It's Wrestling, Not Shakespeare

[D-Man]

It seems smart from a business perspective but I think even you would admit it hasn't exactly come to fruition yet.

Of course not. It's a work in progress. However, they're in the best position they've been since the 1980's and late 90's.

What I do not get is why is it wrong for people to say they do not like a product that caters to people that are not them when it used to cater to them? That seems like an obvious response from a quality perspective. Just because WWE made a potentially smart business decision doesn't mean ALL people should like what they are watching.

No, you misunderstood. The category I referred to is the pro-wrestling audience AND everyone else, instead of ONLY the pro-wrestling audience.

I also do not see TNA being too busy appealing to the IWC audience.

I addressed this in a reply to Killjoy.

I think the reason they take a lot of flack now is the opposite actually. That they are transitioning away from the king of the indies mentality and trying to get mainstream.

100% agreed here. But they're approach is different than WWE's, obvious. Not wrong... just different. I'm not arguing that TNA is doing anything necessarily "wrong." My argument was to defend WWE, not to bash TNA. However, do I feel TNA can be doing a better job? Yes.

They are pushing known name performers instead of unknown good in-ring wrestlers.

Not lately. Bischoff, Hardy, Jarrett, Hogan... it's all circled around them. After all, they rule the show, don't they?

They are pushing stories instead of matches.

But their stories are nothing but backstage, shaky cameras bleeping out curses for an hour after their main program is over. The rest of the evening is stuck with inconsistent programming, from a pro-wrestling perspective. They're trying very hard but need a revamped approach. That's just my opinion... I'm no expert.

If they were catering to the IWC they would just have let things be and would have never grown. Much like the WWE they are in a transition period that has yet to yield a success but the potential is there. If they are looking for just some more market share and WWE is going after kids at the expense of some others, why not target some of those adults that are dissatisfied? Seems smart to me.

But they are. That's what ideas like Old School Raw were for.

 

[D-Man]

Yet your WWE defense is it worked in the 80s?

You're saying the WWE is the same as it was in the 80's? I said it's working out similar to the way it did in the 80's. Not that it's the same product as the 80's.

 

[klunderbunker]

I do wonder why we got rid of the WWE vs. TNA forum. It would fill up faster than a condom inside of Trish Stratus.

 

[ABMorales787]

They still make TV appearances everywhere. And there are more movie stars now than there ever was in pro-wrestling. In modern day WWE, you have Kane, Big Show, Cena, DiBiase, (formerly) Kennedy, Great Khali, Austin, Nash, Goldberg, etc. They have really hit into the mainstream ever since the Attitude Era ended.

Yeah, but at the end of the day, who you gonna call? John Cena. And him alone. I don't see what Nash and Goldberg have to do with this though.

Also, you claim that multiple stars need to be in the media? Besides what I already noted, if you choose to ignore that, the 80's only had Hulk Hogan and they did just fine.

This isn't the 80's. The world has changed. The days of a leader and his followers in the pop culture world are long gone. Today is about equality. Celebs team up for their work and grow on it. Not act on their own and carry the entire load.

My bad. I should've been more specific with the above statement.

It's the same formula. But let's say it wasn't fine and you feel more should be added... are they doing badly right now? Is Cena not an international icon? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You opinion is obviously not a proper reflection on what is truly successful in the pro-wrestling world.

No? WWE's most successful time period was the Attitude Era. Which had more mainstream personalities than just one guy. One wrestling guy in the media world isn't gonna make WWE stand out the way it wants to in this day and age.

How, and in what way, do backstage politics play ANY role in what happens in the mainstream media and popularity of the product? Someone got fired because Orton used influence? Big fucking deal. Wrestlemania just got a million buyrates. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

Isn't that what killed WCW? Backstage politics have hindered a couple of things. The fact that there is a monopoly in a land that should be about equal opportunity doesn't strike me as good. I'm not saying it affects their mainstream exposure, but it's still no good.

Examples?

I've already beaten the Nexus/Cena thing, so I'll go on.

Kofi Kingston and Randy Orton. Regardless of some missed cue, this was a good chance to bring a new fully developed face to the main event of Raw. But instead issues ensued that had Kingston lose favor. Maybe wouldn't be the sole employed main event face of Raw if it hadn't been for his meddling.

You have the firing of Mr. Kennedy. now Mr. Anderson. He comes back from injury. You gotta expect some degree of ring rust. Instead he's fired at the first error he makes. Why because inner opinions hindered them from seeing the bigger picture. I swear if by some twist of fate, TNA ever gets big and Anderson's their top star, I'm never gonna look at WWE the same. I know he was injury prone. Then again so was Batista, but he had the inner circle access.

The pushes for MVP, Drew McIntyre, John Morrison, The Legacy and beyond. Seriously. Why start something, keep going and near the end, call it quits and go play with something else? Finish the job! MVP was pushed at first as a big heel, then as a face. They even hook him up with Sherri Shepard. They have him get a big match with Randy Orton. After that, nothing. The Legacy headlines 3 PPV's in a row with DX. It seems the might be the biggest thing since Evolution. But instead, they break up. John Morrison was heralded as the next HBK last year. Now he's just shit. Drew McIntyre was the chosen one. Then they picked someone else. WWE has so many opportunities. Why don't they follow through?

They admitted to catering to smarks! It's been in the news reports and admitted by Russo in interviews. What more do you need? Plus, Hogan is claiming that they are "shooting" now. That's a direct stab at the IWC and smarks.

I wonder what smarks. Everybody seems to hate them (TNA) here.

TNA is still brewing a formula that lost its potency over ten years ago.

I know you are gonna hate the comparison, but it's the truth. WWE had a working formula, but they choose not to use it.

 

[shattered dreams]

Are you really trying to say that TNA is catering to smarks by having Russo book a show around Hogan, Jeff Hardy and Jeff Jarrett while using AJ Styles like they are?

My only concern for WWE would be that will they be able to overcome the stigma enough to attract the young audience they want. I'm no expert either.

 

[D-Man]

Yeah, but at the end of the day, who you gonna call? John Cena. And him alone. I don't see what Nash and Goldberg have to do with this though.

/FACEPALM

John Cena is pretty much a media icon. Why hasn't WWE bothered with another guy? Aren't 2 heads better than 1?

That's what.

No? WWE's most successful time period was the Attitude Era. Which had more mainstream personalities than just one guy. One wrestling guy in the media world isn't gonna make WWE stand out the way it wants to in this day and age.

Can we PLEASE not have this conversation... different time, different era for television and media, different EVERYTHING. That stuff wouldn't work in today's market of sensitivity on television and in censorship. 15 years is a LONG time for change.

Isn't that what killed WCW? Backstage politics have hindered a couple of things. The fact that there is a monopoly in a land that should be about equal opportunity doesn't strike me as good. I'm not saying it affects their mainstream exposure, but it's still no good.

What killed WCW was their failure to run a well-oiled machine. Forget what you saw on the DVD's. It was the horrible management that killed WCW.

Kofi Kingston and Randy Orton. Regardless of some missed cue, this was a good chance to bring a new fully developed face to the main event of Raw. But instead issues ensued that had Kingston lose favor. Maybe wouldn't be the sole employed main event face of Raw if it hadn't been for his meddling.

It didn't have to do with the fact that Kofi wasn't working as effectively as they wanted him to?

You have the firing of Mr. Kennedy. now Mr. Anderson. He comes back from injury. You gotta expect some degree of ring rust. Instead he's fired at the first error he makes. Why because inner opinions hindered them from seeing the bigger picture. I swear if by some twist of fate, TNA ever gets big and Anderson's their top star, I'm never gonna look at WWE the same. I know he was injury prone. Then again so was Batista, but he had the inner circle access.

Anderson? Really? He affects the product as a whole?

Next subject.

The pushes for MVP, Drew McIntyre, John Morrison, The Legacy and beyond. Seriously. Why start something, keep going and near the end, call it quits and go play with something else? Finish the job! MVP was pushed at first as a big heel, then as a face. They even hook him up with Sherri Shepard. They have him get a big match with Randy Orton. After that, nothing. The Legacy headlines 3 PPV's in a row with DX. It seems the might be the biggest thing since Evolution. But instead, they break up. John Morrison was heralded as the next HBK last year. Now he's just shit. Drew McIntyre was the chosen one. Then they picked someone else. WWE has so many opportunities. Why don't they follow through?

I couldn't answer this for you and I don't think you could, either. In my eyes, I didn't see these guys being as effective at the beginning of their pushes like you say. Plus, every one of them are young. Why push them to the moon right from the start? In this business, if you haven't noticed, the majority of stars have to eat shit and earn their dues before getting big pushes. Naturally, there were exceptions, but for the most part, everyone waits their turn.

WWE management are the experts... not us. Stop thinking you know more than they do.

I wonder what smarks. Everybody seems to hate them (TNA) here.

Frustrated is a much more suitable word.

I know you are gonna hate the comparison, but it's the truth. WWE had a working formula, but they choose not to use it.

WWE was losing steam FAST because of the Attitude Era. They disgusted and turned off a TON of viewers. How can you brew the next breed of fans during their youth when their parents won't let them watch the product? You guys just fail to look at the big picture.

 

[ABMorales787]

I do wonder why we got rid of the WWE vs. TNA forum. It would fill up faster than a condom inside of Trish Stratus.

Oh, like you would use a condom.

 

[D-Man]

Are you really trying to say that TNA is catering to smarks by having Russo book a show around Hogan, Jeff Hardy and Jeff Jarrett while using AJ Styles like they are?

HELL no. I'm merely mimicking what TNA management stated in interviews and on WZ news reports. TNA is catering to smarks. It was posted everywhere and cannot be denied.

As much as you might disagree, I honestly try to use facts in my debates and do my best not to incorporate my opinions and play them off like they're gospel.

My only concern for WWE would be that will they be able to overcome the stigma enough to attract the young audience they want. I'm no expert either.

Agreed... on both points

 

[D-Man]

Oh, like you would use a condom.

Ewwwwwwwwwww

 

[ABMorales787]

/FACEPALM



That's what.

I'm reffering to equal media attention. You can't seriously tell me Ted DiBiase is just as media exposed as John Cena?

Can we PLEASE not have this conversation... different time, different era for television and media, different EVERYTHING. That stuff wouldn't work in today's market of sensitivity on television and in censorship. 15 years is a LONG time for change.

You do realize I'm not referring to the rating, right? I'm talking about how each character had it's mainstream appeal. There was more than one guy. The more big figures, the more exposure.

What killed WCW was their failure to run a well-oiled machine. Forget what you saw on the DVD's. It was the horrible management that killed WCW.

Aren't they pretty much the same thing? As of late, reports are coming in about creative members that seem pretty happy to be unemployed as well as a few wrestlers. Same thing we got from WCW. Of course, I don't expect that to kill WWE.

It didn't have to do with the fact that Kofi wasn't working as effectively as they wanted him to?

So they quit and move on to the next guy. I still don't see results with any new faces.

Anderson? Really? He affects the product as a whole?

No, but WWE's mismanagement may come back to haunt them.

I couldn't answer this for you and I don't think you could, either. In my eyes, I didn't see these guys being as effective at the beginning of their pushes like you say. Plus, every one of them are young. Why push them to the moon right from the start? In this business, if you haven't noticed, the majority of stars have to eat shit and earn their dues before getting big pushes. Naturally, there were exceptions, but for the most part, everyone waits their turn.

They went a mile and a half with Jack Swagger, The Miz and Sheamus. Why on Earth can't they do this with a babyface?

WWE management are the experts... not us. Stop thinking you know more than they do.

I don't. But I see proof that they can do better.

Frustrated is a much more suitable word.

Ask the spammers.

WWE was losing steam FAST because of the Attitude Era. They disgusted and turned off a TON of viewers. How can you brew the next breed of fans during their youth when their parents won't let them watch the product? You guys just fail to look at the big picture.

Again. I'm not referring to their rauchier product. I'm referring to how they built up their stars and used that for marketing in a successful manner.

 

[ABMorales787]

Ewwwwwwwwwww

I certainly wouldn't. Would you?

 

[shattered dreams]

As much as you might disagree, I honestly try to use facts in my debates and do my best not to incorporate my opinions and play them off like they're gospel.

You are a pretty good poster when you are not pissed and/or ranting. It doesn't surprise me if such a thing was said but my point was the actions seem to not mimick such an approach. The actions seem to suggest trying to get adults that started with wrestling during the attitude era. The smarkiness might apply to those "worked shoot" situations. Kind of like you claim WWE is after kids and others, I think TNA is after 90s fans and smarks.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I'll give you that one.

"I'm better than you!" "No, I'm better than you!"

I just impersonated 80% of WWE's storylines.

This is completely true, and it's getting old.

The partisan hackery on both sides of the WWE-TNA debate here is laughable. The refusal of either side to acknowledge their complicity in this nonsense is even worse.

Probably the smartest thing said in this entire thread.

Actually you routinely claim you like or want to like TNA. If you are saying you are obviously biased against it then that is a pretty weird way to go about those claims.

I swear to God, you are incapable of understanding this point. I will use myself as an example, ok? I want to like TNA. Actually, I like the wrestlers TNA has. I want TNA to succeed. I root for TNA. BUT, seeing as though I believe they are putting out a garbage product, I'm upset. You can be critical of something and still like it. This is something you are completely unable to comprehend.

Don't use words that are too big for your brain, shittered. It doesn't become you.

He's not an idiot, he's just blind.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Ok, I just got home and ate some of the best pizza known to mankind. Now I will respond to the silliness and hopefully somebody can buy a clue. Here was the initial statement.

"Get this concept people. Quit ripping apart every single little thing of continuity and just roll with it. Have some fucking fun and get the tree out of your ass (I'll gladly take it). If you don't like a storyline that's cool..."

This was followed by admitting to bashing TNA on a regular basis. What happened to 'if you don't like a storyline that's cool..."? Seems I heard that somewhere... So obviously this is an instance of not practicing what one preaches, and "do as I say, not as I do". Sigh. Then we had this little gem.

No I'm simply smarter than you.

That right there is a matter of opinion and by far a statement of fiction.

WWE is far better written, better acted, better put together and better performed in general and if you don't understand that you are a rather stupid person.

Again, sigh. Better written, sure, at times. But I think I like the 4tune storyline better than Daniel Bryan having the Bellas fight over him. Ugh. Plus, I think it was also better than DiBiase's current stories so far. And I don't think i'd be alone in saying that the "Bella switcheroo" is very old hat too. And Orton's just a bore.
Better acted and better performed? Depends on which talents you're talking about. Didn't I hear at one point about Kofi botching spots and people blasting the Miz non-stop since he won the belt on how horrible he is in the ring? People have also called his mic work bad, too. And what about Otunga, Darren Young, etc. So let's compare that to, oh, Beer Money, MCMG, Kurt Angle, Styles, and a few others. And let's compare mic work with Anderson since Miz is so "horrible". Hell, let's not forget the unforgettable, suspenseful, awe-inspiring JTG/Shad break up! That's gonna win a slammy for sure! Looks to me like you're just a bitter Vince monkey when somebody insults your man-crush.
The point is, is that you can't tell somebody to "just relax and take it in stride" if you're not going to do the same, plain and simple. Well, I guess you can if you're an assclown. Plus, calling names without saying anything else is not a way to prove your point and just makes you look simple, no matter what your "rep rating". Have a nice day.

 

[klunderbunker]

Ok, I just got home and ate some of the best pizza known to mankind. Now I will respond to the silliness and hopefully somebody can buy a clue. Here was the initial statement. This was followed by admitting to bashing TNA on a regular basis. What happened to 'if you don't like a storyline that's cool..."? Seems I heard that somewhere... So obviously this is an instance of not practicing what one preaches, and "do as I say, not as I do". Sigh. Then we had this little gem.


That right there is a matter of opinion and by far a statement of fiction.


Again, sigh. Better written, sure, at times. But I think I like the 4tune storyline better than Daniel Bryan having the Bellas fight over him. Ugh. Plus, I think it was also better than DiBiase's current stories so far. And I don't think i'd be alone in saying that the "Bella switcheroo" is very old hat too. And Orton's just a bore.
Better acted and better performed? Depends on which talents you're talking about. Didn't I hear at one point about Kofi botching spots and people blasting the Miz non-stop since he won the belt on how horrible he is in the ring? People have also called his mic work bad, too. And what about Otunga, Darren Young, etc. So let's compare that to, oh, Beer Money, MCMG, Kurt Angle, Styles, and a few others. And let's compare mic work with Anderson since Miz is so "horrible". Hell, let's not forget the unforgettable, suspenseful, awe-inspiring JTG/Shad break up! That's gonna win a slammy for sure! Looks to me like you're just a bitter Vince monkey when somebody insults your man-crush.
The point is, is that you can't tell somebody to "just relax and take it in stride" if you're not going to do the same, plain and simple. Well, I guess you can if you're an assclown. Plus, calling names without saying anything else is not a way to prove your point and just makes you look simple, no matter what your "rep rating". Have a nice day.

And again, as I've said all along, QUIT TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY. I mean sweet DAMN man. I'm smarter than you are and that's all there is to it. TNA is still dull and anyone that wants to try to use the criticism that WWE is boring is downright laughable when comparing it to TNA.

 

[Arkham Noir]

KB's right.

There is a difference between critizing something because it sucks and over thinking everything. The inability to accept KB's initial post will only hamper someone's enjoyment of watching wrestling. It's only a television show. Watch it and move on with your life.

 

[D-Man]

I'm reffering to equal media attention. You can't seriously tell me Ted DiBiase is just as media exposed as John Cena?

That's an impossible comparison. During the AE, The Rock was WAYYYY more overexposed in the media than SCSA because he was in movies that made money and Austin was not. No one will ever be at the same height of media attention.

How do you measure that, anyway? Because you watched a few more movies from one guy than another? Get real, bro.

You do realize I'm not referring to the rating, right? I'm talking about how each character had it's mainstream appeal. There was more than one guy. The more big figures, the more exposure.

No, I'm still not getting you, to be honest. Like I just stated, how do you measure this? Because one guy is in more movies than another? Did you count the total minutes they spend on TV? Your argument is very hollow and lacks substance and logic to back it up.

Aren't they pretty much the same thing? As of late, reports are coming in about creative members that seem pretty happy to be unemployed as well as a few wrestlers. Same thing we got from WCW. Of course, I don't expect that to kill WWE.

WCW imploded from within. It had nothing to do with the backstage politics that fueled your argument a few posts ago. Your points keeping swinging back and forth like a pendulum. Stick to one thing, let's hash it out, and then move on.

So they quit and move on to the next guy. I still don't see results with any new faces.

What do you expect, for WWE to hold the audience at gunpoint and MAKE them like someone? If a superstar doesn't have appeal, they don't have appeal. Time to move on. It's not that difficult.

No, but WWE's mismanagement may come back to haunt them.

Mismanagement? Because Anderson was labeled as a liability by one of the company's top workers? Who are you to make better judgment than someone who actually works with Anderson in the ring?

They went a mile and a half with Jack Swagger, The Miz and Sheamus. Why on Earth can't they do this with a babyface?
I don't. But I see proof that they can do better.

So you ADMIT the WWE pushed new stars. Thank you.

Ask the spammers.

LOL fuck those jerks

Again. I'm not referring to their rauchier product. I'm referring to how they built up their stars and used that for marketing in a successful manner.

It was easy then because the product was white hot. You could market ANYONE in a hot market. But now it's more difficult.

You've never worked in marketing, have you?

 

[D-Man]

You are a pretty good poster when you are not pissed and/or ranting.

I've been a dick for months and made a promise to myself to stop doing so. This kind of posting is what got me all of my accolades and once I turned into a douche, everyone forgot about them. Time to get them back.

Thanks for noticing

It doesn't surprise me if such a thing was said but my point was the actions seem to not mimick such an approach. The actions seem to suggest trying to get adults that started with wrestling during the attitude era. The smarkiness might apply to those "worked shoot" situations. Kind of like you claim WWE is after kids and others, I think TNA is after 90s fans and smarks.

Whether they follow their words or not, they spoke them. I can only go by what came from the horse's mouth. No offense, but what you "speculate" or think the product "suggests" here is truly irrelevant if they've already emphasized their product's standing and direction in the public eye.

However, your last statement leads me to assume that we actually agree on something. TNA definitely IS aiming their product towards adults and smarks.

 

[shattered dreams]

I swear to God, you are incapable of understanding this point. I will use myself as an example, ok? I want to like TNA. Actually, I like the wrestlers TNA has. I want TNA to succeed. I root for TNA. BUT, seeing as though I believe they are putting out a garbage product, I'm upset. You can be critical of something and still like it. This is something you are completely unable to comprehend.

I get this in spite of what everyone claims. The only point I tried to make here is give TNA a fair shot if you really want to try and like it. If you give WWE a pass on something, TNA should get the same pass. There are too many people talking out of both sides of their mouths. If you legit dislike TNA in a non-hypocritical way then that is fine. I definitely do not think the TNA product is for everyone. Then again don't act shocked when I legit dislike WWE.

 

[UltimateHitman]

And again, as I've said all along, QUIT TAKING IT SO SERIOUSLY. I mean sweet DAMN man. I'm smarter than you are and that's all there is to it. TNA is still dull and anyone that wants to try to use the criticism that WWE is boring is downright laughable when comparing it to TNA.

Quit what, taking your incessant whining and bitching seriously? All I did was point out your hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less. And you just keep adding things to try to back up your point that was not even said. Nobody said that "WWE was boring". What's laughable is your persistence in making up things nobody said to try to look intelligent. The simple fact is, somebody critiqued a PIECE of a storyline and you took it as a total WWE Universe bashing which is just asinine. We get it, you don't like TNA. Boofuckinghoo, good for you. But if somebody doesn't like something about what they're doing, they post it in a WRESTLING DISCUSSION FORUM. If you don't want people complaining or critiquing things they don't like, then why the hell do you do it? Oh, and if you are so anti-TNA why do you focus on them as much as you do? I'll bet you're a closet TNA mark, probably like some other things you are in the closet about...

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

It's official now. Shittered Dreams is the Helen Keller of WZ.

 

[klunderbunker]

Quit what, taking your incessant whining and bitching seriously? All I did was point out your hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less. And you just keep adding things to try to back up your point that was not even said. Nobody said that "WWE was boring". What's laughable is your persistence in making up things nobody said to try to look intelligent. The simple fact is, somebody critiqued a PIECE of a storyline and you took it as a total WWE Universe bashing which is just asinine. We get it, you don't like TNA. Boofuckinghoo, good for you. But if somebody doesn't like something about what they're doing, they post it in a WRESTLING DISCUSSION FORUM. If you don't want people complaining or critiquing things they don't like, then why the hell do you do it? Oh, and if you are so anti-TNA why do you focus on them as much as you do? I'll bet you're a closet TNA mark, probably like some other things you are in the closet about...

And the simple fact of the matter is you whine, you can't spell, you need to learn to break up blocks of text, and you shout too much. Now tell us more about that pizza.

 

[D-Man]

Quit what, taking your incessant whining and bitching seriously? All I did was point out your hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less. And you just keep adding things to try to back up your point that was not even said. Nobody said that "WWE was boring". What's laughable is your persistence in making up things nobody said to try to look intelligent. The simple fact is, somebody critiqued a PIECE of a storyline and you took it as a total WWE Universe bashing which is just asinine. We get it, you don't like TNA. Boofuckinghoo, good for you. But if somebody doesn't like something about what they're doing, they post it in a WRESTLING DISCUSSION FORUM. If you don't want people complaining or critiquing things they don't like, then why the hell do you do it? Oh, and if you are so anti-TNA why do you focus on them as much as you do? I'll bet you're a closet TNA mark, probably like some other things you are in the closet about...

No offense but take your own advice. You criticized the product, he replied and criticized TNA's and didn't agree with your views, a verbal altercation ensued, and now you're pulling the "I can say whatever I want on a Wrestling Discussion Forum" card.

If you criticize something on a publicly verbal exchange, expect a reply that you don't like and take it like a man. That goes for both of you.

 

[shattered dreams]

KB's right.

There is a difference between critizing something because it sucks and over thinking everything. The inability to accept KB's initial post will only hamper someone's enjoyment of watching wrestling. It's only a television show. Watch it and move on with your life.

The funny thing is that kb is absolutely right but he just sucks at taking his own advice. Just like I suck at not trashing the product you do not like because I get sick of hearing the opposite. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind so I guess that makes a certain amount of sense around here. Stinger, give it up, if you want to pretend I am worthless you shouldn't steal my lines to try and do so.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Funny thing is, I'm not whining. I'm pointing out the obvious. As to spelling, you didn't point anything out or correct anything so I'm assuming you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you're grasping at straws.
Sorry you can't follow larger paragraphs, I'll make it easier for you.
And finally, you have not refuted any of my observations, you just resort to lame instigating.
And to the D-Man, I usually agree with you, but go back to the beginning and re-read the start of it all. You have continuity all skewed. I'd swear you were a member of creative with Hogan, Bischoff, and Russo.