Guest The Decadent Slacker Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I don't want to see Austin/Kane, mainly since 1) Austin the cripple will look too strong against him & 2) the finish would be retarded, in that it would try to have Austin look good (which he doesn't need) & make Kane out as a monster. Throw in the fact it would suck & there's no real purpose, unless Kane destroys him & goes over. The "being fed to the face" argument has one crucial error on SK's part: the face in question. Taker has fought Kane ad-nausem. Angle has the same problem. Brock is too invincible for Kane at this stage; he's beaten almost everybody on SD!, men bigger than him (Show), men that are also genuine atheletes (Angle), & men who have a speed advantage(Matt). All Kane's done is set a senile fool on fire. The match wouldn't mean anything, especially since Kane has been proven as a non-contender since Austin beat him in '98. Keith is the exact opposite of what he thinks he is: an idiotic, marginally talented, cynical waste of sperm. His bias knows no bounds, & his ego is bigger than his wasteband. If I sat around watching wrestling & DVDs all the time, god knows how smug i'd be about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Coffey Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I don't give a shit what Scott Keith looks like. I'm not the most photogenic person on Earth either, and I just read his articles for what they are. Wrestling articles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goose749 Report post Posted July 24, 2003 So you didn't mention anything about a political scheme, yet you were just "simply saying" that he's an asshole because when he's not in the ring, he's booking people to bury? I don't deny that he's done shady things and I don't care to defend him, but you basically say you didn't do something, yet in the next sentence, you explain your original post, where you admit (in different words) that his backstage political moves were one of the reasons you called him an asshole. And I don't see how THAT'S the part you were being sarcastic about if you said earlier that you were being sarcastic in regards to seeing a Kane/HHH match. If you can't even keep track of what you're saying, don't comment. When I said political scheme, I was using it in the way that MrZsasz used it in a previous post, refering to me saying sarcastically that HHH's heelness is a front to give him the confidence boost I mentioned I would need. As for the Kane/HHH match post, I've edited it to show what I really meant to say, separating the two ideas. I was never sarcastic about that. Hopefully that misunderstanding can now be cleared up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted July 24, 2003 There was no misunderstanding. You said that you were being sarcastic about suggesting HHH vs. Kane, but then later claimed the part you were being sarcastic about was HHH's heel antics. No one misunderstood anything, you just couldn't back your comments and then tried to make it seem like it was the fault of others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest humongous2002 Report post Posted July 24, 2003 Scott Keith is nothing more than an overrated wrestling "writer", if it was up to him he would have Benoit with the WWE belt forever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I always wondered how come Keith never applied for like TNA if he thinks his ideas are so fucking fantastic... Face it...He is just Benoit Mark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Retro Rob Report post Posted July 24, 2003 Scott Keith is nothing more than an overrated wrestling "writer", if it was up to him he would have Benoit with the WWE belt forever. Pair that with your user title and folks... WE HAVE A WINNER. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goose749 Report post Posted July 24, 2003 There was no misunderstanding. You said that you were being sarcastic about suggesting HHH vs. Kane, but then later claimed the part you were being sarcastic about was HHH's heel antics. No one misunderstood anything, you just couldn't back your comments and then tried to make it seem like it was the fault of others. yeah, that's why I didn't change any of the words, and said I was sarcastic about something that lacked sarcasm in the least, as opposed to one that is full of it. Look, why are you trying to make me angry? I never insulted you, I never said anything bad about you, but you persist in trying to get a rise out of me. Why don't you just drop it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. I was just simply stating that before you had said that you were being sarcastic about wanting to see Kane/HHH because you would rather see that than what they had planned. You then later insisted that you were being sarcastic about HHH and his heel status. If I'm getting a rise out of you for questioning things you said, then that's your problem. Maybe you shouldn't be on a board if you get angry that easily, because I really did nothing. It doesn't matter that you haven't done anything to me, I wasn't doing anything that would imply that you did. If you think you need to insult someone to get them to argue something you said, then you obviously have more than a couple misconceptions about discussion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goose749 Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. I was just simply stating that before you had said that you were being sarcastic about wanting to see Kane/HHH because you would rather see that than what they had planned. You then later insisted that you were being sarcastic about HHH and his heel status. If I'm getting a rise out of you for questioning things you said, then that's your problem. Maybe you shouldn't be on a board if you get angry that easily, because I really did nothing. It doesn't matter that you haven't done anything to me, I wasn't doing anything that would imply that you did. If you think you need to insult someone to get them to argue something you said, then you obviously have more than a couple misconceptions about discussion. Yeah, but, you see... I really WOULD prefer to see Kane/HHH and Goldberg/Austin. I think that is the much better match. I admitted to you I made a mistake, I corrected the mistake, and yet you continue to pursue it, as if you had any idea what I really thought. Who are you to say what my opinions really are? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted July 24, 2003 I'm aware that you admitted to making a mistake but at the same time, you still were acting like others were the ones who misunderstood, while we were just going by what you had said. I'm willing to let it go, but in the future, it may help to just not take some things so personally. Remember, just because someone questions something you've said, doesn't mean that you've done something to them in the past, it just means that they're willing to discuss the matter and their varying opinions on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Taz_mark Report post Posted July 24, 2003 Actually have Goldberg win the title and continue Kane's monster like push then when they collide Goldberg comes out as the hero who defeats the monster. OR you have him lose then win in the return match. Unstopable force vs the inmoveable object=RATINGS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
