Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 16:45:09 GMT -5
The Rock said the only thing he hasn't done is make a white baby.
Someone needs to find out if he has fulfiled his quota yet.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Nov 20, 2013 16:45:28 GMT -5
Remember that story about the crackhead? What in the f*** did that mean?
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Nov 20, 2013 17:25:49 GMT -5
Remember that story about the crackhead? What in the f*** did that mean? It was an awesome story that the live crowd ate up and it had positive moral to kids: Don't go on cool wacky adventures like the Rock or you might... Become a multimillion dollar actor/wrestler with all the...*sigh*...poontang pie you can eat.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 20, 2013 18:57:02 GMT -5
I think there is a Rock to English translater somewhere on the web.
|
|
mrbananagrabber
King Koopa
Paul Heyman's unofficial joke writer
Posts: 11,884
|
Post by mrbananagrabber on Nov 20, 2013 20:00:50 GMT -5
Whatever it means, it's a horrible line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 23:42:31 GMT -5
He is comparing how big he is relative size terms. A big fish in a small pond takes up a lot of the overall area of that pond. A whale in a tear drop is a way to say in comparison, he is much bigger than the WWE (the teardrop). The size of the pond and tear are not to be compared directly, rather, are used as the base of the scale. He is saying he is infinitely bigger than the WWE where Goldberg was a big part of WCW, but he didn't transcend past it in any way. He could not use a whale in an ocean or pond as his reference due to him wanting to make the comparison as grand as possible. It also does not matter that a whale is a mammal. Whale is being used for its size since you never think of a small whale, you think of a mammoth creature in the ocean. He couldn't use shark since there are tiny sharks and when you say shark, you don't think mammoth in size like a whale. If you think about it, his comparison is actually extremely educated. He really was a monster star compared to the WWE where as Goldberg wasn't that compared to WCW.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,074
|
Post by repomark on Nov 21, 2013 11:17:48 GMT -5
He is comparing how big he is relative size terms. A big fish in a small pond takes up a lot of the overall area of that pond. A whale in a tear drop is a way to say in comparison, he is much bigger than the WWE (the teardrop). The size of the pond and tear are not to be compared directly, rather, are used as the base of the scale. He is saying he is infinitely bigger than the WWE where Goldberg was a big part of WCW, but he didn't transcend past it in any way. He could not use a whale in an ocean or pond as his reference due to him wanting to make the comparison as grand as possible. It also does not matter that a whale is a mammal. Whale is being used for its size since you never think of a small whale, you think of a mammoth creature in the ocean. He couldn't use shark since there are tiny sharks and when you say shark, you don't think mammoth in size like a whale. If you think about it, his comparison is actually extremely educated. He really was a monster star compared to the WWE where as Goldberg wasn't that compared to WCW. This is a really good explanation, and i have to admit that quote always had me sctratching my head too just like the OP. I think whatever way it is dressed up, he is still in essence stating that WCW was bigger than WWE (albeit unintentionally). I get what you are saying in that the "whale and teardrop" was merely to illustrate that Rock was bigger than the WWE. I also get that Goldberg was only a big part of WCW and therefore not bigger than it, i.e. big fish in an itty bitty pond. Where i think the analogy falls down however, is that it invites you to compare both elements by using a similar example. I get what you are saying in that you are only supposed to compare the relative size of the rock to wwe, and the relative size of goldberg to wcw, but he didn't use unrelated examples. Rock used two water based life forms (whale and big fish) and two bodies of water (pond and tear drop). That is directly drawing comparison between the two elements of each metaphor in my view and where it falls down. Had he said "goldberg was a big fish in an itty bitty pond, but the rock is a transformer in a size 8", or something maybe that wouldnt invite the double comparison due to the two concepts being unrelated or connected in anyway. Are we over thinking this?
|
|
beamanhogan
Team Rocket
RIP - Macho for Hall of Fame
Posts: 867
|
Post by beamanhogan on Nov 21, 2013 13:27:04 GMT -5
He is comparing how big he is relative size terms. A big fish in a small pond takes up a lot of the overall area of that pond. A whale in a tear drop is a way to say in comparison, he is much bigger than the WWE (the teardrop). The size of the pond and tear are not to be compared directly, rather, are used as the base of the scale. He is saying he is infinitely bigger than the WWE where Goldberg was a big part of WCW, but he didn't transcend past it in any way. He could not use a whale in an ocean or pond as his reference due to him wanting to make the comparison as grand as possible. It also does not matter that a whale is a mammal. Whale is being used for its size since you never think of a small whale, you think of a mammoth creature in the ocean. He couldn't use shark since there are tiny sharks and when you say shark, you don't think mammoth in size like a whale. If you think about it, his comparison is actually extremely educated. He really was a monster star compared to the WWE where as Goldberg wasn't that compared to WCW. This is a really good explanation, and i have to admit that quote always had me sctratching my head too just like the OP. I think whatever way it is dressed up, he is still in essence stating that WCW was bigger than WWE (albeit unintentionally). I get what you are saying in that the "whale and teardrop" was merely to illustrate that Rock was bigger than the WWE. I also get that Goldberg was only a big part of WCW and therefore not bigger than it, i.e. big fish in an itty bitty pond. Where i think the analogy falls down however, is that it invites you to compare both elements by using a similar example. I get what you are saying in that you are only supposed to compare the relative size of the rock to wwe, and the relative size of goldberg to wcw, but he didn't use unrelated examples. Rock used two water based life forms (whale and big fish) and two bodies of water (pond and tear drop). That is directly drawing comparison between the two elements of each metaphor in my view and where it falls down. Had he said "goldberg was a big fish in an itty bitty pond, but the rock is a transformer in a size 8", or something maybe that wouldnt invite the double comparison due to the two concepts being unrelated or connected in anyway. Are we over thinking this? In a way, yes, but you are overthinking it a bit. To keep sizes the same and relative and use water, he would need to say something like "Goldberg, you are a big fish in a puddle, I am a whale over that puddle". It wouldn't have sounded as good at all and wouldn't really have put the point across any better. The metaphor is about relative size, not water. You have to look at it as a comparison of two metaphors that have individual meanings, not as one big single metaphor. Now, if you want to really overthink it. In the metaphor of a big fish in a little pond, the little pond could be seen as a description of something unimportant, hence little. He is saying that Goldberg is something big in something that doesn't matter. That makes sense in this case. If you use that same theory on the meaning of the metaphor on the whale in a tear drop, it doesn't make any sense. Under those circumstances, you could argue that the metaphor itself is bad. Like anything with language and symbolism though, neither is really a wrong way to think about it.
|
|