My resignation announcement

[Makaveli31]

Or someone who wrote a book apparently. Or someone who actually went out of their way to learn something by going back and watching it.

No no, you would rather sit on your high and mighty throne (where cents are spelled "sense" it seems) and look down your nose at anyone younger than you because they could never possibly know something that you can't. Enjoy your precious old school thoughts and praise the name of older wrestling. You and Eternal Nitwit can write threads about four minute Nitro matches while the rest of us are over here in the real world where we know that all you have is a bunch of hot air and ridiculous nonsense spewing out of your fingers.

Again. Out of context and TOTALLY missing my point. I'm sorry you feel like I was putting you down or "looking down my nose at you." I respect people that went back and learned and watched. I too read about and learned about the territories of the 70's and '80's but I'm going to try to debate Jim Cornette and tell HIM what went on and didn't go on in those territories. I might engage him in debate and tell MY viewpoint BUT I would consider him and expert on the subject same as I would a FAN who watched during that era. I think I have a pretty good grasp of wrestling history but I KNOW there are things that went on in that era I will never know about or experience because I wasn't there. So I will DEFER to that person who WAS there. Doesn't make that person right or wrong on a certain subject

 

[klunderbunker]

Actually, this is true. Now let's go to the actual posts and see how he squirms out of this.

The original statement.

Ah this is always my favorite argument, it's close to: "You're not allowed to like *insert form of entertainment* because you weren't even born yet!"

His response:

=makaveli31]"Sorry, but it's true."

Again, you are quoting something I never wrote. You are totally missing my point.

So no, he didn't say it. Now he agreed when someone else said it by declaring it true, but that's the kind of weaselly response I would expect from a knucklehead like him.

 

[Makaveli31]

But you haven't debated it. You stated it as stone cold fact.

What did I state as fact?

 

[Makaveli31]

So no, he didn't say it. Now he agreed when someone else said it by declaring it true, but that's the kind of weaselly response I would expect from a knucklehead like him.
__

No "weaselly" is posting only a snippet of my entire response and taking it out of context. That's weaselly.

 

[Makaveli31]

Wrestling isn't war. You can watch wrestling in T.V. I have yet to have a subscription to Royal Navy Network.

I was using an analogy. Use any historical event you want. There are HISTORY channels, you know?

 

[klunderbunker]

Again. Out of context and TOTALLY missing my point. I'm sorry you feel like I was putting you down or "looking down my nose at you." I respect people that went back and learned and watched.

No you don't. You've proven that several times here.

I too read about and learned about the territories of the 70's and '80's but I'm going to try to debate Jim Cornette

Did that. In person actually.

Oh and again: your grammar/grasp of English is atrocious.

and tell HIM what went on and didn't go on in those territories. I might engage him in debate and tell MY viewpoint BUT I would consider him and expert on the subject same as I would a FAN who watched during that era.

And this MUST be TRUE of course because YOU'RE capitalizing various WORDS in your SENTENCES.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of wrestling history but I KNOW there are things that went on in that era I will never know about or experience because I wasn't there.

Or the fact that you're kind of dumb.

So I will DEFER to that person who WAS there. Doesn't make that person right or wrong on a certain subject

I wouldn't. Again, as was already said:

Just because you were there doesn't mean you know what's going on. I'm going to listen to someone who has studied it and put in a bit more effort than watching an episode of the weekly TV show thirty five years ago and claiming the high ground. But that's just me and my common sense showing.

 

[Makaveli31]

This is a "you had to be there to understand" mentality. It's subjective, not objective. I could go up to an old Nam veteran who is chock full of dementia and PTSD who will tell me how epic the war was, and how important it was to the country at the time, or I could read and watch the documentaries college historians poured their time into that showed the exact opposite with no trace of bias anywhere.

College historians with no trace of bias?!?!?!???! I had to LOL at that statement. Wow, denigrating out nation's vets you are a disgrace. Guess what?!? PTSD doesn't makes you less of an expert of a subject YOU FUCKING LIVED THROUGH you moron. But keep believing those "college historians with "no trace of bias" LOL

 

[Spidey Revivey]

"Doesn't make that person right or wrong."

You're joking. Is there no such thing as accountability anymore?

 

[Spidey Revivey]

College historians with no trace of bias?!?!?!???! I had to LOL at that statement. Wow, denigrating out nation's vets you are a disgrace. Guess what?!? PTSD doesn't makes you less of an expert of a subject YOU FUCKING LIVED THROUGH you moron. But keep believing those "college historians with "no trace of bias" LOL

Ah, so you're more the "go with my gut" guy and not the "I read" sort of guy. This is starting to make sense now.

I didn't denigrate anybody, btw. Out of context much?

Logical fallacy.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

What did I state as fact?

That if you weren't there you don't know.

I was using an analogy. Use any historical event you want. There are HISTORY channels, you know?

What good wil HISTORY channels be to me though. The people that are telling me weren't there.

 

[Makaveli31]

Oh and again: your grammar/grasp of English is atrocious.

That's how I know I've won the argument.

Or the fact that you're kind of dumb.

Again, more personal attacks. Not constructive to add or say. You're "the fact that you're kind of dumb" statement says it all. No debate skills at all. Just 3rd grade name calling

 

[Makaveli31]

Ah, so you're more the "go with my gut" guy and not the "I read" sort of guy. This is starting to make sense now.

I didn't denigrate anybody, btw. Out of context much?

Chock full of PTSD and dementia?!? Fuck you. That was a disgraceful comment

 

[Bernkastel]

I never said I would not respect your opinions. BUT if you are using WWE network as a reference vs someone who was actually living it live I think would TEND to side with the person who was there over the person who watched on the network. I would not totally dismiss it though. Same as I would tend to give more credence to the viewpoint of someone who went to war lived the war vs someone who read it in a book.

I have encountered plenty of Bob Backlund detractors who were alive to watch him in the 70's that think he was bad for business and was not all that popular. History disproves this. Those people, with their first hand accounts are trying to push revisionist history, because their subjective opinions don't match reality. In 20 years I would not be surprised if today's fans do the same thing to John Cena.

If the first hand account of someone older than me doesn't match historical text record, then I'll dismiss that narrative as revisionist history. Your argument goes both ways.

 

[klunderbunker]

What did I state as fact?

Here.

Sorry but it's true. Some thing you just won't experience unless you lived it and were there at the arena's, or experience the atmosphere during that time period. When people say things like Nash was only over because of his association with Hogan it only emphasizes my point. I'm not saying you're not allowed to give your two sense but don't think you are holier than thou either just because you saw it on the Network

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Chock full of PTSD and dementia?!? Fuck you. That was a disgraceful comment

It's no less a sound one, as many veterans suffer through it. Doesn't make it disgraceful. It makes it a fact, snowflake.

Still doesn't make their account of history reliable though, does it?

I'll take the word of people with degrees who have studied war over the guy that got shot at. No offense. Same as I'll take KB's years of experience reviewing old wrestling over your "you had to be there" comment.

 

[Makaveli31]

OK. Is it a FACT that IF you were at a certain PLACE at a CERTAIN time there are things that you would have EXPERIENCED that would not show up in a book or even in pictures or video? Have you ever heard of the saying "You had to be there" when someone was telling a story about and event?

 

[klunderbunker]

That's how I know I've won the argument.



Again, more personal attacks. Not constructive to add or say. You're "the fact that you're kind of dumb" statement says it all. No debate skills at all. Just 3rd grade name calling

Not at all like laughing about how you know more than people could EVER know, right?

 

[Makaveli31]

About AN event. Sorry about my grammar.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's no less a sound one, as many veterans suffer through it. Doesn't make it disgraceful. It makes it a fact, snowflake.

Still doesn't make their account of history reliable though, does it?

I'll take the word of people with degrees who have studied war over the guy that got shot at. No offense. Same as I'll take KB's years of experience reviewing old wrestling over your "you had to be there" comment.

It's always nice to have a fan.

 

[Makaveli31]

Still doesn't make their account of history reliable though, does it?

I'll take the word of people with degrees who have studied war over the guy that got shot at. No offense. Same as I'll take KB's years of experience reviewing old wrestling over your "you had to be there" comment.

OK , you keep doing that.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

OK , you keep doing that.

Since it's more logical, I will.

 

[Makaveli31]

Not at all like laughing about how you know more than people could EVER know, right?

Haha that was a tongue in cheek shot at someone sorry you took at LITERAL LOL

 

[klunderbunker]

Haha that was a tongue in cheek shot at someone sorry you took at LITERAL LOL

....can someone translate this for me?

 

[Makaveli31]

....can someone translate this for me?
__________________

You don't know what "tongue in cheek" means? LOL

You're referring to post where I said "I've forgotten more about wrestling than you will EVER know" THAT was a reply to someone who said any forum I start would "SUCK" it nit a LITERAL response then all you sensitive fucks got butt hurt LOL

 

[Spidey Revivey]

You call us sensitive when my veteran example triggered you.