|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 11, 2013 14:28:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry but about EVERYTHING with this post is what's wrong with the anti-IWC sentiment. You're friend knows indy wrestlers and reads dirt sheets, so that means that those who disagree with his opinions and yours are uneducated? You've lumped everyone who disagrees with you into the anonymous cult of the IWC while doing exactly what they do also. Yes this site does take a "sick amount of horrific pride" in clowning the status quo, but as you said in the very beginning of your baseless rant this site came from wrestlecrap, a site dedicated to clowning the status quo and history of wrestling, so of course a large percentage of posters from that era and site share that sense of humor. Check out wrestlecrap or The Freaking Awesome Network homepage sometime and you'll see that the sites are a lot of lampooning of the sillier things from pop culture and wrestling. I am a big Cena fan and have been for a long time. Cena hate is very much low around here and he gets a lot of credit for what he does bring to the table. Most people hate his booking not him, but a lot of these better than the IWC crowd see any criticism, even that not directed at Cena as blind hate that might grow to some dangerous level unless they intervene and then strawman that right into the argument they already have made out in their head. If you no longer find joy in something stop doing it, yet we have people all the time who exist on boards who are miserable because other people have opinions that are stupid or wrong or just totally different, yet they feel compelled to click on the thread and save that posters soul from being swallowed by the mindless mass of the cult of the IWC, and end up blowing a stupid thread into a stupider debate, instead of letting the thread just die of atrophy. I feel that some people look at the IWC and don't want to admit that they are apart of it. They used to love to lampoon the things they thought were funny but one day happened to click a thread that they were offended by or didn't share the humor in. Someone clowned one of the guys they liked and it wasn't funny anymore. The anti-IWC doesn't find enjoyment in something they used to so they lash out on the internet...anywhere everywhere...blah blah misplaced anger...blah blah IRONY!! There are people here who act as though they are in the know and aren't. It's not that they are uneducated because they don't know what I know. It is because they subjectify their support for a wrestler and treat it as gospel. Davy Richards might not actually be an asshole. There is empirical proof, however, that he was an asshole on many occasions even before the "walking out on a booker" and the DragonGate/ ROH incidents. Same thing is true with Austin Aries. These other stories are not second hand stories from Aries's barber's cousin's girlfriend. These are primary sources. When I read newz like "Kofi Kingston unhappy with his direction", my first response is why. Is he an idiot? Is he "married to his craft"? He makes $900,000 a year, has travelled the world over numerous times, and has a smoking hot girlfriend, and has a job that he loves and many people envy. You can be unhappy about aspects about your job, granted, but, unless Kofi actually said this to a respected journalist, or someone he's wrestled, it's newz. I can't stand people who ruin fun. The kids in my class do it all the time. I plan an engaging activity like a game. Within two minutes of the game, they start bitching about the game is unfair, she's cheating, etc. Then, when I sit the game down our choose bookmark, they bitch about how boring my class is. People complain that Bryan is getting buried, then, when he is in an established angle, people complain that he's not being used. Punk gets the belt, but he is booked in the third to last match, so, automatically, the belt had lost its shine, and they're stroking Cena's ego because he always has to be the last match. Thus is perception, not fact. The WWE has NO VESTED INTEREST in making their belt look like crap, even when they gave it to Vince himself. The premise of the prestige of the belt is waning is completely ludicrous. The opposite of the IWC is my Grandma. She is the biggest wrestling mark I know. She constantly whines to me, "Why do they let them do that?" As my Grandpa used to say, "It's all a put up, Ann!" She gets annoyed when I say I like, say, Dean Ambrose. She hates the storylines, but watches every week. I'm not trying to get myself over on the internet. I have better things to do. I just can't stand when people criticize just to criticize. People who constantly complain live a joyless existence. The IWC needs to stop over-personalizing Who gets pushed. Zach Ryder has done everything humanly possible for himself to get pushed. If he can look himself in the mirror and be satisfied with his current position in the company, then who are we to judge? We can feel badly for him, but that's it. Some of the IWC was ready to commit suicide after Chris Hero was released. He took being "future endeavoured" the best I've ever read about...and I read it on his Twitter page. Wrestlecrap started as a tongue in cheek homage to the awful stuff we loved about our favorite sport. Their WCW book was amazing. The Goobledygooker was a thing of beauty to be immortalized. John Tenta was so beloved here because he was a legit badass *gaijin* sumo who ended his career painting his face like a shark. In other words, even he didn't take his job that seriously. Nowadays, people would shit on the latter part of his career. I would love if people treated this place more like it used to be. There is a huge difference between reminiscing the past or pointing out the faults of the establishment and arrogantly assuming your way it better especially having no knowledge, expertise, or experience in the field. I don't talk crap ignorantly. You can read any Official PPV Thread and the majority of posts are "Who booked this shit?" Most people in the IWC have dumber ideas than WWE Crrative. Most people in the IWC couldn't properly book a backyard match, let alone run a global corporation. To suggest one can and do it better is fallacy. Most of the IWC truly live in this fallacy, which is why they don't enjoy their favorite sport regardless of the product. I'm sorry you're not seeing the irony of you're hyperbole laced statement. You can't stand people who ruin YOUR fun or have a different idea of what they enjoy doing. Some people like to complain or lampoon things. It's simple enough to just let them do that and ignore it. Some people find enjoyment in ridiculous fantasy booking where Kane burns Ric Flairs clothes or Daniel Bryan runs in and wins both titles and main events mania with Hero and Punk. It rarely means anybody thinks they are smarter, just something they find fun to imagine. A lot of it I find total bullshit too, however I either join in the fun, try to point out the bad ideas without looking down on the other posters or if all that isn't possible I just close the thread and don't click it again. Fortunately I think that's the way the majority of posters are which is why I think people see more negativity. I liked it, no complaints, I ain't going to waste my time in that thread titled "X sucked". One of the most inducted people on Wrestlecrap originally and this may have been surpassed by TNA or Kane but was Hulk Hogan. The predecessor to John Cena. Yet he's universally regarded as one of the all time greats. Kane also has been the target of a lot of crap but is still loved generally. John Tenta didn't end his career as Shark, he ended it as Golga and it was loved and mocked at the same time. The Oddities were a joke and we were in on it. When serious wrestlers are joked about though in the same way it's somehow "shitting on". What's the difference between pointing out the faults or the past and assuming one knows better? Seems a very subjective line that can change from poster to poster. Is there a difference between pointing out the faults of a promoter and pointing out the faults of thos who point out the faults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 14:37:31 GMT -5
SO STOP COMPLAINING IRRATIONALLY ABOUT IT! It is just as tiresome to read endless threads of "I'm done. Superman wins again." The IWC who complain thusly are like the five-year-old boy who tells his parents that they're mean, he hates them, and he's running away. His parents pack him a suitcase, and say goodbye. An hour later, he's still sitting on the porch step, wanting to eat dinner. Comparing people to five-year-olds is totally the way to go if you want a convincing argument I guess. Man, are you trying to convince people to your side or...? I hope now the reason should be obvious why I didn't say "well, just don't read the posts!" We'd be going around in the circle. I haven't been here for very long and I know there have been really long discussions about the "If You Don't Like It, Don't Watch It!" thing. I've even participated once or twice, it's just like...why do people still ask that question? Is it because they legitimately want to know the answer? Do they just want to browbeat someone because their reasons are somehow unacceptable? Tons of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Dec 11, 2013 14:49:49 GMT -5
HEY if you don't like those comments WHY DO YOU READ THEM? check and MATE <smokes cigar> Brah, if you didn't like his comment, why did you even quote it? ...Think about that. Dude, that is such an IWC thing to say. You know what else thinks about things? HIVE MINDS. yeah.
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Dec 11, 2013 14:52:42 GMT -5
Comparing people to five-year-olds is totally the way to go if you want a convincing argument I guess. Man, are you trying to convince people to your side or...? I hope now the reason should be obvious why I didn't say "well, just don't read the posts!" We'd be going around in the circle. I haven't been here for very long and I know there have been really long discussions about the "If You Don't Like It, Don't Watch It!" thing. I've even participated once or twice, it's just like...why do people still ask that question? Is it because they legitimately want to know the answer? Do they just want to browbeat someone because their reasons are somehow unacceptable? Tons of reasons. Well it's quite obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you been reading his posts? I mean There are people here who act as though they are in the know and aren't. It's not that they are uneducated because they don't know what I know. It is because they subjectify their support for a wrestler and treat it as gospel. I don't blame you because that's where I stopped reading........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 15:03:43 GMT -5
Brah, if you didn't like his comment, why did you even quote it? ...Think about that. Dude, that is such an IWC thing to say. You know what else thinks about things? HIVE MINDS. yeah. Okay, the entire friggin' subject of the last IWC Conference we had in that abandoned non-alcoholic wine cellar was the use of TRIGGER WORDS. I mean, did you just totally zone out when it was explained to us why you shouldn't just go around posting "hive mind" in all caps...? Do you know what happens to the IWC when you post that in all caps?! Anarchy and destruction, son. Do you want the internet to descend into uncivility and lots of burning? I sure as hell don't.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 11, 2013 15:10:32 GMT -5
Often there seems to be a misunderstanding in posts here between what is subjective opinion and what is definitive fact. But often, the two become intertwined and make for some pretty mind-numbingly irritating arguments.
The definition of a subjective opinion on wrestling is something that cannot be proven or disproven based on unquantifiable preferences. I cannot tell someone for example that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than John Cena (or vice-versa) because there is no undisputed intangibles that prove so either way. The art-form has too many variances and variables. We simply prefer the styles, moves, personalities and psychologies of certain guys over others, and we cannot be wrong about that (or conclusively right). There is no absolute. So there is no argument. It's moot. It's futile. It's stupid. The factors that make someone more preferable to a singular person is boundless and incalculable.
HOWEVER. You CAN say that certain people are draws or make money (or refute people who don't believe so) based on readily available public records, numbers, and stats of such things. Yet, some people cling to stubborn opinion when it is NOT an opinion issue. I've seen it so many times, and have often had to virtually tear holes in them and their argument to burst their silly bluster. They think in terms of what *they* want or don't in the face of facts, while I, for example am not looking to start an argument, but am simply compelled to correct, as I too have corrected when wrong. There's no shame in learning. I love it. You should only stop learning and adapting when you're dead.
The construct of a story is also something that can't be opinion based, although it is a slippery slope. Some may not want to hear this, but there are definitive rules to storytelling and exposition. You can weave and swerve through, but if you are telling a morality tale, as wrestling often does, (good vs evil, hero vs villain, greed vs benevolence) there is a logical and needed conclusion. For example, you can like HHH and thus enjoy the fact that he defeated Booker T at WrestleMania 19; that's entirely opinion-based. Anyone can like or dislike any story or conclusion they want. HOWEVER, it was undisputedly, morally, and story-wise, the WRONG decision based on the moral implications involved. That cannot be debated. Some stubborn people might try, (and have to infuriatingly naive levels) but they're missing the plot. A good storyteller, if they wanted the villain to survive or prevail, would have not written the underlying motivation they chose. They would have not backed their protagonist into a corner to the point wherein he HAD to win or risk proving the dastardly villain correct or justified. The only way you can, is if said protagonist returns, stronger, better and vanquishes the villain forever by the end, thus redeeming himself. (which never happened; on top of HHH winning clean). But it cannot be the end game. Evil can't morally win, even if it physically does.
That's just a couple of examples.
So, next time you jump into argue, about to speak on blanket absolutes, ask yourself, "is what I'm saying actually provable?" "Do I have facts ready to back up my point?" "Or am what I'm arguing simply what I *think* it should be, regardless of anything that can poke holes in my argument or end it completely?" Because if the answer is "no", you're probably better off rewording your statement or not writing at all.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 12, 2013 0:12:26 GMT -5
Often there seems to be a misunderstanding in posts here between what is subjective opinion and what is definitive fact. But often, the two become intertwined and make for some pretty mind-numbingly irritating arguments. The definition of a subjective opinion on wrestling is something that cannot be proven or disproven based on unquantifiable preferences. I cannot tell someone for example that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than John Cena (or vice-versa) because there is no undisputed intangibles that prove so either way. The art-form has too many variances and variables. We simply prefer the styles, moves, personalities and psychologies of certain guys over others, and we cannot be wrong about that (or conclusively right). There is no absolute. So there is no argument. It's moot. It's futile. It's stupid. The factors that make someone more preferable to a singular person is boundless and incalculable. HOWEVER. You CAN say that certain people are draws or make money (or refute people who don't believe so) based on readily available public records, numbers, and stats of such things. Yet, some people cling to stubborn opinion when it is NOT an opinion issue. I've seen it so many times, and have often had to virtually tear holes in them and their argument to burst their silly bluster. They think in terms of what *they* want or don't in the face of facts, while I, for example am not looking to start an argument, but am simply compelled to correct, as I too have corrected when wrong. There's no shame in learning. I love it. You should only stop learning and adapting when you're dead. The construct of a story is also something that can't be opinion based, although it is a slippery slope. Some may not want to hear this, but there are definitive rules to storytelling and exposition. You can weave and swerve through, but if you are telling a morality tale, as wrestling often does, (good vs evil, hero vs villain, greed vs benevolence) there is a logical and needed conclusion. For example, you can like HHH and thus enjoy the fact that he defeated Booker T at WrestleMania 19; that's entirely opinion-based. Anyone can like or dislike any story or conclusion they want. HOWEVER, it was undisputedly, morally, and story-wise, the WRONG decision based on the moral implications involved. That cannot be debated. Some stubborn people might try, (and have to infuriatingly naive levels) but they're missing the plot. A good storyteller, if they wanted the villain to survive or prevail, would have not written the underlying motivation they chose. They would have not backed their protagonist into a corner to the point wherein he HAD to win or risk proving the dastardly villain correct or justified. The only way you can, is if said protagonist returns, stronger, better and vanquishes the villain forever by the end, thus redeeming himself. (which never happened; on top of HHH winning clean). But it cannot be the end game. Evil can't morally win, even if it physically does. That's just a couple of examples. So, next time you jump into argue, about to speak on blanket absolutes, ask yourself, "is what I'm saying actually provable?" "Do I have facts ready to back up my point?" "Or am what I'm arguing simply what I *think* it should be, regardless of anything that can poke holes in my argument or end it completely?" Because if the answer is "no", you're probably better off rewording your statement or not writing at all. But that's also the bigger issue with both the IWC and WWE: Right now, both sides are experts at turning the provable stats into subjective stats on their own will. This itself leads to a subjective nature for any stat you can point to. The artform itself has variables: IWC members have traditionally ranked match by a star system- but it's subjective for how much enjoyment you get from the match. WWE could have the majority of the Universe say Rock/Cena II at Mania 29 is the best match of the year, but a hardcore fan could say the match is terrible- but they're both right, because it's subjective. The problem though is that, due to the fact that there are two people in each match, people's subjective thoughts about a superstar- both the IWC and the WWE- leads to turning the stats which are provable- merch sales, TV ratings, PPV buyrates, etc.- into subjective stats as well. If, for instance, Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton have a match at HIAC and it is "okay"- both guys are inherently at fault [the match itself didn't get the draw.] However, the IWC will instantly say "Randy Orton's at fault for it. He's not a draw, he should be fired, not fighting for the WWE Title!", while the WWE's line will be "Well, we tried giving you Daniel Bryan as a main eventer. He failed. No one wants to see him as WWE Champion. Not our fault..." On the same token, if Orton/Bryan were to do gangbusters at a PPV, the response then would be the IWC saying "Proof positive, Daniel Bryan is ratings. Push him to the moon! He's a star!", while the WWE would say "We knew it all along- Randy Orton equals ratings. These fans love to hate him, we'll keep going if we have more big draws against him. The fans will wonder who's good enough to beat Orton?"
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Dec 12, 2013 0:49:35 GMT -5
Dude, that is such an IWC thing to say. You know what else thinks about things? HIVE MINDS. yeah. Okay, the entire friggin' subject of the last IWC Conference we had in that abandoned non-alcoholic wine cellar was the use of TRIGGER WORDS. I mean, did you just totally zone out when it was explained to us why you shouldn't just go around posting "hive mind" in all caps...? Do you know what happens to the IWC when you post that in all caps?! Anarchy and destruction, son. Do you want the internet to descend into uncivility and lots of burning? I sure as hell don't. Do you know who else held conferences? HITLER!
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,306
Member is Online
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 12, 2013 9:50:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Dec 12, 2013 12:38:28 GMT -5
SO STOP COMPLAINING IRRATIONALLY ABOUT IT! It is just as tiresome to read endless threads of "I'm done. Superman wins again." The IWC who complain thusly are like the five-year-old boy who tells his parents that they're mean, he hates them, and he's running away. His parents pack him a suitcase, and say goodbye. An hour later, he's still sitting on the porch step, wanting to eat dinner. Comparing people to five-year-olds is totally the way to go if you want a convincing argument I guess. Man, are you trying to convince people to your side or...? I hope now the reason should be obvious why I didn't say "well, just don't read the posts!" We'd be going around in the circle. I haven't been here for very long and I know there have been really long discussions about the "If You Don't Like It, Don't Watch It!" thing. I've even participated once or twice, it's just like...why do people still ask that question? Is it because they legitimately want to know the answer? Do they just want to browbeat someone because their reasons are somehow unacceptable? Tons of reasons. If the shoe fits.... The misery on this site sometimes drives me nuts. I'm not an epicurean, necessarily, but I do try to find happiness in many things, especially what my interests and hobbies are. Maybe I'm wired differently, but if I think something is a constant source of displeasure and unhappiness in my life, I'm going to avoid our stop doing it. (Except for my Browns, with is more like an addiction.) It's o.k. to reject the status quo, but if you keep on complaining about what is beyond your control, then continue to support it, you are the little five year old. You are the definition of stupidity. You keep hitting the wall going for a different result. The most played out stereotypical arguments on this forum are John Cena sucks and HHH is an egomaniacal douchebag. Well, no one is changing any of that. To continue beating those drums is an exercise in futility. It, then, clouds people's judgments on the merits of a particular show. In other words, if you think or know that HHH is, in fact, an egomaniacal douchebag, then, well, you are going to hate this upcoming PPV. However, if you feel that way, then you knew that already. Subjectively, it's going to be fun watching, at worst, HHH pull a Caesar and declare himself *capo di tutti capi*. The biggest issue, to me, is that some people seem to revel in misery, as if their existence is predicated on not enjoying life. Life is to short to complain about everything, especially things that you enjoy. If you are willing to accept a form of entertainment that emphasizes deception and artistry with suspension of disbelief, then, really, nothing done in it should be that upsetting. Repeating your displeasure multiple times to prove how clever you are is, in reality, the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Dec 12, 2013 12:45:45 GMT -5
Comparing people to five-year-olds is totally the way to go if you want a convincing argument I guess. Man, are you trying to convince people to your side or...? I hope now the reason should be obvious why I didn't say "well, just don't read the posts!" We'd be going around in the circle. I haven't been here for very long and I know there have been really long discussions about the "If You Don't Like It, Don't Watch It!" thing. I've even participated once or twice, it's just like...why do people still ask that question? Is it because they legitimately want to know the answer? Do they just want to browbeat someone because their reasons are somehow unacceptable? Tons of reasons. Well it's quite obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. Have you been reading his posts? I mean There are people here who act as though they are in the know and aren't. It's not that they are uneducated because they don't know what I know. It is because they subjectify their support for a wrestler and treat it as gospel. I don't blame you because that's where I stopped reading........ Let me clarify: "what I know" could actually fill half a thimble with knowledge. I try not to cloud my judgment by assigning my own values to how it should be done.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Dec 12, 2013 12:50:37 GMT -5
People haven't done this to any sort of noticeable level on here in years. To put this forward in the wake of that promo on Monday which turned most of us, myself included, from not giving a shit to being ready to tombstone they grandmomma for a chance to see the show is ridiculous. I think a lot of people would like to see more depth to his character, and that comeback with the title win was flat and a little by the numbers but people were still arguing about two of his matches being MOTY contenders, praising that promo to the skies and all sorts of shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 14:22:48 GMT -5
If the shoe fits.... The misery on this site sometimes drives me nuts. I'm not an epicurean, necessarily, but I do try to find happiness in many things, especially what my interests and hobbies are. Maybe I'm wired differently, but if I think something is a constant source of displeasure and unhappiness in my life, I'm going to avoid our stop doing it. (Except for my Browns, with is more like an addiction.) It's o.k. to reject the status quo, but if you keep on complaining about what is beyond your control, then continue to support it, you are the little five year old. You are the definition of stupidity. You keep hitting the wall going for a different result. The most played out stereotypical arguments on this forum are John Cena sucks and HHH is an egomaniacal douchebag. Well, no one is changing any of that. To continue beating those drums is an exercise in futility. It, then, clouds people's judgments on the merits of a particular show. In other words, if you think or know that HHH is, in fact, an egomaniacal douchebag, then, well, you are going to hate this upcoming PPV. However, if you feel that way, then you knew that already. Subjectively, it's going to be fun watching, at worst, HHH pull a Caesar and declare himself *capo di tutti capi*. The biggest issue, to me, is that some people seem to revel in misery, as if their existence is predicated on not enjoying life. Life is to short to complain about everything, especially things that you enjoy. If you are willing to accept a form of entertainment that emphasizes deception and artistry with suspension of disbelief, then, really, nothing done in it should be that upsetting. Repeating your displeasure multiple times to prove how clever you are is, in reality, the exact opposite. To not get extremely verbose because this really is going to fly off the entire cliff, it seems to me you presume people to be not at all nuanced with how they view the show. There's way too many intricacies.
|
|
ratetankmark
Samurai Cop
Equalist Lex Luthor
RIP Rik Mayall, you blimmen genius - Ria Vandervis on Rik Mayall
Posts: 2,426
|
Post by ratetankmark on Dec 12, 2013 14:39:52 GMT -5
Can't we all just enjoy wrestling?
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Dec 12, 2013 14:42:44 GMT -5
Can't we all just enjoy wrestling? NO DAMMIT!
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Dec 12, 2013 17:39:22 GMT -5
I am SO DONE with the "If you're going to complain, why do you watch it?" question. Am I just crazy or is the Ask/Answer on that question like someone unraveling a "big cable-knit sweater"? Was I in a Pokemon battle and someone hit me with CONFUSION? Was it "SUPER EFFECTIVE!" because it's like I'm punching myself in the head while I'm still trying to pull off "Measured Reply." "Why do you still watch it?" has been answered again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and once more with feeling and again and again and again and shouted from the rafters and again and again and again and within the cone of silence and again and again... People really need to stop asking that question, even rhetorically, because the reason why anyone watches this show is frankly none of anyone else's business. It doesn't have to hold up to any kind of scrutiny. SO STOP COMPLAINING IRRATIONALLY ABOUT IT! It is just as tiresome to read endless threads of "I'm done. Superman wins again." The IWC who complain thusly are like the five-year-old boy who tells his parents that they're mean, he hates them, and he's running away. His parents pack him a suitcase, and say goodbye. An hour later, he's still sitting on the porch step, wanting to eat dinner. So what you're telling me is that you're a hypocrite who likes to scream at people for doing exactly the same thing he does himself. Does that about sum it up? Oh, internet. Never change.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,641
|
Post by Bo Rida on Dec 12, 2013 18:31:21 GMT -5
But if we can't complain what would we talk about? We'd just be left with Simpsons references.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Dec 12, 2013 18:38:31 GMT -5
Can't we all just enjoy wrestling? Personally, I know that I can be pretty damn critical of the product at times but make no mistake about it. I love professional wrestling. I don't follow sports. I don't read books often. I don't watch movies that much either. For over a decade, wrestling has been my main form of entertainment. When I want to relax and just forget my real world troubles? I watch wrestling. It's my passion. That's why I bother discussing it and am critical about it. I discuss it in the same vein that other people discuss shows like Dr. Who or Star Trek. Because I love it and I want to see it done well. Trust me, I'm not a masochistic. If I didn't like wrestling, I wouldn't watch it, period.
|
|
|
Post by The Beast Disincarnate on Dec 12, 2013 18:44:06 GMT -5
I love these threads...that's too bad i'm always too lazy to read them.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 12, 2013 21:08:41 GMT -5
Play nice or don't play at all.
|
|