KTID

Cameron chaos is right, this dave guy is a complete loser. Oh, and so are snuffbox, coffey and anyone else who tried (in vain) to defend him.

Have I missed something? Since when does political apathy constitute a banning offence?

They did hold all the gold though.

Oh thank the good lord above us. This had better be a permanent decision this time, though.

Well, its Daniel Craig.

There wasn't a discussion. Quoting someone, and then either adding something to their point or disputing their point, is a discussion. Just quoting someone is, well, nothing.

Please, lets give up trying to converse with this idiot, and just stick to ridicule. It'll get the point across better.

Am I the only one who can actually read the first quote?

You should pin this thread. Hilarity may or may not ensue.

What in the hell do you consider Angle VS Benoit from RR 03 to be? What about Lesnar/Guererro from NWO 04? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the hell have they got to do with it?

How can you not see the worth in listening to a useless troll talk rubbish? Have you no sense of humour?

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? "Disciplining your child when he/she has overly misbehaved" = perfectly acceptable. "Child abuse" = unacceptable. Apparantly only this troll can't seem to make the distinction.

Surely "Are U2 really this big?" rather than "Is U2 really this big?" In answer to the question, yes. They're the biggest band in the world. Have been for over 20 years, despite a shocking dip in quality in the '90s.

Styles is good, but TNA and the Styles fanatics all tout him as "the best", when they've obviously been overlooking his lack of long-term selling and his tendency to try to get all of his spots in a match, which keeps him from being as good as Christopher Daniels, Samoa Joe, Bryan Danielson, etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ironically, HBK and Angle have the same flaws. But at least the anti-HBK/Angle people don't go crazy and start calling them "awful" or what have you. I guess it's natural to get into the mindset that overrated wrestlers are awful, even though they're actually good. It happens with certain matches too. Some people can stay objective, but a lot of people can't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seriously? That's all anti-Michaels people do, besides talking about 'teh politikz~!' <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How fucking blindly in love with the guy would you have to be to see the words "Shawn Michaels is really good, not one of the best of all time" and read them as "Shawn Michaels is awful"? I mean seriously, such levels of blind fanboy worship are beyond my level of comprehension.

You can't expect us to just believe that without pictures do you?

Just die. Please. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This used to be a banning offence. *hint**hint* He's an annoying troll and no you most certainly should not care about his opinion.

Is there no such thing as mods these days? It seems that every little thing, no matter how small, has at least 3 different threads devoted to it. Eg. Kane biography/Warrior DVD/HBK being a prick. Can't we contain all discussion of a subject to a single thread?

I can't believe people are even attempting to discuss music with Matt Young. Can't he be banished from this folder? For his own good, obviously.

Please stay as far away from the music folder as possible.

How can you call Benoit, Eddie and especially RVD "not fast"? And compared to Shawn Michaels no less. Careful now, you're talking to people who've no idea that there's such a thing as wrestling outside WWE.

That was the time when he thought he was going to have to retire due to injury. Now, that he's recovered, he's not retired. I mean, honestly, he's been doing a full-time schedule for over three years now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He spent 4 years thinking about retiring? And, no, he's not full-time and hasn't done a full-time schedule in 9 years.

The same thing he was doing for almost all of 1997. And 1995. And 1994. In fact, come to think of it, he's never been that active a wrestler, has he?

It is neither wrongful nor opinion. Shawn Michaels is a good wrestler, but there are many better than him. This is a truthful statement. When you argue with me, you argue with me. Tell me who has bastardized the definition of a great worker. I know for sure it wasn't me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are. By the definition of what makes a great worker (a mix of story telling, moveset, believability, psychology, bumping, pacing etc.), Shawn Michaels is not one. He's only great at one aspect (bumping). You're trying to change (bastardize) the definition of a great worker in order to call HBK one. Actually, it becomes more of a battle between numbers. You have this place, overflowing with HBK bias. And then you blindly take the rest of the world to be like that. And then you create your own meanings of "strong arguments" (you know, the ones which are in line with YOUR preferences and tastes) and ones those suck. How truly wondeful. ;/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're delusional, and you're not listening. So we're "overflowing with HBK bias"? Where? The worst that has been said of him is he's "good, but not great" or "not one of the best of all time". Show me the bias against him. You're making it up. I'll accept that many people dislike him, but no one has let this get in the way of honestly and objectively rating him as a worker. You, on the other hand, adore him and blatantly refuse to look at his work objectively. Ok. Now. How in the blue HELL are those to prove ANYTHING in your favor??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They prove that you are utterly incapable of arguing the points, and instead resort to throwing childish insults. Oh really!!!! *puts Dominic on ignore* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no idea what this means.

^Yup. Just as you saying Michaels is only a good worker, not great, being purely and entirely a biased, opinionated understanding and perception. You see, the thing about opinion, when you have one that strays, and in your case, strays a long way, from the one which is generally accepted by a large mass of people, and more importantly, by people whose statements hold gravity, then your opinion becomes restricted. Restricted only to you and that little lot with the same understanding as yours. AKA, the minorities. And let me tell you, 90% of such opinions are a result of bias. While the other 10% can be attributed to the person not being properly aware of the subject on which he's giving an opinion on, or his inability/willingness to properly understand it. Casablanca is a landmark, critically acclaimed film. You saying otherwise not only restricts you to your own delimited "personal" opinion, but also makes you part of that minority I just talked about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? That doesn't even make sense. Try writing in *sentences*. It' really hard to argue with someone not making sense. I'm not talking about opinions. A wrestlers ability as a worker is inarguable fact. Michaels ability is, for the last time, *good*. Every single person on here, and elsewhere, who is considered knowledgeable about, and possesing an understanding of, wrestling will already know that. By stating this fact, I am not expressing an opinion. What the hell are you taking about? What "hateful bullshit"? I refer to you as a blind fanboy because thats all that you are. You think anyone who doesn't see things from your blind perspective is "hateful" or "biased". I do not hate Shawn Michaels, or have any bias against him. The only bias here is the one that you have for Michaels. Also, why do you keep using the term "minority" to describe me and every unbiased, knowledgeable wrestling fan? By definition of the word, you - and the one or two other marks on here arguing against everyone else - are the ones in the minority.

One more point, though. Since they are obviously new concepts to you, let me explain to you the difference between FACT and OPINION. If I say to you "Rob Van Dam is my favourite wrestler" or "I find RVD the most entertaining guy in WWE" then I am expressing an opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't say I'm wrong. If I were to say "Rob Van Dam is a world class worker" or "RVD is one of the best wrestlers of all time" then I am making a statement. This statement is, and can be proved to be, factually wrong. Same applies to you, substituting your favourite wrestler in place of mine.