|
|
Post by respectmeordye3 on Oct 26, 2007 15:12:15 GMT -5
Which did you prefer?
Me, I always prefered WWF.
WWWF was always too long and WWE just sucks.
Besides the World Wildlife Fund never had a legitimate case IMHO after all they wouldn't have waited so many years if they did. Besides letters are public domain. You cannot put copyright use on the letter A or anything.
And the WildLife Fund is a bunch of human hating nazis anyway--they suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 26, 2007 15:14:59 GMT -5
WWF all the way, deffo.
|
|
Bones58
Don Corleone
Shuup Baby, I know it!
Posts: 1,476
|
Post by Bones58 on Oct 26, 2007 15:15:45 GMT -5
WWF. WWE doesn't roll off the tounge like WWF does.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706 
|
Post by The Ichi on Oct 26, 2007 15:15:56 GMT -5
It will always be WWF to me.
|
|
Mr. Mediocre
Hank Scorpio
Bert Early?... sorry, that's a typo. Butt. Ugly.
Much better since I was last here.
Posts: 6,249
|
Post by Mr. Mediocre on Oct 26, 2007 15:16:14 GMT -5
I use whichever abbreviation was appropriate for the time I was talking about. Example: Bruno Sammartino was a 2-time WWWF Champion, Randy Savage was a 2-time WWF Champion, Brock Lesnar was a 3-time WWE Champion, and Hulk Hogan was a 6-time WWF/E Champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 26, 2007 15:17:06 GMT -5
Thing is Wildlife Fund did have a decent case, which is why they won. I'm fine with either really. In fact I never understood why they didn't use the logo they use now, yet continue to call it the World Wrestling Federation. But it's been like five years now, so I'm fine with it.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Oct 26, 2007 15:17:12 GMT -5
I prefer WWF also.
|
|
CosmicPool
Samurai Cop
May the power protect you
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by CosmicPool on Oct 26, 2007 15:18:11 GMT -5
it's still WWF to me damnit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2007 15:25:39 GMT -5
I quite like 'WWE'. I don't know, it just sounds more ... complete? Not sure how to explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Oct 26, 2007 15:28:26 GMT -5
WWE usually, WWF to signify that I'm referring to the era of Hulkamania. The business models are pretty much the same though.
|
|
gimmieabreakbrain
Samurai Cop
I love garden implements. Wanna make something of it??
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by gimmieabreakbrain on Oct 26, 2007 15:33:51 GMT -5
I always just say WWF, WWE sounds too stupid.
|
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 26, 2007 15:35:39 GMT -5
WWF all the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Oct 26, 2007 15:42:58 GMT -5
WWFE
|
|
|
|
Post by The only Buzz Sawyer mark ever on Oct 26, 2007 15:45:23 GMT -5
Federation makes it sound more like a real sport. So I guess "E" for "entertainment" is more appropriate these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Oct 26, 2007 16:03:20 GMT -5
I think you're confusing the Wildlife Fund with PETA. Two totally different organizations. Case in point, the WWF actually does some good, while all PETA does is piss people off.
To this day I say Vince should have seen this coming, kept the Invasion going until Wrestlemania, and have WCW win.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfpierce on Oct 26, 2007 16:07:46 GMT -5
The World Wildlife Fund had an agreement with the World Wrestling Federation over how the initials could be used, which Vince stupidly ignored.
WWE is worse than WWF, but what bugs me more is that the logo is just a "WW". the WWF scratch logo looked dumb enuogh, and the current one is even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Branimal on Oct 26, 2007 16:41:30 GMT -5
I prefer WWF.
For the simple reason that I wish I didn't have to endure all the stupid blurring in every damn DVD I watch that has any match from the attitude era.
Its a good thing I started buying DVDs well before the "E" era..I have the original releases of WM 15-18 before it changed. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Oct 26, 2007 17:02:11 GMT -5
I prefer WWF, I wouldn't mind the name change as much if they didn't have to go back and rewrite history. I refuse to buy any new DVDs that have someone saying "WW(blank)" and the Attitude Logo blurred out because both are incredibly tacky, and TBH the blurring gives me a headache after a while.
I'm follishly holding out hope that both sides will reach some form of agreement to put an end to this.
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Oct 26, 2007 17:24:14 GMT -5
I don't know why Vince ever signed that agreement in 1994.
It was silly. It's hard to believe WWE lawyers agreed to it.
The very concept of this whole thing was idiotic to me. Only a fool would have been confused between a wrestling company and a wildlife organisation that just happened to share the same initials.
The "retrospective" blurring of logos and so forth was crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Oct 26, 2007 20:27:56 GMT -5
I don't know why Vince ever signed that agreement in 1994. It was silly. It's hard to believe WWE lawyers agreed to it. The very concept of this whole thing was idiotic to me. Only a fool would have been confused between a wrestling company and a wildlife organisation that just happened to share the same initials. The "retrospective" blurring of logos and so forth was crazy. What exactly was the agreement from 1994? |
|
