I let it pass once; but I'm good at talking about wrestling heroes from the 1950's, not the 1960's. Were you really so proud of those put downs that you felt the need to type them out twice? Also; I don't know who or what a Zeven is - so that scathing wit went right over my head. Also, also; I don't think reductio ad absurdum means what you think it means, even when you write it properly.
And make a proper prediction - aggregate rating over a four week period taken in isolation gives you a roughly 50% chance of being correct just based off basic fluctuations. You're prediction would have held a couple of times when TNA's rating was trending upwards. I thought SPIKE were going to be looking at dropping the show? Wouldn't that sort of conclusion demand something rather more dramatic than one month averaging 0.02 lower than another month?
I let it pass once; but I'm good at talking about wrestling heroes from the 1950's, not the 1960's. Were you really so proud of those put downs that you felt the need to type them out twice? Also; I don't know who or what a Zeven is - so that scathing wit went right over my head. Also, also; I don't think reductio ad absurdum means what you think it means, even when you write it properly.
And make a proper prediction - aggregate rating over a four week period taken in isolation gives you a roughly 50% chance of being correct just based off basic fluctuations. You're prediction would have held a couple of times when TNA's rating was trending upwards. I thought SPIKE were going to be looking at dropping the show? Wouldn't that sort of conclusion demand something rather more dramatic than one month averaging 0.02 lower than another month?
Jesus, then we'll use the median rating for the month. Unless you insist upon using the mean. Using the best or worst numbers from an individual month wouldn't prove much of anything, as an individual show's ratings can change due to factors like scheduling competition and special events.
You never answered the question- do you seriously think that TNA is in the same financial position as they were a year ago? Your argument for past precedent would seem to rely on a positive answer to that question.
Zeven is a poster on these boards famous for insisting that TNA can't be in trouble, because people cannot have 100% certainty that TNA is in financial trouble- which seems to be the position you've decided to take. A LOT of shit goes over your head, but you're great at covering for it by calling other people stupid. We strip the insults and condescending language out of your posts, and I don't even think you're typing enough to get by in the spam forums.
Just Google reductio absurdum if you need the help on it. Again, your arguments consist of "nuh uh, you're stupid, and I don't have to demonstrate how because I said so." You're used to skating by on your forum cred with the bottom 50% here, but some of us see you for the bullshitter that you are.
I honestly don't give a shit which bygone era of professional wrestling you're good at; the point was that you don't seem to know shit about what's going on now. I'm not going to spell everything out for you like you were some sort of small child.
And- really, this was implied, but you seem to demand things be spelled out for you, and if they aren't it must be because the other person must be ******ed- looking at dropping a program is different than doing it.
No; you haven't understood my objection. I suggest not using the rating for a month - or setting a threshold of minimum decrease. Using the mean, median, mode or other method of measurement leaves your prediction with even odds of being correct even if the rating holds stable - which is what I've been forecasting and you've been arguing against.
You were claiming that ratings will drop to a point where SPIKE seriously consider taking the show off the air. Now I don't know how far a fall that would necessitate, but at the very least I think we can agree that TNA would have to stop being among SPIKE's highest draws. Bellator is typically getting around a 0.7 on the network from what I can glean, so can we assume that TNA is going to drop bellow that?
And I know what reductio ad absurdum means. Which is very clearly not what you suggested it did.
No; you haven't understood my objection. I suggest not using the rating for a month - or setting a threshold of minimum decrease. Using the mean, median, mode or other method of measurement leaves your prediction with even odds of being correct even if the rating holds stable - which is what I've been forecasting and you've been arguing against.
You were claiming that ratings will drop to a point where SPIKE seriously consider taking the show off the air. Now I don't know how far a fall that would necessitate, but at the very least I think we can agree that TNA would have to stop being among SPIKE's highest draws. Bellator is typically getting around a 0.7 on the network from what I can glean, so can we assume that TNA is going to drop bellow that?
And I know what reductio ad absurdum means. Which is very clearly not what you suggested it did.
Ah, so you're trying to goad me into a position I'm not taking. Cost of production is also a factor when comparing two tentpole programs against each other. You seem to be asking me to take the position that TNA will put themselves in a position where SpikeTV is forced to switch to another program.
And you're still not answering the question- are you suggesting that TNA is in the same financial position that they were a year ago? Because, again, your entire argument seems to rest on the idea that TNA's circumstances haven't changed.
If you know what reductio absurdum means (the ad is extraneous), why do you keep doing it?
It failed because they became more interested in a competition with WWE than actually putting out a niche product and cornering a market. Like Paul Heyman said as relating to how ECW survived vs. the big budgets of McMahon and Turner in the 90's, why be second best at something?
TNA should have kept the six sided ring and carved out it's own lane. Instead it became a poor man's WCW.
The nWo/Horsemen/power struggle rehashes don't help either.
Even if they get past the current obstacles of not having a place to tape, Spike possibly dropping it for Smackdown, and a majority of its stars on the way out, it still hasn't found out who it wants to be and why a viewer should choose that product over WWE who has the stars, veterans that bring nostalgia and the young talent.
I hope they get their shit together because the WWE is on cruise control right now as far as content but the people at the top of TNA are dumb as hell.
Oh well, will make for a top notch Rise and Fall DVD.
And you're still not answering the question- are you suggesting that TNA is in the same financial position that they were a year ago? Because, again, your entire argument seems to rest on the idea that TNA's circumstances haven't changed.
Broadly speaking, yes. They moved out of the Impact zone (which I was against and you were in favor of as memory serves) and went live when they wouldn't afford it. They have now ceased attempting to tape the show live, putting them back in broadly the same situation as they were before.
Rumors of an impending Panda Energy sale were demonstrated to be a construct of the web media's imagination around the time that a musician with lower net worth than Kurt Angle was announced to be negotiating to buy the company, then everyone named in the story started laughing about it on Twitter.
That's about it really. We know the company was making money before their folly into live TV. I can't find any reason why the fallout will keep them from regaining their money making status. The contract from SPIKE is the same. The other revenue streams are the same. Once they're back in Universal Studios the expenditure will be more or less the same.
The only X factor in the equation is Panda - who Dixie has always maintained don't fund TNA. To whatever extend you believe that to be true, we have no evidence of any kind to indicate to change in circumstances between the companies.
What am I missing? They wouldn't increase AJ's salary and Hulk Hogan is lobbying for a Wrestlemania payday so the company must be in meltdown? I don't buy it. They stupidly overreached, they retreated, there's probably a shortfall to make up, but we have no reason or evidence to support a claim that the company is in serious financial trouble.
Ah, so you're trying to goad me into a position I'm not taking. Cost of production is also a factor when comparing two tentpole programs against each other. You seem to be asking me to take the position that TNA will put themselves in a position where SpikeTV is forced to switch to another program.
I thought that was your position. If your position was that TNA would see a ratings decrease in 2014 then whatever, it's almost exactly 50:50 based on current trends - who knows. You were talking about the show being canceled, or how SPIKE should consider replacing it with 2 more hours of a show pulling half its audience. That suggests something rather more radical than a 0.02 regression over twelve months. Maybe you were just exaggerating for comic effect and I missed it.
If you know what reductio absurdum means (the ad is extraneous), why do you keep doing it?
Oh for... come on. The massive inferiority complex towards me is charming in a strange way, but this is just sad. Fine.
1) It's reductio ad absurdum - what you're saying sounds like a spell from Harry Potter.
2) Reductio ad absurdum is an argumentative device whereby you try to disprove a proposition by showing it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
You said it was "examining the parts of an argument independent of the whole, to the point where you're no longer examining the original argument".
Please notice who these two definitions have absolutely nothing in common with one another.
3) Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical falacy or frowned upon technique like you seem to think it is. It's part of the Socratic method. It doesn't make sense as an accusation.
You tried to use big scary Latin and got it wrong. I think I was pretty nice about it in the circumstances.
Broadly speaking, yes. They moved out of the Impact zone (which I was against and you were in favor of as memory serves) and went live when they wouldn't afford it. They have now ceased attempting to tape the show live, putting them back in broadly the same situation as they were before.
Rumors of an impending Panda Energy sale were demonstrated to be a construct of the web media's imagination around the time that a musician with lower net worth than Kurt Angle was announced to be negotiating to buy the company, then everyone named in the story started laughing about it on Twitter.
Yes. Because some of the rumors around TNA's prospective sale were completely out of line, everything about the idea of TNA being positioned for a sale must be ridiculous. You should know, you laughed about it on Twitter! They didn't sell in the month that a rumor was hot on the internet, so clearly there is absolutely no possibility that the company is looking for a buyer. Ever.
Please, for the love of God, come back and say "but Dixie even said on her Twitter!"
So, broadly speaking, the financial impact of not being able to afford going on a live tour had zero effect on TNA's financial situation, even though they had to reduce costs quickly once that didn't pan out.
Your logical abilities suck. Maybe you should go back to insult comedy.
That's about it really. We know the company was making money before their folly into live TV. I can't find any reason why the fallout will keep them from regaining their money making status. The contract from SPIKE is the same. The other revenue streams are the same. Once they're back in Universal Studios the expenditure will be more or less the same.
Actually, Jeff Jarrett did an interview where he said "we started being profitable in 2006." He very specifically did not say if TNA was still profitable, but people made that assumption- probably on Twitter.
Your logical abilities suck.
The only X factor in the equation is Panda - who Dixie has always maintained don't fund TNA. To whatever extend you believe that to be true, we have no evidence of any kind to indicate to change in circumstances between the companies.
We can always trust professional wrestling figures to give an honest accounting of the financial details of their company in shoot interviews. So we have no reason to believe the financial situation for TNA has changed, despite them going on a cost-cutting tear over the past six months, allowing contracts to lapse, failing to pay employees, and ceasing their road tour.
I'm beginning to see why you don't actually try to argue many opinions, and instead stick to the spam forums where you can rely on condescending language and insults, because your logical abilities suck. But keep talking about how great they are, there's a bottom 50% of this board you can definitely fool.
What am I missing? They wouldn't increase AJ's salary and Hulk Hogan is lobbying for a Wrestlemania payday so the company must be in meltdown? I don't buy it. They stupidly overreached, they retreated, there's probably a shortfall to make up, but we have no reason or evidence to support a claim that the company is in serious financial trouble.
Except tour dates being cancelled with little notice, a road tour ceasing, the company failing to pay employees in July, employees with large dollar price tags leaving, midcarders being asked to take starring positions- no, we don't have any evidence that TNA could be having revenue issues.
That's just a shortfall though, and TNA won't have problems in the future because they didn't have problems in the past. Mmmmm.
Here we stop. I only made it this far into your post- if you had any actual meat to your argument below this point, please repost it and I'll debunk it. (This does not count "it's this way because I say so" arguments- I'm just going to be ignoring those henceforth.)
Apparently when we strip out the condescending language and insult comedy, all you are is a 1950's wrestling history book and an incredibly gullible believer of shoot interviews.
You know, you're actually right on that one account. I've been meaning "reduction to parts", which is also a logical absurdity. The ad is still extraneous in contemporary Latin, much like the 'yo' or 'tu', or 'a' and 'el' often is in Spanish, but you wouldn't be condescending Gelgarin without repeating it.
So now that we've gotten your Wikipedia skills out of the way, do you have anything beyond "we can always believe shoot interviews", or "TNA will be fine in the future because it has been fine in the past?" Or are you going to do that internet thing where you leap up and down over a minor point having nothing to do with the argument as if it proves the rest of the absurdities you produce?
I guess we can add awesome Wikipedia scholar to your credentials, but your logical skills still suck.
Well kudos for admitting to the inaccuracy. Most people would have tried for another incredibly graceful dodge of the issue.
I enjoy the fact that you're refuting my evidence TNA has been profitable (which incidentally is based on multiple remarks from Jarrett, Bischoff, Dixie and Disco) based on this "we can always believe shoot interviews" counter argument - which is an example of a logical fallacy, namely the strawman argument. Yet, you're entire basis for the assumption that TNA was up for sale is predicated on a story from Dave Meltzar. Dixie Carter, Janice Carter and Jeff Jarrett all denied it, not just in public, but also privately to all their employees. The person who was supposed to be buying TNA denies it. The dirt sheets echoing Meltzar are literally the only extant source for this story.
Therefore, since my logical stills are apparently so week, I shall resort to stealing yours and simply dismiss your argument as being based on "we can believe everything Dave Meltzar says". This is an equal example of a strawman argument, but mine has the added benefit of being intended for comic effect.
A few other pieces of your post need looking at.
So we have no reason to believe the financial situation for TNA has changed, despite them going on a cost-cutting tear over the past six months, allowing contracts to lapse, failing to pay employees, and ceasing their road tour.
Where has this come from? I had the same nonsense from Dragon Saga a couple of days ago - either one of the dirtsheets is misreporting or you guys are having a collective hallucination. TNA has not ceased its road tour. TNA have run or are running close to 30 separate events over the next two months including their annual tour of the UK. I do not believe that TNA has ceased running road events at any point.
What were canceled, primarily, were TV tapings. Dixie Carter actually explained why, though since it comes from somebody who has a reason to know the answer I imagine you'll dismiss it out of hand as being not worth listening to. TNA needed to sell about 2000 tickets to make a TV taping financially viable - they didn't sell that many tickets in markets like Baltimore and some place in Tennessee I can't spell - which let to a flurry of cancellations as they fled back to Universal Studios realizing live TV was untenable. Evidence for a piece of stupid decision making backstage maybe, but of financial meltdown, no.
As for letting contracts expire... OK, I'm going to try something unconventional and try explaining this as if you actually care what I say, and are not going to dismiss it out of hand without considering it out of principle.
Contracts being left to expire being used as evidence for financial meltdown is an example of what is known as confirmation bias. This is where people adopt a position, at which point input is intrinsically biased in order to support that position. For example, I decide that there are more birds than usual in my town. From that point, every time I see a bunch of birds it confirms to me how right I am - but every time I don't see a bunch of birds, I don't think about it. This means I end up confirming my conclusion immaterial of the level of actual evidence for it.
What does this have to do with TNA? Well TNA has been trimming contracts. Since going live TNA has cut the following on screen talent. I'm going mostly from memory here, so I might miss one or two.
AJ Styles
Alex Silver
Brooke Hogan
Chavo Gurerro
Christian York
Crimson
Devon
Doc
Doug Williams
Joey Ryan
Kid Kash
Matt Morgan
Mickie James
Taeler Hendrix
Tara
Now a lot of these actually left prior to the reports of financial trouble, and some of them shouldn't count for obvious reasons, and some of them were shit, but whatever. The list looks pretty scary, until you consider the number of names cut in 2012
Anarquia
Sonjay Dutt
Traci Brooks
Dakota Darsow
Ric Flair
Mark Haskins
Brian Kendrick
Alex Shelly
Shannon Moore
Tony Neese
Lars Only
Scott Steiner
Shawn Spears
Winter
Don West
Angelena Love
You'll notice that the two lists are pretty similar. It's the same if I go back further to years previous. Guys get cut, leave or can't agree contracts. You're using the names released in 2013 to confirm the company's financial state is how you believe it to be - but the list isn't actually removed any distance form business as usual for TNA. The only reason it suggests financial meltdown to you is because you're looking for things to suggest financial meltdown. In isolation it's not at all convincing. Confirmation bias.
So the effect of talent cuts has been pretty minimal, the effect on touring has been non-existent. We have nobody credible on record talking about it. The only thing you've got supporting financial meltdown is dirtsheet reports.
If I am a gullible believer of shoot interviews then logically you are nothing but a gullible believer of the dirtsheets. At least I have 1950's historian and Wikipedia scholar to fall back on.
You're going to talk about strawman arguments here for quite a bit, and I'll preface this by saying that not once have I claimed TNA was in "financial meltdown". That would imply that I am arguing that the company is in immediate danger of closing their doors. I have claimed that the decisions that they have made have had a financial impact to the degree that the company is in a drastic period of change which will affect the way the company presents their program in the future, and that those changes may result in a negative feedback loop, to the point at which SpikeTV would consider replacing the program.
I'm familiar with strawman arguments- you're about to throw them around left and right.
I enjoy the fact that you're refuting my evidence TNA has been profitable (which incidentally is based on multiple remarks from Jarrett, Bischoff, Dixie and Disco) based on this "we can always believe shoot interviews" counter argument - which is an example of a logical fallacy, namely the strawman argument. Yet, you're entire basis for the assumption that TNA was up for sale is predicated on a story from Dave Meltzar. Dixie Carter, Janice Carter and Jeff Jarrett all denied it, not just in public, but also privately to all their employees. The person who was supposed to be buying TNA denies it. The dirt sheets echoing Meltzar are literally the only extant source for this story.
The strawman argument would be where you create an argument for another person, in order to attack it. An example (admittedly indirectly) would be where you attempted to claim that I said TNA's ratings would fall so far they would be forced to make the decision to replace the program. Mine was more of an example of heavy sarcasm.
My argument that TNA is for sale has nothing to do with Dave Metzler- I was actually was making that argument two weeks before he was. (It's somewhere in the TNA non-spam forums, but that's a long search through threads I'm just not up for. Have at if you'd like. So far as I'm aware, I made the argument independently.) It has never been "TNA is for sale", but "TNA has taken the steps to position themselves for a sale". The Corgan stuff was gut-laughingly hilarious. I'm a big fan of him as a musician, and he's made enough intelligent moves, besides the whole Courtney Love thing, that it's hard to believe he'd ever invest heavily in professional wrestling.
Prior to a sale (sticking to privately owned companies), key employees of a company would never discuss, publicly or to anyone who would release the information, that they were for sale, unless they appeared to be positioned for strong future growth. (Can we agree that TNA does not appear positioned for strong future growth at this moment?) This would have the effect of telling people that the owners were looking to bail, driving down the asking price. This is Bartering 101- never let the other party know how much you want to sell to them.
Recently, TNA has been reducing costs left and right. This indicates that they are taking the company in a different budgetary direction. A possibility is they could be returning it to a 2009, lower budget version, but I think the spell is off a TNA story of slow, steady growth. Another possibility, however, is that they are trying to reduce costs in order to present a streamlined product to a prospective buyer, who can then adapt parts as they desire. Is there anything really special and unique about TNA right now, particularly anything that would be hard to change?
I'm going to assume you're familiar with Occam's Razor, babies know that.
So saying that the company figureheads are claiming the company isn't for sale is meaningless. They have more reason to lie than tell the truth. Jeff Jarrett saying something now might be more meaningful, but I think it's a safe bet an NDA was part of his exit agreement.
Where has this come from? I had the same nonsense from Dragon Saga a couple of days ago - either one of the dirtsheets is misreporting or you guys are having a collective hallucination. TNA has not ceased its road tour. TNA have run or are running close to 30 separate events over the next two months including their annual tour of the UK. I do not believe that TNA has ceased running road events at any point.
What were canceled, primarily, were TV tapings. Dixie Carter actually explained why, though since it comes from somebody who has a reason to know the answer I imagine you'll dismiss it out of hand as being not worth listening to. TNA needed to sell about 2000 tickets to make a TV taping financially viable - they didn't sell that many tickets in markets like Baltimore and some place in Tennessee I can't spell - which let to a flurry of cancellations as they fled back to Universal Studios realizing live TV was untenable. Evidence for a piece of stupid decision making backstage maybe, but of financial meltdown, no.
Yeah, you're pretty much right. Dixie Carter has more reason to lie than tell the truth in this instance. Sounds like a very nice way of saying "we made bad decisions and would incur a financial hit that we are no longer able to continue affording".
As for letting contracts expire... OK, I'm going to try something unconventional and try explaining this as if you actually care what I say, and are not going to dismiss it out of hand without considering it out of principle.
Contracts being left to expire being used as evidence for financial meltdown is an example of what is known as confirmation bias. This is where people adopt a position, at which point input is intrinsically biased in order to support that position. For example, I decide that there are more birds than usual in my town. From that point, every time I see a bunch of birds it confirms to me how right I am - but every time I don't see a bunch of birds, I don't think about it. This means I end up confirming my conclusion immaterial of the level of actual evidence for it.
What does this have to do with TNA? Well TNA has been trimming contracts. Since going live TNA has cut the following on screen talent. I'm going mostly from memory here, so I might miss one or two.
AJ Styles
Alex Silver
Brooke Hogan
Chavo Gurerro
Christian York
Crimson
Devon
Doc
Doug Williams
Joey Ryan
Kid Kash
Matt Morgan
Mickie James
Taeler Hendrix
Tara
Now a lot of these actually left prior to the reports of financial trouble, and some of them shouldn't count for obvious reasons, and some of them were shit, but whatever. The list looks pretty scary, until you consider the number of names cut in 2012
Anarquia
Sonjay Dutt
Traci Brooks
Dakota Darsow
Ric Flair
Mark Haskins
Brian Kendrick
Alex Shelly
Shannon Moore
Tony Neese
Lars Only
Scott Steiner
Shawn Spears
Winter
Don West
Angelena Love
You'll notice that the two lists are pretty similar. It's the same if I go back further to years previous. Guys get cut, leave or can't agree contracts.
I'm familiar with confirmation bias. What you're about to commit is an example of "selection bias".
You left out Hulk Hogan, and I'm sure that while Eric Bischoff looks like he was working for substantially more than "free", the 2013 list looks like it cost a bit more money than the 2012 list. (Again, we can only make fairly accurate assumptions based on the negotiating power elsewhere of the talent involved.) That 2012 list looks like it was built up with some fluff names in order to look the right size next to a somewhat truncated 2013 list. Who the fuck are Tony Neese, Dakota Darsow and Lars Only? The 2013 list looks like a lot of people who either cost a lot to bring in, or had a lot of effort placed into their development.
If I see a bunch of sparrows headed in one direction, it's no big deal. When you see sparrows, hawks, gazelles, unicorns, and the occasional pterodactyl headed in on direction, even though their numbers are the same, the circumstances have changed.
It is, however, nice to see that you are capable of presenting an argument, even if it is riddled with logical fallacies. I think you used them to see if you'd get caught. Now let's see you try an honest argument.
So, if I'm to understand the OP (which I don't), then:
Hogan arriving at TNA = bright future
Hogan leaving TNA = bankruptcy & failure
Obviously TNA needed more Hogan.
So, if I'm to understand the OP (which I don't), then:
Hogan arriving at TNA = bright future
Hogan leaving TNA = bankruptcy & failure
Obviously TNA needed more Hogan.
Except that he is a huge part of the reasons why a company that was looking at a bright future before and when he arrived, turned into a near-bankrupt company that failed in most things it was doing, by the time he left.
Except that he is a huge part of the reasons why a company that was looking at a bright future before and when he arrived, turned into a near-bankrupt company that failed in most things it was doing, by the time he left.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Lol.
