#1 Posted on 17.4.02 1941.56 Reposted on: 17.4.09 1959.06
According to 411 as cribbed from 1bob, "Word is that Triple H is upset over the recent comments made by the Rock on ESPN's "Unscripted With Chris Connelly." The Rock said that the WWF has a lot of people in top positions that do business in an underhanded way and most got the feeling that he was talking about Triple H."
I get a couple of things out of this:
-First off is a contradiction. HHH goes on OTR before WM and proclaims Jericho "just not quite there" and that's ok. But Rock goes out and says something which he leaves vague enough to not indict any one person, but since all the evidence seems to point to one man, HHH gets upset that someone halfway called him on it. So it's ok to trash the WM main event opponent, but not to have the biggest star in the WWF make clear that he has some issues about the way things are going.
-If this is this about HHH, is this able to be written off as just some more uninformed bitching by the net crowd, or do we ascribe Rock enough credibility and knowledge of what goes on backstage to take his comments at least somewhat seriously?
-I definitely plan on seeing Scorpion King this weekend, since dammit I like Rock and hope to do my part to get him so damn big that all the HHH politicking in the world can't dent the paint job on the limo his posse uses, to say nothing of his ride or his image or his spot. On to Hollywood with you Dwayne, where the politics are just as bad, but at least you don't have to go through a table to boot.
Since last post: 3331 days Last activity: 677 days
#4 Posted on 17.4.02 2003.18 Reposted on: 17.4.09 2007.58
My 3 favorite letters: S.F.W. If Trips is pissed at the Rock for his nebulous, non specific and undirected comments that he thinks were meant for hom, So Fucking What?!
Frankly, after the comments he made about Jericho, he has no right to bitch about any comments made about him, directly or indirectly.
If the whole thing is true, S.F.W.? The Rock said he didn't like the underhanded way business is being done. If Trips has a problem with this being said, maybe he should take a long look in the mirror and think about changing the way he conducts himself backstage.
I seriously doubt anything will come of this, as backstage politics has always been dirty, and will continue to be. The biggest effect this statement would have is the offenders would be a little less obvious about their dirty politics for a while. What can they really do about it anyway? Punish The Rock for telling the truth?
#5 Posted on 17.4.02 2253.09 Reposted on: 17.4.09 2259.01
Originally posted by TheBucsFanThere is a HUGE difference between saying someone is "not quite there" (a fact which is pretty much indisputable in Jericho's case anyway) and calling someone "underhanded."
First of all, Triple H's comment in no way attacks anybody's personality.
No, instead HHH undermined the credibility of another worker in a very subtle way, possibly damaging this guy's livelihood. To me that's a far more egregious sin than saying someone isn't a nice guy or that someone is a dirty dealer backstage.
Since last post: 5905 days Last activity: 5895 days
#6 Posted on 17.4.02 2319.35 Reposted on: 17.4.09 2323.10
Please, for the love of God, kill this thread now. Before everyone goes hysterical over rumors and innuendos and shadowy non-stories about possible WWF lockeroom turmoil which will no doubt lead up to Scott Keith bragging about being the one guy who pointed out that HHH's abuse of power led to the creation of the WWF Glass Ceiling which is why Benoit will never, ever be Undisputed champ. Please, let's not do this.
#7 Posted on 17.4.02 2334.49 Reposted on: 17.4.09 2350.35
I agree with a guy called BootyRaper??? That's just wrong on so many levels....
Well, I do, anyway. I mean, I read that the Rock made comments about feeling a 'vibe of jealousy' not anything about underhanded dealing. Basically, I don't trust any of the net reporting unless it appears on Slash or OO. Then I file it under 'this might be true... maybe'.
#8 Posted on 18.4.02 1954.02 Reposted on: 18.4.09 1955.16
Stuff like this is ridiculously easy to make up, but makes for good reading (and those guys have to write about something). I usually stick with OO and Slash. They're not going to out-scoop anybody, but usually if it makes it to there, it's at least been halfway verified.
Since last post: 5904 days Last activity: 5877 days
#9 Posted on 18.4.02 2131.41 Reposted on: 18.4.09 2132.06
With all due respect to the Slash and OO, I think that Meltzer or the Torch are better souces for news.
As far as HHH goes, I find it harder and harder to defend him as more things come to light. I still give him the benefit of the doubt for now, though. I don't, however, think that things will ever get as bad politically as they were at the height of the Clique or in WCW right before it was bought. I think *that* much is blown way too much out of proportion.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE