Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 11:35:00 GMT -5
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. You're right, I don't think you're debating correctly, because you're trying to debate the second of two points of my argument, which depends on the first point. You disagree with the first point, so that's what we have to argue first, not the second point. When I tell you why arguing won't make any sense either way you accuse me of not wanting to be challenged. Then you say I'm passive-aggressive. But all I care about is the structural nature of this argument and why it will never go anywhere. Imagine if at a Presidential debate one candidate answers a question from the mediator and the other candidate's rebuttal consists of "I think that's wrong." Imagine how well that would go over. If your argument consists solely of "I think that's wrong" that's not really something that can actually be debated with. If you provide some kind of example to back things up then that changes things. Then we can actually argue back and forth about the actual topic and not on the merits of debating or the supposed emotions that we can read of people who are completely invisible and aren't talking to us in person. This is getting way out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 17, 2013 12:20:10 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.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. Imagine if at a Presidential debate one candidate answers a question from the mediator and the other candidate's rebuttal consists of "I think that's wrong." Imagine how well that would go over. It goes over extremely well, actually. See also: "That's not true," "there you go again," "you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts," and one of the most recent examples, "get the transcript."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 12:23:15 GMT -5
Imagine if at a Presidential debate one candidate answers a question from the mediator and the other candidate's rebuttal consists of "I think that's wrong." Imagine how well that would go over. It goes over extremely well, actually. See also: "That's not true," "there you go again," "you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts," and one of the most recent examples, "get the transcript." I don't remember the first one, but the other three were successful because they were snide little remarks that belittled the other person, in favor of the person who uttered them who the crowd already liked. When being said seriously..eh. I don't think that would work out.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 17, 2013 12:29:48 GMT -5
Isn't the " I think that's wrong" pretty well implied given the opinions are opposed?
Not seeing the issue with stating it there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 12:45:00 GMT -5
Isn't the " I think that's wrong" pretty well implied given the opinions are opposed? Not seeing the issue with stating it there. The issue is it's so vague that there's no real way to argue with it. That alone does not constitute an argument. If I can get some kind of supporting example or whatever, I'm cool with debating the rest of it. ...I probably should have just said that, then.
|
|
|
Post by Zombie Mod on Jan 17, 2013 13:19:26 GMT -5
ok get back on topic of eve leaving wwe and not the argueing the points of debating things correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jan 17, 2013 13:27:36 GMT -5
I got the popcor....shit.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jan 17, 2013 14:25:18 GMT -5
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. You're right, I don't think you're debating correctly, because you're trying to debate the second of two points of my argument, which depends on the first point. You disagree with the first point, so that's what we have to argue first, not the second point. When I tell you why arguing won't make any sense either way you accuse me of not wanting to be challenged. Then you say I'm passive-aggressive. But all I care about is the structural nature of this argument and why it will never go anywhere. Imagine if at a Presidential debate one candidate answers a question from the mediator and the other candidate's rebuttal consists of "I think that's wrong." Imagine how well that would go over. If your argument consists solely of "I think that's wrong" that's not really something that can actually be debated with. If you provide some kind of example to back things up then that changes things. Then we can actually argue back and forth about the actual topic and not on the merits of debating or the supposed emotions that we can read of people who are completely invisible and aren't talking to us in person. This is getting way out of hand. You could have just as easily asked me why I thought it was wrong, but you didn't. I don't see how I'm debating the second of any point. I said it seemed like you based you opinion on money, and you confirmed as much. I said I felt like you were basing it on assumptions that I thought were wrong. You replied with a snarky answer about it being "simple" that you were speaking under a particular pretense but you never once inquired about what I felt or why I felt that way. I opened a discourse with you that I felt your approach wasn't fair and you were essentially like "yea, well that's the way I'm thinking of it." So, if we're going to argue semantics and order of debate, you're the one that closed the door on it and I'm left to assume it's because you didn't like that I said I thought what you said was wrong. To summarize: You would prefer to be the kind of boss that has monetary leverage over all your employees and to you, that translates into value. I don't agree with you, because I think one doesn't directly correlate with the other, and is an unfair criteria to base someone's worth on. I feel this extends to Eve. I didn't debate you poorly, and I think it's ridiculous for that to be your argument against my saying I felt your stance was wrong, but I'll let all that stand on its own and bow out because here is the actual place where we're reaching a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 17, 2013 15:26:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 15:37:41 GMT -5
You're right, I don't think you're debating correctly, because you're trying to debate the second of two points of my argument, which depends on the first point. You disagree with the first point, so that's what we have to argue first, not the second point. When I tell you why arguing won't make any sense either way you accuse me of not wanting to be challenged. Then you say I'm passive-aggressive. But all I care about is the structural nature of this argument and why it will never go anywhere. Imagine if at a Presidential debate one candidate answers a question from the mediator and the other candidate's rebuttal consists of "I think that's wrong." Imagine how well that would go over. If your argument consists solely of "I think that's wrong" that's not really something that can actually be debated with. If you provide some kind of example to back things up then that changes things. Then we can actually argue back and forth about the actual topic and not on the merits of debating or the supposed emotions that we can read of people who are completely invisible and aren't talking to us in person. This is getting way out of hand. You could have just as easily asked me why I thought it was wrong, but you didn't. I don't see how I'm debating the second of any point. I said it seemed like you based you opinion on money, and you confirmed as much. I said I felt like you were basing it on assumptions that I thought were wrong. You replied with a snarky answer about it being "simple" that you were speaking under a particular pretense but you never once inquired about what I felt or why I felt that way. I opened a discourse with you that I felt your approach wasn't fair and you were essentially like "yea, well that's the way I'm thinking of it." So, if we're going to argue semantics and order of debate, you're the one that closed the door on it and I'm left to assume it's because you didn't like that I said I thought what you said was wrong. To summarize: You would prefer to be the kind of boss that has monetary leverage over all your employees and to you, that translates into value. I don't agree with you, because I think one doesn't directly correlate with the other, and is an unfair criteria to base someone's worth on. I feel this extends to Eve. I didn't debate you poorly, and I think it's ridiculous for that to be your argument against my saying I felt your stance was wrong, but I'll let all that stand on its own and bow out because here is the actual place where we're reaching a stalemate. To be fair, I'm not obligated to ask you why you think I'm wrong. If you don't care enough to tell me why you're rebutting my argument then why do I need to ask you? If you can't think to put that in the argument then that's on you, not me. Or maybe we can go back to debating the actual point of the thread. Which would be a good idea I think. Anyway, on to the actual topic, I think performers like Gail Kim and Sarita illustrate the impact that money can have on company loyalties. Gail left TNA with some financial issues, went to WWE where the pay was much better, got engaged to a guy who is made of money and found that since money no longer mattered in terms of career, it was safe to go back to TNA where she vastly prefers to work. Whereas for Sarita, TNA's notoriously low pay stood in no comparison to the money that working in Mexico offered, so she was willing to sacrifice any kind of push or exposure in TNA for the far more lucrative lucha money. Of course, it also helped her that she can do a lot more there than in TNA, and there's no sense in discounting that, either. What I posit is that Gail and Eve are much in the same boat. They don't care what WWE was/is paying them because they can go elsewhere and it won't hurt them financially. In Eve's case she's leaving wrestling altogether. A lot of women have complained about WWE's conditions as of late, and if the conditions are bad, and the pay doesn't matter, then what logical reason does a person have to stay when they can easily go somewhere else with little to no impact?
|
|
|
Post by Zombie Mod on Jan 17, 2013 15:50:30 GMT -5
ok get back on topic of eve leaving wwe and not the argueing the points of debating things correctly. maybe i need to say it in a different colour and bigger. get back on topic of eve leaving wwe and not the arguing the points of debating things correctly.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,639
|
Post by PKO on Jan 17, 2013 16:28:46 GMT -5
One of Eve's best moments, taking the Glam Slam off the top rope. Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by dashingdro on Jan 17, 2013 18:37:27 GMT -5
*how I feel*
|
|
|
Post by Banjo Is Broken on Jan 17, 2013 18:49:03 GMT -5
*how I feel* Yes, I feel your pain. She was definitely the highlight of the Divas division. It feels like the lady version of if Hulk Hogan just turned to Hollywood Hogan and then up and left a couple months later. This was Eve's biggest time as a heel, and at her most potential, she has gone away. I mean, I know it's her decision and she wants other things in life, but I was ready for an extended period of Evie goodness in my life.
|
|
|
Post by kamotengkahoy on Jan 18, 2013 1:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
Dat Dude
Dennis Stamp
Wait, what?
Posts: 4,785
|
Post by Dat Dude on Jan 18, 2013 1:29:23 GMT -5
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,001
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jan 18, 2013 1:34:51 GMT -5
Well I assume it won't be like old diva searches when they will actually have competition on the main shows. Just searching for more pretty faces that they can turn into wrestlers. I don't think we will get diva search segments in the main brands. Thought if they can be as half as entertaining as the like the 2004 diva search when Christy famously said "Carmella, you're a C** sucking Gutter Slut", then I am all for the the diva search on tv.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jan 18, 2013 1:39:11 GMT -5
The WWE is so weird with the divas. They hire a few that can actually wrestle, then they turn around and go back to hiring random models. What they hell are they even trying to get out of the division?
|
|
Abdullah
Hank Scorpio
Thank you, Ishmeal Loves Bayley!
Posts: 6,421
|
Post by Abdullah on Jan 18, 2013 4:24:24 GMT -5
ok get back on topic of eve leaving wwe and not the argueing the points of debating things correctly. maybe i need to say it in a different colour and bigger. get back on topic of eve leaving wwe and not the arguing the points of debating things correctly.Well, I won't be going on about how to correctly debate or anything like that but I do want to get back to this idea that Eve owes us anything and that it's somehow wrong to push someone unless you know they're going to stick around for ten years. First of all Ungreat, you started out in this thread by declaring that 'this is what that WWE gets' and that 'Eve could have stuck around to improve herself and work matches with new people', so to you, this seems about more than just the entirely sensible argument that money plays a factor in decision-making. It's almost as if you think Eve is somehow less than a Melina or a Mickie who would hang around no matter what creative hurled their way. But whatever. I don't want to argue that with you. What I do discuss is your idea that essentially an individual's potential contributions to a company should be overlooked unless they're a long-term player. That's not a very good way to do business. This is your argument: WWE clearly saw something in Eve, so that's why they pushed her so often. But what they should have done is to ignore whatever they saw in Eve; instead pushing someone they have less interest in because that other person might stick around longer? To which I say 'what?' This isn't a discussion about Eve's talent. This isn't saying a more capable female performer should or should not have been pushed in her place. This is about you saying WWE should have ignored what they saw in her because she's more likely to leave, in your mind. That's wrong for a couple of reasons... The first reason being that you neglect the fact that this has been how the Divas division has worked for a long time. A female performer typically lasts 5-7 years. It's just a matter of them leaving first or management giving them the boot. I don't know how declaring 'this is what they get~' to the world makes much sense when this has been fairly common. They're not distraught over losing Eve. They're not losing sleep over it. They're fine. Which leads again to my main point: you shouldn't push someone who might leave someday? Let's examine that. Let's start by saying that if John Cena had a nervous breakdown tomorrow and decided to leave, would that mean WWE would be wrong to push him? Would it negate the benefits he brought to the company in his time? Certainly not. You could argue that they should have pushed others too, a lot of people make that point, and they are finally but does it mean that they'd be wrong to push someone who helped their company for years? No. They wouldn't. If Rock decided to leave after his feud with Punk, would WWE be wrong to have relied on him for the past two years? No, they wouldn't. He brought in great numbers for them. You could make the case that they shouldn't have relied so heavily on him, but that's a different case to make. Going by your logic, any short-term benefit should be ignored in favor of something more long-term that probably isn't as profitable. If a narcissistic tech genius came to MySpace with an idea that could rejuvenate the company, let's pretend here, should the company turn him away because his 'loyalty' is questionable? It'd be a crappy call to make. Now before you tell me 'I'm not talking about Cena, Rock or MySpace. I'm only talking about the divas.' Yes, you are. You are talking about a division that has no tangible financial benefits for the WWE. You are again assuming they should care about long-term growth when in reality just good booking would be ideal. For example, someone like Kharma, her character, it only has a few years in it before it gets stale. Were WWE wrong to sign her? Even with how everything turned out, I don't think they were. They have a memorable character who had memorable moments that they could bring back at any time, theoretically. What if they signed Cheerleader Melissa and she gave them a good two years where the division honestly improved, with her at the helm? After that, she said 'I'm getting older. I have to think about my life beyond this.' Would they have been wrong to offer fans those two years? Would they have been wrong to push Melissa? I don't see how Eve is any different than those two, except for skill. Given that Divas only last a certain amount of years anyway, given that the best you could hope as a female in WWE is to hope you're not forgotten, why should WWE have suppressed any potential they saw in her because she probably wouldn't stay as long as you like? I don't get that. It seems that the reason I took this time to reply, others have as well, is because your initial posts have an underlying tone of 'look at the Diva search girl who left; she's not a real wrestler.' That may not have been your intent at all, albeit it came across that way and it was bothersome. Finally, let me say this about 'career wrestlers' that would stick around forever, like Melina, like Mickie - they get unceremoniously released without acknowledgment. I'm not sure why you'd want that for Eve, I'm not sure why it's even worth noting she didn't stick around for that, unless you really dislike her.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 18, 2013 15:21:29 GMT -5
|
|