Trish Int. Pulled from Main Page

[Guest JHawk]

It's pretty common knowledge that Finley basically handles the women's division, as they mention that on Confidential about every other week.

 

Who knows about the Playboy thing?

[Guest Eagan469]

DAVE MELTZER says it was Trish- that's not good enough for you?

It must be a nice pipe-dream for Meltzer and Keith to think that an actual ~SUPERSTAR visits their websites and gives them props, not to mention a ~HOT BABE like Trish Stratus.

 

They're just assuming also.

 

Unless someone does a face-to-face interview with Trish or does a telephone interview and provides the audio, then there is *NO WAY* to prove Trish is on the other end of the messages/E-Mails.

[Guest bob_barron]

Dave Meltzer would be the one guy who I think would know.

 

Comparing Meltz to Keith is just ludicrous

[Guest Big Poppa Popick]

well, im glad most people are now realizing what just happened...

 

thanks AS for pointing out that yes, indeed, if there was a fake interview circulating the first time, we wouldve been told to pull it

 

the absence of a response implies acceptance of truth.

[Guest LindaB]

I think it's afe to assume that Trish made a mistake, she's human after all. WWE disapproved and she got in trouble, let's just leave it be. Hopefully noone is hurt by it and she can continue to enjoy the internet.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. Nothing in the interview was particularly damaging so I see no reason as to why the WWE (would) pull it. I've heard far more damaging things from wrestlers on OTR which the WWE has had no problem with (or else they wouldn't continue to book guys on the show). As for Dave's comments, I don't see how Dave would know her personal AIM name unless he actually talks to her on-line or talks to her in general (which I doubt since most of the info he gets is more male oriented - however Trish does have ties with Live Audio Wrestling so it would probably be better to ask Jeff Marek than Dave about the validity of her on-line alter-ego) and Dave also seems to speculate that the WWE pulled it rather than having it confirmed by anyone - since he referenced past incidents.

 

And as for the "the absence of a response implies acceptance of truth." if I see say, 2 time UFC Heavyweight champ and current Lightheavyweight champ Randy Couture walk by and I say "Hey Randy, I could kick your ass" and Randy just continues on his way... does that mean he believes I could kick his ass... or does it mean that he see my challenge as a total non-issue not worth responding to?

[Guest JMA]

Wow. WWE is built on a foundation of lies. They must really hate the IWC.

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

And as for the "the absence of a response implies acceptance of truth." if I see say, 2 time UFC Heavyweight champ and current Lightheavyweight champ Randy Couture walk by and I say "Hey Randy, I could kick your ass" and Randy just continues on his way... does that mean he believes I could kick his ass... or does it mean that he see my challenge as a total non-issue not worth responding to?

 

 

Difference is, you are calling out someone you are in visual contact with. That person continues on his way not acknowledging you. He's heard you and yes feels you are not worthy of a response.

 

 

Now. If you say emailed Randy Couture for whatever reason to follow up on something you were told that he did (i.e. an interview for a website, magazine, ect) and Randy or his people know for a fact that Randy did not do what your email says he did, whomever reads that email is well within their rights to make the neccessary actions against the site or publication where you saw the interview, wheither they respond to you or not.

 

Oh, and that does work if you saw Randy and said "Hey I saw that interview you did for Ring Magazine" Randy could say "Yeah thanks what did you think." or "I haven't spoken to Ring Magazine? What are you talking about?" Though it'd be intresting if he heard you say you read the interview and he went on ignoring you

 

Steve

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

Has anyone noticed TS9T75 online since the shit went down on Wednesday?

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

I think it's afe to assume that Trish made a mistake, she's human after all. WWE disapproved and she got in trouble, let's just leave it be. Hopefully noone is hurt by it and she can continue to enjoy the internet.

Are you Trish?

[Guest Eagan469]

Has anyone noticed TS9T75 online since the shit went down on Wednesday?

yesterday - and she had in her profile "please - no silly questions "

[Guest Dangerous A]

A mod please, mercy kill this God forsaken thread.

 

The lines have been drawn and I am 99.9% sure that you are not going to convince the nay sayers that it was Trish and vice versa.

 

LET IT GO!! IT'S OVER!!

[Guest papacita]

Has anyone noticed TS9T75 online since the shit went down on Wednesday?

yesterday - and she had in her profile "please - no silly questions "

That's always in her profile.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

A mod please, mercy kill this God forsaken thread.

 

The lines have been drawn and I am 99.9% sure that you are not going to convince the nay sayers that it was Trish and vice versa.

 

LET IT GO!! IT'S OVER!!

ITS NEVER OVER~!

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Difference is, you are calling out someone you are in visual contact with. That person continues on his way not acknowledging you. He's heard you and yes feels you are not worthy of a response.

 

Wait, aside from "visual contact" in which a direct reponse is, well, more direct that via e-mail, how is this any different?? It's still "the absence of a response."

 

Now. If you say emailed Randy Couture for whatever reason to follow up on something you were told that he did (i.e. an interview for a website, magazine, ect) and Randy or his people know for a fact that Randy did not do what your email says he did, whomever reads that email is well within their rights to make the neccessary actions against the site or publication where you saw the interview, wheither they respond to you or not.

 

Or they just don't cause (a) "her people" don't know whether or not Trish did the interview and just leave it be assuming she did, (b)They don't bother in replying or caring because it's on a little website, ( c )They didn't get the e-mail/threw it away when throwing other stuff out, (d) Saw the title which could have been "Trish Interview" and deleted it on the spot knowing that the WWE handles the majority of the the interview bookings for it's wrestlers... or, of course, (e)It's true, so why bother responding to it and let the reader assume that your lack of response is verification... Which only works if you're Homer Simpson praying to God with a plate full of cookies infront of him.

 

Oh, and that does work if you saw Randy and said "Hey I saw that interview you did for Ring Magazine" Randy could say "Yeah thanks what did you think." or "I haven't spoken to Ring Magazine? What are you talking about?" Though it'd be intresting if he heard you say you read the interview and he went on ignoring you

 

Mag interviews have more value than website interviews, especially those done over AIM. Typically the exposure is greater with a Magazine so it's more important to the person being interviewed. And in this case Trish *didn't* respond _at all_ (this regarding the first interview) which is the central focus on my analogy.

[Guest Choken One]

time to kill the thread.

 

Put it in classics for historical significance.

[Guest LatinoHeat]

For what its worth, I think it was Trish.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

DAVE MELTZER says it was Trish- that's not good enough for you?

It's good enough for me.

 

*Thumbs up*

 

Retro Rob doesn't lie.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

The idea that Meltzer would soil himself thinking that Trish Stratus of all people reads his work is a laugh riot.

[Guest Ghettoman]

It was obviously me.....