On Oct 18, 11:59 am, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >I do like the concept; I'm not entirely satisfied with the letterforms of the >current >logo.
I see your point -- I can imagine that there might be something better out there somewhere -- but I just haven't seen it yet. The current crop of entries includes some cool concepts, but it turns out it's difficult to really get it just right. To me, the current logo is "just right" (i.e., very nice and professional looking, and nothing bothersome or confusing about it). That's not to say we can't do better, just that we haven't so far. Attempts to inject greater "style" often end up being over-the-top or visually jarring. I'd be happy to see some new/improved ideas, but if nothing better turns up, I think the current logo looks great too. Anthony
