Nike Spiridon

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Globaldisc, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. Globaldisc

    Globaldisc Guest

    Nike announced Thursday that its fiscal 2004 first-quarter profits ran past analysts' forecasts as
    the athletic shoe giant scored big overseas and showed signs of reversing a skid in U.S. sneaker
    sales. <snip> The average price paid for Nike sneakers has begun to rise after about a year and a
    half of declines, <snip> Swift sales of Nike's Shox and Air Zoom Spiridon running shoes, both priced
    at $100 or more, helped fuel the increase, Blair said...
    _______

    OK, the Shox are inexcusable & have no place on this ng. Their flats were always legit, but I am
    sensing Nike has a winner for the real runner with this Spiridon. At my races I am starting to see
    this shoe popping up on the feet of serious runners and they seem to rave over it. I'm not strong
    enough or talented enough to ball/toe & midsole strike over 10K and I inevitably migrate to heel
    striking for a good portion of LD races and thus generally wear a 12 oz stability shoe (for over
    10Ks). Unlike a lightweight trainer which really is for midsole striking.... this Spiridon is made
    for heel strikers yet offers the forefront flexibility like a flat. I think it's the only under 10
    .oz shoe (Sz 9-10) designed for heel strikers...it's really in a class of it's own w/it's weight,
    design, and materials.

    Anyone out there using the shoe? I've never bought a current model shoe as I generally refuse to pay
    retail....(I buy last year's at half price today)....however I am curious about this shoe. Can we
    get past the Nike bashing and consider the shoe free of ant-Nike sentiment? It's an intriguing shoe
    in my opinion and I am seeing spreading acceptance of it from serious runners. Anyone else seeing
    this at their races? I think Nike might have a winner here...

    C'mon...most be some running folks out there in this ng w/the shoe?
     
    Tags:


  2. Hi

    Hi Guest

    On 19 Sep 2003 17:11:33 GMT, [email protected] (Globaldisc) wrote:

    >Nike announced Thursday that its fiscal 2004 first-quarter profits ran past analysts' forecasts as
    >the athletic shoe giant scored big overseas and showed signs of reversing a skid in U.S. sneaker
    >sales. <snip> The average price paid for Nike sneakers has begun to rise after about a year and a
    >half of declines, <snip> Swift sales of Nike's Shox and Air Zoom Spiridon running shoes, both
    >priced at $100 or more, helped fuel the increase, Blair said...
    >_______
    >
    >OK, the Shox are inexcusable & have no place on this ng. Their flats were always legit, but I am
    >sensing Nike has a winner for the real runner with this Spiridon.

    If they made it (or had it made overseas in their name) it's still overpriced no matter how good
    a shoe it may be. You can do better for far less than $100 on a number of other REAL running
    sjoe brands.

    >t my races I am starting to see this shoe popping up on the feet of serious runners and they seem
    >to rave over it. I'm not strong enough or talented enough to ball/toe & midsole strike over 10K and
    >I inevitably migrate to heel striking for a good portion of LD races and thus generally wear a 12
    >oz stability shoe (for over 10Ks).

    These lightweight midgets (90lbs wet?) are naturally talented runners mostly with no issues or
    special needs such as stability. If they had these needs they wouldn't be wearing a cheap piece of
    junk like nikes, or they'd be crippled.

    >
    >C'mon...most be some running folks out there in this ng w/the shoe?
    >
    >
    >
    No, you need to be smart enough to read to be on here, that disqualifies most nike runners (except
    for a few webtv users...)
     
  3. > No, you need to be smart enough to read to be on here, that disqualifies most nike runners (except
    > for a few webtv users...)

    Please... This Nikehate thing just too intense ont his ng. Ok, Nikes are overprized,
    overcommercialized, overhyped and understabilized. Ok, agreed. But so many posters treat Nikes as a
    shoeversion of The Black Plague, and that is just ridiculous. If you have the right foot, and a few
    extra dollars in your pocket, Nikes can be allright.
     
  4. On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:01:52 GMT, "Arne Todnem Vik-Mo" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> No, you need to be smart enough to read to be on here, that disqualifies most nike runners
    >> (except for a few webtv users...)
    >
    >Please... This Nikehate thing just too intense ont his ng. Ok, Nikes are overprized,
    >overcommercialized, overhyped and understabilized. Ok, agreed. But so many posters treat Nikes as a
    >shoeversion of The Black Plague, and that is just ridiculous. If you have the right foot, and a few
    >extra dollars in your pocket, Nikes can be allright.
    >

    I agree, but WHY buy them when there are so very many far superior shoes for much less money? Why
    feed greed and line the pockets of thieves?
     
  5. On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:32:36 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Andrew, Bill has such blind hatred concerning Nike that he has no mental capacity to listen to
    >facts. He will continue to piss into the front of the fan and wonder why he gets wet. Some people
    >hate all blacks, others all Muslims, etc. etc.
    >
    >I think Willie should voice his concerns directly to Nike and request they let him be a wear
    >tester. ;)

    This is not true. I dislike nikes because they are overpriced garbage, that cause more injuries than
    any other shoe on the market. Wassa matter for you Doug, you got sand in your KY jelly last night?

    Check his facts. Nike is the THIRD shoe on the market that meets the criteria he says only nike has.
    They weren't even first to copy it, nevermind invent it.
     
  6. tackleme

    tackleme Guest

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:07:47 GMT, The truth revealed <[email protected]> wrote:

    >This is not true. I dislike nikes because they are overpriced garbage, that cause more injuries
    >than any other shoe on the market. Wassa matter for you Doug, you got sand in your KY jelly
    >last night?
    >
    >Check his facts. Nike is the THIRD shoe on the market that meets the criteria he says only nike
    >has. They weren't even first to copy it, nevermind invent it.

    My experience with high-end Nike's also has only been bad, including painful knee and ankle
    problems. I think they are just too light and cushy. I solved the problem by initially trying out
    $40 Asics gel. I moved on to high-end Asics, but I could hardly tell the difference from the
    cheaper model.

    I also heard NB's are very good, but I felt my running style needed some extra absorption like the
    Asics' gel sole.

    What might also be telling is that the Army makes recruits purchase Asics or NB's for boot camp.
     
  7. On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:34:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >My experience with high-end Nike's also has only been bad, including painful knee and ankle
    >problems.

    And these are exactly the most common injuries in nike runners, as I've been saying all along.

    > think they are just too light and cushy.

    That maybe why light runners can tolerate them better than most others.

    >I solved the problem by initially trying out $40 Asics gel. I moved on to high-end Asics, but I
    >could hardly tell the difference from the cheaper model.
    >

    Great shoes all around! But most importantly is they are priced for what they are worth, not
    according to their advertising budget.

    >I also heard NB's are very good, but I felt my running style needed some extra absorption like the
    >Asics' gel sole.
    >

    Every NB I tried felt like there was a marble under the shoe, I knew better than to even try running
    in them. But others have had good luck with them, and at least they are priced accordingly.

    >What might also be telling is that the Army makes recruits purchase Asics or NB's for boot camp.

    Now you're steering me back tords nikes, if the government says it's good, it can't be... <wink
     
  8. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    The myth-man proports:

    > This is not true. I dislike nikes because they are overpriced garbage, that cause more injuries
    > than any other shoe on the market.

    You can say this as many times as you want, and as loudly as you feel necessary, but you have shown
    NO proof. Your anecdotal experience does not extrapolate across the running population.

    If you spent a few minutes in thought you might discover it would be extremely difficult, if not
    impossible, to contrive a study that could conclude that the shoe alone was the source of an injury.
    By the way, I thoroughly dislike Nike but for not shoe injury reasons.

    --
    Doug Freese [email protected]
     
  9. On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:12:10 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The myth-man proports:
    >
    >
    >> This is not true. I dislike nikes because they are overpriced garbage, that cause more injuries
    >> than any other shoe on the market.
    >
    >You can say this as many times as you want, and as loudly as you feel necessary, but you have shown
    >NO proof. Your anecdotal experience does not extrapolate across the running population.
    >

    Look you fat-assed chimpanzee, I do not have to prove jak to you, or anyone else. My advice is based
    on sound experiences, if you don't like it TS! You act like I'm telling people some kind of radical
    stuff, and it's not. So, people can listen to a dick like you, or the smart ones can listen to me,
    so far I've heard nobody cry "bad advice" except pissants like you who haven't tried my advice.

    >If you spent a few minutes in thought you might discover it would be extremely difficult, if not
    >impossible, to contrive a study that could conclude that the shoe alone was the source of an
    >injury. By the way, I thoroughly dislike Nike but for not shoe injury reasons.

    Then we both dislike them but for different reasons, so why razz me? Your turn? (yes, i know
    all about it)
     
  10. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    The myth man opines:

    > Look you fat-assed chimpanzee, I do not have to prove jak to you, or anyone else. My advice is
    > based on sound experiences, if you don't like it TS!

    Well my precious querulous sycophant, you are using merely parading emotional claptrap as the bible.
    In this case you have offered nothing, zip, nil, to back your position.

    > Then we both dislike them but for different reasons, so why razz me?

    Come on Willie, can't you see the forest for the trees? If you can't separate quality from moral
    issues then you must live in a very black and white world. Let's see, you're also a conservative
    Republican that drinks Bud!

    > Your turn? (yes, i know all about it)

    Nah, you're way to immature to continue this discussion. Stick to running where you are at least
    correct 50% of the time.

    Pass the banana please! :) :)

    --
    Doug Freese [email protected]
     
  11. On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:53:10 GMT, Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The myth man opines:
    >
    >> Look you fat-assed chimpanzee, I do not have to prove jak to you, or anyone else. My advice is
    >> based on sound experiences, if you don't like it TS!
    >
    >Well my precious querulous sycophant, you are using merely parading emotional claptrap as the
    >bible. In this case you have offered nothing, zip, nil, to back your position.
    >

    Do I need to post that stuff from one of the founders of Nike AGAIN? RU drain bead?

    >
    >
    >> Then we both dislike them but for different reasons, so why razz me?
    >
    >Come on Willie, can't you see the forest for the trees? If you can't separate quality from moral
    >issues then you must live in a very black and white world. Let's see, you're also a conservative
    >Republican that drinks Bud!
    >

    Seperate them, why? It's the same shoe. And I never offered any "moral issues" in my posts
    about nike.

    >
    >> Your turn? (yes, i know all about it)
    >
    >Nah, you're way to immature to continue this discussion. Stick to running where you are at least
    >correct 50% of the time.
    >

    Oh and I suppose a dickhead like you is correct all the time? LOLOLOL

    >Pass the banana please! :) :)

    <WARNING> Do not accept any edible fruit that is penile-shaped from Doug (you never know where
    it's been)
     
  12. Terrance Tp

    Terrance Tp Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:29:37 GMT, The truth revealed <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Do I need to post that stuff from one of the founders of Nike AGAIN?

    Screwit, here it is:

    DANIEL McCABE | Steve Robbins is the researcher Nike loves to hate. The feeling is pretty much
    mutual. Robbins, an adjunct professor in the McGill Centre for Studies in Aging, has published
    studies indicating that high-priced running shoes account for 123 per cent more foot injuries than
    cheaper sneakers. He also aims to persuade the elderly, who enjoy the comfort of sneakers, that
    running shoes aren't the best choice of footwear for them.

    His work has earned a fair amount of press attention and Nike doesn't much like the resulting
    publicity. Robbins, in turn, doesn't think much of their tactics.

    More on that later.

    A recent paper by Robbins, published in The Journal of the American Geriatric Society, looked at the
    question of seniors and sneakers.

    Older people, who often have to contend with arthritic feet, appreciate shoes with thick, soft soles
    made of highly compressible materials.

    That's why sneakers feel comfy on older feet. What the elderly don't realize, says Robbins, is that
    running shoes also render them far more unsteady on their feet.

    This is all tied to what Robbins calls "foot position awareness." Soft-soled shoes cause "wobbling
    as the material compresses -- you wobble from side to side as you put weight on the material. This
    wobbling tends to make people lose their sense of the position of their foot in space." Our natural
    balancing mechanisms are thrown for a loop as a consequence.

    A better choice for seniors, argues Robbins, are shoes with thinner, harder soles.

    "The thicker the shoe and the softer the material, the higher the degree of instability," notes
    Robbins. Of sneakers, he adds, "The degree of instability that these shoes cause is truly
    remarkable.

    "For example, a running shoe impairs measures of stability by approximately 200 to 300 per cent as
    compared to a hard leather shoe. That's a lot, considering that the difference between young and old
    people in terms of their comparable foot stability is perhaps only 30 or 40 per cent.

    "We associate poor balance with older people to begin with, but what they're wearing on their feet
    makes a huge difference. Instability and falls are a major cause of harm in older people. Wearing
    the proper shoe might not only prevent fractures, it could save lives."

    But do seniors have to sacrifice comfort for stability? Maybe not, says Robbins.

    He realizes that older people "have a high concern for comfort" so he has been searching for a way
    to build a shoe that can be both cozy and secure.

    He thinks he's found it.

    "We discovered that the sense of comfort is basically a skin phenomenon. A softer material, even in
    a relatively thin layer, diffuses localized pressures on the bottom of the foot and that's what
    gives you a sense of higher comfort. "You don't need a thick layer. The critical layer that supplies
    comfort is actually the layer that is in the closest proximity to the bottom of the foot. Most of
    the comfort that comes from wearing a running shoe is derived from the layer that's within
    millimeters of the skin surface."

    The next step was to find a substance that could provide extra comfort in a safely thin layer. By
    Robbins's estimate, he and his team tested hundreds of different materials before settling on a
    winner -- a substance used as underpadding on tennis courts. Robbins describes the material as low
    resiliency-- "that means when you compress it and then remove the weight, it stays compressed."

    It feels fine on a foot. More importantly, "when we put this new material under the foot, balance
    actually improved by about 20 per cent over a rigid surface.

    "Now, this was the first time that anything interposing between a rigid surface and the skin of the
    foot had actually improved balance. We noticed a statistically significant improvement in every age
    group that we examined."

    Robbins says "it's inevitable" that somebody will seize on his research results and start producing
    thin-sole shoes with the material he's uncovered. But it probably won't be Nike or Reebok just yet.

    "The problem is that the large shoe companies have invested heavily in products that impair balance.
    The customer has been sold so much on the softness of the sole and its so-called absorbing impact
    and how important it is. It's hard to retain any kind of market credibility by suddenly saying that
    everything we've been telling you for the last 20 years is bad for your health.

    "Some of them may even be worried from a legal perspective. Some of [the shoes] impair balance to
    such a degree they might be concerned about liability."

    Still, Robbins does notice thinner soles in some of the newer models of running shoes and believes
    his studies have something to do with
    it.

    "I was shopping for basketball shoes for my daughter and I noticed that a whole series of shoes are
    becoming extremely thin soled." Robbins was pleased by the discovery.

    "This notion that you need thick, soft running shoes to lower the impact on your feet is a myth. The
    impact can actually be greater than if you're just barefoot. When people wear [shoes that claim to
    absorb impact], they act differently. They run differently." People become more reckless when they
    think they're wearing a "super shoe."

    Writing in The British Sports Medicine Journal, Robbins and his collaborators argued, "Expensive
    footwear is subject to extremely deceptive advertising.

    "They are advertised to improve protection over cheaper products by incorporating new features that
    protect, and more advanced safety technology, yet epidemiological data indicate that users of more
    expensive shoes are injured more frequently."

    Research like that prompted the marketing director of Nike to send a letter to one journal Robbins
    published in, claiming that Nike's own studies found Robbins's work faulty. The missive was copied
    to the attention of one Principal Bernard Shapiro.

    Robbins viewed that as a not-so-subtle attempt to intimidate him. As for Nike's charge that his
    research is suspect, Robbins bristles. "My work is peer-reviewed and published in reputable
    journals. What they do is pseudo-science. It's there to support their marketing efforts."

    Says Robbins, "I don't think [our research] is responsible for Nike's shares falling dramatically
    last year, but I don't think it helped them any either."

    His contentious relationship with running shoe companies has made him wary of university/industry
    collaborations.

    "I think there is an inherent conflict. The secrecy and commercial concerns you find in industry
    often don't allow for good scientific research. It's all the rage recently to have alliances with
    industry in medical research. I honestly don't think this is in the public interest.

    "Just imagine if my research had been funded by the running shoe industry. What would have happened
    to the public dissemination of our results?"
    ================

    I was in the vicinity at the illegitimate birth of N*** (unmentionable 4-letter word). I was their
    first paying customer. During the first couple of years of their existence, the parent company of
    N*** sold "Tiger" shoes by the old Japanese company, Onitsuka. These Tigers were pretty good and I
    still have a couple of them in my personal pile of 147 worn-out running shoes. When the time came
    for the company to renew the contract, they told Onitsuka they wanted them to cheapen their
    materials and assembly methods and hire workers for less money. This was to increase profits and
    allow for more money to advertise the inferior product. Onitsuka refused to go along with this, as
    they had some pride in their tradition of excellence. So, the parent company conjured up the N***
    brand name. Manufacturing plants were set up that fit into the now infamous system of production
    and promotion that has brought them so much criticism. At the beginning of their sales of the N***
    brand, I made the mistake of using three of their different models. Each left me hobbled for weeks
    after only a few uses. Why did it take me that long to figure things out? Since then, I wouldn't
    have worn any of their junk if it meant going barefoot-----which I did for several years
    thereafter on soft trails. If I wanted to defeat a military opponent, I would airdrop a million
    pair of N*** shoes on their territory a month before invading.

    Steve McDonald "N*** shoes for every Iraqui!"

    =========
    Bite that Freese!
     
  13. David

    David Guest

    Robbin's research would be very interesting if I was trying to stand on one leg for long periods of
    time or do balance beam exercised with shoes on. It seems to have little to no relevance for people
    interested in running.
    --
    David Nova Scotia, Canada
     
  14. On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:52:08 -0300, David <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Robbin's research would be very interesting if I was trying to stand on one leg for long periods of
    >time or do balance beam exercised with shoes on. It seems to have little to no relevance for people
    >interested in running.

    Be serious!
     
  15. Tenkman

    Tenkman Guest

    "Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > The myth man opines:
    >
    >
    > Come on Willie, can't you see the forest for the trees? If you can't separate quality from moral
    > issues then you must live in a very black and white world. Let's see, you're also a conservative
    > Republican that drinks Bud!

    Could be worse. He could be a liberal Democrat that cashes his welfare check to buy lottery tickets
    and Coors.
    >
    >
    > > Your turn? (yes, i know all about it)
    >
    > Nah, you're way to immature to continue this discussion. Stick to running where you are at least
    > correct 50% of the time.
    >
    > Pass the banana please! :) :)
    >
    > --
    > Doug Freese [email protected]
     
  16. Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > The myth man opines:

    Doug, Why don't you shut the hell up? Nobody wants to hear from your fat ass. Donovan Rebbichi
     
  17. Sunny

    Sunny Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:24:19 -0600, "TenKMan" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Could be worse. He could be a liberal Democrat that cashes his welfare check to buy lottery tickets
    >and Coors.
    >>
    >>

    Mom? Is that you again?
     
  18. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    Terrace TAP wrote:

    > DANIEL McCABE | Steve Robbins is the researcher Nike loves to hate. The feeling is pretty much
    > mutual. Robbins, an adjunct professor in the McGill Centre for Studies in Aging, has published
    > studies indicating that high-priced running shoes account for 123 per cent more foot injuries
    > than cheaper sneakers.

    123% wow, impressive number. I guess these shoes must behave like the bubonic plague, if I walk
    into a room of high priced running shoes my feet will start to hurt from the closeness?

    > also aims to persuade the elderly, who enjoy the comfort of sneakers, that running shoes aren't
    > the best choice of footwear for them.

    This in not a study but an opinion paper. There are a set of people and Robins is only one, that
    feel all running shoes with cushions, high heels, etc. are harmful and/or not necessary. The fact
    that Robins was a Nike shill at one time only begs the issue. This guy is against all shoes, not
    just Nike. He has probably taken some cheap shots at his old boss.

    You get this type of disagreement in every branch of science. Hell, we have a shit load of people
    buying those pills that make your dick inches bigger and those that believe the earth is flat.

    > A recent paper by Robbins, published in The Journal of the American Geriatric Society, looked at
    > the question of seniors and sneakers.
    >
    > Older people, who often have to contend with arthritic feet, appreciate shoes with thick, soft
    > soles made of highly compressible materials.
    >
    > That's why sneakers feel comfy on older feet. What the elderly don't realize, says Robbins, is
    > that running shoes also render them far more unsteady on their feet.

    Show me the study and how he came to this conclusion and the Metric used. Hmm, elderly with
    weak pieces and parts extrapolates to everyone? And some drugs work in animals and therefore
    fine for people.

    > "For example, a running shoe impairs measures of stability by approximately 200 to 300 per cent as
    > compared to a hard leather shoe.

    Measured how???

    > "Some of them may even be worried from a legal perspective. Some of [the shoes] impair balance to
    > such a degree they might be concerned about liability."

    LOL.

    > Bite that Freese!

    You have merely cited an opinion paper - where's the beef? There are people, even on r.r that
    believe a minimal shoe is best. For those that can get by with with less is just fine but to
    generalize is smoky BS. At this time I'm not buying Robin's and there ilk that there is a conspiracy
    by all the shoe companies to do harm to the running population. Robin's et al. are claiming the shoe
    companies are like the tobacco industry and know shoes are too something-or-other and they are
    covering it up.

    How do we justify all the folks that run every day in these evil incarnates, that have no problems?

    Please something better than this National Enquirier prose.

    --
    Doug Freese [email protected]
     
  19. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    Well Fred, here's where I cum clean and apologize to the ol' thebillrodgers for being such a
    dickhead. I just found out I had half a banana still wedged up my ass, but my BF Donovan was able to
    pull it out with his tongue for me, and now I'm fine. I owe thebillrodgers a huge apology for
    harassing him when I knew he was right all along. It was just good fun while my Donny was away for
    the weekend on a business trip to Provincetown, Mass. I love you Bill, you are my idol, my hero, and
    the very reason I run.

    Your pal, Doug Freese

    "TenKMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The myth man opines:
    > >
    > >
    > > Come on Willie, can't you see the forest for the trees? If you can't separate quality from moral
    > > issues then you must live in a very black and white world. Let's see, you're also a conservative
    > > Republican that drinks Bud!
    >
    > Could be worse. He could be a liberal Democrat that cashes his welfare check to buy lottery
    > tickets and Coors.
    > >
    > >
    > > > Your turn? (yes, i know all about it)
    > >
    > > Nah, you're way to immature to continue this discussion. Stick to running where you are at least
    > > correct 50% of the time.
    > >
    > > Pass the banana please! :) :)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Doug Freese [email protected]
     
  20. Pete

    Pete Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:48:23 -0500, Dave Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Globaldisc <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I agree, but WHY buy them when there are so very many far superior shoes for much less money?
    >> ___
    >>
    >> I'll answer that. Because the Spiridon is the only under 10 oz. shoe designed for heel strikers,
    >> plus it's every bit as flexible in the forefront to allow ball/toe striking as Gel Racer V flats.
    >> It's like a "hybrid" between a flat and stability shoe, leaping over/arching lightweight trainer
    >> class shoes. It's
    >
    >At the risk of asking a serious question in the middle of a poop-tossing contest, why do you feel
    >that the Spiridon is better than something like the Asics Gel Verdict DS? It's a lightweight (10oz
    >- upper end of your range) trainer that works really well as a clydesdale's racing shoe for me. :)
    >

    Don't give the dummy hints, let him do his own web research. I lost
    1.5 hours outta my life to prove him wrong, so he should too. Anybody dumb enough to believe the
    junk he is spewing about nike deserves to spend some time getting better educated. He's trying to
    defend a whole company with a long history of producing garbage shoes at inflated prices, based on
    one shoe that's designed to cater to 5,000 people in the whole USA. Laughable really.
     
Loading...