Originally posted by Spaceman SpiffEh, I still blame Steph for Jamie Knoble's banishment to jobber-land. Nidia's "too fat" (back when Steph was twice the size she is now) so Knoble gets jobbed out.
Boo-hoo, poor Stephy. Screw her.
(edited by Spaceman Spiff on 21.5.03 1323)
Yes, this is the exact reasoning behind Knoble's de-push. It also further cements the theory that WWE is purposely trying to *not* make money. They decided that they didn't want to make a dime off of the Girls Gone Wild PPV. That's why they promoted it with the tease of Nidia (who is too fat) getting NAKED. Eww, who wants to see Nidia (who is too fat) get naked?
The coyote goes...
You know, the WWE really ought to publish an exact list of who's who backstage, from paper pusher to coffee runner to booker, so we know who to flame in agreement.
If the show sucks, by the way, I blame the crowd. If there's a hot crowd eager to see some wrestling, 10 times out of 10 it will be a good show. If it's a dead crowd, or a small crowd, the show usually tends to suck. (Sarcastic remark of the day, cue smiley.)
Oh, and whoever said that Albert and Big Show are bad workers: they're not. They're big, thus not necesarily as quick as some other workers, but they're not bad. Take Big Show. He's been on my TV for about 8 or 9 years now, and the only injury I remember him dishing out was the rib thing with Brock. Also, he has been powerbombed by both Kevin Nash and Undertaker, Nash's being botched, Rock Bottomed, F5'd, Angle Slammed, Chokeslammed, and Jackhammered. With the exception of possibly Brock's F5, Big Show did all the work involved in those moves (The Angle Slam especially, where it's obvious that it's Big Show jumping and not Kurt lifting). That seems like both willingness to put others over and an ability to work, even if his style uses his size to his advantage, and a hell of a lot more agile than Andre the Giant ever was, even though a lot of fans' nostalgia goggles hinder them from seeing that. Not only that, but there is excitement involved in his matches against smaller opponents, such as Benoit and Mysterio. Well, at least I'm intrigued if they actually pull off an upset. Hell, I think it's neat when they actually get him down.
Granted, they aren't Benoit, and they won't put on MOTY candidates due to their size, but if I were starting a new fed, I'd take Big Show or Albert to fill a monster role in a heartbeat.
Originally Posted by LexusOh, and whoever said that Albert and Big Show are bad workers: they're not. They're big, thus not necesarily as quick as some other workers, but they're not bad. Take Big Show. He's been on my TV for about 8 or 9 years now, and the only injury I remember him dishing out was the rib thing with Brock. Also, he has been powerbombed by both Kevin Nash and Undertaker, Nash's being botched, Rock Bottomed, F5'd, Angle Slammed, Chokeslammed, and Jackhammered. With the exception of possibly Brock's F5, Big Show did all the work involved in those moves (The Angle Slam especially, where it's obvious that it's Big Show jumping and not Kurt lifting). That seems like both willingness to put others over and an ability to work, even if his style uses his size to his advantage, and a hell of a lot more agile than Andre the Giant ever was, even though a lot of fans' nostalgia goggles hinder them from seeing that. Not only that, but there is excitement involved in his matches against smaller opponents, such as Benoit and Mysterio. Well, at least I'm intrigued if they actually pull off an upset. Hell, I think it's neat when they actually get him down.
Since when does "taking people's finishers" qualify someone to be a good wrestler? It's not like he's leaping through the air to pull of an Angle slam either, just adding some extra momentum so Angle and roll through the move. What "style" are you referring to? The one where he stands in the ring and lets a smaller opponent bounce off of him for 3 minutes? (he can't go over 4 minutes because he'll get gassed)
If you want to talk about GOOD monsters, at least use Taker (pre-biker era) and Kane.
He's been on my TV for about 8 or 9 years now, and the only injury I remember him dishing out was the rib thing with Brock
How about 2 PPV's ago when he let Rey get dropped on his head (the stretcher spot)? Granted, Rey didn't suffer any major injuries (luckily), but he did have some sprains/strains, IIRC.
Originally posted by Spaceman SpiffHow about 2 PPV's ago when he let Rey get dropped on his head (the stretcher spot)? Granted, Rey didn't suffer any major injuries (luckily), but he did have some sprains/strains, IIRC.
I wouldn't blame that on Big Show so much as on whoever came up with the idea for the spot in the first place. What was Show supposed to do, catch Rey in mid-air and set him down gently? That would have completely blown the spot. And contrary to various reports I've read, Rey's arms weren't strapped down at all. I'm not sure if he was stunned from the bump or just fell faster than he expected or what, but he could have put his arms out to break the fall if he had reacted faster.
Show could have absolutely protected Rey in that spot. If you watch the tape, you'll notice 2 things:
1) By the time Rey his the post, Show had let go of the board. 2) The "feet end" of the board caught the ring apron on the way down, causing Rey to pitch forward onto his head.
Show could have held onto the board long enough to guide it to a back-first landing position (unless the spot was intended for Rey to land face-down, which is just stupid).
"Vince McMahon was so upset with Big Show for not taking care of Rey Mysterio during the Backlash stretcher spot that he refused to talk to him after the match. The plan for the spot called for Show to slam Mysterio into the ringpost and then lean the stretcher against the ring apron. McMahon was upset because Show simply dropped Mysterio to the ground face first when his arms were strapped to the stretcher, giving him no chance to protect himself."
Originally posted by VenomExactly what does Stephanie do on TV that's "good?" She's a bad actress, she's not a wrestler, and she's not attractive enough to warrant a major role on TV.
Steph has a limited role as GM which she performs pretty well and up until recently had served the sole purpose of progressing rather than initiating storylines. Her acting abilities are not Oscar worthy, but the same could be said of exactly 100% of the roster. She may not be stunningly attractive but she certainly aint in the 'camel chewing toffee' category, and I certainly dont mind waking up to see her on a Saturday morning
Originally posted by VenomOriginally Posted by Notorious F.A.B. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 100% agree with the idea that it is stupid to assume "Steph is responsible for the crap and Heyman is responsible for the gold". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? Who said that? I've never heard that until this thread.
Then I can only assume that you never visit many wrestling newsboards. During his time writing practically all credit for storylines which were deemed good by the IWC were credited to Heyman, all bad attributed to Stephanie.
I never said it and I hate Stephanie.
Well good for you, you make me proud.
Originally posted by Spaceman SpiffI stand by my belief that Knoble is one of the better all-around guys on either roster. He's a great bumper, a great seller, he can keep it on the mat, he can fly if needed. He can work the mic. He didn't get the "mini-Benoit" rep for nothing.
Mini-Benoit? You mean he gets no crowd reaction and cant draw for chocolate? Push him! (Come on, I'm kidding, be gentle).
Seriously, the guy did nothing for me nor most of the folks I know, but either way I said the point was arguable and you argued it. Fair 'nuff.
But Steph is pushing for a bigger on-screen role (according to the rumors), so her weight is relevant (although she has lost some weight lately). And 50 pounds overweight is one thing. Nidia is far from "fat". IMO, it had more to do w/ Nidia not matching up to the typical "WWE diva" mold.
I used 50lbs to exaccerbate the point. I'll put it another way, if it was reported that Steph was gonna send a male midcarder (say, Rosie) down to OVW to lose some weight people wouldnt have got nearly so upset. But folks get all upset cos the story related to a woman.
Again, Stephs weight will only become an issue, increasing role or no, if and when she starts wrestling again. Till then she can feast away on Big Macs and Pork pies till her little (or not so) heart is content.
(edited by dMr on 23.5.03 1812) "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
originally posted by dMrSteph has a limited role as GM which she performs pretty well and up until recently had served the sole purpose of progressing rather than initiating storylines. Her acting abilities are not Oscar worthy, but the same could be said of exactly 100% of the roster. She may not be stunningly attractive but she certainly aint in the 'camel chewing toffee' category, and I certainly dont mind waking up to see her on a Saturday morning.
Soooooo...she's mediocre and that's something to be celebrated? You admit she could easily be replaced by anyone else on the roster, but isn't because of reasons we all fully accept and understand. Also, you like mannish women who look like Vince with hot air balloons injected beneath their chest tissue?
originally posted by dMrThen I can only assume that you never visit many wrestling newsboards. During his time writing practically all credit for storylines which were deemed good by the IWC were credited to Heyman, all bad attributed to Stephanie.
I notice you pinched off the second part of that point, which stated that most of the comparisons of good vs. bad were between Brian Gerwitz (Raw head writer) and Paul Heyman (Smackdown head writer). Stephanie was rarely brought up because she wasn't influencing heavily over one show or the other. Thus, you had a clear contrast between the sucktacular Raw and the excellent Smackdown in late 2002, early 2003. I think you're confusing Brian for Stephanie.
Originally posted by dMrWell good for you, you make me proud.
And I'm proud of you too. It takes a lot of guts to stand by an opinion this ridiculous.
Originally posted by VenomSoooooo...she's mediocre and that's something to be celebrated?
Not to celebrate no. Just not something to get all het up about. She does a decent job and I have no problem with her, seeing her get pissed on so much just strikes me as a smidge unfair.
Originally posted by VenomYou admit she could easily be replaced by anyone else on the roster, but isn't because of reasons we all fully accept and understand.
Au contraire, I said her acting abilities were comparable. There are however very few people on the roster who would be a logical choice to play the GM of Smackdown. Shane would be, and IMO marginally preferable. But I'm pretty sure he's loosely related to Vince as well and thus could equally look to take advantage of these reasons we all understand.
Originally posted by VenomAlso, you like mannish women who look like Vince with hot air balloons injected beneath their chest tissue?
Like I say shes not the most stunning girl in the world, but I certainly wouldnt kick her out of bed for eating toast. So she bears a slight resemblance to Vince. Anna Kournikova is the spit of Yeltsin but there's a fair few red blooded males seem to rate her. Besides I'm sure we've both done worse ;).
Originally posted by VenomI notice you pinched off the second part of that point, which stated that most of the comparisons of good vs. bad were between Brian Gerwitz (Raw head writer) and Paul Heyman (Smackdown head writer). Stephanie was rarely brought up because she wasn't influencing heavily over one show or the other. Thus, you had a clear contrast between the sucktacular Raw and the excellent Smackdown in late 2002, early 2003. I think you're confusing Brian for Stephanie.
Nope, pinched it off for neatness cos it wasnt relevant to my point. Yes there were comparisons drawn between Heyman and the man whose name I can't spell. But with regards SD as a stand alone show, Heyman was given the credit for the vast majority of what was deemed good writing while anything dodgy wqas instantly attributed to Stephanie. Look back at stories about how 'Heyman wanted Matt pushed over Albert' and 'Heyman wants Rhyno straight into the ME picture' while on the Steph side we're told she was busy writing the Al Wilson saga single handed.
Originally posted by VenomAnd I'm proud of you too. It takes a lot of guts to stand by an opinion this ridiculous.
Hmmm not sure that 'Stephanie is an inoffensive and logical choice as GM and was not responsible for all bad writing on SD(and may have aided in some good)' is "that ridiculous", but I'm sure I'll get over it.
(edited by dMr on 24.5.03 1850) "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
originally posted by dMrNot to celebrate no. Just not something to get all het up about. She does a decent job and I have no problem with her, seeing her get pissed on so much just strikes me as a smidge unfair.
See, here's my problem with the WWE in general right now. Mediocrity. Why in the name of God would you want to push mediocrity on your shows when you have a monopoly? I don't understand the constant need to defend, protect, push, and give shitloads of TV time to someone who is MEDIOCRE. Why not use someone who can at least contribute something positive to the product, rather than someone who stands there and is "unoffensive." You've yet to tell me what good Stephanie does or what she contributes to the bottom line (aside from "not being so bad") which was the original question.
originally posted by dMrAu contraire, I said her acting abilities were comparable. There are however very few people on the roster who would be a logical choice to play the GM of Smackdown. Shane would be, and IMO marginally preferable. But I'm pretty sure he's loosely related to Vince as well and thus could equally look to take advantage of these reasons we all understand.
Touche'...BUT, Shane DID contribute something to the product by WRESTLING on a semi-regular basis. And he had quite a few good matches too (against X-Pac, Test, Kurt Angle, and Vince of all people) As an addendum, Vince could wrestle when he had to and act up a storm as the evil bastard boss you love to hate. Thus, there were actual benefits to putting them on TV.
Also, if you want to argue the merits of logic in the WWE Universe, you might as well give up now. If I recall:
1) Stephanie was BANNISHED FOREVER from WWE TV for losing the World Title Match to Hunter before the split. 2) Vince hated Stephanie in the storyline for the Invasion, yet gave her control of half the company. 3) Eric Bischoff was made RAW GM for no dicernable reason other than to shock the fans.
originally posted by dMrNope, pinched it off for neatness cos it wasnt relevant to my point. Yes there were comparisons drawn between Heyman and the man whose name I can't spell. But with regards SD as a stand alone show, Heyman was given the credit for the vast majority of what was deemed good writing while anything dodgy wqas instantly attributed to Stephanie. Look back at stories about how 'Heyman wanted Matt pushed over Albert' and 'Heyman wants Rhyno straight into the ME picture' while on the Steph side we're told she was busy writing the Al Wilson saga single handed.
Actually, Vince was blamed for the Albert push if I recall correctly because of his "big man fetish". Johnny Ace was blamed for Matt's depush (remember the teenage girl reaction controversy?) Don't remember the Al Wilson story being pinned on anyone, other than everyone agreeing how stupid it was. Even if that WAS blamed on Stephanie (which I don't ever believe it was), that's one instance of stupid being placed at her feet, which hardly makes a point about people worshipping Heyman and dogging on Steph. I still believe that the comparison of good and bad was made between Gerwitz and Heyman all the time, and since I don't feel like digging through the Weiner archives, I'll direct you to Scott Keith's last 2002 recaps where he makes those points A LOT, since we're all "brainwashed Keith zombies who don't think for ourselves."
originally posted by dMrHmmm not sure that 'Stephanie is an inoffensive and logical choice as GM and was not responsible for all bad writing on SD(and may have aided in some good)' is "that ridiculous", but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Ridiculous for putting up quite a fight to defend Stephanie's "averageness" and pound home a point I think is completely false and contrived, possibly based on 1 or 2 posted here at Weinerville.
I am sure, however, that my view on this seems equally ridiculous to you ;)
Originally posted by Venom I still believe that the comparison of good and bad was made between Gerwitz and Heyman all the time, and since I don't feel like digging through the Weiner archives, I'll direct you to Scott Keith's last 2002 recaps where he makes those points A LOT, since we're all "brainwashed Keith zombies who don't think for ourselves."
Hold up now. I agree with dMr and all but don't get us confused. I said something about "the more Keith-influenced, 'work rate uber alles' crowd".
Let me just lay this one out there and be on my way: Keith ain't the internet. You're identifying way too much with one man's recaps. I don't care what he said or when he said it because there were always self-appointed wrestling "purists" taking everything three steps further.
You're also bringing up an old point in order to insinuate dMr is putting you under a "stupid umbrella" by virtue of disagreeing with you. You did the same thing to me and I deleted the post where I railed on you for it.
The point STANDS that there is a certain contingent in the IWC who blamed everything bad on Smackdown! on Steph and credited everything good to Paul Heyman. Keith don't fucking enter into it.Gewirtz doesn't even enter into it. No one has to have said it to prove this because they did it in droves.
originally posted by Notorious F.A.B.Hold up now. I agree with dMr and all but don't get us confused. I said something about "the more Keith-influenced, 'work rate uber alles' crowd".
I know, I was making the reference to you earlier.
Let me just lay this one out there and be on my way: Keith ain't the internet. You're identifying way too much with one man's recaps. I don't care what he said or when he said it because there were always self-appointed wrestling "purists" taking everything three steps further.
But wait...your first post clearly stated that those who had a problem with Steph and loved Heyman were "Keith influenced." Therefore, shouldn't the point be made that in Scott's own recaps he was clearly laying the blame for RAW's suckiness on Gerwitz? I only brought up Scott's recaps because he is a very opinionated recapper and tends to get grouped in as the Lord High Commander of the Smart Mark crowd, and his views on the subject were clearly different then what you're insinuating the "Keith influenced" contingient believes. I also said I didn't feel like digging through the Weinerboard looking for evidence to the contrary of what you're saying, so I just threw out the one place I knew where the counter-point was; Scott's recap archives.
You're also bringing up an old point in order to insinuate dMr is putting you under a "stupid umbrella" by virtue of disagreeing with you. You did the same thing to me and I deleted the post where I railed on you for it.
No no no nooooo...that comment was specifically directed at YOU for basically saying in your first post "all Smarks think THIS way." You're the one who tried to put us all in the same marginalized group and my point to you was we all don't think the same. I also don't "insinuate" a god damned thing, I'll say it straight out or in overwhelming sarcasm. Next time, just put up your retalitory post so I can argue it with you. I much prefer it that way.
The point STANDS that there is a certain contingent in the IWC who blamed everything bad on Smackdown! on Steph and credited everything good to Paul Heyman. Keith don't fucking enter into it. Gewirtz doesn't even enter into it. No one has to have said it to prove this because they did it in droves.
That last sentence makes ZERO sense and is self-contradictory. You're saying "no one said it, but it's still true." Funny, because I've been hanging around on forums in Rajah and Delphi and IGN since the start of 2002 and I have never witnessed this phenomenom. Maybe it was a Weinerboard exclusive.
The point doesn't STAND because you've yet to show me significant evidence to the contrary that proves your point. I don't have to prove it's wrong, you need to prove it's right. Maybe you're confused because a lot of people have always hated Stephanie since about 2001, and since they happened to like Heyman's booking you equated the two and thought they were blamming Steph for bad booking when it was just the usual hatred directed at her.
The whole "Stephanie takes the blame for the bad on Smackdown" doesn't make ANY GOD DAMNED SENSE when she's in charge of both shows. By your logic, she should've also been blamed for the shit-show that RAW was at the end of 2002, and I concretely remember Gerwitz being the fall guy for that on the internet. Raw sucked and Gerwitz got blamed, Smackdown was good, and Heyman got praised. Hell, even NOW that Smackdown has started to slip in the shitter, it's VINCE who's getting blamed for all the crap there.
I don't even know why I'm arguing this point because I've thought Stephanie's been a non-factor in booking since the start of the split and I thought Heyman was overrated. I guess I just love an argument.
Originally posted by dMrSo she bears a slight resemblance to Vince. Anna Kournikova is the spit of Yeltsin but there's a fair few red blooded males seem to rate her. Besides I'm sure we've both done worse ;).
Given the number of homosexual men who have died fighting for your freedom in the armed forces, this is a pretty ungrateful thing to say. You probably didn't mean it offensively, but you really shouldn't use the WWE code-word for "heterosexual," because it's really low.
The "God/Heavy rock" riddle for the new millenium: Could HHH bury himself so badly that even HHH couldn't recover?
Appreciate your love for the questions of life like that of a closed box or a locked door. Do not permit the temptation of any human's sacred doctrine to be your fleeting answer. Let the joy of wonder overcome your desire for knowledge, and when you do, the questions themselves will become your answers.
In your first reply to me you acted as though I had addressed you directly. I didn't. I never noticed you until you called me by name and insulted me in this thread.
You also went on to misconstrue everything you quoted from me. You also conveniently disregarded the main point of post. I'm only bringing this up now because you belabored "conveniently forgetting" with dMr a few responses back. My point was that smarks, specifically "the more Keith-influenced, 'work rate uber alles' crowd", needs someone to base all of the bad on.
Apparently you have a massive hard on for Keith and that's fine but don't let your blind lust for the loveable little curmudgeon goad you into thinking you need to defend him at all times even when no one cut on him. To wit, I originally said (and you quoted):
The same sort of thing happened years ago when Russo left for WCW. At first everyone assumed he was the guy who came up with the good stuff. Over time people's opinions changed and it became "Russo was responsible for the crap and McMahon was responsible for the gold".
There is not one reference to Scott Keith or his minions here. Read it twice if you have to.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and keep in mind I have no interest in the smart mark boner this offer has given you) but the only real bone of contention here - apart from you thinking I was talking about your leather clad love master - is that the Internet ever credited Russo with anything good. Since you've been around a while I'm sure you remember the Russo love fest over at Wrestleline the week before he left for WCW. I didn't read a lot of IWC sites at the time so maybe they were the contarians there. I don't know for sure but I'll happily concede the point.
You apparently got the idea I was talking about your daddy from the next paragraph:
Smarks NEED a scapegoat and by smarks I mean the more Keith-influenced members of the crowd. The "work rate uber alles" contingent. They would shit a brick if "reliable" word came out that Heyman orchastrated a plan to keep Benoit down.
The point here is that "the work rate uber alles contingent" would shit a brick if word came out Heyman had kept one of their boys down. This is because these people like to credit Heyman with everything good on Smackdown! That's what would make them shit. It would bely the fact that fact TWRUAC needs to put the good all on one person and the bad all on another person. I'd hoped that point was obvious when I said it the first time around, with most of the same words in the same order.
By "smarks" I did not mean Scott Keith nor any of his followers. And lest you get confused, since you're stepping to me with so much vitriole and you're obviously an excitable fellow, I did not mean you.
So to recap: in the first paragraph I talked about people on the internet and in the second paragraph I talked about rabid Scott Keith marks. Now we'll move on to your more recent rampant misunderstanding:
But wait...your first post clearly stated that those who had a problem with Steph and loved Heyman were "Keith influenced."
Nope. I said smarks need someone to blame the bad on. The "Keith influenced" fans love Heyman. It's true. I didn't say loving or hating specific people meant you were influenced by anyone.
Therefore, shouldn't the point be made that in Scott's own recaps he was clearly laying the blame for RAW's suckiness on Gerwitz?
If for no other reason than Steph supposedly "wrote" for Smackdown!: nope.
I only brought up Scott's recaps because he is a very opinionated recapper and tends to get grouped in as the Lord High Commander of the Smart Mark crowd, and his views on the subject were clearly different then what you're insinuating the "Keith influenced" contingient believes.
That's the reason you brought it up? 'Cause you're acting like I took a swing at your Lord High Commander.
And just to recap again so the idea stays in your head: I didn't say Scott felt one way or another. I said the rabid uber-marks - who no doubt love them some Smark Rants - felt blah blah blah.
Some other misunderstanding led to this misunderstanding:
that comment was specifically directed at YOU for basically saying in your first post "all Smarks think THIS way."
I basically said "all smarks need to blame someone".
And since you said "I also don't "insinuate" a god damned thing, I'll say it straight out or in overwhelming sarcasm." how about not putting your "specifically directed" messages to me in a post to dMr, quoting him at length?
And why the hell were you even directing something at me? Where you just so sure that you were right that you needed me to respond to you? Did you think you smelled blood?
MOVING ON!
I said: No one has to have said it to prove this because they did it in droves.
You said: That last sentence makes ZERO sense and is self-contradictory. You're saying "no one said it, but it's still true."
No, I said "No one has to have said it to prove this because they did it in droves." Do you see how that's different than "no one said it, but it's still true"?
See, I'm not trying to prove anyone said anything, other than blaming Steph (oops - Gewritz) and praising Heyman. No one has to say "I blame Gewritz for everything bad" in order to actually blame him for everything bad. They just go ahead and and blame him for everything bad. (And again, I'm not talking about you specifically.) They don't have to declare it. They just have to demonstrate it.
And you know, shit like that was half the reason I deleted my first response to you. That and I didn't want to get kicked off the board. Apart from the Gewritz and Keith things you're not even disagreeing with me. Yet there are these gigantic posts. I fear what this one is going to encite from you.
The point doesn't STAND because you've yet to show me significant evidence to the contrary that proves your point. I don't have to prove it's wrong, you need to prove it's right.
Dude, a lot of people out there bashed Steph for bad writing and praised Heyman for good writing. Get the fuck over it. It's about as obvious as saying "the IWC uses computers."
And by saying that I don't mean to imply the entire IWC bashes Steph and praises Heyman, just that they use computers. I know how you get hung up on stuff like that.
Hell, even NOW that Smackdown has started to slip in the shitter, it's VINCE who's getting blamed for all the crap there.
Vince getting blamed is what this thread was about!
Now go on and respond because you just can't wait to!
The key is, all these arguement points aside, Vince could fix any of these problems if he wanted to. That's his job, and the buck stops there.
PMMJ
"Nothing remains interesting where anything may happen." -H.G. Wells "Show me the country in which there are no strikes and I'll show you that country in which there is no liberty." -Emma Goldman
Venom: "You've yet to tell me what good Stephanie does or what she contributes to the bottom line (aside from "not being so bad") which was the original question."
Outwith Shane, who as far as I understand is taking a break from wrestling and could if he wished use family connections to get back in, Steph is just about the only person on the roster who is a logical choice as GM.
Her current role is not designed to make her the star of the show or even one of the more entertaining people on it. It is pretty much a functional role which she performs well by progressing rather than initiating storylines effectively without taking up execessive tv time.
Like I say, assuming there is a GM she's about the best choice there is.
Venom:"Touche'...BUT, Shane DID contribute something to the product by WRESTLING on a semi-regular basis. And he had quite a few good matches too (against X-Pac, Test, Kurt Angle, and Vince of all people) As an addendum, Vince could wrestle when he had to and act up a storm as the evil bastard boss you love to hate. Thus, there were actual benefits to putting them on TV.
I'm running out of foreign, uh, bonjour? I've already stated that I think Vince could be a marginally better option but I didnt enjoy him as one of the leaders of the Alliance and am not convinced that he can play a figure of authority particularly well.
I am also one of the few people who enjoys Vince on TV these days but putting him as GM and owner would be a bit much. Either way, given that your argument was that Steph was there because of "reasons we all know" I hardly think those reasons are applicable when the alternatives you give are Vince and Shane. Unless you meant that shes a woman in which case I'm confused.
Regarding whether or not it was stated explicitly on boards that Steph was responsible for all that is bad, no it rarely was. But the insinuation when stating (as it often was) "Bad Thing X happened because Heyman is no longer writing" was pretty clearly that it happened because Steph was. The blame for the Al Wilson story was frequently attributed to her (maybe accurately, I know not) and given that the original article underpinning this thread was about Steph not having as much involvement in writing and not deserving so much criticism as she gets, I fail to see how you can argue that said criticism did not happen.
Vega:"Given the number of homosexual men who have died fighting for your freedom in the armed forces, this is a pretty ungrateful thing to say. You probably didn't mean it offensively, but you really shouldn't use the WWE code-word for "heterosexual," because it's really low."
I'm assuming form the smiley that that was tongue in cheek. I do hope so.
Notorious FAB:"We DO have the option of just moving on."
A-men. Lets.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
You shouldn't assume it was tongue-in-cheek, dMr, because it wasn't. The smiley was only there to keep the message from being accusitory.
I was pointing out that the WWE uses "red-blooded" as a code word for heterosexual, and I shouldn't have to explain why that's offensive . . .
. . . but I will . ..
Out of one side of their mouths, WWE says "Support the troops, dammit!" Out of the other side, they say that only heterosexual men are "red-blooded" Americans.
Apparently, WWE only supports the heterosexual troops.
I know WWE didn't exactly invent the expression, but that's irrelevant. I'm pointing out that it is (especially in times like now) a rather condescending and ungrateful thing to say, and you shouldn't perpetuate the expression.
That's all.
The "God/Heavy rock" riddle for the new millenium: Could HHH bury himself so badly that even HHH couldn't recover?
Appreciate your love for the questions of life like that of a closed box or a locked door. Do not permit the temptation of any human's sacred doctrine to be your fleeting answer. Let the joy of wonder overcome your desire for knowledge, and when you do, the questions themselves will become your answers.
#
#
