|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 28, 2014 17:27:06 GMT -5
Mike... Umm Knight cleared this up with me when I raised the same question (in far less words) just thought I'd tell you, you know as I hate to see a good rant be useless He clarified a point to you as an extension of the dialogue, nothing was really cleared up regarding the dialogue between he and I. Ati brought up the suggestion that Triple H could have benefited from his marriage to Stephanie, Knight responded that it was emotional nonsense to even consider such a thing. I said that waving off the possibility as a groundless emotional reaction is itself a groundless emotional reaction, to which he immediately responded that this was somehow a biased statement that confirms my dislike of Triple H. That's what I was responding to. eh fair enough, you both make some good points and far be it from me to choose sides or stop you guts from arguing (as they're almost always entertaining.) so let me grab some popcorn and watch this unfold |
|
|
|
Post by Raven_turns#HEELYESBITW on Apr 28, 2014 17:27:41 GMT -5
good question, could be that or they object to favoritism...aside from batista i think he's picked guys with something to offer and not just take. I honestly believe that HHH thought Batista would be better. Shortly after he gave Batista the title, their relationship soured, supposedly over Batista's declining work ethic. ... that or HHH, like his father-in-law, just gets stars in his eyes when he sees big powerfully built guys I hope it's not the last part. Although he did have chyna  |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 28, 2014 17:43:34 GMT -5
Ati brought up the suggestion that Triple H could have benefited from his marriage to Stephanie, Knight responded that it was emotional nonsense to even consider such a thing. Never did. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Apr 28, 2014 17:55:03 GMT -5
No, I have not argued that anyone who recognizes the possibility of HHH getting anything out of his marriage to Stephanie is biased. Please, by all means, show me where I've said that. Hmm, I think it was probably the following exchange. Also, while it may be silly to assume that Triple H "got everything that he wanted" by marrying the boss' daughter, I think it's equally silly to dismiss the notion out of hand. Neither of us know which is the case and both outcomes are possible so you're both making assumptions. Why can't you just acknowledge that you don't like HHH? You claim to be neutral toward him,a nd then post something like this. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Apr 28, 2014 18:02:58 GMT -5
Ati brought up the suggestion that Triple H could have benefited from his marriage to Stephanie, Knight responded that it was emotional nonsense to even consider such a thing. Never did. I was mistaken about the name, but that's about it. When arguing with Sychosid over the issue of Triple H getting "everything he wanted" by marrying Stephanie, you didn't say this? There is no point in entering into a discussion with someone who based their position on emotion and assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 28, 2014 18:04:25 GMT -5
I was mistaken about the name, but that's about it. When arguing with Sychosid over the issue of Triple H getting "everything he wanted" by marrying Stephanie, you didn't say this? There is no point in entering into a discussion with someone who based their position on emotion and assumption. ... right, because that applies exactly, because he said "there is a possibility that..." not "HHH got everything he wanted ever since he hooked up with Stephanie." If you don't see the difference, I'm done debating the point. Saying "it is possible" is different than saying "it is so." |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Apr 28, 2014 18:46:07 GMT -5
I was mistaken about the name, but that's about it. When arguing with Sychosid over the issue of Triple H getting "everything he wanted" by marrying Stephanie, you didn't say this? ... right, because that applies exactly, because he said "there is a possibility that..." not "HHH got everything he wanted ever since he hooked up with Stephanie." If you don't see the difference, I'm done debating the point. Saying "it is possible" is different than saying "it is so." No, you jumped on me for acknowledging the possibility. I pointed that out in the response that you ignored. If you're done debating the point then that's fine, we're to the point of arguing semantics again which isn't even the point of this argument. The simple fact is that someone brought up "the marriage angle" and from that point on you were done. We've all been through this before, these forums are all well aware of the fact that you hold Triple H in very high regard and don't take criticism of him lightly. That's perfectly fine. It's also understandable that you'd be sick of the marriage thing because many people have, in fact, suggested that Triple H only made his career successful by doing it. It's ignorant, and as his fan I can imagine that it must be tiresome for you. You see a great wrestler who's unfairly persecuted by fans who like to drink the internet Kool-Aid. To an extent, you're correct. However, I think the issue being demonstrated here is that while everyone knows that there IS a bias against Triple H, you seem to fail to comprehend your own bias towards him. Your fierce loyalty to the guy has, as long as anyone here has known you, been quite apparent in the tone and frequency of your defense of him. It's not enough to say that you think that he's good and that people bag on him unfairly, you go so far as to pick apart the specifics of a legendary (and legendarily decorated) career to complain about its imperfections while tossing out the claim that the company actually doesn't appreciate him. When anyone expresses distaste for him you regularly demonstrate a preference for assuming that the person is stupid, ill-informed, ignorant, emotional, biased or a typical internet sheep. Look at today. You've known me for going on four years, how often do I even bring up Triple H? Yet as soon as I say "Hey, it IS a possibility that Triple H boosted his career by marrying Stephanie, it's simple common sense so it shouldn't be ruled out" you immediately accuse me of being disingenuous, of hiding a bias, and jump to the conclusion that the statement was only made because I'm yet another ignorant buffoon with a grudge who's drinking the Kool-Aid and attacking your boy because, I guess, it seemed like the funnest thing to do today. Defend who you want. Make the case for his greatness all that you want. But don't act as if every other person's ability to form an impartial opinion of him is lower than yours just because you've climbed so high up his ass. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 28, 2014 20:05:55 GMT -5
No, you jumped on me for acknowledging the possibility. I pointed that out in the response that you ignored. I didn't ignore it, I refuted it. I never once said that there is no possibility |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on Apr 28, 2014 20:06:38 GMT -5
No, you jumped on me for acknowledging the possibility. I pointed that out in the response that you ignored. I didn't ignore it, I refuted it. I never once said that there is no possibility Wild, you're missing it. Sandow is Magneto... and getting buried. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 28, 2014 20:08:04 GMT -5
I didn't ignore it, I refuted it. I never once said that there is no possibility Wild, you're missing it. Sandow is Magneto... and getting buried. I'm just now watching the start of the show |
|
|
|
Post by sychosid1 on Apr 29, 2014 2:30:16 GMT -5
Babble? No you just can't admit what you're saying is subjective. Like I said a long time ago Wild, YOU THINK when you say something, its 100% correct, no everything is subjective and debatable. What you said is stupid because my reasons above. Your "reasons" are predicated on your belief that HHH got everything he wanted when he hooked up with Stephanie, and from that time forward. That is an unreasonable assumption. Even when discussing something that is subjective, I back my position up with facts and logic. There is no point in entering into a discussion with someone who based their position on emotion and assumption. Speaking of Maven, he had a championship match ? All I remember was him eliminating Undertaker at the Rumble and then getting his ass destroyed lol. And I apologize for losing my cool very quickly last night but it is annoying always getting laughed at by you specifically. Now on the subject, I am more than sure that I mentioned HHH was already a main event star (Thinking about this, I have said this a lot) aand he would of continued to rise as a main event star, but Steph marrying him influenced the rise in the corporate section of the company, the overwhelming creative input, etc... Now here is a question for you, you claim Triple H was underappreciated by the company, but is in a corporate position right now, which makes no sense because you just said that I had a unreasonable assumption that HHH got everything he wanted when he married Steph...so what is your claim for that? Not sure if thats contradictory or something... EDIT: TO continue to my last paragraph, HHH I highly doubt would of been the COO if he didn't marry Steph. Thats subjective of course but I just can't see him rising that far and that fast (4 years or something) to it. Like Ati said, HHH benefited from the marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 29, 2014 7:19:08 GMT -5
Now here is a question for you, you claim Triple H was underappreciated by the company, but is in a corporate position right now, which makes no sense ... so is Michael Hayes. So is Arn Anderson. So is Terry Taylor. So what? Do you think that the WWE really recognizes, or cares about in any way, the contributions those guys made in the ring? They made Terry Taylor the Red $#@!ing Rooster. Getting a backstage role with the company is probably THE most common thing for wrestlers to do when they near retirement from in-ring activity. HHH's predecessors were Jim Ross and John Laurinaitis. Am I to believe that they were given those positions because the WWE respected their in-ring accomplishments, or were they married to Stephanie as well? People have been talking about HHH having a sharp mind for the business since 1996. Him taking on more of a role backstage and eventually becoming a booker was never in doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by sychosid1 on Apr 30, 2014 1:47:43 GMT -5
But rising that far up into COO position so quickly? Yeah no doubt he would be in management, but to rise that far up and slowly take over Vince in power. Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 30, 2014 5:08:01 GMT -5
But rising that far up into COO position so quickly? Yeah no doubt he would be in management, but to rise that far up and slowly take over Vince in power. Nope. Oh, right, I forgot that you legitimately believe HHH is the COO of the company. Suffice it to say that until you have a clue, I'm not discussing it with you anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by sychosid1 on Apr 30, 2014 5:13:15 GMT -5
Well he is a EVP. Not COO.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 30, 2014 5:24:14 GMT -5
Well he is a EVP. Not COO. He is AN EVP in a company with almost a dozen EVPs. He is EVP OF (talent relations). It's actually no bigger or more important than the job was when Pat Patterson had it almost 30 years ago... it's just that now it has an official title because the WWE is a publicly traded company. Furthermore, you're claiming that he got there "quickly" which, first of all, is a very subjective term in the first place, and second of all isn't really accurate compared to other guys who have been given positions of equal importance. HHH came to work for the WWE in 1995, and wasn't formally given a position in the company hierarchy until 2010. That's 15 years with the company. His two predecessors were both given the equivalent job after a much shorter stint with the company. John Laurinaitis was literally hired directly into the job, having not worked with/for the company previously at all. Finally, HHH does not have more power than Vince. Nobody has more power than Vince. I've no idea where you got that into your head. |
|
|
|
Post by sychosid1 on May 1, 2014 2:24:53 GMT -5
And your original argument was that "Triple H was considered under appreciated in the company" when I gave my statement, including being a EVP...so you are spinning my words and making it like I started this.
Secondly, you mis-red what I said, I said he is SLOWLY taking over power in WWE over time, but he hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 1, 2014 4:45:23 GMT -5
And your original argument was that "Triple H was considered under appreciated in the company" No, it wasn't. My original argument is that his in-ring contributions were, and continue to be, underappreciated by the company, which I backed by pointing out out that his win/loss record is abysmal compared to that of other major players, many of his title wins were overshadowed by bigger matches on the card, and he's never mentioned alongside the Hogans, Stone Colds, and Rocks of the industry. |
|
|
|
Post by CaptainDamage on May 1, 2014 5:54:36 GMT -5
Little kids loves Hogan and The Rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 1, 2014 5:59:24 GMT -5
Little kids loves Hogan and The Rock. ... little kids would have nothing to love if Hogan and The Rock didn't have competent heels to make them look heroic. |
|
