.

Keep up the good work.

I was at that Blackhawks game last night (just strolled back to Milwaukee from Chicago a little while ago) and I have to say I’m not sure what the impetus was behind it. I bought the tickets for my boyfriend for Valentine’s Day and at the time of purchase, no special event was listed. There was no mention of it on that day on the schedule or the promotions schedule.

So I was surprised when I went on to the Hawks website Friday morning to check the rosters and saw information about the tribute.

My guess is that interest in the team and ticket sales were lagging and these guys are 2 of the most beloved of all Blackhawks, so they brought them in and packed the place to the rafters.

It’s late and it’s been a long whirlwind weekend, so my brain might be a little sluggish, but as far as I can see, there is no anniversary or reason for it.

That being said, there were more Mikita jerseys walking around that place than anyone else.

I have a few uni-related observations that I’ll be emailing to Paul after I get some sleep and if they don’t make the ticker, I’ll pass them along in comments.

It seems that the ‘Hawks honored Hull and Mikita last night as a way of reconnecting with the fan base. The organization has basically treated both the former greats and the fans like garbage over the years. For example they didn’t sign Brett Hull because it would have meant that Bobby Hull would’ve been around the team. Most famously the team refused to broadcast home games on TV. This has been recently rectified by the new chairman, a fact which was repeatedly mentioned last night. Its definitely odd to see something like this, but I see it as the organization paying some back taxes to the fans and players.

And in the spirit of full disclosure, I don’t always like your posts. But like my local newspaper, I am not obligated to read it or reply to the editorials.