Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2011 16:25:30 GMT -5
Its so funny to me when people take things a small fraction of people say and try to make it seem like EVERYONE or even the majority of people thinks this way. It's funny to me when someone makes a generalised comment and people get offended by it. Actually, surprisingly, I didn't notice anyone get upset in this thread. Most people were just like, "Huh?" to the op.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 20, 2011 16:26:26 GMT -5
I just wanted to make a Jay and Silent Boy reference to riff on Kash's balldroppers comment.
Honestly couldn't care at all about the whole 'railing 'gainst the IWC' thing.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 20, 2011 16:30:57 GMT -5
The IWC/CM Punk™ Paradox rips itself wide open again!
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,375
|
Post by The Ichi on Jul 20, 2011 16:51:06 GMT -5
Its so funny to me when people take things a small fraction of people say and try to make it seem like EVERYONE or even the majority of people thinks this way. It's funny to me when someone makes a generalised comment and people get offended by it. I don't get offended by it, I just think it's an incredibly moronic practice that needs to be dragged out back and shot.
|
|
BigJerichool222
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
THE BIG DOG!
#NotInMySalad
Posts: 17,424
|
Post by BigJerichool222 on Jul 20, 2011 17:02:11 GMT -5
TBF I did see people bitching about Cena not going away, and I DID see people complain that Punk didn't show up.
But I'm 98% sure they weren't the same people. It would be a double standard if everyone complained about both instead of just one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jul 20, 2011 17:50:11 GMT -5
TBF I did see people bitching about Cena not going away, and I DID see people complain that Punk didn't show up. But I'm 98% sure they weren't the same people. It would be a double standard if everyone complained about both instead of just one or the other. I was irritated when Cena showed up the very next night after getting "fired" and I was disappointed when Punk didn't show up on RAW in any way shape or form last Monday. I just didn't bitch about either of them on the boards. The thing is, I simply like Punk and don't care much for Cena. I'll admit it. But there's more to it than that. The reason people bitched about Cena not getting "fired" is because it made the stipulation to the match utterly pointless. It's not the first time it's happened in wrestling and it won't be the last, but people always bitch when it happens. On the other hand, Punk leaving after MITB was not a stipulation of the match, it was just Punk saying that he's going to quit. They teased re-signing him also. It wasn't out of the question for him to show up on RAW Monday. So when a match is booked as "if Cena loses, he's fired" and he doesn't get fired...well that means that WWE just lied their asses off. If Punk showed up on RAW Monday Night it just means that he lied his ass off. And he's a heel...so that's acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Jul 20, 2011 18:04:09 GMT -5
I think your entire post, rapidfire, articulates very effectively why the argument proposed in the original post is specious. Look, I know some people are embarrassed that they're internet wrestling fans, okay? I get it. It's not like we all go around telling our friends that we talk about this show on a message board in our free time.
But the sheer amount of reaching that one needs to do to come up with a criticism like this is just... I mean, it's embarrassing in itself, isn't it? And all that, just to pretend they're not like all those OTHER internet wrestling fans. THOSE people are just crazy, but I'm not one of THEM.
These are two very different storylines, and two wildly different characters. Cena's Lawful Good. Punk is, at best, Chaotic Neutral. And you adeptly pointed out the difference between being fired and choosing to leave, in terms of whether you'd be allowed back in the building. These two things are nothing alike, but the self-hating smarks are so frantic to find anything to criticize their fellow posters about that they'd rather make an incredibly weak and easily dismantled accusation than allow others' feelings to stand unattacked.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jul 20, 2011 18:51:08 GMT -5
The IWC/CM Punk� Paradox rips itself wide open again! I marked hard for this.
|
|
|
Post by adam3s on Jul 20, 2011 20:07:07 GMT -5
I think your entire post, rapidfire, articulates very effectively why the argument proposed in the original post is specious. Look, I know some people are embarrassed that they're internet wrestling fans, okay? I get it. It's not like we all go around telling our friends that we talk about this show on a message board in our free time. But the sheer amount of reaching that one needs to do to come up with a criticism like this is just... I mean, it's embarrassing in itself, isn't it? And all that, just to pretend they're not like all those OTHER internet wrestling fans. THOSE people are just crazy, but I'm not one of THEM. These are two very different storylines, and two wildly different characters. Cena's Lawful Good. Punk is, at best, Chaotic Neutral. And you adeptly pointed out the difference between being fired and choosing to leave, in terms of whether you'd be allowed back in the building. These two things are nothing alike, but the self-hating smarks are so frantic to find anything to criticize their fellow posters about that they'd rather make an incredibly weak and easily dismantled accusation than allow others' feelings to stand unattacked. Attacked? I've asked why people felt this way, if I wasn't asking anything I wouldn't have made the original post. Whenever someone has made a point that I have chosen to respond to it hasn't been an attack but rather I've tried to propose a pint towards them about their opinions for a better understanding. Okay my title doesn't fully show that but you got to have something that catches people's eyes. And to rapidfire's points I think I addressed these. People have created this opinion that Cena is lawfully good but that's never been the case, he respects the fans but, in essence his willing to bend things (hustle). In kayfabe Cena did remain fired, he never gives up so why should being fired stop that...I have said hating the character is one thing but calling it incorrectly handled booking I am not happy with because clearly the audience ate it up as ratings jumped. People's grievances with Punk's situation seem to be that it's stopping the storyline in it's tracks when it's been one week, a week that revolved around a title tourney because of him and Vince getting fired partially because of him. Whilst with the Cena/Nexus storyline it would have been stopped dead in it's tracks if Cena didn't show up. Cena's recent 'firing' lead somewhere meaning that the storyline weren't pointless. Finally willfully chosen to leave cause you can't stand a place anymore or forced out of the place you love.... Which one is going to cause a quicker reaction to get back to said place? "I like Punk/I hate Cena" that's fine but people have said things like 'WWE missed a golden opportunity not having Punk show up tonight' or 'Audience noticed Punk wasn't going to show up so they tuned out'. "People payed Money to see if Cena would be fired...he was, so why is he on TV more than 99% of the roster" Well likewise people payed to see if Punk would leave the WWE with title in tow so why should he show up the next night with it? Would kinda add a redundant side to the story. Also I ain't some self hating smark...I am frankly happy with the way this storyline is going and it was initially posted because I got sick of hearing people complain about no Punk and not giving the story time to unravel. Also guys maybe I was a bit rash/whiny at times love the Photoshop/Jay and Silent bob reference.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 20, 2011 21:42:05 GMT -5
Yeah, but, Punk is selling the storyline. He didn't show up on RAW in any capacity. It was Punk's choice to leave, therefore we want him on TV because he wasn't forced out. Cena was forced out in the Nexus storyline, fair and square (at least with the Vince angle you could use his senile mind as an excuse for Cena not to be fired), yet, he appeared anyways on the same night, not selling the angle. Do you get it now? How often do you go back to places you chose to leave immediately after you chose to leave them. And actually nothing about the Nexus angle was fair or square. Cena was forced into Nexus due to them cheating, so they never should have been rewarded for it.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jul 20, 2011 23:47:37 GMT -5
The IWC/CM Punk� Paradox rips itself wide open again! I marked hard for this. Time Tunnel FTW.
|
|
|
Post by Sharpy Snow on Jul 21, 2011 5:18:01 GMT -5
So can we at least agree that CM Punk can sell being "fired" better then Cena ever could? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 21, 2011 6:00:05 GMT -5
TBF I did see people bitching about Cena not going away, and I DID see people complain that Punk didn't show up. But I'm 98% sure they weren't the same people. It would be a double standard if everyone complained about both instead of just one or the other. I was irritated when Cena showed up the very next night after getting "fired" and I was disappointed when Punk didn't show up on RAW in any way shape or form last Monday. I just didn't bitch about either of them on the boards. The thing is, I simply like Punk and don't care much for Cena. I'll admit it. But there's more to it than that. The reason people bitched about Cena not getting "fired" is because it made the stipulation to the match utterly pointless. It's not the first time it's happened in wrestling and it won't be the last, but people always bitch when it happens. On the other hand, Punk leaving after MITB was not a stipulation of the match, it was just Punk saying that he's going to quit. They teased re-signing him also. It wasn't out of the question for him to show up on RAW Monday. So when a match is booked as "if Cena loses, he's fired" and he doesn't get fired...well that means that WWE just lied their asses off. If Punk showed up on RAW Monday Night it just means that he lied his ass off. And he's a heel...so that's acceptable. It wasn't even that for me. It was that he gave this speech saying he was going home and thanking the fans and saying he was gonna miss them. Then he just turns around and goes "Well I was always planning to show up to fight the Nexus so it turns out all that stuff I just said was a load of crap." That's what killed it. If he just said he was gonna show up to take out the Nexus one by one when they least expect it then it would have been a lot better. No-one really believed he was leaving but it still pissed all over this emotional moment.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 21, 2011 7:17:18 GMT -5
the crowd or this forum? With the first one that really matters, that wasn't the case Wow, nothing as empowering or dismissive as telling a group of people their opinions aren't worth anything, is there? Well, who is WWE gonna listen to? You and the mionority who want Cena gone, or the majority that want Cena around?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2011 7:20:58 GMT -5
Wow, nothing as empowering or dismissive as telling a group of people their opinions aren't worth anything, is there? Well, who is WWE gonna listen to? You and the mionority who want Cena gone, or the majority that want Cena around? And yet that majority doesn't seem to be increasing, does it?
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jul 21, 2011 8:14:18 GMT -5
What an incredibly worthwhile and fulfilling rant that was.
Oh, and by the way. There is no such thing as "The IWC".
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 21, 2011 8:50:45 GMT -5
Well, who is WWE gonna listen to? You and the mionority who want Cena gone, or the majority that want Cena around? And yet that majority doesn't seem to be increasing, does it? A majority is still a majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 3:17:14 GMT -5
And yet that majority doesn't seem to be increasing, does it? A majority is still a majority. Business is still stagnant. Why not take a risk? These things work in cycles and eventually people will tire of Cena as uberface. A good percent of the audience already does. Latching on to a sure thing is a good idea but, without taking chances, there wouldn't be a DX, a Rock, an NWO, a heel Bret Hart. Cena can't do this forever, why not take a risk with someone else? If anything, Cena doing the same old thing week in and week out will hurt him in the long run.
|
|
salTy
El Dandy
Posts: 8,425
|
Post by salTy on Jul 22, 2011 4:15:11 GMT -5
Umadbro?
|
|