SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 16, 2014 20:50:40 GMT -5
You sure got me. Me purposely, verbatim, referencing an exact joke I made as an absurd point that someone truly stupid would take at face value. I wasn't being serious. Apologies, then.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 16, 2014 20:52:07 GMT -5
The problem is that it's from your own flawed viewpoint. You're speaking as if it's an absolute, when it's entirely your own preconditioned weird thinking and strange world outlook. People often respond in bewilderment to your posts and points, because you never ever seem to stop, listen to what's being said, see that your view has been invalidated with evidence or example, consider you might be wrong, and subsequently concede and change. That is what makes your posts so mind-numbing. You make a blanket statement, people give examples countering your main point, and rather than saying "cool, but I'm still not interested" , you try instead to construct an argument to prove your blanket statement anyway -- which is impossible. Because it is, again, not absolute. I just want to say you completely misread what I'm saying at every point, if you think this is what I'm doing But you do it in almost every post. And in this case, your point concluded the moment you said you didn't think any feuds Bryan could have for the title would be interesting. That was your stance and opinion. And that's fine. But there's zero rationale behind further arguing it outside your own perception, because about a dozen people gave examples of people he could feud with and create potential interest with. If you've decided, to you, it's impossible, your posting should have ended the moment you sent the original post. It was all right there. There was no need for further debate or explanation, because you had already made your mind up. And your point is not one that could be logically won or argued. It was a blanket statement, plain and simple.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Feb 16, 2014 20:58:40 GMT -5
I just want to say you completely misread what I'm saying at every point, if you think this is what I'm doing But you do it in almost every post. And in this case, your point concluded the moment you said you didn't think any feuds Bryan could have for the title would be interesting. That was your stance and opinion. And that's fine. But there's zero rationale behind further arguing it outside your own perception, because about a dozen people gave examples of people he could feud with and create potential interest with. If you've decided, to you, it's impossible, your posting should have ended the moment you sent the original post. It was all right there. There was no need for further debate or explanation, because you had already made your mind up. And your point is not one that could be logically won or argued. It was a blanket statement, plain and simple. yes, in this case it was. But most of my responses were to people listing off opponents he could have, which I was pointing out wasn't what I was talking about.
|
|
Ragnal
Game Genie
Yanno what they say: All toasters toast El Dandy
Posts: 8,677,836
|
Post by Ragnal on Feb 16, 2014 21:10:49 GMT -5
But you do it in almost every post. And in this case, your point concluded the moment you said you didn't think any feuds Bryan could have for the title would be interesting. That was your stance and opinion. And that's fine. But there's zero rationale behind further arguing it outside your own perception, because about a dozen people gave examples of people he could feud with and create potential interest with. If you've decided, to you, it's impossible, your posting should have ended the moment you sent the original post. It was all right there. There was no need for further debate or explanation, because you had already made your mind up. And your point is not one that could be logically won or argued. It was a blanket statement, plain and simple. yes, in this case it was. But most of my responses were to people listing off opponents he could have, which I was pointing out wasn't what I was talking about. Well for god's sakes, what was the point you tried to make, because it got lost in all the "nopes" you give!
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Feb 16, 2014 21:12:38 GMT -5
Look, my name is on the line! If anybody has a good reason to not want Bryan to win the title, I do! I CAN'T BE WRONG!
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Feb 16, 2014 21:28:55 GMT -5
yes, in this case it was. But most of my responses were to people listing off opponents he could have, which I was pointing out wasn't what I was talking about. Well for god's sakes, what was the point you tried to make, because it got lost in all the "nopes" you give! Okay, let's try this: Do you remember Bret Hart's first title reign where he'd take on anyone? Virgil, the Berseker, Papa Shango, Shawn Michaels, Razor, Yokozuna, it wasn't about who Bret had beef with, it was about who deserved or had earned a shot Compared to a Hogan title reign where people hated what he stood for or backstabbed him constantly I can picture him as the Bret Hart fighting champ, not the Hogan type champ, and looking at it I think he'd be more entertaining as the bret Hart type champ. Unfortunately those type champs do not generally draw as much money as the Hogan types
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 16, 2014 22:22:07 GMT -5
Well for god's sakes, what was the point you tried to make, because it got lost in all the "nopes" you give! Okay, let's try this: Do you remember Bret Hart's first title reign where he'd take on anyone? Virgil, the Berseker, Papa Shango, Shawn Michaels, Razor, Yokozuna, it wasn't about who Bret had beef with, it was about who deserved or had earned a shot Compared to a Hogan title reign where people hated what he stood for or backstabbed him constantly I can picture him as the Bret Hart fighting champ, not the Hogan type champ, and looking at it I think he'd be more entertaining as the bret Hart type champ. Unfortunately those type champs do not generally draw as much money as the Hogan types Except Hogan's first year of opponents were basically guys he just defended the belt against randomly like Sheik, Volkoff, David Shultz, Big John Studd, Greg Valentine, etc. until he feuded with Piper. Piper was his first true "blood feud". Bret was an initial fighting champion only because there was no true developed heel depth. He basically wrestled Shawn, and two recently built newcomers in Razor and Yoko in PPV programs before dropping the belt. By the time he got it back, he had a blood feud with Owen and Backlund. Bryan already has a developed feud in the Authority and can feature anyone plugged in therein. Just like Austin in '98. Bryan's feud is with on-screen WWE management. And it's a feud that can and will carry on until that management is usurped, turns babyface or turns Bryan himself.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,993
|
Post by Sparkybob on Feb 17, 2014 0:46:05 GMT -5
The problem I see is I don't think Bryan should have a title reign past let's say Summerslam because I think with Bryan's age, you should leave some stuff for any future runs with the belt he will have.
|
|