The W
Views: 179002102
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0818
The 7 - Site Bashing - Scott Keith's "Tonight..." reviewed...pretty harsh.
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (90 total)
rockstar
Salami
Level: 37

Posts: 73/229
EXP: 312293
For next: 25963

Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 7012 days
Last activity: 6890 days
#61 Posted on 30.4.03 1810.41
Reposted on: 30.4.10 1812.00

    Originally posted by hardygrrl
    First of all, his first response was an ad hominem attack. He didn't reply to my complaints, he insulted the manner in which I made the assertions. Bad form.

    Second of all, the second he replied that he admitted he made mistakes, then I won the debate. His cavalier attitude towards said mistakes and poor attempts to deflect criticism towards my spelling errors is proof of this.

    I need to write a book... Apparently they'll let anyone do it these days.





Hey, if you mouth off on a message board and misspell something, you're gonna get called on it, which you should, especially being a stickler for accuracy who refuses to accept shoddy work. Bad form, indeed.

You didn't win any debates, either. Scott more or less said he wasn't trying to be pinpoint accurate with the book, so you've got no opposition in that matter.

And no, you don't need to write a book. You've got a fine messageboard here to make an ahh...nevermind.
Likely
Linguica
Level: 21

Posts: 46/64
EXP: 45622
For next: 4322

Since: 2.7.02

Since last post: 7023 days
Last activity: 7020 days
#62 Posted on 30.4.03 1810.53
Reposted on: 30.4.10 1812.00
... and was the hummer driver.

This thread is hilarious. I came to Site Bashing to start a thread about this thinking that there wouldn't be one. Now we're on page 4.

(edited by Likely on 30.4.03 1613)
hardygrrl
Tocino
Level: 21

Posts: 45/61
EXP: 42566
For next: 7378

Since: 20.5.02
From: chicago burbs

Since last post: 6784 days
Last activity: 6234 days
#63 Posted on 30.4.03 1833.17
Reposted on: 30.4.10 1837.42

    Originally posted by rockstar

      Originally posted by hardygrrl
      First of all, his first response was an ad hominem attack. He didn't reply to my complaints, he insulted the manner in which I made the assertions. Bad form.

      Second of all, the second he replied that he admitted he made mistakes, then I won the debate. His cavalier attitude towards said mistakes and poor attempts to deflect criticism towards my spelling errors is proof of this.

      I need to write a book... Apparently they'll let anyone do it these days.





    Hey, if you mouth off on a message board and misspell something, you're gonna get called on it, which you should, especially being a stickler for accuracy who refuses to accept shoddy work. Bad form, indeed.

    You didn't win any debates, either. Scott more or less said he wasn't trying to be pinpoint accurate with the book, so you've got no opposition in that matter.

    And no, you don't need to write a book. You've got a fine messageboard here to make an ahh...nevermind.



When someone pays me to post, like Scooter got paid for his book, I will feel an obligation to proof and check my words. If you fail to see the difference between a published work and a message board post, then you're clearly a moron.

Plus, the fact is that he didn't respond to the complaints, just made more. What does that say about his ABILITY to respond to the complaints?

I wonder if he would have put on the cover "This book isn't very accurate." Truth in advertising, right? Scooter should ask his publishers what they would have thought about that idea. I mean, if he WANTED to write a shoddily researched and haphazardly written book, he should say that this was his goal all along on the cover - as a warning to those who might not be as lax with what they spend money on to read as others are in what they make money to write.

And as for "winning the debate," well if he wants to claim victory because he knew all along he was putting out lazy work, hey, I hope he's happy with the victory.

I will now allow Scooter to have his victory as someone who knowingly put his name on the pages of a book that was shoddily researched.










Venom
Boudin rouge
Level: 51

Posts: 252/501
EXP: 986776
For next: 27169

Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 6049 days
Last activity: 6019 days
#64 Posted on 30.4.03 1930.27
Reposted on: 30.4.10 1934.23

    Originally posted by Likely
    ... and was the hummer driver.

    This thread is hilarious. I came to Site Bashing to start a thread about this thinking that there wouldn't be one. Now we're on page 4.

    (edited by Likely on 30.4.03 1613)



He also tripped Fred Ottomon on his way out from behind the black screen...
rockstar
Salami
Level: 37

Posts: 74/229
EXP: 312293
For next: 25963

Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 7012 days
Last activity: 6890 days
#65 Posted on 30.4.03 1936.45
Reposted on: 30.4.10 1940.46
To specify, I meant that if you are calling someone out about inaccuracies, you should try to avoid having any in your message. I don't care what the differences are (paid vs. unpaid), but I refuse to take anyone seriously when they're taking potshots about accuracy, but they didn't spell check their message.

As for his ability to respond to the complaints, I'll refer you to message #49. Yes, it is late in the list, but I would expect anyone to be allowed time to formulate a response.

So we've got two inaccuracies in the book at this point. Congratulations, you're winning a major battle in the war against people not checking their facts!
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 54

Posts: 554/573
EXP: 1217675
For next: 16202

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 6750 days
Last activity: 6119 days
#66 Posted on 30.4.03 2314.32
Reposted on: 30.4.10 2315.48
I dunno, man, basically what this whole thing comes off like is that he "rushed through an introduction" as he said earlier in the thread, copied & pasted in the rants he had already written (without even putting them into historical perspective, so that HHH is described as God half the time and Satan half the time), and there's yer book. Big ups (TM Cole & Tazz) to him for writing the rants every week timely and without fail. But as far as the "book" part, if there is anything that is NOT half-assed about it, I can't see what it is... if anyone asked, which they didn't. P.S. Please don't respond to this saying I said the guy was Satan or that he kicks babies or any other strawman, cuz I didn't.
CANADIAN BULLDOG
Andouille
Level: 92

Posts: 230/1962
EXP: 7622828
For next: 134139

Since: 5.3.03
From: TORONTO

Since last post: 3990 days
Last activity: 1610 days
ICQ:  
#67 Posted on 30.4.03 2319.31
Reposted on: 30.4.10 2320.04

    Originally posted by hardygrrl

    I wonder if he would have put on the cover "This book isn't very accurate." Truth in advertising, right? Scooter should ask his publishers what they would have thought about that idea. I mean, if he WANTED to write a shoddily researched and haphazardly written book, he should say that this was his goal all along on the cover - as a warning to those who might not be as lax with what they spend money on to read as others are in what they make money to write.



Just curious here -- did you happen to make the same criticisms of `The Complete Idiot's Guide to Professional Wrestling' when it came out a few years back? For the uninitiated, there was more wrong than right in that one, factually. You couldn't go a page without finding something wrong in it... And it was written (partially) by Lou Albano, someone who has been in the business for ages! I did a quick search through this site and couldn't find anyone tearing apart that particular book -- though if I missed it, I'm sure someone will correct me.
What about the WWE trivia book that came out recently? I mean, geez, that was written by the company themselves, they have all the research at their fingertips. And how many mistakes did THEY make on that?
And it's not just them -- virtually every book from Meltzer's Tributes to all the autobiographies, even my absolute favorite in `Have A Nice Day' -- all of them contain errors to some degree. Hey, I'm not saying it's right, but I just kind of wonder why you see fit to pick apart this particular book over others?
rspwfaq
Cotechino
Level: 25

Posts: 54/93
EXP: 80025
For next: 9596

Since: 10.6.02
From: Saskatoon

Since last post: 3089 days
Last activity: 2160 days
#68 Posted on 30.4.03 2356.24
Reposted on: 30.4.10 2357.25
I dunno, man, basically what this whole thing comes off like is that he "rushed through an introduction" as he said earlier in the thread, copied & pasted in the rants he had already written (without even putting them into historical perspective, so that HHH is described as God half the time and Satan half the time), and there's yer book.

The only thing copy-and-pasted was the match reviews, which I felt would be cheating the readers by rewriting them to match my current views. Many people felt it was more effective to leave the "HHH is god" comments intact, because it demonstrates how quickly things can change in wrestling and provides for an interesting contrast to my views later on. Others think it's lazy. Damned if ya do and all that.

The Lear & Lazarus portions (a small part of the book) were expanded and re-written almost completely, and everything else from 1997-on were entirely new, such as my lengthy diatribes about Montreal and Owen Hart. I'm assuming you haven't read the book, but rest assured it's not just pasted rants in the least.

And the introduction was rushed because I didn't ever intend to include it -- originally I started in 1993, but my agent was kinda like "Hey, you should do something about the early years of the WWWF" so I banged off the intro over a weekend as a rough guide and it ended up staying in the book. If I were to have a "director's cut" of the book in hindsight, I'd have stuck with starting in 1993 or else fought harder for more space to work with so I could expand the early years section, but what's done is done. I was really just sort of anxious to get into the 90s and get the story moving, which I think comes across in the final product, too.
OldManChase
Cotto
Level: 18

Posts: 31/43
EXP: 24770
For next: 5128

Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 7562 days
Last activity: 7242 days
#69 Posted on 1.5.03 0001.12
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0003.10
Hardygrrl’s anger seems a little disproportional ... I’m pretty sure her rage stems from a latent desire to get into Scott’s husky pants.

But seriously, I do enjoy reading him (even though I do roll my eyes on occasion – the whole alcohol not being addictive comment was pretty fun) but agree it appears he could take a little more care and pride in his work, especially work for which he is paid. As has been stated many times by others, I haven’t bought his book because I have seen it all online in one version or another.

I’m not sure where all this hatred for him comes from, although Hardygrrl’s repeated shouts of “anybody can write a book” leads me to one conclusion ... jealousy. I’ve sat around thinking about writing a book several times (non-wrestling related – I’m thinking a history of beer and porn sounds interesting) but I have yet, and most likely never will, write one. So for Scott’s initiative and determination I give him a big old Hacksaw thumbs up. Sure the book might be a cut and paste job, but he cut and pasted his own work, so he did actually write it (for better or for worse).

Jackson
Sujuk
Level: 69

Posts: 471/976
EXP: 2747459
For next: 122299

Since: 4.1.02

Since last post: 5434 days
Last activity: 4959 days
#70 Posted on 1.5.03 0157.31
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0158.06
Given hardygrrl's no selling and rspwfaq's face in peril I rate this thread *DUD*

Or thumbs in the middle. I can't really commit to either. READ THE BOOK!

Oh yeah and HHH sucks! Benoit 4EVER!
J. Kyle
Banger
Level: 104

Posts: 920/2552
EXP: 11581810
For next: 280355

Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 1561 days
Last activity: 1341 days
Y!:
#71 Posted on 1.5.03 0426.52
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0427.47

    Originally posted by Likely
    ... and was the hummer driver.

    This thread is hilarious. I came to Site Bashing to start a thread about this thinking that there wouldn't be one. Now we're on page 4.

    (edited by Likely on 30.4.03 1613)

Page 4 of who knows how many free pages of advertisement this book is getting.

Scott must have a "Kevin Nash looking at his paycheck" shit-eating grin on his face every time he looks at it.
hardygrrl
Tocino
Level: 21

Posts: 46/61
EXP: 42566
For next: 7378

Since: 20.5.02
From: chicago burbs

Since last post: 6784 days
Last activity: 6234 days
#72 Posted on 1.5.03 0809.25
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0809.51



    Originally posted by OldManChase

    Hardygrrl’s anger seems a little disproportional ... I’m pretty sure her rage stems from a latent desire to get into Scott’s husky pants.




I've seen that picture of Scooter that Scotsman posted ... between the grime layer and the Seventies game show host hair, I'd rather rim Undertaker after a White Castle/Schlitz bender.


haz
Landjager
Level: 66

Posts: 372/904
EXP: 2449372
For next: 12492

Since: 2.1.02
From: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

Since last post: 3515 days
Last activity: 2179 days
#73 Posted on 1.5.03 0846.48
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0847.06

    Originally posted by hardygrrl



      Originally posted by OldManChase

      Hardygrrl’s anger seems a little disproportional ... I’m pretty sure her rage stems from a latent desire to get into Scott’s husky pants.




    I've seen that picture of Scooter that Scotsman posted ... between the grime layer and the Seventies game show host hair, I'd rather rim Undertaker after a White Castle/Schlitz bender.






Look, I didn't need to read that hardygrrl. Geesh, what a way to wreck the morning...
HomerJFong
Ten Millionth Hit
Level: 60

Posts: 474/730
EXP: 1769085
For next: 3703

Since: 19.3.02
From: Ontario, Canada

Since last post: 6118 days
Last activity: 4944 days
#74 Posted on 1.5.03 0944.04
Reposted on: 1.5.10 0944.52

    Originally posted by haz

      Originally posted by hardygrrl



        Originally posted by OldManChase

        Hardygrrl’s anger seems a little disproportional ... I’m pretty sure her rage stems from a latent desire to get into Scott’s husky pants.




      I've seen that picture of Scooter that Scotsman posted ... between the grime layer and the Seventies game show host hair, I'd rather rim Undertaker after a White Castle/Schlitz bender.






    Look, I didn't need to read that hardygrrl. Geesh, what a way to wreck the morning...



I don't know about it being that horrible - I'm thinking that belongs in the 2003 Quotes Archive.
The King of Keith
Lap cheong
Level: 84

Posts: 463/1573
EXP: 5514972
For next: 147004

Since: 4.11.02
From: Winchester, VA

Since last post: 3394 days
Last activity: 3393 days
#75 Posted on 1.5.03 1129.20
Reposted on: 1.5.10 1129.41
I don't know. I don't like him myself. I think he's way too down on the product. He kind of reminds me of a Rush Limbaugh. I'd listen to him every once in a while to make me angry or make me laugh, but I never agreed with the guy. I like to read his column b/c it angers me. Does that make any sense at all?
The Decadent Slacker
Medisterpoelse
Level: 3

Posts: 1/1
EXP: 87
For next: 41

Since: 2.5.03
From: Shermer, IL

Since last post: 7636 days
Last activity: 7452 days
#76 Posted on 2.5.03 0054.52
Reposted on: 2.5.10 0055.23
I just find Scott's ignorance funny. not to mention The Bhudda of Wrestling (look at him) gets pissy at everyone because people don't agree with his "brilliant skills" as an author. i just find this thread funny more than anything. Scott, it's okay. You don't need to rationalize anything for us, the rabble who bought the cage-liner of a book. & hardygrrl, the sexually disturbing comments about Scott & that crippled, has-been, slow-moving, fried-food
eating, no-money-drawing, talentless piece of selfish SHIT, have made you a friend in my book...which, apparently, won't be hard to publish
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 145

Posts: 167/5537
EXP: 37175855
For next: 428317

Since: 12.12.01

Since last post: 1764 days
Last activity: 1416 days
#77 Posted on 2.5.03 0131.35
Reposted on: 2.5.10 0134.32
"Page 4 of who knows how many free pages of advertisement this book is getting."

You're totally right, dude. Surely nobody reading this thread already knew about the book! WHAT A COUP
TMartin
Medisterpoelse
Level: 4

Posts: 1/2
EXP: 247
For next: 32

Since: 2.5.03
From: Bethesda, MD/Los Angeles, CA

Since last post: 7253 days
Last activity: 6847 days
#78 Posted on 2.5.03 0156.59
Reposted on: 2.5.10 0157.34
Hello. I was alerted to this discussion, and I figured I'd drop in to let you know where I'm coming from since it seems no one really knows, whether or not they agree or disagree with my comments.

I have no real opinion of Scott Keith personally. I used to read him fairly regularly years ago, but I stopped doing so a while back. Not so much a distaste for his online writing, actually. It was more just that Meltzer and Keller came online, and a number of other sites opened up that I felt were more worth investing my time in. I don't think I've ever actually had any interaction with Scott, and I have no opinion of him personally. My tone of aggravation in reviewing the book stems completely from the content of his 2 books, both of which I read. I'm posting here because I don't want to write about the book again in future columns. My intent is not to have a "bash Scott Keith" trend, and that's the last you're likely to hear written by me about Scott Keith, at least for a very long time.

Three basic problems with the book that should let you know why I came down so strongly upon it. One. My feeling is it exhibited very little effort or care for the reader, and that aggravated me as someone who paid money to read the book. This did not read like a book that the author had a great deal of pride in, and I think that is disrespectful to the reader. The book was not constructed in such a manner that gave me the sense the author cared whether it was a good book or a bad book. I'm not psychic, so who knows if that's the case. But it's certainly the sense I got and it rubbed me the wrong way from very early on. I think people who defend Scott and have read the book ought to seriously consider whether his efforts in this book are deserving of their defense. I won't make that decision for you, but it's probably quite obvious where I stand.

Two. A constant barrage of inaccuracies. The article ended up being so long because I literally had pages and pages of notes about the way the book manipulated the truth or gave false facts. Wrestling history is so hard to come by that I think if you are going to label your book "history" you really should be cognizant of what that word entails. There's a certain responsibility that comes with it that I don't feel was met. I wouldn't have expected some semblance of objectivity if this book did not define itself as history, and talk about providing the "real" story of the WWE. When you label something history, and then distort the truth to fit your agenda, you're deserving of heavy criticism. Particularly when you criticize the WWE for doing the exact same thing. WWE has a messed up version of its history, but you can't counter that history if you aren't accurate. Triple H deserves a truckload of criticism for his role in harming the WWE the last couple of years, but if you aren't fair and objective in your criticism, it has no merit. I felt if I pointed out some errors and ignored others, I would implicitly be accepting the other errors as truths. Thus, I kept on plugging away to the point of redundancy with all the errors. The article would have been much shorter had there been fewer mistakes.

Three. The tone of the book was openly hostile and hateful towards many wrestlers. I have a big problem with people that don't respect the wrestling business, and there were wrestlers who were attacked in a manner they did not deserve. I did not go out of my way to "attack" Scott, but when weighing choices of words, I picked the heavier words in large part because I felt he asked for it in the way he treated wrestlers who have put their bodies on the line to entertain crowds for many years. Particularly considering this is supposedly written by a "fan." Guys like Undertaker, Nash and Michaels deserve heavy criticism for their specific actions. I'm not defending them. But criticism and taking up an agenda are two very different things.

Also, you quoted in your Smackdown column comments that were not made by me but were comments made by someone else in this thread. The context provided in those quotes is different than the context in my article, and it isn't fair to my original arguments. In particular, the comment about Shamrock not being a washout and your response "he doesn't know" is very unfair to me, since I did not say that, and I outlined why Shamrock was not a washout in my original column. I'm sure your intention wasn't to manipulate re-telling of arguments to discredit me, but that is what ended up happening.

On specific points:

-The difference between Thesz and O'Connor is huge not because it's some random fact. That whole period was influenced by the dislike between Thesz and Rogers. To totally miss that is to totally miss out on what made that period tick. I don't care so much about specific facts. I care about false facts that affect larger arguments. This point was made perfectly earlier in the trend by "Snowball": "It's not Keith's bias that's bothering me. It's that his facts are wrong on several occasions. It's not just the flip-flop of who Rogers defeated. The errors are in his arguments that support his thesis. That's what's wrong. If he wants to write an opinion book, fine. I have no problem if he sticks to that. But once he starts arguing with incorrect facts, his arguments are shot dead."

-Morales was a big draw in New York, but not as good of a draw elsewhere. Why? Because there was a very large Puerto Rican wrestling community that came out to support him there that didn't exist elsewhere. He drew big crowds, but they were "wide audiences" in the sense that AAA drew wide audiences to its US shows in 94.

-To call Shamrock a one hit wonder is ridiculous. He was very successful in Pancrase and UFC in its early days. He beat Severn, Kimo, Rutten, M. Funaki, Maurice Smith, and would have won decisions over Royce and Taktarov had their been decisions at that point. I'm by no means a big fan of Shamrock, but to call him a washout is absurd. UFC wanted to keep him, he showed no signs of not being able to keep up with the competition, and was heavily recruited by both New Japan and WWF. He ended up changing the course of Japanese wrestling history, actually, as when he turned down NJ's offer, they decided to push Naoya Ogawa to the moon, which ushered in a different promotional philosophy. Point being, Shamrock may be overrated, but he was no "washout."

-On Warrior, it wasn't like he was going into business for himself. WWF let him hype his own things as part of his return. That was part of negotiations. Free reign is a strong implication. It implies you're turning over the business to someone. The fact Warrior lasted for such a short period of time demonstrates how untrue that is.

-On Hall. You're wrong when you say Hall was going to be let go anyway because of drug problems. The first time WWF ever suspended Hall for failing a drug test was the day he gave notice to WCW. If they wanted to get rid of him, they would have suspended him long before that.

-On Semantics. I'm sympathetic to the perspective that someone is playing games with semantics rather than addressing the real issues. But that isn't going on here. I'm thematically driven. Minor inaccuracies start to become problematic when they are used as building blocks for larger pictures. Like Backlund. The point you were trying to make is why Backlund was such a good choice as champ. To portray him as young compared to WCW stars distorts the whole argument (and I actually had accepted your age for Backlund-Dave caught the wrong age on that one). And I don't buy that was a joke at WCW's expense. You were trying to show why picking Backlund wouldn't be a mistake like picking Hogan or Savage. Fine, make that argument. But don't say it's because he's younger than their headliners. WCW's headliners at that time period weren't that old with the exception of Hogan and the "retired" Flair. It was in the ensuing couple years that they brought in all the retreads.

-The Taker quote was intended to point out to you what the original quote would probably sound like to him. I didn't spell it out because it would have ruined the effect. The similar structure of your comments about Taker and mine about you was not accidental. It was meant to be ironic, although it was about the only point in the column where I was doing that. Just about all the other points where I use strong criticism, the criticism was intended to be taken as is.

All of these issues aren't that major in and of themselves. But together they create a very troubling trend that made me think very little of the book. I hope Scott puts more time into his next book and that it sells well and readers get an accurate sense of what he is writing about. But my review was meant to discourage people from picking up this recent book because quite frankly, it isn't worth picking up. In my opinion, of course.

Todd
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 145

Posts: 175/5537
EXP: 37175855
For next: 428317

Since: 12.12.01

Since last post: 1764 days
Last activity: 1416 days
#79 Posted on 2.5.03 0254.20
Reposted on: 2.5.10 0255.50
Todd,

I fully support you, your Vassar education, and your "debate" with stupid John "Pee." Williams.
Tom the Actuary
Medisterpoelse
Level: 3

Posts: 1/1
EXP: 87
For next: 41

Since: 2.5.03

Since last post: 7635 days
Last activity: 7631 days
#80 Posted on 2.5.03 0936.20
Reposted on: 2.5.10 0939.02
I thought your review was well written. We have different opinons about the value of the book, but I can understand your dislike of it. I think "accurate reporting" and "wrestling" are somewhat incongruous concepts

Then again, I am one of those people referred to in the Smackdown column who wrote a review of the book before I read it.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: What the?!?
Next thread: You're all stupid
Previous thread: These will sell like hotcakes
(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Site Bashing - Scott Keith's "Tonight..." reviewed...pretty harsh.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.177 seconds.