ESPN Article on WWE

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I think Black Lushus is saying ESPN's one to talk. They have botched a lot of things themselves. It's like WWE writing an article on how lame ESPN is, when they are lame themselves. And I agree. ESPN should shut the fuck up. Let the one who hasn't sinned cast the first stone.

[SuperJerk 0]

dude, seriously...what the FUCK are you talking about?

 

I think my point was obvious. Since the guy who wrote the article isn't the one who runs ESPN, your complaint is invalid.

 

Sorry you have trouble comprehending my posts. Here are a few suggestions that might help you in the future:

-Try reading my post slowly next time.

-Sound out words you don't recognize.

-And have a dictionary handy to look up the big words.

[Black Lushus 0]

a suggestion for you, my friend, would be to come up with something more clever, original and witty when attempting comedy...

[Black Lushus 0]

I think Black Lushus is saying ESPN's one to talk. They have botched a lot of things themselves. It's like WWE writing an article on how lame ESPN is, when they are lame themselves. And I agree. ESPN should shut the fuck up. Let the one who hasn't sinned cast the first stone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^ there it is...

[SuperJerk 0]

a suggestion for you, my friend, would be to come up with something more clever, original and witty when attempting comedy...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you honestly didn't get my point, then I was being serious.

 

I think Black Lushus is saying ESPN's one to talk. They have botched a lot of things themselves. It's like WWE writing an article on how lame ESPN is, when they are lame themselves. And I agree. ESPN should shut the fuck up. Let the one who hasn't sinned cast the first stone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you've ever made a mistake in your life, you're never allowed to say anything about anyone ever? The internet would shut down tomorrow!

 

Besides, since the guy who wrote the article isn't the one who runs ESPN, your complaint is invalid.

[Fökai 0]

This is a terrible article, indictitive of everything Page 2 offers (except for Bill Simmons' articles). He puts too much of a focus onto the past angles, which isn't really needed since the casual American's perception of Vince is that he really is a olden-day carny - there's no need to re-affirm that.

 

I assumed this article was about the writer being finally turned off by a WWE angle, which shows how far the Hassan angle did push the envelope, but instead turns into a McMahon-bashing article which is useless - referencing angles like Al Wilson and Fake Razor/Diesel doesn't help his argument, since there wasn't an public outcry over those angles when it happened anyway.

[Fökai 0]

EDIT: Double post.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

a suggestion for you, my friend, would be to come up with something more clever, original and witty when attempting comedy...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you honestly didn't get my point, then I was being serious.

 

I think Black Lushus is saying ESPN's one to talk. They have botched a lot of things themselves. It's like WWE writing an article on how lame ESPN is, when they are lame themselves. And I agree. ESPN should shut the fuck up. Let the one who hasn't sinned cast the first stone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you've ever made a mistake in your life, you're never allowed to say anything about anyone ever? The internet would shut down tomorrow!

 

Besides, since the guy who wrote the article isn't the one who runs ESPN, your complaint is invalid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's owned by ESPN. They clearly approve, as they posted it on their site. In my example, with the WWE writing, obviously the writer doesn't run WWE. However the point has merit. As for the mistakes.... well, look at it this way:

 

Guy A commits 1 mistake in his lifetime (a stretch I know but work with me here)

Guy B commits 24734793847 mistakes.

Guy C commits 42384762343 mistakes.

 

Now who's in a better position to rip on the other two? Guy B= ESPN, Guy C= WWE. Guy A= me. That's all there is to it.

[SuperJerk 0]

It's owned by ESPN. They clearly approve, as they posted it on their site.  In my example, with the WWE writing, obviously the writer doesn't run WWE. However the point has merit.

 

Its a broadly accepted idea that editorials do not neccesarily represent the views of the company as a whole.

 

 

As for the mistakes.... well, look at it this way:

 

Guy A commits 1 mistake in his lifetime (a stretch I know but work with me here)

Guy B commits 24734793847 mistakes.

Guy C commits 42384762343 mistakes.

 

Now who's in a better position to rip on the other two? Guy B= ESPN, Guy C= WWE. Guy A= me. That's all there is to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

Just because someone is wrong sometimes doesn't mean they're wrong all the time.

 

Your argument is that ESPN is being hypocritical, but just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Where in my argument did I say they were wrong? You're grasping at straws that aren't even there. I merely attempted to interpret Black Lushus's point, which he apparently approves of. Then I agreed with that interpretation. Clearly debate isn't accepted around this parts however. I have just determined your worth and I will deal with you accordingly. Don't bother posting a response directed to me because as of the minute this post is posted, you won't exist to me. Good day, Y2Jerk.

[bob_barron 0]

This is a terrible article, indictitive of everything Page 2 offers (except for Bill Simmons' articles). He puts too much of a focus onto the past angles, which isn't really needed since the casual American's perception of Vince is that he really is a olden-day carny - there's no need to re-affirm that.

 

He's showing WWE has a history of doing stupid shit like this Hassan angle.

 

I assumed this article was about the writer being finally turned off by a WWE angle, which shows how far the Hassan angle did push the envelope, but instead turns into a McMahon-bashing article which is useless - referencing angles like Al Wilson and Fake Razor/Diesel doesn't help his argument, since there wasn't an public outcry over those angles when it happened anyway.

 

The article is showing that WWE never seems to learn from the previous stupid shit they do that turns off the fans by continuing to do it.

[Boon 0]

[SuperJerk 0]

Where in my argument did I say they were wrong? You're grasping at straws that aren't even there. I merely attempted to interpret Black Lushus's point, which he apparently approves of. Then I agreed with that interpretation. Clearly debate isn't accepted around this parts however. I have just determined your worth and I will deal with you accordingly.  Don't bother posting a response directed to me because as of the minute this post is posted, you won't exist to me. Good day, Y2Jerk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I merely pointed out that both of you guys were 100% wrong for attacking ESPN.

 

Can't stand being disproven? Too fucking bad. Good riddance.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

This is a terrible article, indictitive of everything Page 2 offers (except for Bill Simmons' articles). He puts too much of a focus onto the past angles, which isn't really needed since the casual American's perception of Vince is that he really is a olden-day carny - there's no need to re-affirm that.

 

He's showing WWE has a history of doing stupid shit like this Hassan angle.

 

I assumed this article was about the writer being finally turned off by a WWE angle, which shows how far the Hassan angle did push the envelope, but instead turns into a McMahon-bashing article which is useless - referencing angles like Al Wilson and Fake Razor/Diesel doesn't help his argument, since there wasn't an public outcry over those angles when it happened anyway.

 

The article is showing that WWE never seems to learn from the previous stupid shit they do that turns off the fans by continuing to do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, but he should criticize ESPN first for botching things before looking externally at other companies.

[bob_barron 0]

But ESPN doesn't do anything too tasteless or offensive.

 

WWE does.

 

So no, he doesn't need to attack ESPN.

[SuperJerk 0]

I agree, but he should criticize ESPN first for botching things before looking externally at other companies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that's not his job.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

But ESPN doesn't do anything too tasteless or offensive.

 

WWE does.

 

So no, he doesn't need to attack ESPN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Showing poker on ESPN is offensive! You're right, actually. I see your point.

[Boon 0]

But ESPN doesn't do anything too tasteless or offensive.

 

WWE does.

 

So no, he doesn't need to attack ESPN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen Jim Rome is burning? PTI? Around the Horn? Hell, even Sportscenter.

 

Those shows offend me as a sports fan.

[Fökai 0]

This is a terrible article, indictitive of everything Page 2 offers (except for Bill Simmons' articles). He puts too much of a focus onto the past angles, which isn't really needed since the casual American's perception of Vince is that he really is a olden-day carny - there's no need to re-affirm that.

 

He's showing WWE has a history of doing stupid shit like this Hassan angle.

 

He's already the old Iraqi sympathizer angle. If he's going to use a valid point like the Mark Henry angle, then he needs to stop grouping actual appalling angles with stuff like the angles I mentioned earlier (Al Wilson dying, Fake Razor/Diesel). Those examples make him look like a disheartened wrestling fan from wrestlezone.com instead of a professional sports company like ESPN.

 

I assumed this article was about the writer being finally turned off by a WWE angle, which shows how far the Hassan angle did push the envelope, but instead turns into a McMahon-bashing article which is useless - referencing angles like Al Wilson and Fake Razor/Diesel doesn't help his argument, since there wasn't an public outcry over those angles when it happened anyway.

 

The article is showing that WWE never seems to learn from the previous stupid shit they do that turns off the fans by continuing to do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was the point of mentioning the Hogan/Slaughter angle - he didn't need a "top five" to make a legitimate article. In fact, it's de-legitimized BECAUSE of the top five.

[Dangerous A 0]

Why didn't he reference Kurt Angle-Would be gutter slut rapist? That was pretty low brow, even for WWE standards.

[Guest Andrew J.]

And even with all the crappy angles, pro wrestling is STILL more entertaining than real sports, and all the articles on all the wrestlecrap in the world isn't going to make ESPN any less boring.

[AboveAverage484 0]

ESPN and WWE both suck, let's just leave it at that.

[SuperJerk 0]

But ESPN doesn't do anything too tasteless or offensive.

 

WWE does.

 

So no, he doesn't need to attack ESPN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen Jim Rome is burning? PTI? Around the Horn? Hell, even Sportscenter.

 

Those shows offend me as a sports fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

S-------T-------R-------E-------T-------C-------H

[Guest JMA]

This is actually a very good article about bad gimmicks. I'm surprised ESPN put this together. Usually when someone writes one of these things it's completely inaccurate and asinine.

[Boon 0]

But ESPN doesn't do anything too tasteless or offensive.

 

WWE does.

 

So no, he doesn't need to attack ESPN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen Jim Rome is burning? PTI? Around the Horn? Hell, even Sportscenter.

 

Those shows offend me as a sports fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

S-------T-------R-------E-------T-------C-------H

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Y2Jerk- Always one with the witty banter, even at the expense of missing the joke.

[Ripper 0]

Well how about this. ESPN aired Playmakers and I am yet to see a article talking about how appaling and disgusting that was. They aired Tilt, and made sure to hype it with the "look at the people have sex" storylines and the hookers in Vegas. Taking the moral highground is a little difficult for them. And I know ESPN didn't write this article but they posted it. for every disgusting, stereotype filled angle that the WWE has done, ESPN can be pointed at for doing things like Playmakers, Tilt, Cheerleading competetions(if you have seen the commercials for that you KNOW what I mean) Fitness Competitions, racist articles and "I have never seen Donovan McNabb as a black quarterback ever....ever."

 

I would like this article more if I read it somewhere else.

[zyn081 0]

How politically correct we are all becoming, and Im referring to TSM.

 

Its really sad when some of my favourite posters such as Black Luschus, Porter, Bob Barron and Y2Jerk cant get along.

 

On an unrelated note, after reading about this, doesnt 'Secret' angles always turn out really bad. Im expecting the worst for Eddie-Rey.

 

And even with all the crappy angles, pro wrestling is STILL more entertaining than real sports, and all the articles on all the wrestlecrap in the world isn't going to make ESPN any less boring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think your in the minority there. If you were to add up all the people who liked soccer, football, basketball, hockey, baseball, rugby, cricket et al, wrestling would be pretty outnumbered.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I'd rather watch Sidney Crosby skate by himself on open ice and take shots at an empty net rather then 90% of the shit that WWE puts on TV these days so I'd say that's a plus for pro sports.

[SuperJerk 0]

Its really sad when some of my favourite posters such as Black Luschus, Porter, Bob Barron and Y2Jerk cant get along.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Proving once again that WWE programming makes people more aggressive.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Its really sad when some of my favourite posters such as Black Luschus, Porter, Bob Barron and Y2Jerk cant get along.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Proving once again that WWE programming makes people more aggressive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>