90's Legion of Doom/Road Warriors- so much pop, so little production

[SSJPhenom]

I believe one that everyone seems to be over looking and leaving out is one Mick Foley.

After his 'retirement' against Trips in 2000, he would show up here and there sporadically and not do very much at all. Yet, the fans continued to lose their collective minds whenever he would come out. Of course, let's not forget about the cheap pop being a sure fire way to generate some cheers and it always works. It goes far beyond the cheap pop, though. Whenever his music hits and the fans hear that car wreck; Idk if it's nostalgia or what, but they pop and pop hard and whether some of you like it or not, he definitely fits the criteria of this thread. Other than his brief feud with Evolution and Randy Orton in 2004, he hasn't really done anything of quality at all. Yet I guaran-damn-tee that if he were to come out on the very next Raw or Smackdown he'd get one of the biggest pops and ovations of the night.

 

[Makaveli31]

Sid's pops encapsulate this question the most?

You need to learn how to read idiot. The question was "So much POP so LITTLE production" and that DEFINES Sid's career. His pops were consistently on par with those of the greats of his era (Hogan, Warrior, Sting, Flair.) but he never achieved that type of success. He never lived up to his potential despite being massively over......all you have to do is go back and look at the videos (considering you were probably too young to remember them or not even born yet). Re-read the question SLOWLY so your tiny pea brain can comprehend the exact question and get back to me.

This thread, as you have so obnoxiously (and needlessly) pointed out to others is about huge pops that lasted after the superstars were great.

I never said anything about "after they were great." What a moron. Again for the hopefully last time for this idiot, this question asked about the size of the pop vs the lack of production from the wrestler. No matter the time frame. Again, Sid was consistently always drawing the huge pop from the fans. On par with the biggest of his era. You just stated yourself his runs could have and should have been better. For you to challenge that shows me lack of any knowledge whatsoever. Again, you were probably too young to remember.

Sid's crowd reaction was fine and many fans saw his potential and wished his runs were done better, but he has no business being anywhere near the other people mentioned in this post.

Vs the likes of who? "Rowdy" Roddy Piper who, as I mentioned and gave plenty of examples, had an incredible WCW run from '96-'99. Did Sid ever stay more than three consecutive years on top in one company? Hacksaw Jim Duggan? Who was the bigger draw? Hacksaw or Sid? Who was more over with the fans? Hacksaw or Sid? Who drew more? Hacksaw or Sid? LOL. You are a lost idiot.

In fact, out of all your diarrhea of the keyboard, the RR 92 pop was the only point that applied here. Yes, he powerbombed HBK and got a pop...so now we're picking out specific pops. If anyone else wrote this, you would have torn them apart.

If you don't think Sid got a pop every time his music hit you are completely hopeless. I guess that's why WCW brought him back in '93, Vince brought him back in '95, '96. and '97 and gave him two brief runs with the belt and WCW brought him back in '99 because he was not over according to you. He was only main event every time he was brought back. I was highlighting two of the more famous ones, but if you were around back then you would know Sid Eudy was one of the most over superstars of that era.

I remember Virgil got a huge pop when he hit DiBiase with the Million Dollar Belt. I guess he belongs on the list too. Oh no wait...he doesn't because I don't have 3 paragraphs of off-topic missed opportunities to add to it. You are out to lunch, man.

LOL you are a complete joke. First you compare Muraco/Bravo to LOD/NAO then you compare Virgil to Sid Vicious. If you weren't so stupid this would be hilarious but your stupidity is quite concerning. I'll just chalk it up to lack to intellect or the fact that might actually ******ed.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I never said anything about "after they were great." Idiot. Point out where I said that. Again, this question asked about the size of the pop vs the lack of production no matter the time frame. Again, Sid was consistently always drawing the huge pop from the fans. Again, you were probably too young to remember.

Guess what? This wasn't your post. The rest of us are trying to refer to what the OP wrote, which included:

I can't think of another act who stayed so over for so long after they were last great.

"Point out where I said that". No one cares what you said.

Lots of people got pops, stupid. That doesn't put them into this category. Also, using Muraco or Virgil to illustrate how poor your logic is, does not mean I am making a comparison.

Also, what is this obsession you have with people's ages? I already said I was watching since the mid-80s, so we can add math to your list of failures. But you also jumped down the throat of another guy for going to Wikipedia for his facts or some nonsense. Whether we were alive and watching at the time or learned about it later does not stop us from being able to speak to it. If that guy had to look it up on the internet, so what? If he needed a reminder, so what? Not all of us sit on a wrestling forum all day every day keeping all of these facts fresh in our minds. And before you dispute that, we all see how quickly you respond to each and every post. You are an uneducated troll whose purpose in life is to belittle people, no matter how silly the reasons. You call people immature for personal attacks, yet you use "moron" and "idiot" and "imbecile" in all of your responses. You are clueless and mindless...most likely careerless...and eventually homeless. You can sit on this forum 24/7 for all I care, but to make fun of people who have other things going on in their life is pathetic. I invite you to take all of your wrestling knowledge and weave it into some kind of a life for yourself. First, I would do some homework because you have bits and pieces and facts and data, but not an ounce of context or reasoning. Rain Man remembered things but he didn't jump all over people for not remembering precisely when Judge Wapner was coming. Most people didn't care enough to commit the People's Court air time to memory...just like most people don't care that you commit historically insignificant feuds to memory. Have fun replying to every few sentences and getting your last word in. I am--if you can believe it--leaving the forum for the day.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I believe one that everyone seems to be over looking and leaving out is one Mick Foley.

After his 'retirement' against Trips in 2000, he would show up here and there sporadically and not do very much at all. Yet, the fans continued to lose their collective minds whenever he would come out. Of course, let's not forget about the cheap pop being a sure fire way to generate some cheers and it always works. It goes far beyond the cheap pop, though. Whenever his music hits and the fans hear that car wreck; Idk if it's nostalgia or what, but they pop and pop hard and whether some of you like it or not, he definitely fits the criteria of this thread. Other than his brief feud with Evolution and Randy Orton in 2004, he hasn't really done anything of quality at all. Yet I guaran-damn-tee that if he were to come out on the very next Raw or Smackdown he'd get one of the biggest pops and ovations of the night.

Good example! His cheap pops were "cheap", but like you said, they were just a piece of the whole. He has definitely entered this category. (The category everyone but one person is speaking to)

 

[Makaveli31]

"Point out where I said that". No one cares what you said.

And no one cares what you said. Re-read the WHOLE question junior not just a tiny piece. Didn't they teach you that in school? He was also referring to the quality of the run etc.....and all the criteria I mentioned.

Lots of people got pops, stupid. That doesn't put them into this category. Also, using Muraco or Virgil to illustrate how poor your logic is, does not mean I am making a comparison.

No. Bringing up Muraco and Virgil just shows how ignorant you are. Unless you really believe Muraco and Virgil are on par with Sid and the LOD. I guess context means nothing to you. Which is scary. But coming from you, you might actually believe that. "Lots" of people, huh? How many were in the position Sid was? How many consistently took years off between stretches only to reappear just as popular as when they left. How many were as controversial? Look it up on Wikipedia and get back to me.

I'm not going to even respond to last part. The fact is you know nothing about me. You engaged in personal attacks long before I did.

 

[Makaveli31]

I can't think of another act who stayed so over for so long after they were last great.

And yes, in case you were unaware, Sid stayed over long after he was "great." So again, you are wrong.

but not an ounce of context or reasoning.

Context? Coming from a guy who used Don Muraco, Dino Bravo, and Virgil as examples?

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Good Morning All!

I was blessed with a good laugh that I thought I would share. First, I want to address the thread itself. I was thinking that Undertaker might be an interesting discussion here. He, of course, continues to receive amazing pops, though he was last great years ago. Much like the Road Warriors and others mentioned here, it is more a pop appreciating his résumé rather than his current angle/feud. But, I think in that regard, without taking anything away from Taker's longevity, he belongs in this category.

Now to the laugh I promised. To catch you up, I referred to the OP's original point which included the perfectly reasonable, conversation-inducing statement of "I can't think of another act who stayed so over for so long after they were last great." Makaveli31, feeling all arrows point to him, challenged me on this with:

"I never said anything about "after they were great." Idiot. Point out where I said that. Again, this question asked about the size of the pop vs the lack of production no matter the time frame."

I then showed him where the OP--the person most of us are trying to respond to--did just that and that I was not interested in Makaveli31's nonsense. He replied with "Re-read the WHOLE question junior not just a tiny piece. Didn't they teach you that in school?" This, naturally, put me in my place and boy was my face red.

I had wrapped up my last post yesterday mentioning that I was leaving the forum for the day, but to feel free to get the last word in...as he always needs to. I also accused him of having nothing better to do, as he always responds right away--no matter the time of day, weekday or weekend--and if the target of his rage doesn't respond quickly, he will respond to himself to give himself something to do. He, of course, responded to my post immediately. Then, ONE HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES LATER, after I had already told him I was leaving for the day, he responded to himself with a two- or three-line response. It felt like a George Costanza "jerk store" moment where he realized what he should have said and it was killing him that he didn't. (Much like Costanza's jerk store joke, it then fell flat once he later added the line he "missed out on zinging me with".)

The best part, and what gave me a laugh (Thank you, Makaveli31!), is that he edited his original post and took out the line I called him on!

Original post:
I never said anything about "after they were great." Idiot. Point out where I said that. Again, this question asked about the size of the pop vs the lack of production no matter the time frame.

Edited because he finally realized what a fool he is post:
I never said anything about "after they were great." What a moron. Again for the hopefully last time for this idiot, this question asked about the size of the pop vs the lack of production from the wrestler. No matter the time frame.

He removed the point out where I said that line. What a tool. Anyway, if any of you have had to suffer from this fool's nonsense (and, honestly, I apologize for encouraging him--I am at fault too, but he's just such a double-talking windbag) hopefully this gives you a chuckle and puts an even brighter spotlight on this guy's defeat. Also, stay tuned for his response to this...it'll be worth it!

So, yeah, I think Undertaker is an absolute legend and deserves every pop he receives; but, if we really think of the last time he was great, I think he can be put into this category.

 

[Makaveli31]

Response to what? "Great is subjective. You can't definitively say when someone was "great" especially in a sport-entertainment based field like pro wrestling where there are no stats to back up your argument. I took out the line because it neither helped nor hurt my argument since as YOU pointed out I did not make the ORIGINAL post. So those were not my words. That's the reason but just like the "Razor Ramon" argument if it makes you better to claim victory on a technicality than on the substance of the argument itself than so be it.

I deal with facts and the FACT is Roddy Piper (who you originally stated) was still GREAT in the latter part of the 1990's. Again, as the op later stated in response to another person, this question was about quality of feuds, angles, matches etc....so Roddy Piper, having been consistently a top main event guy for most the decade, and certainly the latter part of the decade, would not fall into this category. The only argument you gave is his feud with Bad News and Goldust, like I said even if ceded you those points you would be wrong.

The point is you can't engage in any kind of rationale debate. You resort to the same thing you accused me of. You are obviously obsessed with me as you seem to track my every move and know exactly when I post. You don't deal with facts. You bring up idiotic examples like Bad News Brown, Don Muraco and Dino Bravo, and Virgil which was EASILY refuted and you claim victory on points like "You mentioned Razor Ramon first, or "You deleted a line from your response." Seriously, kid. Is that all you got?

 

[Makaveli31]

if we really think of the last time he was great, I think he can be put into this

Wow, this is an easy one. The Undertaker IS and always will be GREAT.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Wow, this is an easy one. The Undertaker IS and always will be GREAT.

Martel and Goldust were two examples. I didn't know I need to provide a laundry list because some fool with nothing better to do every day was going to dissect each post line by line. My comparisons using the people I did were done to illustrate your poor logic and dreadful reasoning. You are right that I cannot debate with you because you seem to be insane. The Razor Ramon point was to show how much you flipped out on me...for saying something that you said. That is insane to me.

Obviously "great" is subjective. You realize, of course, that you are the one arguing with people's suggestions to a subjective thread topic, right? You are Jekyll and Hyde, except all of your personalities are dumb.

Piper was not great in WCW. That is my opinion. You, given your own words, cannot argue that because it is, in fact, my opinion. Given this opinion, he absolutely belongs in this category. Sid received pops and is nowhere near the level of LOD, Piper, etc. This reminds me of your example of "when he powerbombed HBK in MSG" or whatever it was. So, I can't bring up Martel or Goldust as examples, but you can bring up one move in one match?

The Undertaker is great today? While I disagree and don't see how you can think this, it is your opinion. I disagree, making "he's not great anymore' my opinion.

You can't win this. And neither can I because you continually argue points that you have previously rebutted. You are delusional. You are also, however, a wonderful puppet that brings me amusement during a slow week at the office. But, regarding wrestling history, you have facts and figures but you have no clue what any of them mean. Talk to you in a couple of minutes...

 

[Makaveli31]

Martel and Goldust were two examples. I didn't know I need to provide a laundry list because some fool with nothing better to do every day was going to dissect each post line by line.

You used two matches. I used three years' worth of feuds, angles, and matches.

My comparisons using the people I did were done to illustrate your poor logic and dreadful reasoning. You are right that I cannot debate with you because you seem to be insane.

Poor logic and dreadful reasoning. I said that the NAO/LOD feud was "money" because they had multiple matches at PPV's. You went off the rails about Bravo/Muraco from 1988. NAO/LOD had title matches, were semi-main event as a tag team title match, and were counted on to sell the PPV. None of those can be said about Bravo or Muraco.

You brought up one segment Virgil had on TV and compared that to an entire decade for Sid. Again, that just illustrates you bad logic and dreadful reasoning. You equated Virgil's one pop to Sid who was massively over for over a decade.

Piper was not great in WCW. That is my opinion. You, given your own words, cannot argue that because it is, in fact, my opinion. Given this opinion, he absolutely belongs in this category. Sid received pops and is nowhere near the level of LOD, Piper, etc. This reminds me of your example of "when he powerbombed HBK in MSG" or whatever it was. So, I can't bring up Martel or Goldust as examples, but you can bring up one move in one match?

Why was Piper not great in WCW? He was absolutely a top guy. He feuded with all the top stars in that company. He could cut a promo as great as he ever could. I think his feud with the Wolfpac was one of his greatest ever in terms of entertainment value. Could he still work like he did in the '80's? No. But as far as the quality of his run there, I would only put it behind his first WWF run from '84-'87. I would argue it was his most financially successful because as I pointed out he headlined multiple PPV's, was on Nitro every week, and was a major celebrity at a time when wrestling crossed over into the main stream. I don't see how you can argue those points.

Sid received pops and is nowhere near the level of LOD, Piper,

I did not bring up one move in one match. Maybe I should not posted that video in that it is all you seem to remember. I posted that despite being massively over his entire career (not just one match) he never delivered on the production we all expected him too ( as you admit). He never had along run with the title (no production), he never had a long feud with anyone (no production) and he jumped from promotion to promotion disappearing for long stretches of time (no production) but he still stayed over as evidenced by the fact that Vince and WCW kept bringing him back throughout the '90s. Not only bringing him back, but inserting him at the top of the card.

The Undertaker is great today? While I disagree and don't see how you can think this, it is your opinion. I disagree, making "he's not great anymore' my opinion.

Yes, he is still great today. If he came back today to the WWE I would watch and so would many fans that normally wouldn't. Any feud or angle he would engage in (if given the proper opponent) would draw money, Again, this is evidenced by the fact the Vince keeps bringing him back. The guy draws gold, if that does not define great (in the entertainment biz) I don't know what does..

 

[HeenanGorilla]

You used two matches. I used three years' worth of feuds, angles, and matches.



Poor logic and dreadful reasoning. I said that the NAO/LOD feud was "money" because they had multiple matches at PPV's. You went off the rails about Bravo/Muraco from 1988. NAO/LOD had title matches, were semi-main event as a tag team title match, and were counted on to sell the PPV. None of those can be said about Bravo or Muraco.

You brought up one segment Virgil had on TV and compared that to an entire decade for Sid. Again, that just illustrates you bad logic and dreadful reasoning. You equated Virgil's one pop to Sid who was massively over for over a decade.



Why was Piper not great in WCW? He was absolutely a top guy. He feuded with all the top stars in that company. He could cut a promo as great as he ever could. I think his feud with the Wolfpac was one of his greatest ever in terms of entertainment value. Could he still work like he did in the '80's? No. But as far as the quality of his run there, I would only put it behind his first WWF run from '84-'87. I would argue it was his most financially successful because as I pointed out he headlined multiple PPV's, was on Nitro every week, and was a major celebrity at a time when wrestling crossed over into the main stream. I don't see how you can argue those points.



I did not bring up one move in one match. Maybe I should not posted that video in that it is all you seem to remember. I posted that despite being massively over his entire career (not just one match) he never delivered on the production we all expected him too ( as you admit). He never had along run with the title (no production), he never had a long feud with anyone (no production) and he jumped from promotion to promotion disappearing for long stretches of time (no production) but he still stayed over as evidenced by the fact that Vince and WCW kept bringing him back throughout the '90s. Not only bringing him back, but inserting him at the top of the card.



Yes, he is still great today. If he came back today to the WWE I would watch and so would many fans that normally wouldn't. Any feud or angle he would engage in (if given the proper opponent) would draw money, Again, this is evidenced by the fact the Vince keeps bringing him back. The guy draws gold, if that does not define great (in the entertainment biz) I don't know what does..

Before I address your points, I have to give you kudos. You seemed like a rational person who happened to disagree with me, which is fine. Good job, Dr. Jekyll. While I have you and not your counterpoint...

1) Martel/Goldust.
Yes, I did use two matches as examples. By definition, that is what an example is. You writing on and on about all instances is your approach. I went with the example approach, which was enough to refute your statement of Piper ALWAYS being in the main event.

2) Muraco/Bravo
You made the statement that having the same match on back to back PPVs equals money. While it is a component of the equation, you left everything else out. Muraco/Bravo, given your diluted reasoning was used to illustrate that.

3) Virgil
I believe you are overemphasizing Sid's pops. They were fine and certainly spanned a long time, but were not on the level of some of the other examples listed here. You then, perhaps accidentally, implied any pop counted, which is why I used Virgil as an example. Again, this is not comparing Virgil to Sid. This is illustrating a point.

4) Razor Ramon
A guy you brought up and wildly accused me of doing so. It was hilarious and I enjoy bringing it up.

5) Piper in WCW
Remember how we agreed greatness is subjective? Apply that here. I didn't care for his WCW run. I'm sure he made money, but lots of people made money in WCW...it was flowing everywhere to everyone. This does not change the fact that I didn't enjoy his run. Him coming in to feud with the top stars only highlights how mismanaged that roster was. With the talent they had, he should have perhaps sniffed a main event or two and then gone away. Him staying in the main event, in my opinion, was them not knowing what to do with the current stars. And again, regardless, it is my opinion...it does not need to be defended by PPV buys or attendance...I didn't enjoy him.

6) Undertaker
I don't see what is currently great about him. He draws, yeah. But that speaks more to the cookie cutter current roster needing help drawing. Taker worked when he was hot, and still does now that he's not--not because what he is doing is great, but because what he did was great and compared to today's offerings, he is a better option. Albert Pujols recently hit his 600th home run. He has had a great career. He is no longer a great player. He is now reaping the benefits of when he was great, which is deserved. But he is no longer great.

 

[Makaveli31]

1) Martel/Goldust.
Yes, I did use two matches as examples. By definition, that is what an example is. You writing on and on about all instances is your approach. I went with the example approach, which was enough to refute your statement of Piper ALWAYS being in the main event.

I was making the general statement that Piper was always "main event" in terms of the quality of the feuds and angles he had. He was always featured. Not literally being in every main event on every card he was on. Anyone can point to one or two one-off examples to refute a general point. If I were to say Barry Bonds was always a great hitter, anyone can point to one or two instances where he was not. That does not refute the general statement that Barry Bonds was a great hitter. The same with Piper. One or two instances where was not literally in the main event does not refute the fact that he was a main event-tier player during the 1990's and that directly led to the quality of his feuds and angles which is what we are talking about here.

2) Muraco/Bravo
You made the statement that having the same match on back to back PPVs equals money. While it is a component of the equation, you left everything else out. Muraco/Bravo, given your diluted reasoning was used to illustrate that.

Do I really need to expand on the LOD and New Age Outlaws drawing money? The fact I even have to back this up is ludicrous. We are talking about two of the most popular, biggest drawing, and most over tag teams in the history of pro wrestling feuding together. Of course it drew money. I did not feel the need to expand on this anymore than it needed to be. Anyone with half a brain would know this.

3) Virgil
I believe you are overemphasizing Sid's pops. They were fine and certainly spanned a long time, but were not on the level of some of the other examples listed here. You then, perhaps accidentally, implied any pop counted, which is why I used Virgil as an example. Again, this is not comparing Virgil to Sid. This is illustrating a point.

Overemphasizing? Do you have a device that measures pops? How were they not on the "same level?" Where are these "levels" you speak of? Pure conjecture on your part. When you are over...you are over. Sid was a top guy who drew money that is not conjecture.

You then, perhaps accidentally, implied any pop counted, which is why I used Virgil as an example. Again, this is not comparing Virgil to Sid. This is illustrating a point.

When did I imply this? Because I posted a video? I used the example of how Sid (even when he was supposed to be booed) was cheered as a reference to how over he was with the crowd. The video was used just to illustrate that. I never implied "any pop" counted. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Remember how we agreed greatness is subjective? Apply that here. I didn't care for his WCW run. I'm sure he made money, but lots of people made money in WCW...it was flowing everywhere to everyone. This does not change the fact that I didn't enjoy his run. Him coming in to feud with the top stars only highlights how mismanaged that roster was. With the talent they had, he should have perhaps sniffed a main event or two and then gone away. Him staying in the main event, in my opinion, was them not knowing what to do with the current stars. And again, regardless, it is my opinion...it does not need to be defended by PPV buys or attendance...I didn't enjoy him.

If you are a Piper fan and wrestling fan in general I don't see how you can't be a fan of his WCW run. It added years to an already HOF career and gave us great moments. Why would you want to see him "go away?" He was not old. He still had gas left in the tank and he drew money. That's what counts. I don't see how that was "mismanaged". The goal is make money and the fact is when Piper was on top, WCW made money. His gift was talking, it was never ring work. That's what got him over in Georgia as a heel announcer, it's what got him over in Mid-Atlantic, it made his career in Piper's Pit and he carried it to WCW. He cut some of the best promos his career in WCW and he could still go so I'm puzzled by this.

6) Undertaker
I don't see what is currently great about him. He draws, yeah.

He's the Undertaker and he draws....that's greatness. The ability to transcend different era's.

Taker worked when he was hot, and still does now that he's not--not because what he is doing is great, but because what he did was great and compared to today's offerings, he is a better option. Albert Pujols recently hit his 600th home run. He has had a great career. He is no longer a great player. He is now reaping the benefits of when he was great, which is deserved. But he is no longer great.

The Undertaker will always work. He worked in the lean years in the mid-90's and he worked during the boom years in the Attitude Era. Trust me. The roster has nothing to do with it. It's the man, it's the gimmick. It works because he is great. No matter the time period. The fact that he can work with the younger generation is a testament to his greatness.

Albert Pujols recently hit his 600th home run. He has had a great career. He is no longer a great player. He is now reaping the benefits of when he was great, which is deserved. But he is no longer great.

Sports entertainment is different than sports. Can 'Taker work like used too? No. Of course not but that's not all that goes into greatness. Greatness is what you've built over an entire career and greatness is ability to elevate others and give back to the fans. He knows his limitations but that does not stop him. It does not matter that he can't put on a 5 star match anymore he's still the Undertaker and any time he steps into an arena he is great.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I was making the general statement that Piper was always "main event" in terms of the quality of the feuds and angles he had. He was always featured. Not literally being in every main event on every card he was on. Anyone can point to one or two one-off examples to refute a general point. If I were to say Barry Bonds was always a great hitter, anyone can point to one or two instances where he was not. That does not refute the general statement that Barry Bonds was a great hitter. The same with Piper. One or two instances where was not literally in the main event does not refute the fact that he was a main event-tier player during the 1990's and that directly led to the quality of his feuds and angles which is what we are talking about here.


Sports entertainment is different than sports. Can 'Taker work like used too? No. Of course not but that's not all that goes into greatness. Greatness is what you've built over an entire career and greatness is ability to elevate others and give back to the fans. He knows his limitations but that does not stop him. It does not matter that he can't put on a 5 star match anymore he's still the Undertaker and any time he steps into an arena he is great.

Well, it's Friday and I no longer have a need to kill hours with you. I would like to thank you for this last bit of hypocrisy though. You use Barry Bonds as an example to argue one point, then dismiss my Albert Pujols example a little later because--as if anyone needed to be told--sports and sports entertainment are different. I've decided it's no longer fun. You are either dumb or nuts and I shouldn't have let my boredom get in the way of being sympathetic to either case.

For your own benefit, I would recommend you look up the word "comparison". It is different than an example in the form of an analogy. Every time you accuse me of comparing someone, when I am actually illustrating a point with an extreme example of your foolish statements, I think of that line from Princess Bride. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Also, while you have the dictionary open, look up "opinion".

I'm sure we'll cross paths again; but, for now, get your last word in and have a nice weekend on this forum.

 

[Makaveli31]

LOL and I suggest you look up the word "context." I used Barry Bonds in a historical context. He WAS a great hitter to make a historical analogy to Piper who WAS main event. Completely different from your Pujols analogy who you were using in a present day context as BEING great (present tense). That is not hypocritical. It's two different analogies. One has nothing to do with the other. My argument had to with a general statement not athletic ability so again you proved yourself to be wrong and completely take what I wrote out of context.

I know what a comparison is. The problem is you use idiotic comparisons to bolster statements you THINK i made. If you put my statement about LOD and NAO into CONTEXT and actually follow the discussion there is no way the Dino Bravo Don Muraco analogy would have fit. If you were a brain dead moron with no understanding I would understand but you just "played dumb". I have no use for that. I have already proved you wrong on you Virgil analogy as I never said the things you accused me of. You just assumed and we all know what ASSUME does to us.

There is no harm in having an opinion but don't and and engage in personal attacks just because someone challenges you all that does is make you look bad. Habe a good weekend