The W
Views: 99073285
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.9.07 1513
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(516 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (52 total)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 56/3059
EXP: 11529977
For next: 332188

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1954 days
Last activity: 1888 days
#41 Posted on 24.3.02 1123.11
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1123.49
Fair enough, Drop. It just seems that a little too often Keller et al manipulate the news to suit their own biases and agendas. Either way, they're still better than 1bullshit. ;)
El Den
Pinkelwurst
Level: 13

Posts: 18/27
EXP: 9544
For next: 723

Since: 18.1.02

Since last post: 3809 days
Last activity: 3137 days
#42 Posted on 24.3.02 1129.46
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1131.11
>>Why would anyone want to defend the WWF in court?<<

Because the WWF has money and lawyers like money. Many lawyers (much like Vince McMahon himself) have this nasty little habit of choosing a fattened wallet over morals and ethics.

Denny
BDC
Chourico
Level: 37

Posts: 119/274
EXP: 308288
For next: 29968

Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4433 days
Last activity: 3889 days
AIM:  
#43 Posted on 24.3.02 1206.38
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1213.17
    Originally posted by T.R.
    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.



How do you know that the internet sites don't know they are false? That's such a huge assumption on your part without questioning these guys under oath. That being said, if you read my previous posts, you'll see that I never said that I believe the internet sites knowingly post false stories that damage the WWF before the warning. *That is precisely the point of the letter!!* The letter tells internet sites, this is what is happening by your actions. We suggest you change them. NOW, if internet sites continue the same practices, and they do print stories that are false, they can reasonably foresee the ramifications of their actions. They don't get a free pass on checking sources and confirming facts anymore.



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


Again, if you actually read my posts, you'd see exactly WHERE I said that RIGHT NOW, the WWF hasn't suffered any damages and wouldn't be able to bring a cause of action. You'd also have seen where I said the WWF would not sue for money damages because there's nothing there, but you can most certainly sue for a permanent injunction and have the sites shut down.

However, down the road (which is my point that you seem to LOVE to ignore) if behavior changes, and business for the WWF doesn't turn around, the WWF can find ways of proving their case, through affidavits, depositions, earnings reports, all sorts of things.

You'll know doubt continue to disagree with me because you pick and choose parts of what I've written rather than take everything within the whole context.

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.


Without giving the WWF a free pass on the variety of unscrupulous things they've done, I respond with a qualified "so?" Why do murderers get defense attorneys? The Constitution explicitly states that everyone is entitled to due process of law, which includes the right to counsel. Now, what I expressly stated is that I would REPRESENT the WWF down the road in a libel matter. The WWF would be the plaintiff; therefore, I wouldn't be defending them against anything.

Because the WWF has money and lawyers like money. Many lawyers (much like Vince McMahon himself) have this nasty little habit of choosing a fattened wallet over morals and ethics.


So are all defense attorneys then immoral and unethical if they defend someone who is guilty of a crime? I think that if that is one's job--and as I just said, the Constitution calls for the existence of such a job--as long as they don't defend the client through lying, cheating, and other illegal and unethical behavior, you can't call these people immoral if they participate in the Constitutional process. It's just too easy and wrong to make such an overgeneralized contention.

BDC




(edited by BDC on 24.3.02 1011)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 136/859
EXP: 1715731
For next: 57057

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2202 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#44 Posted on 24.3.02 1229.26
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1231.15

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Fair enough, Drop. It just seems that a little too often Keller et al manipulate the news to suit their own biases and agendas. Either way, they're still better than 1bullshit. ;)


I think everyone manipulates the news to fit their own agenda to differing extremes. My only beef with the Torch is that the tend to only print Guest Editorials that deal with whatever issues they have surfaced in their Top Stories. Other than that, remember that PWTorch and the Observer exist to sell their respective newsletters. *ducks from BigPoppaPat's thrown object*

I would say more, but I've written a new column about all this that'll pretty much sum up my thoughts. It should go up with CRZ's next update.

Later.
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 72/573
EXP: 910302
For next: 37022

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3273 days
Last activity: 2643 days
AIM:  
#45 Posted on 24.3.02 1242.28
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1250.25
Dude, calm down... no one really cares.

I know that they're not printing things that they know are false because it wouldn't make any sense if they did. They would have to be sitting there going "HA HA HA, we will destroy the evil WWF with false information." Which they're not. Rather, they are printing things that they have some reason to believe are true, and that would make good stories if they were true. You seem to be saying "well, but some of the stories are false, and they WOULD have known they were false if they had taken the time to check, so that's the same thing." It's not the same thing. The WWF claiming that they are the arbiters of truth/falsity about their business does not make it the same thing. It can never be the same thing.

As for damages, it doesn't matter if business gets worse... they'd have to show that these false rumors were the reason why it got worse. Although of course it's possible that "down the road", they will have such evidence, I can't seriously imagine how. But there's no libel anyway, so it doesn't matter really.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 561/16221
EXP: 141148285
For next: 2218622

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#46 Posted on 24.3.02 1638.31
Reposted on: 24.3.09 1659.02

    Originally posted by Derek Burgan
    While it would seem that actually liking Keller or Meltzer on this site is tantamount to disrespecting CRZ...
That would seem like a pretty ignorant thing to say there, Derek...
El Den
Pinkelwurst
Level: 13

Posts: 19/27
EXP: 9544
For next: 723

Since: 18.1.02

Since last post: 3809 days
Last activity: 3137 days
#47 Posted on 24.3.02 2033.25
Reposted on: 24.3.09 2034.04
>>It's just too easy and wrong to make such an overgeneralized contention.<<

Which is why I said "many" lawyers as opposed to "all" lawyers choose money over ethics. MANY lawyers do this. But not ALL lawyers.

Some do it for the love of the Constitution, as you correctly noted. Others do it for the love of cash, which I noted.

To avoid starting a migrane-inducing debate over ethics and responsibilities within the legal system in a capitalist society, I'm gonna go watch some cartoons now.

Denny

(edited by El Den on 24.3.02 2045)
tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 26/859
EXP: 1707946
For next: 64842

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 468 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#48 Posted on 24.3.02 2042.27
Reposted on: 24.3.09 2059.01
If it is indeed true that WWFE does not comment when asked to confirm or deny sheet rumors, and the rumors do not come from the PR department, then where are they coming from?

Given the fact that more than a few of the rumors have, eventually, turned out to be true, they're probably coming from somebody who is, in actuality, on the inside.

But if the information is coming from the inside, and yet the company has a moratorium on talking to the media (and any media at that), then there must be some risk involved for those who are providing the information.

From this we can infer that either a) those who leak information don't have much to lose, b) those who leak information have lots to gain, or some combination of both.

I don't expect it would be the wrestlers. The wrestlers stand to lose matches, TV time, the respect and trust of peers and management, or even their jobs by leaking information and being caught. For a wrestler to leak something would require the payoff to be significantly greater than the penalty for getting caught. And try as I might, I can't come up with a realistic situation where that is possible.

So we're left with support staff and crew. These people might feel they have something to gain (payoff from the site, increased feeling of self-importance, etc.) from leaking information. I certainly can't see them doing it for any altruistic or journalistic reason.

And by that account I don't see any value whatsoever to the kind of rumors peddled by the IWC, especially the big sites who have these `contacts'. The information they get is acquired by questionable tactics and from unauthorized sources who are serving only their own interests.

It's all tainted information and that's why I ignore it for the most part. Access to backstage information has never been a requirement for the enjoyment of wrestling; I don't imagine it ever will be.

Wrestling has been called a soap opera before. And it stands to reason that those who follow that soap opera might also be interested in the `soap opera behind the soap opera'. Me, I watch what they put on my TV. Anything else feels kinda like effort.

I said it elsewhere, but this is a more appropriate place to put it: the desire for information does not presuppose the right to it.
Chris Protege
Haggis
Level: 18

Posts: 36/52
EXP: 25554
For next: 4344

Since: 2.1.02
From: Los Angeles, California

Since last post: 4386 days
Last activity: 4335 days
AIM:  
#49 Posted on 25.3.02 0353.51
Reposted on: 25.3.09 0356.22
As for where these various reports come from, the best answer I've found is from Keller himself, courtesy of one of the neatest pieces of History to come out recently, The Lee Benaka Interviews. This is pretty much the business end of the conversation:

It's real tough in wrestling, to get people to be open to you. A lot of people you talk to off record, and you can never ever say you talked to them, because some of the promoters don't like legitimate news getting out. They'd rather be in their fantasy world, such as seen on Arsenio Hall last night with Hulk Hogan, where Hulk just has built this fantasy world of his own that, of course, the crowd bought into because he's great at it. He was talking about the steroid issue and stuff like that. The newsletters are around, and people do them to refute that kind of stuff that's out there. Because I don't think that in any other sport someone can come out and lie so much and get away with it because the legitimate press won't touch it.

Yeah, the Arsenio ref kinda gives it away that this was in 1991. Anyhow...

When [wrestling promotions are] making money, they're open. When their jobs are threatened, and the truth hurts, they close up. Jim Herdhe's the Executive Vice-President of World Championship Wrestlinghas totally closed his door to me. The WWF doors are always closed when it comes to on-record stuff. There's always people who will say some stuff off-record, but not really too much. WCW, at times, is really good about it. I still talk with people in the company, but Jim Herd always used to return my calls, and he doesn't return mine anymore.

And also, I thought this part was kinda funny: People are really open. I mean, Jim Ross [currently an announcer for the WWF] almost got fired from TBS for doing the interview with me. There was a lot of heat on him for it. He [told me], "Everyone in WCW thought that I was a WWF spy because I was the only person there who didn't have the Southern mentality and didn't speak with a twang. I had some fresh ideas, and they just frowned on my because I was a total outsider. And the fact that I like to talk to newsletters and deal with the press."

And both the Meltzer and Keller interviews mention them having absurdly huge phone bills, so they've got to be calling Somebody.

And to suggest the WWF could pin any substantial degree of its decline on the Sheets seems kinda strange to me. All the Defendants would have to do to counter is say, "Look here, when the shows stopped being interesting and good. The ratings tended to fall here." That and proving they were out to get the WWF probably wouldn't hold water.

Chris-Doesn't really know what he's talking about...
Jim LotFP
Linguica
Level: 21

Posts: 6/77
EXP: 46009
For next: 3935

Since: 9.1.02
From: Atlanta

Since last post: 3713 days
Last activity: 3711 days
AIM:  
#50 Posted on 31.3.02 1745.36
Reposted on: 31.3.09 1756.49

    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.


No, that's people being FIRED for talking to people outside the organization.

I can't believe how big of real marks a lot of you are to believe that there can be open communication from within the WWF. Do you not know history of the WWF or the wrestling business at all? Do you really think the wrestling business operates the same as any other kind of company?

I read Meltzer, and he's always VERY clear about what's speculation, and what is something actually happening. He is entirely famous for throwing in phrases like 'for obvious reasons' or '... or could mean something else' for suppositions that he has no confirmation on but assumes.

His analysis on business numbers are thorough.

He knows the difference between 'good for wrestling' and 'good wrestling matches.'
El Den
Pinkelwurst
Level: 13

Posts: 21/27
EXP: 9544
For next: 723

Since: 18.1.02

Since last post: 3809 days
Last activity: 3137 days
#51 Posted on 31.3.02 2337.22
Reposted on: 31.3.09 2359.02
>>I can't believe how big of real marks a lot of you are to believe that there can be open communication from within the WWF.<<

There can be. And at times, there is. I think that's been proven at various times by just about every newsletter and many web sites. But it's not very common without WWFE approval. We got plenty of stuff from WWF employees/wrestlers during the life of that other web site I used to be on... a lot of it with the WWF's blessing.

But that's definitely unusual. The WWF would certainly rather blow off the sheets/net than cooperate with them, 9 times out of 10. When they get really pissed (like now), 10 times out of 10. And they almost always object to their performers giving comments to anyone without clearing it with them first.

Restricting its employees from commenting without authorization isn't an original WWF idea or anything... a lot of companies have that policy, from entertainment or utilities to fast food or retail. That's what PR people are for.

Vince didn't screw free press. Corporate America screwed free press.

Denny

Jim LotFP
Linguica
Level: 21

Posts: 7/77
EXP: 46009
For next: 3935

Since: 9.1.02
From: Atlanta

Since last post: 3713 days
Last activity: 3711 days
AIM:  
#52 Posted on 1.4.02 1533.43
Reposted on: 1.4.09 1548.53

    Originally posted by El Den
    >>I can't believe how big of real marks a lot of you are to believe that there can be open communication from within the WWF.<<

    There can be. And at times, there is. I think that's been proven at various times by just about every newsletter and many web sites. But it's not very common without WWFE approval.



If it requires approval, it's not very open...
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread 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 0.167 seconds.