It has arrived

[Guest Doyo]

Please don't make up quotes that I have not said. Definately remove

the "so who are you to say he's wrong?" and "so that also proves that it's

good." as I never said anything like that. I gave the opinions of others

and why I thought those sources were worth paying attention to. I stated that

I would put more trust in Meltzer and Thurston than I would to some people

on a message board who thought they know it all. That was a hint that

maybe if you guys could state your opinions without being so cocky, then

you would get more respect. That's just a suggestion. Anyone on here can

be as cocky as they wanna be for all I really care.

 

When you come here and basically tell us that our opinions aren't to be listened to, it goes against the purpose of the thread. I have trouble "lightening up" when someone drags the discusion off topic with vague arguements from sources they don't know how to defend.

 

Yes, sure, that's what I said. Anybody reading this - don't listen to these

guy's opinions! They are not to be listened to, they are dangerous, they

give dirty bad opinions! Please, give me a break...

 

On page 1 of this excuse for a thread you posted:

I haven't read a single possitive review of Mutoh/Kawada, but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places.

 

I then kindly provided examples of sources that liked the match. How

this is dragging the discusion off topic I don't understand. As I've stated

many times, I wasn't trying to argue or defend anything.

 

You tried to discredit my and others' opinions by claiming that Meltzer and his readers should be listened to above us.

 

Hahaha. Now this really shows your ego. According to your logic here,

if a person value's anybody else's opinion more than they do yours,

then the person is discrediting you. So if you were a rock guitar player

and I said that I liked Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing better than yours,

somehow I would be putting your guitar playing down? Excuse me for

not recognizing you as the Grand Puba of Wrestling Knowledge. How

dare me to consider the opinions of the peons who you rule over

and have so much more knowledge than.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

[[Please don't make up quotes that I have not said. Definately remove

the "so who are you to say he's wrong?" and "so that also proves that it's

good." as I never said anything like that.]]

 

"All I know is that I'm going to trust sources

like Brandon Thruston and the Observer readers before

I'll rely on a couple of people from the smartmarks msg

board who think they know it all." -- Doyo

 

Did you really have to say "so that proves that it's good" to convey that message? I don't think so. You implied it clearly enough.

 

"Wolverine, you are kindly recommended to remove thy head from within

thy ass. Dave Meltzer and my grandma probably watched thousands

of matches before you were even born." -- Doyo

 

Do you even know how long Wolverine has been watching wrestling? I don't, but I gather it's a long time. Maybe you should ask him? Regardless, this is about as dismisive and ignorant a comment I've seen you make yet, and it's all based on the fact that "Meltzer's seen a lot, so Wolvy shouldn't have a right to put him down."

 

[[i gave the opinions of others and why I thought those sources were worth paying attention to.]]

 

And I suppose "Meltzer's watched a lot" and "Thurston knew about the Western Lariat storyline" were your defenses? You've failed time and time again to prove that they know what makes a match great. That's the crux of the arguement against them, so unless you're going to respond to it, your time is wasted in this thread.

 

[[i stated that I would put more trust in Meltzer and Thurston than I would to some people on a message board who thought they know it all. That was a hint that maybe if you guys could state your opinions without being so cocky, then you would get more respect.]]

 

Go cry me a river. Meltzer doesn't discuss matches, and we do. If you think that makes us "cocky" you've got some very scewed logic indeed.

 

Is Meltzer respected because he *doesn't* think he knows it all? Then why doesn't he bother telling his readers why the matches are good or bad? You'd think a humble person wouldn't think so much of his opinion that he would present it with no supporting arguement and expect it to be taken on face value. I'm "cocky" because I trust people who know how to discuss ring work? What planet do you live on?

 

[[Yes, sure, that's what I said. Anybody reading this - don't listen to these

guy's opinions! They are not to be listened to, they are dangerous, they

give dirty bad opinions! Please, give me a break...]]

 

Don't get mad at me for noticing the ignorant statements that you make. What am I supposed to do? You posted that hogwash, not me.

 

Once again, the world's smallest violin is playing in sympathy for you.

 

[[i then kindly provided examples of sources that liked the match.]]

 

I love the use of the word "kindly" every time you mention this.

 

"Dave Meltzer, you know... the guy who has been writing the Wrestling

Observer Newsletter for over 20 years and who I believe came up

with the star rating system along with Jim Cornette, gave 2/24/02 Muto

vs. Kawada ****1/2" -- Doyo, who hates people that act cocky

 

[[How this is dragging the discusion off topic I don't understand. As I've stated many times, I wasn't trying to argue or defend anything.]]

 

The topic was created to get feed back from people on this message board. Just because you don't give a shit about what we think doesn't mean the guy who created the thread feels the same way. He asked for what we thought, after all. If he wanted a bunch of Meltzer and Thurston's ramblings, he'd go to their respective web sites. Yeah, you fufilled my request for "someone who liked Kawada/Mutoh" but the second we questioned your sources (well, even before we did, actually) you became condescending and repugnent towards anyone who called them unreliable. If you had been able to prove that they *are* reliable, fine. But you didn't. You just continued arguing with "they've got lots of readers," and "they're generally thought to know about wrestling," whatever that means.

 

It wasn't the posting of the sources that dragged things off topic, it was your attitudes towards criticism of those sources.

 

[[Hahaha. Now this really shows your ego. According to your logic here, if a person value's anybody else's opinion more than they do yours, then the person is discrediting you.]]

 

I don't think you know what "discredit" means, so from dictionary.com:

 

1) To damage in reputation; disgrace.

2) To cause to be doubted or distrusted.

3) To refuse to believe.

 

If a person makes it known that they don't value a reviewer's opinion, yes, that's an attempt to discredit the reviewer's opinion. I discredited Meltzer's opinion several times in this thread. The problem with your attempt to discredit the opinions of myself and others is that you had no foundation for an arguement. So far, your main points seem to be "they have websites, you don't" and "you guys are too cocky." You'd do well to formulate a decent arguement before trying to discredit someone. Otherwise, don't bother.

 

[[Excuse me for not recognizing you as the Grand Puba of Wrestling Knowledge.]]

 

Very seldom did I give my own opinion on this match, actually. I said that Mutoh and Kawada reminded me of what a match between the Road Wariors would look like, but otherwise everyone else pretty much made the arguement for me. I never even said "My opinion is better than Meltzer's." I said why I don't like Meltzer's reviews and why I hold other people above him in regards to discusing matches, but never once did I claim to be Mr. Wrestling.

 

Pleading arrogance is often a nice way of diverting discusion away from the real issue. Maybe if you weren't always trying to divert the discusion into a whining session about how "cocky" we all are, you'd be able to make a decent arguement towards *why* Meltzer is a trustworthy reviewer, or *why* the people here aren't. I'm not holding my breath for that, though, considering your behavior durring this thread.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

[Guest Tim Cooke]

Hmmm. Last post was 2 days ago.

 

Now you bump it up.

 

Seems like you don't want it to die.

 

Tim

[Guest Jubuki]

Shh, keep that up and they'll have to start thinking about stuff!

[Guest Doyo]

 

Well, I'm perfectly happy to let this thread die, but seeing that

it's already at the top again right now...

 

Ricky, in all seriousness, I'm not sure if English is your first

language because every post you make about me you seem

to read so much more into what I said. Go back to my guitar

player example... just because I find one guitar player better,

doesn't mean that there aren't other good guitar players.

If I was the board leader here I would try and make everyone

feel as welcome as possible, even if I disagreed with everything

they said. If Meltzer's background isn't enough to say his opinions

are worth mentioning then there isn't any way to "prove" anything.

Once again, the only "proof" about Thurston that has been offered

in this thread is that he is an "idiot." But for some reason you are

not calling those people out for further "proof" as to why he is an

idiot, in contrast to how you want me to write an essay to back up

every little point I make.

 

Yes, me telling someone to remove their head from their ass is not

called for. But Wolverine was telling someone to watch more wrestling

before they posted here or something like that.

 

Meltzer and Thurston liked a match that some people didn't. Big freaking deal,

learn to live with it. I haven't seen the match and I may or may not

like it, also. I value everyone's opinions; end of story.

 

By the way, it is spelled "argument."

[Guest Jubuki]

So what you're saying, by trying to bust on grammar and spelling problems, is that you've lost the argument, yes?

[Guest wolverine]

I didn't want to post in this goddamn thread again, but Doyo, you don't seem to get it. The poster in question that I told to watch more wrestling (EL DANDY~!) is not some new guy here looking for advice or whatever. But he is a constant joker, who never listens. I also remember him saying something to the effect that when he saw Hansen clobber Kobashi with the Greatest Western Lariat Ever during 4/16/93, that he thought Kobashi was dead or something. Turns out he's never seen Kobashi wrestle in '93. I remember when we were discussing Aja Kong vs. Manami Toyota from Big Egg Universe in another thread, he said "Thanks for taking the only Joshi match I've ever seen to the bank, Wolvy." Turns out he's never seen Joshi.

 

Make more sense now?

 

I'm not going to act professionally with people who never do the same in return.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

"I also remember him saying something to the effect that when he saw Hansen clobber Kobashi with the Greatest Western Lariat Ever during 4/16/93, that he thought Kobashi was dead or something. Turns out he's never seen Kobashi wrestle in '93."

 

I believe that the point he was trying to make is that it was a very good lariat to say the least, and due to his raping of DEAN~!'s STYLE~!, it's hard to tell.

 

As for the second point, he's commented many times on how he's seen very little puro, yet seems to try and recommend stuff. Odds are, he simply reads the review of someone else and recommends something by doing that. At least that's the way I see it.

 

The Meltzer argument has been beaten into the ground so many times, so there's no point in rehashing it again. I will simply say that it reminds me a lot of how one could compare Rolling Stone magazine to Pitchfork Media, in that a bunch of tools who don't feel like thinking use Rolling Stone for their argument, while the rest who read Pitchfork use the music they listen to as their argument. An opinion is only worth its own weight in justifcation.

[Guest Doyo]

"So what you're saying, by trying to bust on grammar and spelling problems, is that you've lost the argument, yes?"

 

I'll gladly wave the surrender flag if it puts this thread to rest.

I don't really believe there is any argument to win or lose here.

I have given reasons why I think Meltzer is worth paying attention

to and people have given reasons why they think he is not.

There isn't really a right or wrong. Some people like the New York

Times and some like the Washington Post. Saying I like the New

York Times better, doesn't mean that I'm out to "discredit" the

Washington Post. There isn't really a way to prove which one is better.

I'm not Meltzer, nor do I agree with all his ratings, so I am not

about to argue as if I were him. I've kept replying to try and make

it clear that I'm not out to "discredit" anyone's opinion and such, as

Ricky keeps quoting me on things I've never said and trying to make

it look like I have gave certain opinions such as, "you don't give a shit

about what we think." I figured I'd mention the correct spelling of argument since the word got thrown around so much.