Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Yeah Shattered, we're all drones. We simply buy into popular opinion, never disagree, and you're above it. With everything I just said being complete bullshit, we know what you're full of.
Am I A Blind Fan?
- Thread starter ABMorales787
- Start date
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Did you just disagree with my opinion? That is unpossible. You is so blindz.
Why?
Read this article, everyone:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/492123-tna-hatred-a-logical-response-to-nonsensical-decisions
It is directed specifically at you blind marks who defend TNA no matter what they do.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/492123-tna-hatred-a-logical-response-to-nonsensical-decisions
It is directed specifically at you blind marks who defend TNA no matter what they do.
Joe's Gonna Kill You
The Hunt is On
That doesn't apply to me.
Because then I can identify whether you're blind or not. That would only be if...
a) you insist that none of those things are true or
b) you get angry, insist that I'm a WWE mark and red rep me.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Reading that article X put up. There are some very good points, many of which have been said for years.
1. TNA and WWE have nothing to do with each other. In other words, just because TNA does something stupid at the same time WWE does something stupid, that doesn't make it ok for TNA.
2. TNA has been around almost 9 years and we're applauding it for going up .1 in the ratings. 9 years is longer than ECW was around, longer than WCW was an independent company for, nearly twice as long as the Monday Night Wars and longer than the Brand Split has been around, yet they're still treated like they're this new company that is on the verge of being the next big thing. They've had more than enough time. Waiting nearly 10 years for a company to get out of the blocks is absurd.
1. TNA and WWE have nothing to do with each other. In other words, just because TNA does something stupid at the same time WWE does something stupid, that doesn't make it ok for TNA.
2. TNA has been around almost 9 years and we're applauding it for going up .1 in the ratings. 9 years is longer than ECW was around, longer than WCW was an independent company for, nearly twice as long as the Monday Night Wars and longer than the Brand Split has been around, yet they're still treated like they're this new company that is on the verge of being the next big thing. They've had more than enough time. Waiting nearly 10 years for a company to get out of the blocks is absurd.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
3. The idea that TNA is WCW in 2000 is complete and utter bullshit. WCW in 2000 was different for multiple reasons.
A. TNA has NEVER been that big of a company and has never had that far to fall downhill.
B. There's a coherent story in TNA. The story may not be the best and the wrestlers may be annoying or whatever, but you can tell what's going on. In WCW there were so many WTF moments it was hard to imagine.
C. TNA doesn't have a WWF stepping on its neck. 2000 in WWF was arguably their best year and when you have a bad company going against it by comparison it makes WCW look that much worse. WWE is good right now, but it's not a juggernaut like it was 11 years ago.
A. TNA has NEVER been that big of a company and has never had that far to fall downhill.
B. There's a coherent story in TNA. The story may not be the best and the wrestlers may be annoying or whatever, but you can tell what's going on. In WCW there were so many WTF moments it was hard to imagine.
C. TNA doesn't have a WWF stepping on its neck. 2000 in WWF was arguably their best year and when you have a bad company going against it by comparison it makes WCW look that much worse. WWE is good right now, but it's not a juggernaut like it was 11 years ago.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
So let me get this straight.
This writer says that TNA should have died years ago but it survived under the leadership of Dixie Carter. Ok, fine.
Later in the article he says that a big problem for the company is they're run by someone with no experience in wrestling, namely Dixie Carter. See an issue here?
This writer says that TNA should have died years ago but it survived under the leadership of Dixie Carter. Ok, fine.
Later in the article he says that a big problem for the company is they're run by someone with no experience in wrestling, namely Dixie Carter. See an issue here?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
So in other words, he says what I've said for years and get told to leave LDs for.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
This is true but this is rarely what someone is saying. More often than not someone is pointing out the hypocrisy in liking something in one company and not another. If you dislike it in both then it is fair to criticize TNA for it.
You should probably clarify that your third point is something that the article had horribly wrong.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
I had a hard time taking the article seriously after this part all of 4 sentences in.
Between that and the pathetically misguided WCW comparison I decided against wasting my time but maybe I will take a second look at it now.
Between that and the pathetically misguided WCW comparison I decided against wasting my time but maybe I will take a second look at it now.
I always hate the claim that Dixie Carter has no wrestling experience. Nonsense if ever I heard it.
As an aside, people hammering IDR for being a blind TNA mark (completely untrue - a fucking stupid thing to say) and Gelgarin doesn't even get a mention? Not cool.
As an aside, people hammering IDR for being a blind TNA mark (completely untrue - a fucking stupid thing to say) and Gelgarin doesn't even get a mention? Not cool.
It's Damn Real!
The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Because I don't see what they see, duh! You didn't know that's how "blind" is determined here, SD? Come on, man, what are you blind?
Have I done any of those things?
It's Damn Real!
The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Nothing screams credibility like Bleacher Report, I tell ya. Nothing!
Not that I know of. I'll vote no. Or tu madre es la ciega.
Nada es imposible!
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Well dude you're incredibly under the radar. Other than your Thesz stuff you don't leave an incredibly lasting impression aside from being an incredibly well read old school guy (not meant as an insult).
That article lost me in the opening paragraph when he started talking like he was expressing a minority opinion, when in point of fact he's just appears to be echoing the same thing 90% of the internet has been going on about for months. I mean Jusus Christ, anyone here feel like they've been made a pariah for not enjoying TNA? I have nothing against excessive melodrama in service of making a point, but the point actually has to make sense.
The people who 'like' TNA are the minority group, and are the ones who are constantly getting told that we're blind marks, fan-boys and whatever else.
The people who 'like' TNA are the minority group, and are the ones who are constantly getting told that we're blind marks, fan-boys and whatever else.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
KB, the thing I do not get about the 9 year thing is that for it to be an issue TNA would have to not be successful right now. That is blatantly false in spite of what you might read around here unless the only way you can be successful is realize all of your long-term goals immediately. TNA is definitely more successful than ECW. People act like TNA has had the same product for 9 years. That is pretty amusing. The only way TNA isn't a success is if they have to be on WWEs level. Something that anyone with common sense could tell you isn't happening overnight, if ever. What is so bad about making small gains in the US rating when essentially all other wrestling companies are losing viewers? How is this some huge issue if the company is making money at that rating they are retaining?
I use the term "blind mark" interchangeably with someone who is incapable of being objective when it comes to the quality of the WWE and TNA. It's mostly subjective but there are some things that are just flat out 100% concrete fucking stupid, like the Victory Road main event. Objectively speaking, that was a joke of a main event. Try and spin it as subjective opinion, don't care, that was a shit main event any way you slice it.
So when someone tells me about how awesome and engaging Impact is on a weekly basis and how great the matches are while shitting on the WWE when they present the same quality matches or standard of storylines, I call them a blind mark. Because they aren't objective, they are biased. I'm sorry, you line up any match TNA has held in the year 2011 against some of the PPV matches from the WWE so far in 2011 (Ziggler vs. Edge at the Rumble for example, or either one of the Elimination Chamber matches) and it's not much of a contest objectively speaking, the WWE offers more wrestling and a higher standard wrestling at that, they trump TNA both in quantity and quality at this point in time and have for most of the last year.
Now cue Gelgarin, IDR, and SD to tell me about how fucking brilliant Sting winning the title is, and how AJ Styles being able to guide Matt Hardy to an adequate match with 20 minutes of ring time is a five star classic that the WWE could never give us, and how scoring half of the rating a CSI rerun would score makes TNA an undisputed commercial blockbuster success despite the promotion's detractors. Whatever, don't care, you people are beyond reasoning with for the most part. Not you Gelgarin, but the rest of you, pretty much.
So when someone tells me about how awesome and engaging Impact is on a weekly basis and how great the matches are while shitting on the WWE when they present the same quality matches or standard of storylines, I call them a blind mark. Because they aren't objective, they are biased. I'm sorry, you line up any match TNA has held in the year 2011 against some of the PPV matches from the WWE so far in 2011 (Ziggler vs. Edge at the Rumble for example, or either one of the Elimination Chamber matches) and it's not much of a contest objectively speaking, the WWE offers more wrestling and a higher standard wrestling at that, they trump TNA both in quantity and quality at this point in time and have for most of the last year.
Now cue Gelgarin, IDR, and SD to tell me about how fucking brilliant Sting winning the title is, and how AJ Styles being able to guide Matt Hardy to an adequate match with 20 minutes of ring time is a five star classic that the WWE could never give us, and how scoring half of the rating a CSI rerun would score makes TNA an undisputed commercial blockbuster success despite the promotion's detractors. Whatever, don't care, you people are beyond reasoning with for the most part. Not you Gelgarin, but the rest of you, pretty much.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
1. Wrestling fans are some of the most impatient people on the planet and you know it.
2. What's bad about it? It's taken them 9 years to get here. As in the same place they were what, 3 years ago? All you hear is "Well they're successful!" Yeah so is a movie that makes $1,000,001 on a budget of $1,000,000. It doesn't mean the time and effort is worth the payoff. Do something substantial already instead of moving at a damn snail's pace.
It's Damn Real!
The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Says the guy who writes "objective" reviews about a show he has an open hatred/bias for week-after-week.
#CredibilityMeetWindowYou sure do have an odd way about you thinking it's OK to stand on that soapbox of superiority and self-promotion again while educating the rest of us on how wrong we are for having an opinion of our own. It is wrong after all...
Beyond reasoning — is that that thing where if I don't agree with what you tell me I should believe, enjoy or watch, I'm wrong? Same thing, right?
Looks like some people think I'd lose to Ray Charles and Mr. Magoo at a reading contest. Maybe. If it were in russian or some other language I don't speak.
Similar threads
