|
Post by mjolnir on May 17, 2012 10:37:17 GMT -5
ROH feeding the troll? Oh boy...
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on May 17, 2012 11:00:56 GMT -5
If he signed an agreement and violated it, he brought it completely on himself, and I say good for ROH to enforce it.
That aside, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I hate how everyone wants to get lawyers involved right off the bat. On the other, I'm tired of hearing about Gabe running his mouth, and if this shuts him for a while, I'll enjoy that.
I know ROH had issues with its iPPV. I get that, and if he had just made some comment about them having problems, I would have still rolled my eyes because it would have been Gabe taking a shot at ROH yet again, but I wouldn't have really had a problem because it would have been stating a fact. They did have problems with the iPPV. Then he turned it into, "They don't care about you, they don't deserve your support, blah blah blah," which, in my opinion, just made him sound like a bitter loudmouth.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on May 17, 2012 11:04:27 GMT -5
Would you guys denounce Crockett for criticizing Herd's management of WCW?
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on May 17, 2012 11:18:57 GMT -5
Would you guys denounce Crockett for criticizing Herd's management of WCW? If he handled it the way Gabe has, yes. I wouldn't have a problem with Gabe being critical of ROH. I'm not a disciple of the company, I haven't even seen all that much, and what I have seen was definitely before Gabe was fired, though I'm not sure who was booking. If he actually took the time to explain what he thought was wrong and why he thought it was wrong, instead of making a statement about everyone needing to stand together and then going on a profanity laced tirade about how they don't care about their fans and don't deserve their support, I would have had no problem with Gabe in this situation. Likewise, if Jim Crockett had explained what he thought was wrong about the way Herd ran his former company and why he thought it was wrong, I would have had no problem with it and would have been interested to hear what he had to say. If he had surfaced, even in 1991, let alone 6 years later or whatever it has been in this case, and just said something like, "When a company lets it's top star walk away, they obviously don't f***ing care about you. When they put on a bad PPV, they don't f***ing deserve your support. When they change the entire presentation of the company, they obviously don't have a f***ing clue what the audience wants," then I would thought he just sounded like a bitter guy who wasn't in his old spot anymore and was still pissed about it.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on May 17, 2012 12:42:19 GMT -5
I just feel like if I spent the time building up a company that would spawn the next generation of great wrestlers and saw it become The Kevin Kelly Show I'd be sad and hypercritical too.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 17, 2012 13:30:05 GMT -5
ROH should cut back on the attorney fees and spend more on bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by "American Dragon" on May 17, 2012 18:32:33 GMT -5
Not surprised the order to slap the law suit came right from vince mcmahon himself. Gots ta protect tha assets yo.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 17, 2012 19:21:40 GMT -5
Not surprised the order to slap the law suit came right from vince mcmahon himself. Gots ta protect tha assets yo. What the hell are you talking about? Vince has nothing to do with ROH.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on May 17, 2012 19:47:00 GMT -5
Not surprised the order to slap the law suit came right from vince mcmahon himself. Gots ta protect tha assets yo. What the hell are you talking about? Vince has nothing to do with ROH. I think I can shed some light on this. Dating back probably since it's birth, there's been a conspiracy theory about ROH. It really gained some traction back in 2005, with all of the guys going to WWE and Stevie Richards appearing. That WWE secretly owns the company and is projecting it as a separate brand to keep the industry alive. Basically creating their own ECW. This theory is heavily linked to a similar one about TNA though both are equally insane. So to sum this up... Aliens Vince McMahon.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 17, 2012 20:01:43 GMT -5
What the hell are you talking about? Vince has nothing to do with ROH. I think I can shed some light on this. Dating back probably since it's birth, there's been a conspiracy theory about ROH. It really gained some traction back in 2005, with all of the guys going to WWE and Stevie Richards appearing. That WWE secretly owns the company and is projecting it as a separate brand to keep the industry alive. Basically creating their own ECW. This theory is heavily linked to a similar one about TNA though both are equally insane. So to sum this up... Aliens Vince McMahon. Oh, yeah, no, I know about the "conspiracy theory", but still, this is just...amazingly blunt, it almost confused me.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Shamrocks on May 17, 2012 21:14:42 GMT -5
The worst in all this? PWI. Use spellcheck, for God's sake. SHEESH.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on May 17, 2012 21:20:01 GMT -5
A cease and desist for stating his opinion on facebook? He didn't even mention them by name did he? I guess it's better to delete the post than to fight it, but still...
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on May 17, 2012 21:38:21 GMT -5
A cease and desist for stating his opinion on facebook? He didn't even mention them by name did he? I guess it's better to delete the post than to fight it, but still... If said opinion is something that you got told you can't do legally, then no you can't do it. Just like how Roger Goodell can fine a NFL player for talking crap about him on Twitter.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on May 18, 2012 22:44:00 GMT -5
The worst in all this? PWI. Use spellcheck, for God's sake. SHEESH. That's funny, I enjoy their articles but I have noticed over the years that some of them are badly edited. I lost my last job when the company closed my store and I signed an agreement not to publicly disparage the company in order to receive a severance package, and I was basically just a grunt worker and not particularly important to them so I'd assume it must be a fairly common practice whether or not you condone it on an ethical level. I wouldn't even risk violating that contract by posting negative comments on Facebook, so it seems pretty careless to me on Sapolsky's part to have made these statements publicly. That said, I can understand the frustration of wanting to express those opinions and being unable to do so. Several of my former co-worked posted comments on Facebook about how much they loved the company and what a cool place to work it was and blah blah blah and of course there was no rule against making positive statements, so I felt like it was unfair that I was unable to express an opposing view. However, I agreed to their terms and it is my responsibility to honor that, and Sapolsky's name is still closely associated with his former employer in many people's minds. If they were trying to sue him for a lot of money or something I wouldn't condone that, but a simple cease & desist seems appropriate enough to me.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on May 19, 2012 0:23:57 GMT -5
Why in the hell would he sign an agreement like that? That is just stupid on his part? The way it sounds is that he just limited his own speech. They must have given him huge severance pay in return to sign it because I don't see any other reason he would sign something like that.
BTW ROH deserves every ounce of criticism for their poor production. Decent streaming and decent HD cameras can be pricey but ROH needs to look at it as an investment. Instead they are cheaping out because they know that DVD sales won't last forever and they are just trying to make their money on that until that cash cow dies.
It is ridiculous seeing how bad their video quality is. It's like I'm watching a vhs tape. AAA down in Mexico has better quality.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on May 19, 2012 0:40:31 GMT -5
I don't know, I didn't think it was worth not receiving severance pay just so I could publicly talk shit about my former employer. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on May 19, 2012 4:19:16 GMT -5
how can such an agreement even exist and be legally valid? i thought you had freedom of speech or something like that
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on May 19, 2012 6:12:25 GMT -5
Gabe crossed a line and deserved the legal bitch slap, IMO. He wants to talk about how the fans and wrestlers deserve better, fine but when you start telling the company to "f*** off" you are obviously pushing things too far. You want to stick it to ROH Gabe, do something to draw people to your shows and quit relying on everyone else to save your ass. The best revenge is a life lived well, not going Cornette on people to hide your own failures. Gabe didn't cross any line. He wrote an opinionated rant on Facebook. He is legally allowed under the 1st Amendment to free speech. ROH now looks like a bunch of immature crybabies because they didn't like what he said. The ones that need to shut up here is ROH because they are embarrassing themselves with that petty "cease & desist" nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2012 7:27:30 GMT -5
He also didn't specifically mention the company by name.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on May 19, 2012 8:36:23 GMT -5
All this makes me wonder is what was so horrible behind the scenes at ROH that they felt the need to make their former booker sign an agreement not to talk negatively about them when they left the company? I mean, that's something so draconian that not even the WWE does it. Are they that thin skinned, or are they as messed up as TNA behind the curtain?
|
|