MisterRob

[Coco]

Coco, have you never read one of Sly's posts when he's debating with X/Eko?

I try not to. I know most the usual party lines by heart.

 

[Remix]

When you think that no indie guy knows how to work untill they spend time in developmental, by default you rank higher on the shareholder-o-meter than Sideous.

 

[X]

His definition is that a shareholder is only entertained by what makes Vince as much money as possible, which he tries to do all the time all the time by appealing to demo information and wanting to recreate the time when wrestling was at its peak in terms of popularity. He's always concerned about the casual fans and about how wrestling won't appeal to them and about how they majority of people find Chris Jericho to be second rate. The dude almost certainly doesn't think for himself, IMO.

Why we can't use that to call him a shareholder when he speaks to motivations me and other people don't have is beyond me. Cunt has it coming.

No I'm pretty sure that Sid's definition of a shareholder is someone that is willing to put aside what they personally want to see on WWE programming in exchange for things that make Vince money (like Hornswoggle) even if they don't like those segments.

 

[Remix]

I think the definition's changed over time so he can apply it to more people.

 

[Coco]

That definition X just gave doesn't fit me yet he's used the label on me numerous times.

So Sid is just using it to call people ***** when they disagree with him. Pretty much.

 

[X]

That definition X just gave doesn't fit me yet he's used the label on me numerous times.

So Sid is just using it to call people ***** when they disagree with him. Pretty much.

Pretty much then. That's the real definition fo the term as it was originally coined by JMT. He got that whole phrase from a post JMT made about the "shareholder mentality", Sid has kind of just warped it to fit his own standards.

 

[FromTheSouth]

MisterRob is one of those people who watches Fox News just to catch them slipping, ignores the entire day of coverage, and finds one video clip to bitch about and uses it as evidence that the whole network is corrupt.

In short, I believe he is an intern for The Daily Zone.

 

[Remix]

well that explains why it was initially a good term before its meaning was twisted by Sid.

 

[X]

I'm still quite curious as to how MisterRob thinks he "owns me" despite our never having interacted.

 

[Remix]

Simple, you're posting in 'his' board. Therefore he does own you.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I'm still quite curious as to how MisterRob thinks he "owns me" despite our never having interacted.

He's probably trying to make a name for himself by doing the old "pick a fight with the toughest guy in the bar" sort of thing.

 

[Remix]

does that ever work? I'd imagine that ten times out of ten you're going to end up bloody, on your arse and humiliated.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I guess it would depend on the situation.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

To my knowledge, nobody used the "Shareholder" term before me, but if you say so, then it is. I just never saw it used and derived the term.

X hit the nail right on the head in that I define a "WWE Shareholder" as someone who is more concerned about Vince and WWE being successful and making money then they necessarily are concerned about being entertained themselves.

They can either fit into one of two categories:

1) They can either despise what they see on WWE TV at any time, but if Vince tells them that it is best for business (IE: PG Era) then they follow suit and will support him, because "that is what's best for business".

or

2) They truly have no pre-conceived notion of what constitutes a good product. And whatever Vince puts on WWE TV is acceptable in their eyes. In other words, Vince can truly do no wrong. If the show has the "WWE" label on it, then "it is the best", in their eyes and everything else is inferior. Case closed.

These fans are no longer being referred to as "Shareholders" because some people got their feelings hurt, and instead I am simply referring to them by the name WWE wants them know as- "The WWE Universe" fans. And I would concur with that because these fans are fans and supporters of the WWE before they are supporters of the wrestling business, in general.

I am for whatever company puts out programming content that I enjoy. I don't care if it's WWE or TNA. Somebody put on a show for me that comes near matching my interests. That's all I ask.

And no, I most definitely do not consider myself a Shareholder because Shareholders put the company before their interests as a fan. Instead, I put my interests as a fan first, and then argue why it is also good for business (if it is an idea that is good for business) secondary.

Big difference. And X made a case and point that I despise Hornswoggle and all DX segments today, regardless if they make money or not.

 

[The Doctor]

No I'm pretty sure that Sid's definition of a shareholder is someone that is willing to put aside what they personally want to see on WWE programming in exchange for things that make Vince money (like Hornswoggle) even if they don't like those segments.

This. Sidious is a "WWE Businessman", not a "WWE Shareholder". Both terms (And "WWE Universe Fan") can be acceptable and useful parts of our vernacular if used well and appropriately.

 

[Remix]

Sid, if I said that the PG era is the best thing for the buisness right now, not because Vince says so, but because WWE needs to distance itself from the product that bave birth to Chris Benoit, and complaints caused by what's being broadcast will have more validity because of the tragedy. and they also need to groom future fans to fill the places that are being lost as their very old fans die and the fans that left Raw the week after benoit died. and also so that if any kids hurt eachother because their parents were negligent, any claims that it was caused by them imitating their favorite wrestlers have less validity, would that make me a shareholder?

What about if I said that in Vince's place, in Vince's situation I'd do similar things. I mean he's running a buisness. for him what makes money and could attract future fans that will stay (and bring their friends) when WWE's product becomes more mature again (as it will. these things come in cycles)?

And finally, if I said that I'd put up with terrible skits if they make money (stressing that I dont like them) because they're a neccesary evil, in that the company needs to make money in order to put on programming that is entertaining, as long as the show aired good segments/matches as well (i.e. gritting my teeth through the bad but required, and enjoying the good but optional) and overall enjoying the show?

I just want to know how flexible the definition is.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Mister Rob's a smart guy, but he's a huge prick. I'm surprised he hasn't got hit with any flame infractions yet, since his posts are usually ablaze. Anyway, just flame him back and he'll ease up on you.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

He's posted a lot on my Over/Under series in Old School. He's a pessimistic fuck.

 

[The Dewbliners]

Oh, yeah, I remember him now. He called Pillman overrated in one, and I wanted to abuse my senior citizen father.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

He has moderate knowledge and tries to talk down to people. Bad combination.

 

[FromTheSouth]

He has moderate knowledge and tries to talk down to people. Bad combination.

I believe that qualifies him to be speaker of the house.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I believe that qualifies him to be speaker of the house.

Dennis Miller would be proud lol.

 

[Remix]

i thought being a moron with outragous opinions was a prerequisite too. like thinking a small amount of pot being a long term imprisonable offence.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I just read one of Mister_Rob's post in the Impact Review thread. I think my IQ lowered a bit.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Sid, if I said that the PG era is the best thing for the buisness right now, not because Vince says so, but because WWE needs to distance itself from the product that gave birth to Chris Benoit, and complaints caused by what's being broadcast will have more validity because of the tragedy. and they also need to groom future fans to fill the places that are being lost as their very old fans die and the fans that left Raw the week after benoit died. and also so that if any kids hurt eachother because their parents were negligent, any claims that it was caused by them imitating their favorite wrestlers have less validity, would that make me a shareholder?

Yes it would. Because you are looking at it from more of a business perspective as opposed to what personally entertains you as a fan.

What about if I said that in Vince's place, in Vince's situation I'd do similar things. I mean he's running a buisness. for him what makes money and could attract future fans that will stay (and bring their friends) when WWE's product becomes more mature again (as it will. these things come in cycles)?

Yes, because again you are looking at it first from a business perspective first, and your personal opinions as they pertain to what entertains you as a fan, second.

And finally, if I said that I'd put up with terrible skits if they make money (stressing that I dont like them) because they're a neccesary evil, in that the company needs to make money in order to put on programming that is entertaining, as long as the show aired good segments/matches as well (i.e. gritting my teeth through the bad but required, and enjoying the good but optional) and overall enjoying the show?

Yes. Because again, you are more concerned with the company making money, despite the fact that you admit you don't like the terrible skits you are referencing.

I just want to know how flexible the definition is.

Hope I was able to clarify.