This guy rips Scooter up, pretty much picking the whole book apart. Or so I assume, since I haven't read the book myself. I quit reading the review about halfway through just because I'd gotten the point: Keith is stupid and doesn't know anything and is lazy and a liar and a committer of libel and didn't cite his sources and has a tendency to burn his French toast and doesn't use the right powdered sugar. Todd must have something personal against Scott, either that or he's just a stickler for correct information. The article is lengthy and comes across as Martin's way of showing what he knows about the business, but I thought I'd toss some flame bait or whatnot out for y'all.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I usually read SKeith's rants/show reports because I enjoy them; however I've yet to read either of his books.
You know, the bit about the powdered sugar really hurts.
As for the review, hey, it's a free country. I wrote the book basically for my fanbase, and the sales and feedback have been strong enough to indicate that they enjoyed it, so I'm happy. He seems to be galled that it's not an objective look at things, which kind of misses the point to begin with. If Todd's got an axe to grind there's probably not much I could have wrote that would have changed his mind anyway. The publisher liked it enough to give me another book, and that's what counts.
I had the book fact-checked to the best of my ability via multiple checkings by two longtime WON readers, and any accuracy problems that remained I didn't consider important enough to get worked up about. Apparently Todd did, and if he has an encyclopedic memory about this stuff, then great. I would whole-heartedly agree that people looking for an objective view at the Clique years should not buy the book anyway.
I had the book fact-checked to the best of my ability via multiple checkings by two longtime WON readers, and any accuracy problems that remained I didn't consider important enough to get worked up about.
Nice work ethic, Sparky.
So if I wrote a piece about Beniot and stated he was never a WCW title holder, because I didn't think it was important, would that count?
Guys like Scott are one of my main gripes against the net. Here is a guy who has never once set foot in a ring, yet he is, in his own mind, an expert. He takes himself entirely too seriously, and thinks that just because he has a book deal, he is king shit. Scott, you found a niche at the right time, plain and simple. I hope that you do realize that.
Just to clarify something else, my title was "Tonight...In This Very Ring" and that was it. The publisher added the subtitle on as a way to make it seem more "historical". It was always written from the perspective of a giant rant rather than a history book.
Originally posted by rspwfaqJust to clarify something else, my title was "Tonight...In This Very Ring" and that was it. The publisher added the subtitle on as a way to make it seem more "historical". It was always written from the perspective of a giant rant rather than a history book.
Nope, sorry Scott. Evidently you've messed up this woman's life to the point that only a self-induced bloodletting on the beautiful streets of Elgin, Illinois will satisfy.
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
Hmm...I saw it as a final way to break the self-dillusionary thought that this was all a work. Can one be truthful in reporting in and remain classy? Tell the tough stuff in an impartial manner? I think so. I think that post does just that.