|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 1, 2016 21:48:50 GMT -5
Because they're still putting him through an incredibly petty lawsuit because THEY nearly killed him. If you make very blatant accusations saying a doctor committed malpractice in a public venue, you can't expect them not to respond. Punk essentailly attacked his entire reputation and life, I don't know what you'd expect him to do but respond. Just about every person is going to defend themselves when someone else attacks their livelihood.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,933
|
Post by Sephiroth on Jul 1, 2016 21:53:50 GMT -5
fame is a funny thing. I was just talking with someone about this the other day and it's strange to me that people expect more out of the entertainer/entertainee relationship than they do out of any other occupation. Normal occupational transaction. Pay money - get service. Entertainment industry transaction. Pay money - get entertainment (but also, the entertainers free time is forfeit and every waking second of their personal life is subject to the whim of whether or not their fans are within visual range). If I pay a plumber to snake my drain, I don't expect anything more than him to snake my drain. If people pay for a ticket to a movie or a show, for some reason just seeing that show/movie isn't enough? They're also obligated to do their job, for free, in their down time? Personally, I don't think any entertainer owes me or their fans anything more than to entertain them for the allotted time period I paid for. Beyond that - their time is their time and not owed to anyone who paid $20 for a t-shirt. They don't have to like me personally and I don't have to like them personally (within reason - obviously if they're like child murders or something that changes things) all they have to do is entertain me when I pay for it. There is a difference between fans thinking he owes them something-and him just plain being a dick. There is no excuse for being a dick.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 1, 2016 21:54:47 GMT -5
Because they're still putting him through an incredibly petty lawsuit because THEY nearly killed him. If you make very blatant accusations saying a doctor committed malpractice in a public venue, you can't expect them not to respond. Punk essentailly attacked his entire reputation and life, I don't know what you'd expect him to do but respond. Just about every person is going to defend themselves when someone else attacks their livelihood. It would be one think if it was the doc suing him for what Punk said and it being between them two but for WWE to put together a video of nothing but pics and videos of CM Punk's ass over the last few weeks he was in WWE and put it on their YouTube channel for millions to see changes the game, IMO. It no longer seems to be the doctor defending himself but WWE using him as a proxy to attack Punk since they couldn't do anything based on his contract.
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,328
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Jul 1, 2016 22:02:33 GMT -5
If you make very blatant accusations saying a doctor committed malpractice in a public venue, you can't expect them not to respond. Punk essentailly attacked his entire reputation and life, I don't know what you'd expect him to do but respond. Just about every person is going to defend themselves when someone else attacks their livelihood. It would be one think if it was the doc suing him for what Punk said and it being between them two but for WWE to put together a video of nothing but pics and videos of CM Punk's ass over the last few weeks he was in WWE and put it on their YouTube channel for millions to see changes the game, IMO. It no longer seems to be the doctor defending himself but WWE using him as a proxy to attack Punk since they couldn't do anything based on his contract. And weren't they kinda blurry anyways, so we really couldn't see anything? And if we were able to see it, couldn't we see that there was something there?
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 1, 2016 22:06:16 GMT -5
It would be one think if it was the doc suing him for what Punk said and it being between them two but for WWE to put together a video of nothing but pics and videos of CM Punk's ass over the last few weeks he was in WWE and put it on their YouTube channel for millions to see changes the game, IMO. It no longer seems to be the doctor defending himself but WWE using him as a proxy to attack Punk since they couldn't do anything based on his contract. And weren't they kinda blurry anyways, so we really couldn't see anything? And if we were able to see it, couldn't we see that there was something there? I don't remember the quality to be honest, just the wackiness of it all. I do remember a lot people pointing out that Punk said he hid the lump under his tights so their constant shots of his ass wouldn't make a difference anyway,
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 1, 2016 22:42:58 GMT -5
It would be one think if it was the doc suing him for what Punk said and it being between them two but for WWE to put together a video of nothing but pics and videos of CM Punk's ass over the last few weeks he was in WWE and put it on their YouTube channel for millions to see changes the game, IMO. It no longer seems to be the doctor defending himself but WWE using him as a proxy to attack Punk since they couldn't do anything based on his contract. Is the posting of Punk's backside the best PR strategy? No. But to act as though what Punk said was harmless really underplays how big a deal it is. What Punk is accusing him and WWE of is criminal. Like, legit negligence. As in, if what he's saying is completely true, the doctor's reputation not only is ruined, not only is his ability to practice medicine in jeopardy, but he could be held criminally liable. Now, is that likely? No, but it's possible, and that's why WWE had to respond and respond aggressively, because in his story WWE is also an accessory to that negligence. If is possible that everything Punk said is true without any embellishment? Of course. If it's not, then the doctor and WWE have to respond aggressively, because this is a very, very serious charge he's levelling against them both.
|
|
tms
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by tms on Jul 1, 2016 22:49:55 GMT -5
Because he's a Straight Edge, Sociopathic, Atheist Jerk™ I like Punk but that shit was HILARIOUSLY awful, oh heavenly father. That shirt would have been in a clearance rack in Hot Topic in 1998. The fact that a guy in his upper-30s was selling it is just...yeah. To each their own, but that was Hollywood Hogan dressing as an 18-year-old level of obliviousness.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 1, 2016 22:56:11 GMT -5
It would be one think if it was the doc suing him for what Punk said and it being between them two but for WWE to put together a video of nothing but pics and videos of CM Punk's ass over the last few weeks he was in WWE and put it on their YouTube channel for millions to see changes the game, IMO. It no longer seems to be the doctor defending himself but WWE using him as a proxy to attack Punk since they couldn't do anything based on his contract. Is the posting of Punk's backside the best PR strategy? No. But to act as though what Punk said was harmless really underplays how big a deal it is. What Punk is accusing him and WWE of is criminal. Like, legit negligence. As in, if what he's saying is completely true, the doctor's reputation not only is ruined, not only is his ability to practice medicine in jeopardy, but he could be held criminally liable. Now, is that likely? No, but it's possible, and that's why WWE had to respond and respond aggressively, because in his story WWE is also an accessory to that negligence. Again WWE is not a party to any of this and put out statement after statement saying they have zero to do with the lawsuit other than employing the doctor, and that they support his work. They are acting counter to this and doing publicly. That is the problem people have with this. In a matter that by their own admission they have no business in, they are putting out a video clearly meant to be evidence of Punk lying. They did not give it to the Doc, the courts or lawyers they put it on their very public YouTube channel for everyone to see. We're not looking at if the Doctor did this or not, we're looking at WWE saying they have nothing to do with this lawsuit but publicly acting opposite of that.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 1, 2016 23:04:35 GMT -5
Is the posting of Punk's backside the best PR strategy? No. But to act as though what Punk said was harmless really underplays how big a deal it is. What Punk is accusing him and WWE of is criminal. Like, legit negligence. As in, if what he's saying is completely true, the doctor's reputation not only is ruined, not only is his ability to practice medicine in jeopardy, but he could be held criminally liable. Now, is that likely? No, but it's possible, and that's why WWE had to respond and respond aggressively, because in his story WWE is also an accessory to that negligence. Again WWE is not a party to any of this and put out statement after statement saying they have zero to do with the lawsuit other than employing the doctor, and that they support his work. They are acting counter to this and doing publicly. That is the problem people have with this. In a matter that by their own admission they have no business in, they are putting out a video clearly meant to be evidence of Punk lying. They did not give it to the Doc, the courts or lawyers they put it on their very public YouTube channel for everyone to see. We're not looking at if the Doctor did this or not, we're looking at WWE saying they have nothing to do with this lawsuit but publicly acting opposite of that. They're denying culpability in case something does go wrong and they need to cut ties but are trying their best to undermine the accusations because, ultimately, they're not as dissociated with it as they claim and could very likely lose a court case if it ever came to that. They may not have anything to do directly with this lawsuit (if you believe them at face value), but they're not a non-party in the situation. I'm not defending them putting his ass up on Youtube, I'm arguing that classifying this as "an incredibly petty lawsuit" greatly underplays just how serious Punk's accusations are.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 1, 2016 23:10:06 GMT -5
Is the posting of Punk's backside the best PR strategy? No. But to act as though what Punk said was harmless really underplays how big a deal it is. What Punk is accusing him and WWE of is criminal. Like, legit negligence. As in, if what he's saying is completely true, the doctor's reputation not only is ruined, not only is his ability to practice medicine in jeopardy, but he could be held criminally liable. Now, is that likely? No, but it's possible, and that's why WWE had to respond and respond aggressively, because in his story WWE is also an accessory to that negligence. Again WWE is not a party to any of this and put out statement after statement saying they have zero to do with the lawsuit other than employing the doctor, and that they support his work. They are acting counter to this and doing publicly. That is the problem people have with this. In a matter that by their own admission they have no business in, they are putting out a video clearly meant to be evidence of Punk lying. They did not give it to the Doc, the courts or lawyers they put it on their very public YouTube channel for everyone to see. We're not looking at if the Doctor did this or not, we're looking at WWE saying they have nothing to do with this lawsuit but publicly acting opposite of that. Not saying I agree with the video WWE put out or even that I understand what they hoped to accomplish by doing it, but they had to do something. I mean, Punk's accusations hurt WWE as a company just as much as the doctor's reputation, and the very last thing WWE wants is to be perceived as abusive or negligent towards its talent.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 1, 2016 23:12:10 GMT -5
Again WWE is not a party to any of this and put out statement after statement saying they have zero to do with the lawsuit other than employing the doctor, and that they support his work. They are acting counter to this and doing publicly. That is the problem people have with this. In a matter that by their own admission they have no business in, they are putting out a video clearly meant to be evidence of Punk lying. They did not give it to the Doc, the courts or lawyers they put it on their very public YouTube channel for everyone to see. We're not looking at if the Doctor did this or not, we're looking at WWE saying they have nothing to do with this lawsuit but publicly acting opposite of that. They're denying culpability in case something does go wrong and they need to cut ties but are trying their best to undermine the accusations because, ultimately, they're not as dissociated with it as they claim. I'm not defending them putting his ass up on Youtube, I'm arguing that classifying this as "an incredibly petty lawsuit" greatly underplays just how serious Punk's accusations are. I can understand that but when people see this as only occurring because WWE got shut down on all their other attempts to do something to Punk after he walked out, saying they have zero to do with it and then something like that video being published, it doesn't make the lawsuit seem to be built on legit issues.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jul 1, 2016 23:31:42 GMT -5
I saw the interview on YouTube, and have no idea what the point of this thread is. He was asked questions, he answered them (his story never changed from the initial podcast with Colt), and that was that. It happens all the time. People of note get asked questions, answer them, and then some asshole on the internet pipes up about how they can't stop talking about one subject or another as if it's a completely unbidden action. When Ben Affleck was cast as Batman a lot of people in the media thought that it might be a good idea to seek out Kevin Smith for interviews, since he made half a dozen movies with Affleck, wrote a Batman comic, and has a Batman-centric podcast. This led to a lot of heat from people on the internet who maintained the idea that Smith just couldn't stop talking about his buddy being cast as Batman. Unless Punk's just randomly taking shots at WWE on his Twitter without any prior prompting, I don't see how he's acting bitter in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 23:55:05 GMT -5
fame is a funny thing. I was just talking with someone about this the other day and it's strange to me that people expect more out of the entertainer/entertainee relationship than they do out of any other occupation. Normal occupational transaction. Pay money - get service. Entertainment industry transaction. Pay money - get entertainment (but also, the entertainers free time is forfeit and every waking second of their personal life is subject to the whim of whether or not their fans are within visual range). If I pay a plumber to snake my drain, I don't expect anything more than him to snake my drain. If people pay for a ticket to a movie or a show, for some reason just seeing that show/movie isn't enough? They're also obligated to do their job, for free, in their down time? Personally, I don't think any entertainer owes me or their fans anything more than to entertain them for the allotted time period I paid for. Beyond that - their time is their time and not owed to anyone who paid $20 for a t-shirt. They don't have to like me personally and I don't have to like them personally (within reason - obviously if they're like child murders or something that changes things) all they have to do is entertain me when I pay for it. There is a difference between fans thinking he owes them something-and him just plain being a dick. There is no excuse for being a dick. Not really a difference to me. Both are instances of being huge dicks. Fans who think celebs owe them time are just as rude as the celeb who is unduly dismissive.
|
|
canal
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by canal on Jul 2, 2016 0:00:16 GMT -5
The OP is heavily mis-representing the entire interview or just wasn't listening very carefully. The first question the interviewer asked him was "Why'd you leave WWE despite being successful there?" Then he asked Punk specifically about his "reputation" as a jerk in wrestling. less than 2 and a half minutes of that kind of stuff where Punk was just responding to specific questions from the interviewer. Later on he asked Punk about staying clean in wrestling, which Punk answered without even mentioning WWE really and he could have probably thrown them under the bus big time. The interviewer then asks Punk specifically, "What would you say to a wrestling fan who says you're in MMA as a money grab?" --- So the interviewer was the one who kept veering the conversation back towards wrestling and WWE. Punk did the bare minimum in terms of being bitter about WWE - in fact he didn't really sound bitter at all in the interview, he just answered the guy's questions which were mainly about wrestling and WWE. Its funny, for all the accusations I hear of Punk still being bitter, it seems to me its more the fans are WAY more salty about Punk than he is about WWE for some reason. Wowzers. Good to see this thread was built on false pretenses and hyperbole. By the way, I just noticed that Colin Cowherd looks like Corey Graves' dad.
|
|
|
Post by dreidemy on Jul 3, 2016 4:07:12 GMT -5
He's bitter because Brother Nero made him a MOTHER****** SUPERSTAR
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 3, 2016 15:49:31 GMT -5
I can understand that but when people see this as only occurring because WWE got shut down on all their other attempts to do something to Punk after he walked out, saying they have zero to do with it and then something like that video being published, it doesn't make the lawsuit seem to be built on legit issues. I'm not sure people in general understand just how serious these accusations are then. This isn't Punk railing against fans or complaining about people using him, these are accusations that could end someone's (likely very lucrative) professional career if they are true. From the doctor's POV, he's spent most of his life in medicine, pursuing it in school and working in the field, and it could all be in danger because someone famous decided to run their mouth off on a podcast and accuse him of borderline criminal acts. He's not legally allowed to respond on a podcast or news story saying what he did and why Punk might be wrong because of patient privacy laws (it's very one-sided that way), so the only possible way he could defend himself and his reputation are with a lawsuit. To write him off as just another WWE tantrum because Punk made them look bad makes it seem like people really don't get how big a deal it is for him. This lawsuit didnt occur because WWE failed on their other attempts, Punk instigated the lawsuit when he made comments that, if not true, are libel. If they are true, the doctor could get in serious trouble. People are allowed to have an opinion about who they believe, but unless they've seen his medical records and know how to interpret the doctor's actions, their opinions are uninformed and have no merit in deciding on who is actually right.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jul 3, 2016 15:51:08 GMT -5
Why is so bitter? Because he soaks in turnips.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 3, 2016 16:07:14 GMT -5
I can understand that but when people see this as only occurring because WWE got shut down on all their other attempts to do something to Punk after he walked out, saying they have zero to do with it and then something like that video being published, it doesn't make the lawsuit seem to be built on legit issues. I'm not sure people in general understand just how serious these accusations are. This isn't Punk railing against fans or complaining about people using him, these are accusations that could end someone's (likely very lucrative) professional career if they are true. From the doctor's POV (because this comes down to him), he's spent most of his life in medicine, pursuing it in school and working in the field, and it could all be in danger because someone famous decided to run his mouth off on a podcast and accuse him of borderline criminal acts. He's not legally allowed to respond on a podcast or news story saying what he did and why Punk might be wrong, he's only able to respond with a suit. To write off him defending himself his reputation, and his career as just another WWE tantrum makes it seem like people really don't comprehend what a serious malpractice charge can do to a doctor. This lawsuit didnt occur because WWE failed on their other attempts, Punk instigated the lawsuit when he made comments that, if not true, are libel. If they are true, the doctor could get in serious trouble. People are allowed to have an opinion about who they believe, but unless they've seen his medical records and know how to interpret the doctor's actions, their opinions are uninformed and have no merit in deciding on who is actually right. You keep going back to something is not what people are talking about as if we have no clue what malpractice is, while ignoring that people do not believe that was the purpose of the lawsuit or WWE's meddling in. This board is not that stupid, but the fact you cannot let go of fact that many people believe the lawsuit has nothing to do the with what Punk said about the doc and is only in retaliation for leaving WWE shows me that there is no purpose in continuing with this. No one is denying that he doctor can file this, they just don't believe he would if not for WWE.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Jul 3, 2016 16:12:48 GMT -5
You know I make jokes, but I still like Punk. Yeah, he shouldn't been a dick to that reporter, but I understand that's a part of who he is. I still feel like he was completely right about the WWE. I respect that he stood up to his bosses and left.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 3, 2016 16:53:10 GMT -5
You keep going back to something is not what people are talking about as if we have no clue what malpractice is, while ignoring that people do not believe that was the purpose of the lawsuit or WWE's meddling in. This board is not that stupid, but the fact you cannot let go of fact that many people believe the lawsuit has nothing to do the with what Punk said about the doc and is only in retaliation for leaving WWE shows me that there is no purpose in continuing with this. No one is denying that he doctor can file this, they just don't believe he would if not for WWE. It's not that I'm ignoring their opinions, I'm just saying they're wrong. People are attempting to make it out like that doctor wouldn't be responding to it, but I disagree because doctors have been known to sue for libel when a patient made statements like Punk has made, and people have been trying to downplay the seriousness of what he said. First, it was in response to someone who said this as an "incredibly petty lawsuit" to say that filing a libel lawsuit because someone accused you of borderline criminally negligent malpractice is hardly petty. You responded by saying that WWE's response undermines their notion that they're not involved, and I agreed and said that they're just denying culpability because they aren't really seperate from it. I agreed that they've been petty, but that their actions here, as ridiculous as they are, are just preemptive damage control because they can't really pretend not to be involved. Then you said that people think that it's just WWE pulling the string and there are no legit issues, to which I repeat that there are very legit issues that'd warrant a lawsuit in any situation and it really doesn't matter if people think otherwise. If people want to believe that this doctor is putting his career on the line by being willing to open himself up to the scrutiny of court by pursuing this suit, then nothing I say will change it. But if people are going to treat what he said as no big deal and nothing worthy of response (which is what I was responding to in the first place), then I'm going to say that they're wrong. Doctors have sued for libel based on this sort of thing in the past.
|
|