Unless my mind is playing tricks, they've added a 'disclaimer' that it's a parody since I read it earlier today - but I thought your point was well made.
OTOH, it totally figures that no sooner than you become a WWE star, you're pulling this omerta crap on us marks.
And if you're a "WWE star", and not a "WWE Superstar", does that mean I can only see you on Internet Heat?
It's funny, but comparing wrestlers to dogs is a little bit asinine.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
It's funny, but comparing wrestlers to dogs is a little bit asinine.
Seeing as most wrestlers (Austin and Bret jump to mind) compare themselves to horses ("once Vince is done with you, off to the glue factory, etc") it's not much of a stretch, probably
Wow, that's in pretty poor taste.
As far as poor taste goes...well, it's tough to beat real life at this point (Cena and Chavo interviews, I'm looking at you)
Good stuff, F'N Shapiro
FLEA
Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
It was making light of the Kennedy/Finlay/McDevitt/Dr. Black situation. Did I intend to compare wrestlers to dogs ......... no. Well, yes. But mostly I was just comparing Ken Kennedy to an idiot and wrestling-as-dogfighting was just a fascinating, Pulitzer-worthy, flawed subtext.
I did like it much, much without before the disclaimer, but I guess that means a lot of people were confused, which is kind of awesome.
Let's see what a dog himself has to say:
Originally posted by SEADAWGThe caddle prods and rape stands backstage at WWE events have been well documented.
Not a terrible parody, albeit a double-homicide & suicide, plus the savage destruction of Man's Best Friend probably ain't the ideal fodder for knee-slapping comedy. But to bring the great who's-to-blame-for-all-these-deaths debate back to wrestling, I wonder if the answer isn't so simplistic that we tend to overlook it:
Maybe the wrestling industry simply attracts people who like to take insane risks in their lives -- both personally as well as professionally -- in numbers far greater than in the general population?
I'm a firm believer in different jobs attracting different kinds of people. Not ALWAYS, but FREQUENTLY... people who are attracted to a career as a trial attorney are people who enjoy arguing and debate. Accounting attracts people who enjoy number-crunching and minutia. People who enjoy being in control & telling others what to do are more likely attracted to a career as a policeman than, say, carpentry.
Wrestling probably attracts people who are decidedly NOT risk-adverse. It attracts people who greatly enjoy being perceived as larger-than-life superheroes. They'll readily sacrifice stability & long-term health with their bodies -- in exchange for immediate gratification & personal glory. For them, the trade-off is worth it.
Maybe people like that -- obviously not all, but a considerable percentage -- are just more prone to engage in excess, take chances, and make decisions that seem terribly destructive to others.
This doesn't absolve McMahon / WWE from blame, but does somewhat reframe the backdrop.
Way to go, Booker! His big win over the former champ should hopefully put him into contention for Regal's title. I wonder why DDP has been working with this new world order, and whether the Booty Man is connected to this via the Kimberly connection.
#
#
#
