Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Hey, I know sometimes I can be a prick and athat, and to CERTIAN people (ie anyone except Mad Dog) I apologise. What I really hope for is that one day, I can sit and have a discussion about TNA, both its good points, and faults, without certain idiots coming along, and going "OMG...you dont suck Jarrett's cock....BAN PLZ", and running off to the mods, who duly shut me up My point about Smackdown was that most people read the spoilers, say, oh that sucks, and dont bother watching and for the last fucking time Mad Dog, I CANT WATCH THE PRODUCT. However, I am still entitled to my opinions, no matter how much you dont wanna hear them Thoughts on IWA -So....anyone who's with the Boss, is a heel, and anyone who's not....is a face. Man, anyone ever hear of the NWO. Great fucking choice of booker Jarrett. At least Russo had original ideas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Thoughts on IWA -So....anyone who's with the Boss, is a heel, and anyone who's not....is a face. Man, anyone ever hear of the NWO. Great fucking choice of booker Jarrett. At least Russo had original ideas Exactly! That's Wrestling 101. You have heels, and you have faces - Crowd pays lots of money to see the faces beat the heels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 But It's most unoriginal idea ever. I suppose with Jarrett now a heel, they can do an evil owner angle. That wouldnt work though, because Jarrett always wins....shit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Originality does not automatically equal great stuff. Mae Young giving birth to a hand was original, but it sucked. Wrestling is very simple. The same formula has worked for 50 years. People just need to follow it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Your entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean people are going to take you seriously. And you seem to let others form your opinion for you. In another thread you used a Scott Keith review as evidence that Edge carried Jarrett back in 99. Did you offer why you thought so? No, you C&P an SK review as your reasons. It's like me saying the Buccs were a terrible team last year and never having watched a single game. I can say that all I want but if I don't have any facts or first hand knowledge to draw from I'm going to look like an idiot. Or if I think they suck b/c so and so said so is going to have the same effect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I meant wrestling angles, not Mae Young given birth. God, I that blocked out of my mind, and now you bring it up again. GAHHHHHHH. I've no problem with writers copying other ideas (i do it all the time in EWR, i use the guy distracts other guy so team can haterize him nearly every week), but not a huge company emcompassing angle like a NWO one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Your entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean people are going to take you seriously. He reads, like, one sentence, and feels the need to flame me....thanks mate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I've no problem with writers copying other ideas (i do it all the time in EWR, i use the guy distracts other guy so team can haterize him nearly every week), but not a huge company emcompassing angle like a NWO one I'm sure you're aware that the NWO angle was a total copy of something in Japan, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Yeah, but it wasnt seen by most American audiences by that point Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Yeah, but it wasnt seen by most American audiences by that point Well then the NWO angle wasn't seen by most people in Puerto Rico! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Yeah, but it wasnt seen by most American audiences by that point Well then the NWO angle wasn't seen by most people in Puerto Rico! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I think Puerto Rican audiences have seen American Pro wrestling, we dont have access as readily to Puro Hey, Mad Dog, u see this, this is intelligent conversation, where people dont get flamed. You should try it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Yeah, but it wasnt seen by most American audiences by that point Well then the NWO angle wasn't seen by most people in Puerto Rico! Wow, you must think its fucking great that he got one over on me. Fucking Child Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I haven't flamed you once. Pointing out why your opinions misinformed and pointing out why just having an "opinion" isn't enough in a debate isn't flaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDinDC1112 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I think Puerto Rican audiences have seen American Pro wrestling, we dont have access as readily to Puro Hey, Mad Dog, u see this, this is intelligent conversation, where people dont get flamed. You should try it They might have seen it, but I don't think they have any type of working knowledge of storylines. I don't think they were glued to their TV in 1996-98 watching full episodes of Nitro every week. I HIGHLY doubt they got U.S. wrestling then. I have a couple of friends from Puerto Rico, and it is a VERY poor country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Mad Dog,Oct 30 2003, 05:05 PM] Your entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean people are going to take you seriously. I call that flaming. If, as a writer, people dont take you seriously, youre sorta fucked. Suppose I write a story for my paper about the baby hoax(massive news story in ireland at the minute), people read it and go....well that Dave O'Neill, he's full of shit Thats my career fucked. Think before you say stuff like that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Then you have a very weak definition of flaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 They might have seen it, but I don't think they have any type of working knowledge of storylines. I don't think they were glued to their TV in 1996-98 watching full episodes of Nitro every week. I HIGHLY doubt they got U.S. wrestling then. I have a couple of friends from Puerto Rico, and it is a VERY poor country. Well, I didnt know that, so I accept that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Then you have a very weak definition of flaming. Yeah, thatd be about right Bu, hey, you had a very weak reason on why you wanted me banned, so it works out even, i guess Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Mad Dog,Oct 30 2003, 05:05 PM] Your entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean people are going to take you seriously. I call that flaming. If, as a writer, people dont take you seriously, youre sorta fucked. Suppose I write a story for my paper about the baby hoax(massive news story in ireland at the minute), people read it and go....well that Dave O'Neill, he's full of shit Thats my career fucked. Think before you say stuff like that I was thinking he was referring to you making an assumtion about something without having complete facts about it. Think about it, you wouldn't post a news story until you had as many facts as you can get, would you? You wouldn't review a movie just by seeing trailers, would you? Then why do you, who has admitted to not seeing much of NWA-TNA, put opinions foward about it when you haven't gotten all of the facts. That's just basic journalism right there. Get the facts BEFORE you make the statement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Alright then, here are some FACTS, that I know, despite not having watched last night. -Next week, Jarrett takes on Sting Theyve really booked themselves into a hole here, as there's not one positive outcome this match can have If Jarrett beats Sting, then Sting looks like a douchebag, despite him being built up as a superman If Sting beats Jarrett, then not only does Jarrett lose the belt to a guy on a short term contract, but, as the No1 heel in the group, he'll look like a douchebag If they make it non-title, then everyone will smell a rat if they do a screwy non-finish, then therell be uproar -Raven takes on Jim Mitchell. Yep, a manager. At least when he was in the WWE he was against, you know, wrestlers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 You honestly make my brain hurt. How many more times are you going to have to be told about the Raven feud before you just let it go. Sting's probably going to win by DQ or it's going to be a no contest. That's the best outcome to the match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 You honestly make my brain hurt. How many more times are you going to have to be told about the Raven feud before you just let it go. Sting's probably going to win by DQ or it's going to be a no contest. That's the best outcome to the match. I dont believe for a second that Raven is being allowed book his own stuff I dont buy a feud between a wrestler and a manager Sting winning by DQ or a non-finish, is no matter how u look at it -WEAK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I reckon that the Raven v Mitchell match will be heated, but will also be shit. As for TNA this week, again, it looked ok. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 DQs or non-finishes aren't bad when used right. It's just that the WWF has abused and overused them to the extent that they've lost their point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 The point of DQs and Count Outs is to continue a fued. When a fued is being blown off, it should be blown off cleanly. WWE REFUSES to do that. At least TNA do a lot of clean blowoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted October 30, 2003 But Jarrett-Sting is not a feud and won't be continued as far as I'm aware. But with that being said, I don't see it as booking into a corner as TNA has no real reason to make Sting look good since he's not full time. Bringing him in to do a job and make their champion look better isn't a bad idea... it is just that their champion is Jarrett is the issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist Report post Posted October 30, 2003 Ok, but this isnt a feud between Sting and Jarrett,its one match Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I really dont see the point of having a JJ v Sting match just now. Unless something happens to further the Hogan/Jarrett thing, but what would Sting have to do with that ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 30, 2003 I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they do with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
