|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 19, 2010 15:14:11 GMT -5
This was Dave Meltzer's response to the exchange: LOL@ECWratings Wait, what....
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 19, 2010 17:16:50 GMT -5
This was Dave Meltzer's response to the exchange: LOL@ECWratings Wait, what.... First thing I thought of as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 17:38:08 GMT -5
Bischoff provided as many "facts" as the blogger when you think about it.
He made a lot of blanket statements "Merchandise is selling!" But just like the blogger and the rest of the internet - he does nothing to back it up with FACTS.
Bisch is quite the hypocrite when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 19, 2010 17:50:25 GMT -5
Bischoff provided as many "facts" as the blogger when you think about it. He made a lot of blanket statements "Merchandise is selling!" But just like the blogger and the rest of the internet - he does nothing to back it up with FACTS. Bisch is quite the hypocrite when you think about it. I would actually love to debate Bischoff on the topic, maybe I should post on his facebook too, and like, if anyone from the boards has a podcast here (which someone does which I need to check out) I'd love to debate with him, mostly because I am interesting and am currently watching a debate right now, but it is interesting if I could pick out flaws in arguments right off the bat. With the merchandise deal, I would have to give Easy E the benefit of the doubt, because he's obviously going to have access to the numbers, despite not releasing them. What I would question though is, how could they be selling more merchandise with a smaller audience. One thing with particular debates and discussions are, sometimes people can lie through their teeth and be very good at it. Bisch has his facts, basically, because he's in the company. I understand he can be lying, but it's important for anyone challenging him or anyone with TNA, is to fall back on the things that you know, and that are public. Stuff on merchandise deals and how Reaction is doing is something he'll know. He produces the show. Could he be lying? Yes. But, using internet facts if you will to go against him doesn't work out well, and sadly it speaks to the lack of integrity of internet wrestling "journalists".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2010 18:01:53 GMT -5
Bischoff provided as many "facts" as the blogger when you think about it. He made a lot of blanket statements "Merchandise is selling!" But just like the blogger and the rest of the internet - he does nothing to back it up with FACTS. Bisch is quite the hypocrite when you think about it. I would actually love to debate Bischoff on the topic, maybe I should post on his facebook too, and like, if anyone from the boards has a podcast here (which someone does which I need to check out) I'd love to debate with him, mostly because I am interesting and am currently watching a debate right now, but it is interesting if I could pick out flaws in arguments right off the bat. With the merchandise deal, I would have to give Easy E the benefit of the doubt, because he's obviously going to have access to the numbers, despite not releasing them. What I would question though is, how could they be selling more merchandise with a smaller audience. One thing with particular debates and discussions are, sometimes people can lie through their teeth and be very good at it. Bisch has his facts, basically, because he's in the company. I understand he can be lying, but it's important for anyone challenging him or anyone with TNA, is to fall back on the things that you know, and that are public. Stuff on merchandise deals and how Reaction is doing is something he'll know. He produces the show. Could he be lying? Yes. But, using internet facts if you will to go against him doesn't work out well, and sadly it speaks to the lack of integrity of internet wrestling "journalists". I think getting into a debate like this with Bischoff (or anyone in the wrestling business) is futile. The chances of getting accurate info and them not lying through their teeth is pretty minimal. That's not a shot against TNA or even wrestling - that's just a business thing. What incentive does Bischoff have to tell the truth to anyone who he doesn't sign his paychecks? ZERO.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 19, 2010 22:29:10 GMT -5
What smaller audience? If it is it isn't by more than a hundred thou
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 19, 2010 22:49:33 GMT -5
On the one hand, Bischoff was in the right for taking this guy to task who didn't have any of his facts straight.
On the other hand, it makes Bischoff look extremely petty and small to get so huffed up about some guy on the internet.
Everyone's a loser.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,524
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 20, 2010 1:11:33 GMT -5
Rupert Murdoch doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say his media empire is a draconian, outdated monster. Vince McMahon doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say WWE are rubbish David Beckham doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say he had a bad game. Simon Cowell doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say he's over opinionated jerk. Spotting the link? It makes TNA look bushleague. It makes TNA look like a small time company that's so insecure over it's image it chases down individual fans. Those people rise over the slander. They prove the bloggers wrong by doing their job right. Eric isn't doing his job right. Simple as. Why is it that everyone is always so quick to put TNA down in saying that they're not anywhere near the WWE, but when something like this or the Knockouts wage comes up, they're compared to WWE? Either they're comparable or they're not (hint: they're not), so it'd be awesome if people would stop applying it whichever way is easiest to use it to bash TNA. You say bloggers need to be slapped, why? The internet is about free speech. TNA should learn to take that criticique with a pinch of salt or BETTER YET, act on it. If Erics looking at the internet, he should be reading about how people think his product is absolute garbage. He should be seeing people compare it to WCW and realise that RVD/The entire Ev2 thing is done. They haven't done anything to the product except re-enforce the idea that the company is living in the past. If he's got the time to read blogs, why isn't he spending that time working on his product to shut up the bloggers? Most of the internet is about saying whatever stupid thing you want under the veil of anonymity, if that's what you mean by free speech. Don't start praising Eric for chasing down opinionated people on the internet. This is the man who once captained the largest wrestling promotion in the world reduced to answering podcasts that get 50 listeners (at best). That's not a triumph, it's a showcase of how far he's fallen. A monument to his undying ego that has suffocated his career as a promoter of wrestling. Eric Bischoff is done. This simply shows he refuses to accept that fact. If he wants to take up against someone who blasted him on the internet, why shouldn't he be able to? There's plenty of people out there who, if given a position in the public eye, would not be able to just sit quietly while people slammed them for doing a terrible job. And isn't it his same right to go and tell this podcast "here's where you're wrong", as it is the fan's right to go on a rant about Bischoff? I mean, you could just apply your logic on "free speech" and "opinionated people" to Bischoff. I don't see how he's a loser or needs to get a life (as has been said or insinuated in this thread) for going on the internet and making an argument for himself, unless you also feel that the person who made the argument against him is a loser and needs to get a life. There are people on here and any other intersecting online venue who make more of an argument over less important things than whether or not someone is actually competent at their job.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Dec 20, 2010 3:15:22 GMT -5
Rupert Murdoch doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say his media empire is a draconian, outdated monster. Vince McMahon doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say WWE are rubbish David Beckham doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say he had a bad game. Simon Cowell doesn't scour the internet seeking out people that say he's over opinionated jerk. Spotting the link? It makes TNA look bushleague. It makes TNA look like a small time company that's so insecure over it's image it chases down individual fans. Those people rise over the slander. They prove the bloggers wrong by doing their job right. Eric isn't doing his job right. Simple as. Why is it that everyone is always so quick to put TNA down in saying that they're not anywhere near the WWE, but when something like this or the Knockouts wage comes up, they're compared to WWE? Either they're comparable or they're not (hint: they're not), so it'd be awesome if people would stop applying it whichever way is easiest to use it to bash TNA. Most of the internet is about saying whatever stupid thing you want under the veil of anonymity, if that's what you mean by free speech. Don't start praising Eric for chasing down opinionated people on the internet. This is the man who once captained the largest wrestling promotion in the world reduced to answering podcasts that get 50 listeners (at best). That's not a triumph, it's a showcase of how far he's fallen. A monument to his undying ego that has suffocated his career as a promoter of wrestling. Eric Bischoff is done. This simply shows he refuses to accept that fact. If he wants to take up against someone who blasted him on the internet, why shouldn't he be able to? There's plenty of people out there who, if given a position in the public eye, would not be able to just sit quietly while people slammed them for doing a terrible job. And isn't it his same right to go and tell this podcast "here's where you're wrong", as it is the fan's right to go on a rant about Bischoff? I mean, you could just apply your logic on "free speech" and "opinionated people" to Bischoff. I don't see how he's a loser or needs to get a life (as has been said or insinuated in this thread) for going on the internet and making an argument for himself, unless you also feel that the person who made the argument against him is a loser and needs to get a life. There are people on here and any other intersecting online venue who make more of an argument over less important things than whether or not someone is actually competent at their job. The problem with most of your arguments is TNA is obsessed with telling themselves they can compete with WWE. Talentwise they should have a shot, actually as far as recognizeable names go in the business they have a better talent roster than the WWE. If they were a company like ECW was, that considered themselves counterculture, or ROH that is content on being a smaller company that feeds talent to the larger two it would be different. Remember earlier this year IMPACT! went head to head with Raw. Bischoff certainly has the right to argue with someone who has questioned his job and clearly isn't qualified to do it. It would be insulting, but people constantly do the same thing to many managers and coaches that are in the public eye. I could understand taking shots at journalists that are heard and seen by thousands to millions of people. Heck if Bischoff did this to Meltzer it would be a different story. But you don't see head coaches or executive management hunting down internet bloggers. It looks very busch league and actually makes TNA look busch league in doing so. Do you even see Jim Cornette doing the same thing? I think it is very clear that Bischoff is very insecure about TNA and his situation. What he did just seemed like an adult beating up a little kid that didn't like him because he had a bad day at work.
|
|
|
Post by Bram wants to 'urt you on Dec 20, 2010 3:38:40 GMT -5
Bischoff's problem imo is that he has a chip on his shoulder and a very fragile ego. There is no reason at all why he shouldn't take someone to task for comments they make against either him personally or TNA as a company. But what he tends to forget is that wherever he appears, to people who do not actually KNOW him, he isn't "Eric Bischoff, some guy", he is "Eric Bischoff, of TNA". And by now, he really ought to realise this. To give a comparable example. I used to work for a supermarket chain, who introduced a rule that said "no staff will be allowed to be seen smoking a cigarette while wearing their company uniform". This rule didn't say "while on company premises, or in the grounds of the store itself", it was a blanket rule. It meant that if you were seen, driving to work, having a smoke while wearing your uniform, you could be reprimanded and/or subject to disciplinary proceedings. The reason behind it was simple. As far as the company was concerned, if you were wearing their uniform, you were representing the company, and your actions reflected on them so they wanted you to act in a way that was "appropriate" to the corporate image. Eric taking a blogger to task for comments made isn't seen by the general wrestling fanbase as "Eric's opinion" versus "blogger's opinion", it is seen as TNA's position on the whole thing. Hulk Hogan recently remarried, and a fight broke out during the proceedings. This occurence has been posted as a thread on the TNA boards. Why? Hogan's wedding has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH TNA, the only link being that Hogan now works for TNA, so you have "guilt by association". While Eric Bischoff the human being, the individual, the internet poster, is perfectly entitled to say and do whatever he wishes, Eric Bischoff [of TNA] should remember the bit in square brackets. Anything he says or does can and will be seen as an official TNA stance, regardless of whether it actually IS. Sorry for the long post (I should have that as my signature ), but I thought it was worth stating.
|
|
Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Dec 20, 2010 5:59:25 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a Red Lantern defending Eric Bischoff, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 20, 2010 7:45:37 GMT -5
Bischoff's problem imo is that he has a chip on his shoulder and a very fragile ego. There is no reason at all why he shouldn't take someone to task for comments they make against either him personally or TNA as a company. But what he tends to forget is that wherever he appears, to people who do not actually KNOW him, he isn't "Eric Bischoff, some guy", he is "Eric Bischoff, of TNA". And by now, he really ought to realise this. To give a comparable example. I used to work for a supermarket chain, who introduced a rule that said "no staff will be allowed to be seen smoking a cigarette while wearing their company uniform". This rule didn't say "while on company premises, or in the grounds of the store itself", it was a blanket rule. It meant that if you were seen, driving to work, having a smoke while wearing your uniform, you could be reprimanded and/or subject to disciplinary proceedings. The reason behind it was simple. As far as the company was concerned, if you were wearing their uniform, you were representing the company, and your actions reflected on them so they wanted you to act in a way that was "appropriate" to the corporate image. Eric taking a blogger to task for comments made isn't seen by the general wrestling fanbase as "Eric's opinion" versus "blogger's opinion", it is seen as TNA's position on the whole thing. Hulk Hogan recently remarried, and a fight broke out during the proceedings. This occurence has been posted as a thread on the TNA boards. Why? Hogan's wedding has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH TNA, the only link being that Hogan now works for TNA, so you have "guilt by association". While Eric Bischoff the human being, the individual, the internet poster, is perfectly entitled to say and do whatever he wishes, Eric Bischoff [of TNA] should remember the bit in square brackets. Anything he says or does can and will be seen as an official TNA stance, regardless of whether it actually IS. Sorry for the long post (I should have that as my signature ), but I thought it was worth stating. This makes the most sense to me and I'm glad your post was long enough to say it.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Dec 20, 2010 11:24:45 GMT -5
Bischoff provided as many "facts" as the blogger when you think about it. He made a lot of blanket statements "Merchandise is selling!" But just like the blogger and the rest of the internet - he does nothing to back it up with FACTS. Bisch is quite the hypocrite when you think about it. I hadn't thought about it, but that's completely true. you can't refute a faulty argument without providing your own factual evidence. Eric basically pulled the Tv exec equivalent of "nuh uh" on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Dec 20, 2010 12:26:48 GMT -5
Yes you can. The defendant does not have to carry the burden of proof. The one making extraordinary and/or apparently unfounded claims does.
(and there you have, in a nutshell, the reason why TNA is in a lose-lose situation : if they ignore all the claims of bloggers/dirt-sheets/forums, the company gets a disastrous rep, whether founded or not ; if they react to those claims, they'll get criticized for being bush league, not taking the high road, and not providing detailed evidence that those claims are BS. They just can't win.)
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 20, 2010 13:11:06 GMT -5
You know, I find the "TNA just can't win" arguments more than a little bit tiresome. It's like there's this line of thought that everyone wants TNA to fail, because it's not WWE or ROH. Honestly, it's just childish and, quite frankly, almost totally false.
Let's just take a look at the folks "out to get" TNA. Why not start with the enemy...the "evil empire" that is Vince McMahon and the WWE. This is the company that has occasionally announced TNA events on its website and, despite having the financial power and clout to make their lives miserable, virtually leaves them alone to continue doing business...even though TNA threw quite a few verbal jabs at them in the past.
Or how about Lance Storm? The bitter hasbeen who wants TNA to fail just because they never offered him a deal. (Even though, Tommy Dreamer is said to have reached out to him for the Hardcore Justice PPV.) Storm's comments on TNA are predominantly negative, but the notion he's never praised them just isn't true. In fact, he once practically gushed over a couple Impact episodes like a fanboy and insisted people should order the upcoming PPV.
Or the dirtsheet writers, Dave Meltzer, Bryan Alvarez, and so many others...the guys who consistently rag on TNA. Nevermind the fact most NEWZ writers praised the company's X-Division a couple years ago and later put over the Knockouts Division.
But even if we ignore them, there's still the worst vermin of all...the fans, the IWC, the hive mind convinced that TNA just sucks because it's TNA. They're the folks who were nearly orgasmic when TNA announced they'd signed Kurt Angle. The ones who thought Christian Cage was a phenomenal pick for the company several years back. The ones who insisted guys like Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, the MCMG, and so many others represented the future of professional wrestling.
I'm sorry, but this idea that no one gives TNA a fair shake is bulls***. On the occasion the company's made good decisions or presented a product worthy of praise, they've been generally lauded for their efforts. The fact they get more criticism than praise isn't due to some overall bias against them, it's because the majority of what they present usually just sucks.
Went on a bit of a soapbox there...sorry. But I've just seen quite a few posts in several threads suggesting TNA is somehow picked on, and it finally grated one nerve too many.
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical Mind on Dec 20, 2010 13:24:47 GMT -5
Yes you can. The defendant does not have to carry the burden of proof. The one making extraordinary and/or apparently unfounded claims does. (and there you have, in a nutshell, the reason why TNA is in a lose-lose situation : if they ignore all the claims of bloggers/dirt-sheets/forums, the company gets a disastrous rep, whether founded or not ; if they react to those claims, they'll get criticized for being bush league, not taking the high road, and not providing detailed evidence that those claims are BS. They just can't win.) Exactly, that's this thread summarized. There are some companies and people that just get this hilarious double standard applied to them, in and out of the wrestling business. It's the goofiest thing ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 13:56:03 GMT -5
Yes you can. The defendant does not have to carry the burden of proof. The one making extraordinary and/or apparently unfounded claims does. This isn't a court of law - its just two nerds yelling at each other. That whole "carry the burden of proof" only matters during a trial. And TNA can "win" - they can put up or shut up, as the phrase goes.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 20, 2010 15:40:39 GMT -5
Yes you can. The defendant does not have to carry the burden of proof. The one making extraordinary and/or apparently unfounded claims does. This isn't a court of law - its just two nerds yelling at each other. That whole "carry the burden of proof" only matters during a trial. And TNA can "win" - they can put up or shut up, as the phrase goes. Seconded. TNA isn't judged any more harshly than any other promotion.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,524
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 20, 2010 19:14:30 GMT -5
The problem with most of your arguments is TNA is obsessed with telling themselves they can compete with WWE. Talentwise they should have a shot, actually as far as recognizeable names go in the business they have a better talent roster than the WWE. If they were a company like ECW was, that considered themselves counterculture, or ROH that is content on being a smaller company that feeds talent to the larger two it would be different. Remember earlier this year IMPACT! went head to head with Raw. That's what I mean. Any time they've compared themselves to the WWE, they've been lambasted and laughed at for it. They clearly aren't on the same level, whether it be exposure, payroll, etc. But then they're constantly still compared to them when it comes to things like drug testing, the lack of wage for Knockouts, etc. It's kind of talking out of both sides of the mouth on them. Someone will say that they aren't anywhere near Vince's level (which is true) in one example, and then hold them to a standard that he set in another. Bischoff certainly has the right to argue with someone who has questioned his job and clearly isn't qualified to do it. It would be insulting, but people constantly do the same thing to many managers and coaches that are in the public eye. I could understand taking shots at journalists that are heard and seen by thousands to millions of people. Heck if Bischoff did this to Meltzer it would be a different story. But you don't see head coaches or executive management hunting down internet bloggers. It looks very busch league and actually makes TNA look busch league in doing so. Do you even see Jim Cornette doing the same thing? I think it is very clear that Bischoff is very insecure about TNA and his situation. What he did just seemed like an adult beating up a little kid that didn't like him because he had a bad day at work. I don't really see a difference between him arguing with Meltzer or a blogger, if he's doing it just because a potshot was taken at him and he wants to make an argument for himself. Ideally, he'd just close out all the noise the internet likes to make all the time (like IMDB telling me every movie ever made sucked, wasn't funny, and wasted someone's time). But I think there's more of an area between "he shouldn't respond" and "he's a loser for responding". Insecure? Possible. Likes to argue? Probable. But it just seems like people themselves want something to critique. Reminds me of Michael Scott in women's appreciation day when he says "You mean, how can I be so logical, and flighty, and unpredictable, and emotional? Well maybe I learned something from women after all." Bischoff didn't like what the guy said, someone didn't like what he said, I didn't like what they said. It's all a big cycle. I just think it's a little hypocritical when people belittle him for being a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 20, 2010 20:09:14 GMT -5
Yes you can. The defendant does not have to carry the burden of proof. The one making extraordinary and/or apparently unfounded claims does. This isn't a court of law - its just two nerds yelling at each other. That whole "carry the burden of proof" only matters during a trial. And TNA can "win" - they can put up or shut up, as the phrase goes. No it doesn't. It matters in argumentation in general. If I make a statement, or I posit something, I have the burden of proof. If I say, Jeff Hardy is on drugs, I have the burden to find ways to prove, or at least demonstrate, that he is on drugs. If I say, Jeff Hardy is on drugs, and you need to show me that he's not on drugs, that's me shifting the burden of proof. Which is a logical fallacy.
|
|