The W
Views: 99380182
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.10.07 1132
The 7 - Site Bashing - An Open Letter to Internet Wrestling Websites
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(516 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (52 total)
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 42/5229
EXP: 25854907
For next: 569783

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#21 Posted on 21.3.02 2118.46
Reposted on: 21.3.09 2125.45
EDIT TO DENNY because you can't post twice in a row: I understand what you're saying; I was just rejecting the notion that there was a single unreliable WWF Mole who leaks to the sheets.

And then the previous post:

"You didn't point them out to me in an obvious enough manner."

You can't blame the slide on HHH's injury because they started going down before he got hurt.

"This year, when the first-quarter results are released, the big story by the reporters who don't understand such things will be the huge rebound that WWFE experienced. Last year they took the write-down on the XFL, and didn't have Wrestlemania during the first quarter, but that fact will hardly be mentioned.

You should maybe check out Meltzer's coverage of the quarterly reports. And the XFL losses didn't mount until the second quarter but the company still turned a gigantic profit thanks to WMX7.

"I didn't say any "body" forced them to work the way they had to last year, they were forced by circumstance."

Circumstances of not putting any long-term planning into anything because they booked based on weekly crowd reactions and TV ratings.

"The plan reportedly was for a face HHH to chase a heel Austin for the title over the summer. HHH's injury killed that plan,"

The plan according to Meltzer was for a face HHH to chase Austin in the spring, but Hunter didn't want to turn then. The plan was also for Rock to have his rematch with Austin at SummerSlam and then, after his return from injury, for face HHH to chase heel Austin to Mania. The Rock/Austin SummerSlam match was postponed so they could capitalize on Angle's momentum and then eventually forgotten after the November reset, as were the HHH/Austin Mania plans.

"and the backup plan with Benoit went out the window with his injury."

The backup plan to give Jericho and Benoit two weeks of a superpush and then cut it off?

"The timing on the WCW deal was rushed by AOL's haste in getting rid of WCW, so the WWF was left with a brand that they had to rush to get back on TV in order to keep it in the fan's minds."

It was certainly rushed, but it's sort of the WWF's responsibility to prepare or else it blows up in their face. Like the XFL. I agree that the nature of the sale put a lot of pressure on the WWF but they didn't by any stretch of the imagination make the best of what they had.

"And for all its shortcomings, even you admit that the Invasion gave us a couple of weeks of great televison."

It takes a lot more than that two weeks of great television to make up for botching this one.

"Again, an outside force, this time in the form of the ECW bankruptcy court, forced another direction change, and stalled the momentum of the Alliance."

Bankruptcy court didn't force the WWF to bury all WCW and ECW wrestlers not named Rob Van Dam.

"If not for the long delays in settling the ECW bankruptcy, we might have already had "Alliance RAW" featuring a feud between ECW and WCW by now."

The split that was scheduled for after the InVasion PPV was ixnayed after the 7/2 show in Tacoma. ECW was nothing more than a band-aid to save the PPV.

"As for it not being that hard to book....if it's so easy, why aren't there more well-booked wrestling shows on TV right now?"

That's the question of the hour, month, and year.

"Try a stern warning from an angry Bankruptcy trustee. That'll make you drop a storyline real quick."

The Bankruptcy trustees warned the WWF to stop booking an invasion angle and made them turn everyone in the Alliance into Austin's job squad?

"The ratings slid when RAW moved to TNN"

This is quite the myth.

RAW 9/18/00 5.81
RAW 9/25/00 5.54

The switch to TNN accounted for all of .3 in the ratings. unless people gradually forgot over a four month span that RAW had moved.

"That's really my last word on this."

That was a Big Show catchphrase for a couple weeks.

(edited by JMShapiro on 21.3.02 1948)
RecklessEric
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 9/328
EXP: 404365
For next: 410

Since: 23.1.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on 22.3.02 1535.52
Reposted on: 22.3.09 1548.09

    Originally posted by DrOp
    The WWF could, y'know, try to make the shows BETTER. I bet THAT would shut a LOT of us up.



Problem is...it WOULDN'T.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 149/5186
EXP: 25542903
For next: 187743

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 39 min.
#23 Posted on 22.3.02 1625.41
Reposted on: 22.3.09 1626.46
I dare 'em to prove Drop wrong.
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 132/859
EXP: 1717734
For next: 55054

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2213 days
Last activity: 1079 days
#24 Posted on 22.3.02 1717.45
Reposted on: 22.3.09 1729.06
thecubsfan = Chris Benoit?!!? Who knew?!?!?

RockDotCom:

    Thats my point Drop, theres no a trust factor between the WWF and the so called wrestling journalists. Thats where the problem lies. The info isnt worth a damn because the parties dont trust each other or cooperate to get the info out. Unlike the NFL, for example where the journalists have the respect and trust of the league and its major players. Like in my Mike Martz-Peter King example.


I think there's little trust because there is little CONTROL. The WWF likes to control how they are perceived and talked about. Like any company, they like to silence and cover-up stories that cause blemishes and potentially hurt profits/perceptions. They can't have that with the Newesletter sites and I think THAT'S what they're most upset about. I mean, really, who gets upset over a LIE?!? I only get mad when someone's telling the TRUTH on me...



RecklessEric:

    Problem is...it WOULDN'T.


I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I love to equally praise and criticize what I enjoy. Most of my columns have had a negative slant to them recently. The fact of the matter remains that Vince and the creative team have REALLY been dropping the ball. It's almost to the point where most doctors would diagnose a chronic syndrome or something, I'm sure.

I mean, I guess to be fair I could have written an article that retracted my comments about Taker from about 5-6 months ago and now said how great his heel work has been of late, but then I'd have to consider myself one of those who hops on the bandwagon. =)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 114/763
EXP: 1436907
For next: 49030

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 559 days
Last activity: 175 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on 23.3.02 0225.11
Reposted on: 23.3.09 0226.26

    Originally posted by DrOp
    thecubsfan = Chris Benoit?!!? Who knew?!?!?


    RockDotCom:

      Thats my point Drop, theres no a trust factor between the WWF and the so called wrestling journalists. Thats where the problem lies. The info isnt worth a damn because the parties dont trust each other or cooperate to get the info out. Unlike the NFL, for example where the journalists have the respect and trust of the league and its major players. Like in my Mike Martz-Peter King example.


    I think there's little trust because there is little CONTROL. The WWF likes to control how they are perceived and talked about. Like any company, they like to silence and cover-up stories that cause blemishes and potentially hurt profits/perceptions. They can't have that with the Newesletter sites and I think THAT'S what they're most upset about. I mean, really, who gets upset over a LIE?!? I only get mad when someone's telling the TRUTH on me




Lots of people get upset over lies Drop. Thats probably why the WWF is so pissed. The Stone Cold rumor is probably totally unfounded, and the WWF is pissed because the newsleter folks are reporting it as fact when Stone Cold just asked for a few days off to do his lawn or something.
The NFL cant control or censor CNNSI or ESPN either but they cooperate with them to get the facts out without too much bullshit. Peter King can say "today I talked to Mike Martz and he confirmed that the Rams are no longer intersted in Cris Carter." He didnt quote some unnamed source like the Rams equipment manager or something. He spoke to the man in charge. If the newsletters could talk to Vince Mcmahon or Jim Ross then all these problems could be solved. But they cant and why cant they? Lack of trust....
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 43/5229
EXP: 25854907
For next: 569783

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#26 Posted on 23.3.02 0529.21
Reposted on: 23.3.09 0534.07
"The Stone Cold rumor is probably totally unfounded, and the WWF is pissed because the newsleter folks are reporting it as fact when Stone Cold just asked for a few days off to do his lawn or something."

Yeah, that's what he did.

"If the newsletters could talk to Vince Mcmahon or Jim Ross then all these problems could be solved"

Wasn't that Vince McMahon I saw in the big Torch newsletter interview? Isn't that Jim Ross who has the friendship with Dave Meltzer?
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 133/859
EXP: 1717734
For next: 55054

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2213 days
Last activity: 1079 days
#27 Posted on 23.3.02 1028.47
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1028.55
Y'know, Ross writes a weekly cloumn. I bet if he made it 100% shoot instead of the 50% work, 50% shoot it is now he would have a true forum to address all of this. He could use it to either confirm, deny or clarify "Top Stories" at the Torch or elsewhere. It seems, however, the he still prefers to try to work people instead.

All of this 'poor, ole WWF' song and dance is pointless in MO. If they put out a better product, all of this would go away. I guarantee it. Nobody cares if Shaq and Kobe are friends as long as the Lakers are winning. But as soon as they get on a losing streak, the friction becomes a top story. This is no different. The WWF should be trying to distract us with quality television, not Open Letters.
BDC
Chourico
Level: 37

Posts: 112/274
EXP: 308650
For next: 29606

Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4444 days
Last activity: 3900 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on 23.3.02 1421.44
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1424.24

    Originally posted by DrOp
    I think there's little trust because there is little CONTROL. The WWF likes to control how they are perceived and talked about. Like any company, they like to silence and cover-up stories that cause blemishes and potentially hurt profits/perceptions. They can't have that with the Newesletter sites and I think THAT'S what they're most upset about. I mean, really, who gets upset over a LIE?!? I only get mad when someone's telling the TRUTH on me...


Of course people get upset over lies, its why people sue over defamation, libel, and slander. It's absolutely different, DrOp, than if someone in your sphere of influence lies, and you have the ability to debunk them--or people know you to know whether or not to believe them. The readership of the internet sites are unknown and potentially infinite. The WWF has no way to try and reach the same people who may be influenced by the stories told on these internet sites. Sure, everytime something is posted, the WWF could respond on their own website, but that's absolutely ridiculous to have to do. The WWF shouldn't have to police these sites.

I wrote a primer on libel the other day which was accidentally deleted by me, and I was too frustrated to rewrite. In a nutshell, the Open Letter is really a warning shot to these sites that a libel suit is coming if they don't shape up.

Problems with that include that for a "news" organization to be liable for libel against a public figure like the WWF, they have to knowingly and maliciously print lies. Malice, in this legal context, means that the intent of printing the story is to create damage to the reputation of the company or cause financial losses. Before the Open Letter, I don't see how the WWF could prove that they have been financially harmed or that these sites are acting with malice. However, the Letter puts these sites on notice that there is some negative impact--the sites can no longer claim to be ignorant of the potential ramifications of their actions. If the sites continue to print stories without attempting to reach the WWF for comment or otherwise following the policies described in the Letter, the WWF can make a stronger argument that they are acting with malice. It's a smart legal move.

Furthermore, the Letter cost next to nothing to post. No doubt an in-house lawyer drafted it, so the WWF spent no extra money in putting out this warning. Litigation is expensive, and the WWF would probably benefit little from filing a suit against these sites. For one, they have little money to collect damages. Further, the costs of litigating for an injunction to prevent future erroneous reporting would have to be lower than the losses that come about from having these stories printed--otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the WWF's while to sue.

Since the Letter was issued, the internet sites have done next to nothing to change their habits. They really are asking for trouble. Two major stories have come out in the last week--Austin/WWF and Rock/Nash. Both are being reported as fact, but neither are reported with any mention of sources of any kind. Stupid move by the internet sites.

If Wade Keller, Dave Meltzer, and Bob Ryder/Dave Scherer don't start acting like the professional journalists they pretend to be, I guarantee you the point will come when the WWF *will* sue for an injunction to shut these sites down...and the WWF will win.

BDC
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 115/763
EXP: 1436907
For next: 49030

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 559 days
Last activity: 175 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 23.3.02 1511.00
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1529.01

    Originally posted by JMShapiro
    "The Stone Cold rumor is probably totally unfounded, and the WWF is pissed because the newsleter folks are reporting it as fact when Stone Cold just asked for a few days off to do his lawn or something."

    Yeah, that's what he did.

    "If the newsletters could talk to Vince Mcmahon or Jim Ross then all these problems could be solved"

    Wasn't that Vince McMahon I saw in the big Torch newsletter interview? Isn't that Jim Ross who has the friendship with Dave Meltzer?



Then why cant Mr Meltzer call his buddy JR and ask him about the Nash-Rock and Stone Cold stories? This is what I would like to see:

"Jim Ross VP of talent relations at WWF has said that Stone Cold has asked for time off to get his new pool installed."

"Vince Mcmahon confirmed that Nash came to him griping about his treatment by the Rock. Vince told Nash to suck it up."



JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 44/5229
EXP: 25854907
For next: 569783

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#30 Posted on 23.3.02 1539.24
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1540.10
"Two major stories have come out in the last week--Austin/WWF and Rock/Nash. Both are being reported as fact"

This is because they happened.

"If Wade Keller, Dave Meltzer, and Bob Ryder/Dave Scherer don't start acting like the professional journalists they pretend to be, I guarantee you the point will come when the WWF *will* sue for an injunction to shut these sites down...and the WWF will win."

No way.

"Then why cant Mr Meltzer call his buddy JR and ask him about the Nash-Rock and Stone Cold stories?

I'm sure he DID. You won't read about it in the newsletter for the same reasons you read that Shawn Michaels or Eddie Guerrero showed up "in no condition to perform."
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 72/1494
EXP: 3937672
For next: 68407

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#31 Posted on 23.3.02 1548.56
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1549.36
I don't see how anybody can read all the articles at wrestling 1, and believe what they do is good professional journalism. Read the Dave Scherer article on Kevin Nash, and his problem with being called a bitch by the Rock.

Excerpts include "reportedly upset" (reported by who?), "what I was told" (once again, from who? An insider, the janitor, McMahon, Kevin Nash himself? You could easily interpret that it was Kevin himself, though I doubt this was really the case), "heard from a few people", "heard from a number of people", "a few people to told me", "I have heard from a lot of people that the WWF locker room is much less happy since the nWo has come back.". Who are these people? Very close to the situation, somewhat close to the situation, people who know people close to the situation...who? Never any indication whatsoever. And since he obviously is hearing stuff, how close is it to being confirmed. He never indicates whether he thinks it is true or not. Also no mention on whether he even attempted to reach the WWF for comment, and if so what did they have to say (even it turns out that what they had to say was "no comment" or nothing at all). Hell, for all we would know, the people he is talking about is Vince McMahon. Could you imagine a New York Times or Washington Post artice written with all this "I heard this, I heard that" in it without indication of where the information came from? To me, these articles are written with less credibility than the National Enquirer.

Besides, they get stuff wrong all the time, and half the time take credit for getting it right anyway. Didn't they report Bret Hart was going to appear at Wrestlemania? Didn't they take credit for being right when Bret revealed he was asked to appear but declined? Uh, there is a big difference between appearing on a show and negotiating or being contacted to appear on a show. If you report that someone is going to appear on a show, and they don't appear, you got it wrong, period.

Back to the article though, I had to laugh at this line referring to Nash as becoming a master politico again, "The difference is that this time that the locker room, for the most part, is no-selling him when he does it." No-selling? No-selling? LOL! You know, there are times that you can drop the wrestling lingo, perhaps when you are talking about things that are kind of not in the ring! Geez.

(edited by ges7184 on 23.3.02 1552)
BDC
Chourico
Level: 37

Posts: 115/274
EXP: 308650
For next: 29606

Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4444 days
Last activity: 3900 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 23.3.02 1636.39
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1650.49
    Originally posted by JMShapiro
    This is because they happened.


Says who? You? Says them? They rarely to never cite sources. Austin told Vince blah blah blah. Did they interview Austin? Did they interview Vince? If they have an anonymous source, what is the basic nature of the source?
"Real" news media always label the source to add credibility. "A high ranking Pentagon official," "a source close to the President," etc. If the rest of the newsmedia have to follow certain rules, then so should these sites.

You can try and defend internet sites all day long, Justin, its futile. These guys have no legs to stand on. They don't act with any journalistic integrity. They report facts like the tabloids report facts. If they want that label, they should be prepared for it. But you have nothing, Justin. "Because it happened." Whatever.




"If Wade Keller, Dave Meltzer, and Bob Ryder/Dave Scherer don't start acting like the professional journalists they pretend to be, I guarantee you the point will come when the WWF *will* sue for an injunction to shut these sites down...and the WWF will win."

No way.



Hahaha, okay. Not even talking about the actual merits of the case, which I briefly outlined, just in pure practical terms, you're wrong. There is just no way that in the case of Aggrieved Multi-Million Dollar Corp. v. Piddling Internet Sites, the side with by far the most money and the best attorneys will lose.




"Then why cant Mr Meltzer call his buddy JR and ask him about the Nash-Rock and Stone Cold stories?

I'm sure he DID. You won't read about it in the newsletter for the same reasons you read that Shawn Michaels or Eddie Guerrero showed up "in no condition to perform."



You're missing the key point. If these guys DO talk to JR, and JR gives them something on the record...how hard is it to write, "Vice President of Talent Operations Jim Ross stated that Michaels 'showed up in no condition to perform.'" Or, if its an anonymous source, be it JR off the record or someone else, write, "Sources close to the talent relations division stated that Michaels 'showed up in no condition to perform.'" THAT'S news. These guys, who are not present themselves as eyewitnesses, are writing things like "Shawn Michaels was scheduled to be appear on Raw, but he showed up in no condition to perform." That's not news. Unless the reporter was there, and they aren't citing any kind of source, its reporting rumor as fact. It's a recipe for disaster. Even the term "reportedly" is bad. "Shawn Michaels reportedly showed up in now condition to perform." Reportedly by WHOM?

BDC

(edited by BDC on 23.3.02 1447)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 134/859
EXP: 1717734
For next: 55054

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2213 days
Last activity: 1079 days
#33 Posted on 23.3.02 1708.36
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1713.33
I have no reason at this time to disbelieve what Keller and Meltzer report (I can't speak for 1Bob cuz I've never been there). I mean, I have yet to see that story that they report and then it turns out that it was in fact TOTALLY wrong. I mean, until they are disproven, why should I disbelieve them? The WWF can try to wage an endless battle with the Net if they'd like, but their efforts are better spent on improving their product.


P.S. "Real" news media lie and distort the truth all the time.
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 67/573
EXP: 911422
For next: 35902

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3284 days
Last activity: 2654 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on 23.3.02 1804.58
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1809.06
You are way off. No way can they sue for libel on the basis that "you printed stuff as news without checking with us to see if it was true, and we warned you not to do that." It's not even close. They're trying to send a message to the big sites that make money off this stuff ("don't print stuff without giving us a chance to spin it first"; by implication, "we'll be more willing to talk to you if you play by our rules"), and to the investors ("don't read the news sites"). But there's no way they can or will successfully sue sites. Don't get hysterical.
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 45/5229
EXP: 25854907
For next: 569783

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#35 Posted on 23.3.02 1822.10
Reposted on: 23.3.09 1824.05
"Says who? You? Says them?"

Say what? Say how? Say who?

"They report facts like the tabloids report facts."

It's weird how all this stuff that they report actually happens. It's weird how the WWF reports "facts" about 93,000 at WrestleMania or fakes sellouts in Chicago to keep a streak alive.

"Sources close to the talent relations division stated that Michaels 'showed up in no condition to perform.'"

This is how the newsletters read -- "one wrestler says," "sources indicate," "those close to so and so."

"To me, these articles are written with less credibility than the National Enquirer."

So be super-naive and don't read them.

"Besides, they get stuff wrong all the time, and half the time take credit for getting it right anyway."

How about an example!

"Didn't they report Bret Hart was going to appear at Wrestlemania?"

No. How about a real one!

"No-selling? LOL! You know, there are times that you can drop the wrestling lingo, perhaps when you are talking about things that are kind of not in the ring!"

Hahaha! I know! Now excuse me while I "refuse to work with you anymore."

(edited by JMShapiro on 23.3.02 1651)
BDC
Chourico
Level: 37

Posts: 117/274
EXP: 308650
For next: 29606

Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4444 days
Last activity: 3900 days
AIM:  
#36 Posted on 23.3.02 2138.17
Reposted on: 23.3.09 2144.23

    Originally posted by T.R.
    You are way off. No way can they sue for libel on the basis that "you printed stuff as news without checking with us to see if it was true, and we warned you not to do that." It's not even close. They're trying to send a message to the big sites that make money off this stuff ("don't print stuff without giving us a chance to spin it first"; by implication, "we'll be more willing to talk to you if you play by our rules"), and to the investors ("don't read the news sites"). But there's no way they can or will successfully sue sites. Don't get hysterical.


The WWF certainly can sue the internet sites for libel if the site prints false stories, know they are false, and do it to damage the reputation of the WWF, and cause actual damage to the WWF. The letter puts the internet sites on notice about these very facts. Sure, the WWF wants to spin--who wouldn't want to be able to spin newsstories in their favor? That's still not the point. You can read into the letter all you want, but in a court of law, I'd rather argue that the text of the letter is what the letter means than try to argue a spin theory. So, here's what the text actually says.

1)You don't confirm facts, and you report innuendo and rumor.
2)We spend a great deal of time having to correct these rumors (i.e. they are false).
3)The sources of your rumors have other agendas (i.e. they are out to damage the WWF), and by knowingly printing their "lies," you are a party to the attempt to damage the WWF.
4)People take the information from these unconfirmed stories and believe them--causing damage to the WWF.
5)Please stop. You if you didn't know 1-4 before, you know it now. You don't have any excuses.

So as my Contracts professor once said, "There you have it."

Right now, as I said before, I don't think the WWF could bring a cause of action for libel against the internet sites. Down the road, if nothing changes--I'll gladly represent the WWF.

BDC
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 70/573
EXP: 911422
For next: 35902

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3284 days
Last activity: 2654 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on 23.3.02 2354.03
Reposted on: 23.3.09 2359.02
The WWF certainly can sue the internet sites for libel if the site prints false stories...
Right...

know they are false...
Which they don't. Oh.

Plus the fact that proving damages, or getting money out of most of these sites, would both be basically impossible.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 54/3059
EXP: 11543433
For next: 318732

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1965 days
Last activity: 1899 days
#38 Posted on 24.3.02 0813.27
Reposted on: 24.3.09 0819.27
What the WWF needs to realise is that there is precisely ONE guy that net fans take as a credible source, and that's Meltzer. Keller and Ryder are rarely accurate in their "scoops", whereas Meltz usually checks and double-checks everything that is told him. Plus, he's not really in the habit of breaking "shock" stories designed to screw with the WWF.
Derek Burgan
Longanisa
Level: 15

Posts: 11/34
EXP: 13495
For next: 2889

Since: 23.1.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 4390 days
Last activity: 4365 days
#39 Posted on 24.3.02 0819.34
Reposted on: 24.3.09 0819.39
Why would anyone want to defend the WWF in court? This is a company which has a history of lying to the press/public at just about every opportunity (ie: steroid policies, gates of thier shows), has stabbed in the back just about everyone it has ever made a "gentelmen's agreement" with (ie: regional promoters, a list of wrestlers that must be a mile long) and should we even bring up their battle with the World Wildlife Fund? I mean this is a case about an agreement that the WWFE's own lawyers drafted up and the company proceeded to break it without giving a damn.

While it would seem that actually liking Keller or Meltzer on this site is tantamount to disrespecting CRZ, I think it's a damn good thing for wrestling fans, and wrestlers themselves, that they are out there. I think it's obvious by reading their sheets that they don't just "make up rumors" as the WWF would try to make people believe. In fact it's completely the opposite. They drill facts into you that the WWF trys to pretend don't exist.

As for why sources are never credited by name...is this a serious question? We're talking about the most vindictive industry that I can possibly think of. Just by watching WWF TV and reading WWF.com you can trace back the instant that X-Pac and Jerry Lynn got buried (I don't like to use wrestling terms, but it fits) because they had the audacity to say something that was honest.

DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 135/859
EXP: 1717734
For next: 55054

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2213 days
Last activity: 1079 days
#40 Posted on 24.3.02 1017.49
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1019.09
Well said, Derek.
For the record, the Torch is still one of my daily stops and I find the 'scoops' there to be pretty damn good. The fact that Pat McNeill (Bip Poppa Pat) posts with me has NOTHING to do with that. ;)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Gotta hand it to Rick ...
Next thread: There are fake spoilers
Previous thread: Bashing Observer again and again
(516 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Site Bashing - An Open Letter to Internet Wrestling WebsitesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.17 seconds.