Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 15:33:00 GMT -5
It's okay Rosa is still here
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,639
|
Post by PKO on Jan 16, 2013 16:16:53 GMT -5
Just occurred to me: For what it's worth, Layla's the longest employed and currently only WWE employed Diva Search winner or contestant. ...yay? Rosa was in the DS the same year and has somehow survived until now. At this rate she'll be the longest serving diva ever.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Jan 16, 2013 16:36:53 GMT -5
Just occurred to me: For what it's worth, Layla's the longest employed and currently only WWE employed Diva Search winner or contestant. ...yay? Yay, yay and YAY. Also, given the toll wrestling can take on the human body, I don't think WWE should be that hellbent on searching for "career wrestlers" so much as just trying to find marketable and talented ones. How long did Austin and Rock's commercial peaks last, two to three years tops? Cena's only been a true cash cow for maybe four of his six years on top. And obsessive determinators [/tvtropes] like him who will die for a promotion are rare, so in the rare instance you get one, just count your blessings and treat them good. Limited TV time for the Divas aside, Eve and WWE have done good by each other and as much as I enjoyed her, I'm not demaning she stay if she wants to do other things.
|
|
|
Post by Miss_Carol on Jan 16, 2013 17:24:07 GMT -5
Just occurred to me: For what it's worth, Layla's the longest employed and currently only WWE employed Diva Search winner or contestant. ...yay? Rosa Mendes will outlast her as well
|
|
Essential1
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Essential1 on Jan 16, 2013 19:53:33 GMT -5
It's weird knowing a diva has retired while still being so fresh. She is a year younger than me and still has alot left. Time for WWE to bring back a certain hot chick...Melina!
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jan 16, 2013 20:29:09 GMT -5
Okay, fine. Any person. I still take umbrage with that. It shouldn't be held against someone that they're involved with another person who's wealthy. You're essentially saying that someone who is with a rich person shouldn't be given a chance based upon the size of the bank account of who they love, as opposed to being given a chance based on their effort and ability. I find holding someone down or back based solely on the wealth of another (or their own, frankly) to be wrong and insulting. And this whole time I've been speaking that if I were in charge of a company whose central goal is to make money, I would rather have loyal workers than ones whose loyalty is harder to gain. It's that simple. You're assuming how much money someone or their loved one has is a direct indicator of their level of loyalty. I think that's wrong. You're also assuming that someone who is of means/is involved with someone of means is going to be of less value to a company and make less money as a result. I think that's wrong, too.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo Is Broken on Jan 16, 2013 20:56:36 GMT -5
The only real way this hole in my heart could be filled mostly would be if the WWE suddenly decided to bring back Katie Lea. She was always very close to being my favorite Diva. Come on, WWE there's a sexy hole that needs to be filled, and there's only a few lone souls who could fill it. I'm just realizing how bad the term "sexy hole" sounds. Never the less, I stand by my statement.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jan 16, 2013 21:24:11 GMT -5
Getting Kate Upton vibes from this thread.
That said, Eve was the best active Diva on the roster. This is another nail in the coffin of mainstream women's wrestling in the states
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 21:26:47 GMT -5
And this whole time I've been speaking that if I were in charge of a company whose central goal is to make money, I would rather have loyal workers than ones whose loyalty is harder to gain. It's that simple. You're assuming how much money someone or their loved one has is a direct indicator of their level of loyalty. I think that's wrong. Alright. And I think money plays a large role in loyalty. If we can't agree on that single thing then what's the point of arguing either way?
|
|
|
Post by dashingdro on Jan 16, 2013 21:30:05 GMT -5
Okay, fine. Any person. I still take umbrage with that. It shouldn't be held against someone that they're involved with another person who's wealthy. You're essentially saying that someone who is with a rich person shouldn't be given a chance based upon the size of the bank account of who they love, as opposed to being given a chance based on their effort and ability. I find holding someone down or back based solely on the wealth of another (or their own, frankly) to be wrong and insulting. And this whole time I've been speaking that if I were in charge of a company whose central goal is to make money, I would rather have loyal workers than ones whose loyalty is harder to gain. It's that simple. I have a question. You talk about Eve being with a Gracie before she had her contract. Is this in fact true? I try not to keep up with her personal live much so I don't know exactly when they met but I am sure it was after she had won the Diva Search and she went out looking for training so she joined their gym and that's how they met. Even if she was with Rener at the time of her winning the Diva Search how would WWE even know who she was dating at the time. It's not like they ask her who she is dating, what is his name, what he does for a living and what is her boyfriend's yearly income. At least I would hope not. It's none of their business. Eve stayed and worked her ass of to be where she was. She didn't have to do all that promotional stuff, yet she still did it. Most divas last about 5 years give or take. Eve got out at the perfect time. Being the top diva and first ever 3 time divas champion. She had a pretty good career and she gave WWE all she could. It's time for her to move to other things.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jan 16, 2013 21:38:31 GMT -5
You're assuming how much money someone or their loved one has is a direct indicator of their level of loyalty. I think that's wrong. Alright. And I think money plays a large role in loyalty. If we can't agree on that single thing then what's the point of arguing either way? What was the point of bringing it up in the first place? All I'm getting from you asking that is that you don't want me to challenge what you said.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 16, 2013 21:49:23 GMT -5
And this whole time I've been speaking that if I were in charge of a company whose central goal is to make money, I would rather have loyal workers than ones whose loyalty is harder to gain. It's that simple. Even if she was with Rener at the time of her winning the Diva Search how would WWE even know who she was dating at the time. It's not like they ask her who she is dating, what is his name, what he does for a living and what is her boyfriend's yearly income. At least I would hope not. It's none of their business. Sorry, first thing I thought of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 21:57:51 GMT -5
Alright. And I think money plays a large role in loyalty. If we can't agree on that single thing then what's the point of arguing either way? What was the point of bringing it up in the first place? All I'm getting from you asking that is that you don't want me to challenge what you said. No, it's because we have opinions about two things that define the nature of the arguments being made. My whole argument is based on that viewpoint that money can, and frequently does, play a large role in a wrestler's loyalty to a company. You don't think it does. If we argue this aspect it becomes an entirely new discussion in and of itself. You said you "think" that what I said about the importance of money is wrong. If it's a matter of opinion, and accepting my opinion on the importance of money is the only way in which to be able to properly argue the rest of what I'm saying, and you're not doing that, then how on earth are we supposed to argue the rest of the argument? You are right though. I don't want you to challenge what I said. Because if you don't think that the money is quite so important, there's no point in wasting our time arguing something that we can never agree about because we can't agree on the most basic point underlying the entire argument.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jan 16, 2013 22:05:07 GMT -5
What was the point of bringing it up in the first place? All I'm getting from you asking that is that you don't want me to challenge what you said. No, it's because we have opinions about two things that define the nature of the arguments being made. My whole argument is based on that viewpoint that money can, and frequently does, play a large role in a wrestler's loyalty to a company. You don't think it does. If we argue this aspect it becomes an entirely new discussion in and of itself. You said you "think" that what I said about the importance of money is wrong. If it's a matter of opinion, and accepting my opinion on the importance of money is the only way in which to be able to properly argue the rest of what I'm saying, and you're not doing that, then how on earth are we supposed to argue the rest of the argument?You are right though. I don't want you to challenge what I said. Because if you don't think that the money is quite so important, there's no point in wasting our time arguing something that we can never agree about because we can't agree on the most basic point underlying the entire argument. Don't do that. Don't passive-aggressively say that I'm not properly arguing your point, because the only truly improper way to argue with you is to be disrespectful, and I'm not. You brought up this whole angle about Eve. If you didn't want anyone to dissect or challenge what you said, then you never should have said it. There's a perfectly reasonable way to debate the subject you brought up, and I was doing so. You're saying now that you don't want to create a new debate, when you were the person who initially opened that can of worms. You're right, we'll never agree, but to respond to my challenge with "well, why argue?" smacks of you not wanting anyone to challenge what you say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 23:51:18 GMT -5
No, it's because we have opinions about two things that define the nature of the arguments being made. My whole argument is based on that viewpoint that money can, and frequently does, play a large role in a wrestler's loyalty to a company. You don't think it does. If we argue this aspect it becomes an entirely new discussion in and of itself. You said you "think" that what I said about the importance of money is wrong. If it's a matter of opinion, and accepting my opinion on the importance of money is the only way in which to be able to properly argue the rest of what I'm saying, and you're not doing that, then how on earth are we supposed to argue the rest of the argument?You are right though. I don't want you to challenge what I said. Because if you don't think that the money is quite so important, there's no point in wasting our time arguing something that we can never agree about because we can't agree on the most basic point underlying the entire argument. Don't do that. Don't passive-aggressively say that I'm not properly arguing your point, because the only truly improper way to argue with you is to be disrespectful, and I'm not. You brought up this whole angle about Eve. If you didn't want anyone to dissect or challenge what you said, then you never should have said it. There's a perfectly reasonable way to debate the subject you brought up, and I was doing so. You're saying now that you don't want to create a new debate, when you were the person who initially opened that can of worms. You're right, we'll never agree, but to respond to my challenge with "well, why argue?" smacks of you not wanting anyone to challenge what you say. I'm not being passive aggressive. I'm explaining to you why debating this simply will not work. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me but we disagree on the most basic tenet of the entire discussion. There's nothing wrong with that, but unless we agree on that (which we don't) then debating everything else is completely pointless. It'd be sort of like me saying that apples are evil and you saying they're not, but us having completely different views as to what an apple is, (I say it's a gigantic tech company, you say it's a fruit) before the how. In this case, arguing the how is totally irrelevant because we haven't defined the what beforehand, and the what impacts the how. It's not exactly the same thing, but essentially, there are two sequential points to this argument. You don't agree with my argument on the second point. But you also don't agree with my argument on the preceding point, either. Debating the second point without having some kind of consensus on the first point is a waste of time because there's literally no way we can agree without that kind of consensus. And you have a different opinion on the first point, the "think" part. You can absolutely challenge what I say. I don't mind being wrong, and I'm not beyond reason. But if we can't agree on the first part of the argument why move on to the second part all of a sudden? Also, I'm kind of frustrated by most of my responses in this thread being explanations to people who didn't want to read, or wanted to jump to conclusions about little things I said. I don't really feel inclined to argue a point with 5-6 different people at the same time by myself.
|
|
Spec_Sun
Trap-Jaw
No disrespect Cody, but that's dashing.......
Posts: 406
|
Post by Spec_Sun on Jan 16, 2013 23:59:32 GMT -5
I liked Eve. Sad to hear her leave, but she has more goals to accomplish in life, and I respect that. All the best!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 0:11:00 GMT -5
Why do I feel so bad for Khali? haha
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,639
|
Post by PKO on Jan 17, 2013 0:39:10 GMT -5
Also, I'm kind of frustrated by most of my responses in this thread being explanations to people who didn't want to read, or wanted to jump to conclusions about little things I said. I don't really feel inclined to argue a point with 5-6 different people at the same time by myself. It's not really everyone else jumping to conclusions or not reading (other than the guy who admitted he only skimmed the thread). I understand your argument, but even so I don't think you've explained it well at all...no offence meant!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 0:58:18 GMT -5
Also, I'm kind of frustrated by most of my responses in this thread being explanations to people who didn't want to read, or wanted to jump to conclusions about little things I said. I don't really feel inclined to argue a point with 5-6 different people at the same time by myself. It's not really everyone else jumping to conclusions or not reading (other than the guy who admitted he only skimmed the thread). I understand your argument, but even so I don't think you've explained it well at all...no offence meant! That wouldn't be a problem if I didn't have to keep responding to people taking things that I never said and applying them to my argument. That basically starts with the second person who quoted me, and then onwards. When I'm arguing points with several different people at once it's extremely difficult to deliver some comprehensive statement that everyone is going to understand, when the thing that I originally said was (for the most part) misunderstood to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jan 17, 2013 10:30:33 GMT -5
Don't do that. Don't passive-aggressively say that I'm not properly arguing your point, because the only truly improper way to argue with you is to be disrespectful, and I'm not. You brought up this whole angle about Eve. If you didn't want anyone to dissect or challenge what you said, then you never should have said it. There's a perfectly reasonable way to debate the subject you brought up, and I was doing so. You're saying now that you don't want to create a new debate, when you were the person who initially opened that can of worms. You're right, we'll never agree, but to respond to my challenge with "well, why argue?" smacks of you not wanting anyone to challenge what you say. I'm not being passive aggressive. I'm explaining to you why debating this simply will not work. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me but we disagree on the most basic tenet of the entire discussion. There's nothing wrong with that, but unless we agree on that (which we don't) then debating everything else is completely pointless. It'd be sort of like me saying that apples are evil and you saying they're not, but us having completely different views as to what an apple is, (I say it's a gigantic tech company, you say it's a fruit) before the how. In this case, arguing the how is totally irrelevant because we haven't defined the what beforehand, and the what impacts the how. It's not exactly the same thing, but essentially, there are two sequential points to this argument. You don't agree with my argument on the second point. But you also don't agree with my argument on the preceding point, either. Debating the second point without having some kind of consensus on the first point is a waste of time because there's literally no way we can agree without that kind of consensus. And you have a different opinion on the first point, the "think" part. You can absolutely challenge what I say. I don't mind being wrong, and I'm not beyond reason. But if we can't agree on the first part of the argument why move on to the second part all of a sudden? Also, I'm kind of frustrated by most of my responses in this thread being explanations to people who didn't want to read, or wanted to jump to conclusions about little things I said. I don't really feel inclined to argue a point with 5-6 different people at the same time by myself. Now you're just blaming everyone else for what you said because you don't like how they responded. I read everything you said to everyone, thought about it, and replied to you. I myself took something that I read from your posts that no one had touched on, and asked you about it. I didn't get what I read out of thin air, I got them from your words. You can talk until you're blue in the face about tenets of points and the merits of debating, but the fact of the matter is you said something and I disagreed with it. You *were* passive aggressively blaming me, more or less saying I didn't debate you in the "right" way. Also, I didn't need an explanation of the art of debating. I've been perfectly capable of debating a subject - even when there's no agreement to be found on ANY point - before you and your breakdown. Maybe the issue isn't that people "jumped to conclusions" or "didn't read your whole post." Maybe the issue is that what you said? People didn't agree with.
|
|