[Official] Disco Nation

[WrestleFan78]

Wait a minute.... The Disco Inferno is still alive? And has a job? Is it freezing in hell yet? I BET it is...

 

[awesomebomb]

I love how people will always shove this rating/demographics/wrestling is a business shit down people's throats. These same people always get at other people saying, "OMFG, URE NOT INVOLVED INN TEH BIZZNESS SO STFUU, TOOOL!" Guess what? You're not in the business either! I don't see how ratings and marketability affects you. The only way that it would affect you is that if you were a shareholder in WWE (maybe WCW if they were publicly traded too), or an employee in WWE, TNA, WCW, ROH, or ECW.

It also seems like everybody is forced to kiss Vince Russo's ass. If you don't love him, but you like him/don't like him, you are labeled a 'stupid smark' or a 'sheep' and other things insulting the person's personal lives.

Glenn's posts in this forum are something to await because they are filled with humor. Just because he was Disco Inferno doesn't mean he is not intelligent. He is a lot more intelligent than all of his 'opponents' in this thread, and all of the TNA fanboys who act like they're smart to the business.

 

[lamarre2012]

Look at Raw's 3.0 and tell me they don't want more fans watching. They used to have 5's and 6's. And if those were flukes, then I would say that the 2's that Nitro got in the first year was a fluke as well. Did WCW really expect to beat Raw in the ratings?

Yes WCW did plan and expect to beat WWE in the ratings. What I'm saying they didn't expect just how profitable it actually was. wasn't that the goal of going head to head?
Of course Raw wants more people watching. But they can even grasp the idea that 5's and 6's are unrealistic to book for. But if they got them I'm sure they'd be happy taking them.
And Again, i say fluke when i talk about the entire era, not the individual episodes. You're twisting my words into something else. Maybe the word fluke is throwing you off in a negative way, How about the attitude/NWO era was serendipitous.

WCW had a huge budget, TNA doesn't. WCW had better production, WCW had a much longer history going back as far as the NWA era. WCW had huge draws such as Hogan, Savage and Flair. Does TNA have huge stars like that? And let's not forget about the DVRs, which were rare back then, as well as watching the show on the net, and many, many new channels since then. Oh, and that doesn't include the international viewers. Isn't TNA beating WWE's ratings in Australia?

WCW isn't that much different from TNA, they both started off as an alliance with the NWA.
WCW as we know it actually came to be in 1990. It was part of the NWA then pulled away from it. A lot like TNA. mmmm
and nitro had 2's for rating because wcw had been around on national tv for the past 5 years. One year less then TNA.
I don't recall Hogan or Savage being huge draws for WCW until the NWO.
LAst time I checked TNA had Sting, Kurt Angle, Kevin Nash. Those guys were big stars during the Attitude era (maybe not so much Kurt) why aren't they drawing more people now? Especially Sting.
I don't know if TNA is beating WWE in Australia, I don't live there. If it's true, good for them. They found their audience. I'm sure you've taken that out f context to fit your argument.

'Good Wrestling has worked because there was still wrestling after the 80's. If good wrestling didn't work this shit would have ended a long time ago.'
That doesn't mean it was because of good wrestling. It could have been, and probably was, because of the characters, as well as storylines.

yes but the storylines weren't there to hide the wrestling because the bookers were ashamed they were in the Pro wrestling business. They were there to enhance the emotional investment in the matches.
Wrestling was much different back then, and in a lot of ways it was better.

Dispute all you want. It's genius, and that's the story I'm sticking with. Any other booker would have done it one way, Disco did it another.

I didn't say taking real life traits was bad either. I just said that they take good qualities from someone's real life, rather than bad ones.

I think you're just giving Glenn far too much credit for a half way decent gimmick at best. if you want to call it genius fine, I wonder what you call the truly great achievements in wrestling.

I'm also not a smark. Maybe that's why you think I should have these ******ed opinions that you have.

 

[Matt Phoenix]

Isn't TNA beating WWE's ratings in Australia?

I don't know if TNA is beating WWE in Australia, I don't live there. If it's true, good for them. They found their audience. I'm sure you've taken that out f context to fit your argument.

Hey guys, dont mean to butt in in your debate but just thought I would clarify something. BTW I am on neither side, I like both TNA and WWE and will watch them both if I am at home to do so.

Yes WZ reported several months ago that TNA did indeed beat WWE in the ratings in Oz. However one major factor needs considering in this point.
Timeslot - Raw is on Wednesday at 3:30 in the arvo with the repeat 2 hours later on FOX8 2
Smackdown is on 3:30 on Friday afternoons with the repeat 2 hours later
Impact is on Saturdays at 10:00pm with the replay 2 hours later

I dont normally get home during the week until 5:45pm so I dont have time to watch raw or smackdown, and I am home on Saturday nights probably half the time therefore I would watch TNA maybe more than WWE, but it is simply due to timeslot.

Ok sorry about the interruption, carry on

 

[lamarre2012]

Are you implying that the Tank Abbott-3 Count angle wasn't a good angle? You would have to be in the minority on that one. People loved that angle. If you used browse the net in 2000, you would have noticed that even the smarks liked it!

As far as another genius idea, is TNA's Ultimate X good enough for you?

I've never actually seen a full Ultimate X match. The clips I've seen come off as contrived. very forced.
It's a ladder match without the ladder......woopie.

I'd rather have the ladder.

But of course that's just my opinion. I know you think Disco is the second coming of Christ so I guess I'll let you have your way.

 

[lamarre2012]

Hey guys, dont mean to butt in in your debate but just thought I would clarify something. BTW I am on neither side, I like both TNA and WWE and will watch them both if I am at home to do so.

Yes WZ reported several months ago that TNA did indeed beat WWE in the ratings in Oz. However one major factor needs considering in this point.
Timeslot - Raw is on Wednesday at 3:30 in the arvo with the repeat 2 hours later on FOX8 2
Smackdown is on 3:30 on Friday afternoons with the repeat 2 hours later
Impact is on Saturdays at 10:00pm with the replay 2 hours later

I dont normally get home during the week until 5:45pm so I dont have time to watch raw or smackdown, and I am home on Saturday nights probably half the time therefore I would watch TNA maybe more than WWE, but it is simply due to timeslot.

Ok sorry about the interruption, carry on

No worries sir, I appreciate the info. I was expecting something different then what hollyric was implying. But still... if they indeed have a bigger audience there, then congrats to TNA.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I've come up with a new term for some of the posters in the forums of wrestlezone.com. "Schmark." That's what you get when you combine a schmuck and a mark. What is a schmark? Someone who condescendingly posts while thinking that he actually knows more about what goes on behind the scenes in the wrestling business than I do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I not just mention that T.N.A. on average has a 6 Man Tag Team match as their Main Event (or a Main Event match) on most of their B-Show Pay Per Views? And shockingly enough, whats going to happen at Victory Road? Kurt Angle & Team 3D v. A.J. Styles, Christian Cage & Rhino. Just incase you failed math class, Disco, that would be 6 wrestlers, in what is typically called a 6-man Tag Team match. Or by T.N.A. standards, another *insert new gimmick name here* match.

So why would you say I don't know more than you.. when I clearly said before it was announced that this would happen? That means either I do know just as much as you, or you stole my idea and should be paying me money for it.

I sometimes find myself wanting to go off on a long-winded rant of a post on these guys, but then I find myself wondering why I would give them that much of my time, when one of my co-workers might read it and say, "Why the f*** do you waste your time with those imbeciles?"

I would love to see you reply to a post that doesn't end as quickly as it begins. Infact, I rarely see you reply to anything I've said with anything more than one or two sentences. Its been that way since you joined.

I've often wondered if you had the ability to write a full paragraph. So by all means, rant away.. and I shall reply back. In the forum world, thats what would be called a debate and rebuttal.

Well, I get paid by this site, but I realized I don't get paid enough to have to repeat myself and explain my points over and over, when I explain my points so simplistically that your average layperson could understand them.

That was their first mistake. Paying you.

And what exactly is a "layperson"?

Here would be a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Say Tony Romo plays a football game and doesn't throw a single pass and they run the ball every play and they lose the game 21-0 and it drops their record to 9-7 to end the season.

That would never happen. Do you even watch Football? I mean, I dispise the Cowboys but their running back is Marion Barber and if he ran every down, surely he'd score a touchdown sooner or later. You can't stop that guy every play.

The schmarks all scream, "what the hell are the cowboys doing? Not throwing a pass? Fire the coach!" Being one of the assistant coaches I explain that Romo has a 2nd degree shoulder separation and couldn't throw. "Well, why didn't you play the backup quarterback, you idiot?" Because he would have gotten a 1 million dollar roster bonus if he played another game. We're trying to save money, and besides, we finished 9-7 and didn't make the playoffs, and wouldn't have even if we won, I explain.

Would this be your "example reason" on why Sting isn't being used as much? Because you said before he was only contracted for a selective number of appearances.

So instead of paying the guy more money, in an effort to help add ratings to your show and benefit your company, you just keep him on the sidelines until your company hits rockbottom, then you stick him in the rafters and have the announcers blow their load over wondering why he suddenly decided to come back.. only to likely disappear for another couple of weeks, if not monthes?

Your typical schmark would say,"Well, you wouldn't have been 9-6 to begin with if you would've fired Russo as the coach and hired Heyman!"

Ae you mildly ******ed?

I know that could come off as offensive, and I apologize if it did, but I felt the need to ask because you just used a Football analogy in which you ended it by blurring your point. You started on a rant about the star QB of the Dallas Cowboys, and ended with saying they might have been better if they would've fired Russo and hired Heyman.

What exactly would Vince Russo of been doing, working as a Coach for the Dallas Cowboys in the first place? I'd be downright shocked if they went 9-7 to be honest. And why would the Cowboys wanna hire Heyman? Is T.O. gonna get EXTREME?!

Okay.. enough joking around.. seriously though.. sometimes I wonder if you have issues, because you don't make clear points. But you make good enough statements that as long as you have the time to do so, you can piece out what you're trying to say.

And I believe what you're getting at is, you feel people want Vince Russo gone, and replaced with Paul Heyman. Yet T.N.A. isn't going to replace Russo with Heyman, because it'd cost more money to do so, Russo would still technically be under contract so you'd still have to pay him, and T.N.A. ultimately feels since they're second best (last) in the 2 man race.. it isn't going to hurt to continue producing shit storylines. That about sum it up?

See.. my theory on this whole issue isn't with Vince Russo. Its with guys like you, having any connections and abilities to add thoughts in the backstand meetings. Russo IS a genius. He did a great job in the W.W.E., and perhaps lost a step or two.. but is still a genius, none the less.

You on the other hand, I have no clue what you do.. but after watching iMPACT! with the World X Cup matches.. I'm almost questionable on asking if you had anything to do with the invisable dog bit.. since you were wanting to have an Invisable Wrestler possibly become World Champion in W.C.W. I wouldn't put it passed you to have pushed that off on the Japanese guys.

In closing, Glenn, I honestly respect you (slightly) for what you did as a wrestler. It takes a lot to be a performer. But since you have no respect for fans, smarks, marks, or otherwise.. why should I respect you as a poster on this forum? I've done nothing to you to hurt you, or any part of your personal well being.. yet you find it within yourself to wanna mock me, merely because I give my opinions.

So why don't you try debating me, reply to me with more than one or two sentences and show me you actually can. Until then, until you earn my respect, I have no reason to continue giving you any. And until you actually explain to me, what it is you do for T.N.A.. I'll assume you're just some fluke, like Punk as a Champion, who claims to be big on a forum.. when all you really could be.. is the guy who fetchs Joe his snacks.

 

[gg inferno]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I not just mention that T.N.A. on average has a 6 Man Tag Team match as their Main Event (or a Main Event match) on most of their B-Show Pay Per Views? And shockingly enough, whats going to happen at Victory Road? Kurt Angle & Team 3D v. A.J. Styles, Christian Cage & Rhino. Just incase you failed math class, Disco, that would be 6 wrestlers, in what is typically called a 6-man Tag Team match. Or by T.N.A. standards, another *insert new gimmick name here* match.

So why would you say I don't know more than you.. when I clearly said before it was announced that this would happen? That means either I do know just as much as you, or you stole my idea and should be paying me money for it.



I would love to see you reply to a post that doesn't end as quickly as it begins. Infact, I rarely see you reply to anything I've said with anything more than one or two sentences. Its been that way since you joined.

I've often wondered if you had the ability to write a full paragraph. So by all means, rant away.. and I shall reply back. In the forum world, thats what would be called a debate and rebuttal.



That was their first mistake. Paying you.

And what exactly is a "layperson"?



That would never happen. Do you even watch Football? I mean, I dispise the Cowboys but their running back is Marion Barber and if he ran every down, surely he'd score a touchdown sooner or later. You can't stop that guy every play.



Would this be your "example reason" on why Sting isn't being used as much? Because you said before he was only contracted for a selective number of appearances.

So instead of paying the guy more money, in an effort to help add ratings to your show and benefit your company, you just keep him on the sidelines until your company hits rockbottom, then you stick him in the rafters and have the announcers blow their load over wondering why he suddenly decided to come back.. only to likely disappear for another couple of weeks, if not monthes?



Ae you mildly ******ed?

I know that could come off as offensive, and I apologize if it did, but I felt the need to ask because you just used a Football analogy in which you ended it by blurring your point. You started on a rant about the star QB of the Dallas Cowboys, and ended with saying they might have been better if they would've fired Russo and hired Heyman.

What exactly would Vince Russo of been doing, working as a Coach for the Dallas Cowboys in the first place? I'd be downright shocked if they went 9-7 to be honest. And why would the Cowboys wanna hire Heyman? Is T.O. gonna get EXTREME?!

Okay.. enough joking around.. seriously though.. sometimes I wonder if you have issues, because you don't make clear points. But you make good enough statements that as long as you have the time to do so, you can piece out what you're trying to say.

And I believe what you're getting at is, you feel people want Vince Russo gone, and replaced with Paul Heyman. Yet T.N.A. isn't going to replace Russo with Heyman, because it'd cost more money to do so, Russo would still technically be under contract so you'd still have to pay him, and T.N.A. ultimately feels since they're second best (last) in the 2 man race.. it isn't going to hurt to continue producing shit storylines. That about sum it up?

See.. my theory on this whole issue isn't with Vince Russo. Its with guys like you, having any connections and abilities to add thoughts in the backstand meetings. Russo IS a genius. He did a great job in the W.W.E., and perhaps lost a step or two.. but is still a genius, none the less.

You on the other hand, I have no clue what you do.. but after watching iMPACT! with the World X Cup matches.. I'm almost questionable on asking if you had anything to do with the invisable dog bit.. since you were wanting to have an Invisable Wrestler possibly become World Champion in W.C.W. I wouldn't put it passed you to have pushed that off on the Japanese guys.

In closing, Glenn, I honestly respect you (slightly) for what you did as a wrestler. It takes a lot to be a performer. But since you have no respect for fans, smarks, marks, or otherwise.. why should I respect you as a poster on this forum? I've done nothing to you to hurt you, or any part of your personal well being.. yet you find it within yourself to wanna mock me, merely because I give my opinions.

So why don't you try debating me, reply to me with more than one or two sentences and show me you actually can. Until then, until you earn my respect, I have no reason to continue giving you any. And until you actually explain to me, what it is you do for T.N.A.. I'll assume you're just some fluke, like Punk as a Champion, who claims to be big on a forum.. when all you really could be.. is the guy who fetchs Joe his snacks.

Why would i say that you don't know more than me? Because you don't know more than me. Indisputable. btw, I wasn't "singling" you out in my article. There's alot of guys like you that think they know more about wrestling than I do. I commend their bravery, for actually putting in print for the world to see that they think they know more than someone who has been in the business for 16 years as a writer/wrestler/producer, and not caring that anyone with an above average intelligence knows that they don't. if you want to know what I do then archive my previous posts, i'm not repeating myself. actually i just did. again. I think you might be the only person that read my article that didn't comprehend the hypothetical I was describing about the football team analogy.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Why would i say that i know more than you? Because i know more than you. Indesputable. btw, I wasn't "singling" you out in my article. There's alot of guys like you that think they know more about wrestling than I do.

*sigh* Glenn, I still don't believe I've ever once said I know more than you about the wrestling industry. If anything, I look to you to show me and tell me all the things that happen so it can give a better understanding about the business.

Instead, you reply back with misspelled words and claim you're yet smarter than I am.

As far as storylines, while I don't know everything that'll happen all the time.. I have been very above average on guessing exactly what will happen, how it'll happen, when, where and why it'll happen.

Do I claim myself equal or better than you still, because of my opinions and in turn rightful guessing? No.. why? Because even as you said, I'm not in the business, so all I do is guess and have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.

I commend their bravery, for actually putting in print for the world to see that they think they know more than someone who has been in the business for 16 years as a writer/wrestler/producer, and not caring that anyone with an above average intelligence knows that they don't.

Is this your way, once again, to try and attempt claiming to be smarter than wrestling fans.. and all, only, because you're in the business and we aren't?

I don't wish to burst your bubble, but you wouldn't be IN the business as anything note-worthy, had it not been for us.

if you want to know what I do then archive my previous posts, i'm not repeating myself. actually i just did. again.

This is why I see you as funny. You get paid by the site to more or less do whatever it is you do. Write I would assume, apparently.. I think.

And yet originally they started a section on this very forum for you and a couple others to come talk with the fans and answer all our questions, regardless how unoriginal or repetitive they might be. So in a sense.. you were hired, or at least asked to come here and reply to us, giving us the best answers you could.. over and over if you had to.

And now, after a couple monthes, you suddenly refuse and demand people archive your posts? I'm not looking through your posts, because I'm not wanting to waste that much time reading what will likely end up being nothing.

No offense, but again.. the whole point to me even talking to you, is to attempt getting you to open up and discuss something. Hell, pick a topic and debate it with me.. I don't care if you win, I just want to see you have the ability to do something.

Thank You.. for replying at least more so than normal.

 

[WrestleFan78]

TheBigOneWill is my new hero I think... Good job dude...

 

[gg inferno]

*sigh* Glenn, I still don't believe I've ever once said I know more than you about the wrestling industry. If anything, I look to you to show me and tell me all the things that happen so it can give a better understanding about the business.

Instead, you reply back with misspelled words and claim you're yet smarter than I am.

As far as storylines, while I don't know everything that'll happen all the time.. I have been very above average on guessing exactly what will happen, how it'll happen, when, where and why it'll happen.

Do I claim myself equal or better than you still, because of my opinions and in turn rightful guessing? No.. why? Because even as you said, I'm not in the business, so all I do is guess and have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.



Is this your way, once again, to try and attempt claiming to be smarter than wrestling fans.. and all, only, because you're in the business and we aren't?

I don't wish to burst your bubble, but you wouldn't be IN the business as anything note-worthy, had it not been for us.



This is why I see you as funny. You get paid by the site to more or less do whatever it is you do. Write I would assume, apparently.. I think.

And yet originally they started a section on this very forum for you and a couple others to come talk with the fans and answer all our questions, regardless how unoriginal or repetitive they might be. So in a sense.. you were hired, or at least asked to come here and reply to us, giving us the best answers you could.. over and over if you had to.

And now, after a couple monthes, you suddenly refuse and demand people archive your posts? I'm not looking through your posts, because I'm not wanting to waste that much time reading what will likely end up being nothing.

No offense, but again.. the whole point to me even talking to you, is to attempt getting you to open up and discuss something. Hell, pick a topic and debate it with me.. I don't care if you win, I just want to see you have the ability to do something.

Thank You.. for replying at least more so than normal.

i still am not quite sure what it is exactly you want to debate. to put a stamp on the fact that you think you know so much but you don't, but you act like you do and condescendingly post as such, i was not hired to come in here and answer ALL the questions over and over if i have to. have you seen my contract? oh! that's right. I don't have one. I post in the froums a couple times a week, at my discretion, and i write articles. didn't this whole discussion start when you were asking why storm and roode were placed in a "meaningless" tag team? and i answered it. what do you want to debate? you come in here like your typical message board poster, and blurt out your personal ideas of how booking should go and expect me to treat it as gospel. 3,290 posts?? it's obvious that your wrestling knowledge is based on what you read on the internet. and you want to debate me? that's funny. i am in the business, and i look at the internet and see it overstuffed with misinformation, i come onto the message boards every once in awhile to correct it, because i know the facts, and i'm met with scorn by about 70% of the posters who can't believe that their knowledge comes from alot of stuff that is pure, 100% bullshit. you obviously have empowered yourself with an air of authority since you post so much, but honestly, i can tell that your misinformed, 3290 posts provided as sufficient evidence.

 

[gg inferno]

I cant believe how some of you are acting towards Glen in this thread. Your basically telling him what you think TNA should do, and what he should do with his job!

The fact of the matter is Glen has been in the business for SO LONG, whereas even the most die-hard fan on here has, at best, shook hands and had an autograph with a Wrestler or two. Glen actually worked with these people. He actually knows how the mood is behind the curtain and what happens in the meetings before a taping of a Pay Per View.

People are drawing comparisons onto the TNA of today, and WCW of 1996. The major differences are in 1996 you had the WWF and WCW. Wrestling started a boom period around that time.

Fast forward 12 Years, and you have the boom period slumping, thanks largely to Vince McMahon, and wrestling as a whole, in turmoil. I mean, all you need to do is watch this weeks WWE RAW to see how desperate things have got for the Biggest company in the world of Wrestling, drawing a 3.3 Rating.

So, a 1.2 Rating for TNA isnt the best, is it not? As someone mentioned before, RAW used to get 6's and 7's in the ratings. WCW used to get 2's and 3's? Blame the end of the boom period, and RAW's rating has halved. Half WCW's ratings, and you get 1's and 1.5's. The exact rating TNA is getting at this moment in time! Why can nobody see this?

TNA is in a good shape at the moment, and is pulling in a rating to be expected from the current state of affairs in wrestling today. WWE arent getting great ratings, so why slag off TNA's form?!

I have to disagree with people saying that Disco Inferno wasnt entertaining. Okay, he wasnt main event. He wasnt a name you'd pay top dollar to see, but he was in that card. And his gimmick was something unique. He made me laugh, especially in the "Hip Hop Inferno" days.

It just amazes me that people who sit and watch a show on a Monday, Thursday, Friday or whenever your show is on, can argue with someone who helps MAKE THAT SHOW WHAT IT IS!!!

It makes people look jealous, or envious of Glen, because he is employed by a massive Wrestling Company, and producing a product which is a major player. And the fact that he gets paid to do many "Arm Chair Booker's" dream job, pisses them off.

He knows a lot more about this business than we do. Especially when the Internet is available for all the wrestling fans to gossip and spread rumors, and spoilers to shows. The internet fills wrestling fans brains with shit. Maybe thats why there was such a massive boom back in the day. No one knows, but he lived it. We paid his salary, but he actually lived that experience, and it seems some cant get over that fact.

Now, I would just like to ask Glen a Q I thought of yesterday.

I remember in a Video of Goldberg's, One of the WCW Superstar Series on Warner Home Video, Goldberg says something about you. I cant remember the exact words of it, but I think he was saying something about your gimmick being an insult to the sport or whatever.

I just wanted to know what your relationship was like with Goldberg, if there was any, and what were your thoughts on the comment once you saw the Video of what he said?

i've known goldberg since we went to college together. almost 18 years. we get along. the comment didn't bother me. what did bother me was that schmuck jason hervey and his crew produced the video, and they spelled my name "disco fever." i approached them about it, and in typical fashion, everybody blamed everyone else for the mistake.

 

[psykohurricane]

same thing here, has much as i hate Disco's opinion and what he was as a character during is wrestling career, i got to agree with him on this. Let'S face it, there are a lot of wrestling fans that post on this board and think they know more then the actual people that are working for TNA or WWE. The true of the matter is that unless you have worked in the wrestling buisness, you don't know better then a guy that has been in the wrestling buiness like Disco. My personnal belief is that even if you go on wrestling site every day, read everything on those site and then come post 1 million time over the a period of a year or 2, you still don't know more about how to book a wrestling show then somebody that has experience in that field and you sure don't know more about the wrestling buisness then somebody that actually work in the buisness.

 

[hollyric]

Yes WCW did plan and expect to beat WWE in the ratings. What I'm saying they didn't expect just how profitable it actually was. wasn't that the goal of going head to head?
Of course Raw wants more people watching. But they can even grasp the idea that 5's and 6's are unrealistic to book for. But if they got them I'm sure they'd be happy taking them.
And Again, i say fluke when i talk about the entire era, not the individual episodes. You're twisting my words into something else. Maybe the word fluke is throwing you off in a negative way, How about the attitude/NWO era was serendipitous.

What about 4's? Raw used to average 4.0 a couple of years ago and now they're doing 3's. Raw's ratings are down, SD is getting kicked off CW network, ECW is doing lower ratings then ever, and throughout all this, you expect TNA to keep going up? That's a pretty dumb expectation.

And let me copy and paste of your posts while changing some words:

Also Stop trying to be everything to everyone who watches WWE.
Not everybody likes TNA or will like it.
Fuck them.
How about taking care of the people that do like it.

Before WCW was sold, they were still doing 2's on their Nitros. Where did they go after it was sold? They stopped watching wrestling, which means they were WCW fans and only WCW fans. Just imagine how many WWE fans are only WWE fans and will never watch TNA, no matter what.

WCW isn't that much different from TNA, they both started off as an alliance with the NWA.
WCW as we know it actually came to be in 1990. It was part of the NWA then pulled away from it. A lot like TNA. mmmm
and nitro had 2's for rating because wcw had been around on national tv for the past 5 years. One year less then TNA.
I don't recall Hogan or Savage being huge draws for WCW until the NWO.
LAst time I checked TNA had Sting, Kurt Angle, Kevin Nash. Those guys were big stars during the Attitude era (maybe not so much Kurt) why aren't they drawing more people now? Especially Sting.
I don't know if TNA is beating WWE in Australia, I don't live there. If it's true, good for them. They found their audience. I'm sure you've taken that out f context to fit your argument.

So, you're saying that a wrestling show on TV should be in the 2's, because Nitro was in the 2's, never mind that it was many years ago, technology changed since then, more channels appeared and wrestling was still interesting?

The NWA basically turned into WCW. All of the NWA fans turned into WCW fans. As far as TNA is concerned, NWA was just an abstract name, it didn't mean anything. Nash and Sting weren't that big of draws, at least not as much as Hogan and Savage. And WCW buyrates in 1994 and 1995 would say they were draws.

yes but the storylines weren't there to hide the wrestling because the bookers were ashamed they were in the Pro wrestling business. They were there to enhance the emotional investment in the matches.
Wrestling was much different back then, and in a lot of ways it was better.

Man, stop writing in riddles. Be more specific and give examples. What storylines hid the wrestling? There was always wrestling, every PPV has wrestling. What are you talking about?

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

i've known goldberg since we went to college together. almost 18 years. we get along. the comment didn't bother me. what did bother me was that schmuck jason hervey and his crew produced the video, and they spelled my name "disco fever." i approached them about it, and in typical fashion, everybody blamed everyone else for the mistake.

Oh yeah! I remember seeing that. I couldnt understand why they had got it wrong, but being quite young back then, I just let it be, and thought they had made a mistake.

I guess Goldberg was just "in-character" when he said that.

The people who made them video's werent very professional, to be honest, even though I dont know them, nor have I met them.

There's a moment before Sting is about to speak on his Second Superstar Video, where you can quite clearly hear a guy say "Action." Bit unprofessional in my eyes.

it's obvious that your wrestling knowledge is based on what you read on the internet. and you want to debate me? that's funny. i am in the business, and i look at the internet and see it overstuffed with misinformation, i come onto the message boards every once in awhile to correct it, because i know the facts, and i'm met with scorn by about 70% of the posters who can't believe that their knowledge comes from alot of stuff that is pure, 100% bullshit.

This is what i was saying in my last post. Many people come to the internet, and see things which are just too amazing (good or bad) to be true, and the net is killing the business with all the Spoilers, "Insider" Reports and "Leaks" of information, and people take this as the truth, and preach it further, to the point where it becomes stupidly popular.

Im all for wrestlers and people writing Blogs, or having a MySpace page, or whatever, in which you can freely express your views on things like Last weeks WWE TV Program, or the current storylines somewhere. hell, to just type about American Gladiators for 10 pages is fine. But with people claiming to have insider knowledge on things, and spreading it as rumors really pisses me off.

I have a quick chuckle to myself every now and again, reading through the Wrestling "Headlines" on sites, thinking "What is the point?"

Disco is right when he says the 'net isnt helping the business. Its putting the knife in deeper with all the bull crap about the place. And then when Wrestling is as low as it can go, the Internet people will still go on a mad rampage and blame something completely innocent. Itll be something like "TNA killed Wrestling, by having weird matches and storylines." Whereas in actual fact, the WWE and internet combined is killing this business, with constant bull shit and crap shows.

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

same thing here, has much as i hate Disco's opinion and what he was as a character during is wrestling career, i got to agree with him on this. Let'S face it, there are a lot of wrestling fans that post on this board and think they know more then the actual people that are working for TNA or WWE. The true of the matter is that unless you have worked in the wrestling business, you don't know better then a guy that has been in the wrestling business like Disco. My personal belief is that even if you go on wrestling site every day, read everything on those site and then come post 1 million time over the a period of a year or 2, you still don't know more about how to book a wrestling show then somebody that has experience in that field and you sure don't know more about the wrestling business then somebody that actually work in the business.

We probably know about 5% of what happens in Wrestling, and thats being generous.

Everything in that board room, and behind that curtain is there for a reason.

We know what we see on Television. Thats the only true thing we can see about Wrestling... even if it is scripted. The rest is just to be taken very, VERY lightly... especially if it has a 'www.' before the story or as a source.

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

What about 4's? Raw used to average 4.0 a couple of years ago and now they're doing 3's. Raw's ratings are down, SD is getting kicked off CW network, ECW is doing lower ratings then ever, and throughout all this, you expect TNA to keep going up? That's a pretty dumb expectation.

Before WCW was sold, they were still doing 2's on their Nitros. Where did they go after it was sold?

Back in the day, you had Hogan. Eat Vitamins, says prayers, ultimate comic book superhero good guy. He turned heel, and the Boom began. Money flooded through the fingers of Wrestling in general. Wrestling was Red Hot, all the way through, Id say, until 2000. Then Hogan started getting stale, people like Savage were doing odd appearances. Nash booked himself to the Mountain Top, and Sting was left Mid-Carding.

Blame who you like on this one, but, what it all boils down to is the over-usage of the Heel/Face turn, and the fact that Wrestling doesnt have a Poster Child with the Drawing power of Hulk Hogan. Now we see the true test of Pro-Wrestling, in which we have no one to be synonymous with Wrestling for the 21st Century, because neither WCW or the WWE made one. The continued to use Hogan, and didnt think they would need a major name.

Thats my opinion on why the WWE push John Cena so hard. Cena just isnt good enough, and his Gimmick is just too weak.

Without that, I think TNA is doing great. WWE should be doing better, and given the period between 2002-present, WWE has been, well, Shit. No competition means you dont have to try very hard, and I can bet that some wrestling fans though, "why do I still watch this? Its gone really crap." So to get the ratings back, Vince and WWE will decide to have Kane have sex with dead bodies.

People can slag off Shark Boy and Super Eric. Even the Invisible Man Idea... no single pro-wrestling fan, should be forced to watch the crap that WWE has filled the TV Screens with over the past 6 Years.

So, to summarize;

• Digital Video Recorders. They are all over the show. I have one, for crying out loud. (They arent counted in Ratings.)
  No Major Name, household, when you think "21st Century Wrestling" you think [insert name here].
  The Internet filling your average fan with nonsense about the Business and the wrestlers themselves.
  The shocking writing the WWE has done over the past 6 Years.

 

[lamarre2012]

The NWA basically turned into WCW. All of the NWA fans turned into WCW fans. As far as TNA is concerned, NWA was just an abstract name, it didn't mean anything. Nash and Sting weren't that big of draws, at least not as much as Hogan and Savage. And WCW buyrates in 1994 and 1995 would say they were draws.

The NWA did not turn into WCW. NWA isn't like a wcw or a wwe. It's a organization that oversees for the most part smaller independent promotions.
WCW was a member of NWA. It was a national promotion unlike some of the other smaller members. ECW was a member of the NWA until 1994 which was 3 years after WCW left NWA.

So by your statement

The NWA basically turned into WCW

ECW was a part of WCW?

Think about it, if you were a big star in the 80's and weren't in the WWF chances are you were in a independent promotion that was a part of the NWA. So when WCW became prominent they attracted all those big stars. Thta's why it might seem like NWA turned into WCW.

And as far as NWA being abstract and not mean anything, I think a lot of people in NWA and TNA would beg to differ. The NWA name brought credibility to a new Wrestling promotion (TNA). Remember what the show started out as NWA: Total Non-Stop Action.

I would beg to differ that Sting and Nash weren't big draws. Jesus Sting was like the Biggest Face going in WCW for like a year without even wrestling. And they botched that, but that's besides the point.

I think in a time were smackdown is getting 2's (and them leaving CW is mutual I believe) it's not so far fetched that TNA should also be getting the same ratings. Especially with "geniuses" they have behind the scenes.
And they do have stars.
When they're roughly doing the same rating as ECW (and that's a terrible show) that has to be underwhelming.

 

[SirkTheJuggalo]

Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...if only my nacho cheese would have nailed you in the head at the Gathering of the Juggalos in 2002 in Peoria, IL i would have something to make fun of you for...but since it didn't and you post usually smart and reasonable topics of discussion I have nothing to talk shit to you about. I do wanna know this, what's your personal opinion of working with ICP as wrestlers both in WCW and TNA. I felt that the ICP vs you and David Young match was very good. So what are your thoughts on the clowns? and did anyone in TNA care that when Hall came back he was wearing ICP shirts and jerseys on camera...obviously he got away with it but was anyone...displeased i guess is what i would say. = juggalo

 

[lamarre2012]

Back in the day, you had Hogan. Eat Vitamins, says prayers, ultimate comic book superhero good guy. He turned heel, and the Boom began. Money flooded through the fingers of Wrestling in general. Wrestling was Red Hot, all the way through, Id say, until 2000. Then Hogan started getting stale, people like Savage were doing odd appearances. Nash booked himself to the Mountain Top, and Sting was left Mid-Carding.

Blame who you like on this one, but, what it all boils down to is the over-usage of the Heel/Face turn, and the fact that Wrestling doesnt have a Poster Child with the Drawing power of Hulk Hogan. Now we see the true test of Pro-Wrestling, in which we have no one to be synonymous with Wrestling for the 21st Century, because neither WCW or the WWE made one. The continued to use Hogan, and didnt think they would need a major name.

Thats my opinion on why the WWE push John Cena so hard. Cena just isnt good enough, and his Gimmick is just too weak.

Without that, I think TNA is doing great. WWE should be doing better, and given the period between 2002-present, WWE has been, well, Shit. No competition means you dont have to try very hard, and I can bet that some wrestling fans though, "why do I still watch this? Its gone really crap." So to get the ratings back, Vince and WWE will decide to have Kane have sex with dead bodies.

People can slag off Shark Boy and Super Eric. Even the Invisible Man Idea... no single pro-wrestling fan, should be forced to watch the crap that WWE has filled the TV Screens with over the past 6 Years.

So, to summarize;

• Digital Video Recorders. They are all over the show. I have one, for crying out loud. (They arent counted in Ratings.)
  No Major Name, household, when you think "21st Century Wrestling" you think [insert name here].
  The Internet filling your average fan with nonsense about the Business and the wrestlers themselves.
  The shocking writing the WWE has done over the past 6 Years.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
There has been a lot of Shit on WWE in the past 20 years. But I think you picked the worst possible story that they did. The people involved in it think that kane thing was horrible. The rating went down because the wrestling boom went down. that wasn't going to last forever no matter what anybody did. But the ratings did go down so everyone has to make up reasons why. I think people got their fill of nostalgia then it got stale and they moved on. That's what pop culture does. Somethings awesome for a little while then people get sick of it and move on.

So my question to you is....Why ,if WWE serves up so much shit, do so may people watch it instead of TNA? TNA is on Spike which is very accessible it has a good timeslot. It's out there for people to watch. I don't think there are more people DVR'ing TNA then are WWE.

I don't have an answer, I'm seriously asking

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

Competition.

There was none, until most recently. And now, RAW's ratings go down, and TNA's ratings edge up, slowly.

The majority of people turning RAW off are just getting on with their lives. I dont think many (maybe a handful) have turned off WWE and watched TNA thinking "this is the wrestling I remember, with a new twist put on things."

Im not saying the WWE did it all bad. There were some good moments, which I actually enjoyed. Like, say, the Ric Flair thing over the 12 Months before he retired. Evolution was another that I marked out for. But Im afraid the bad times have overshadowed the good, because the bad ones have outnumbered the good.

The DVR thing is, again, a handful, and whether they record WWE or/and TNA isnt that big of a deal, well, not in a ratings sense, but it does show how far technology has come to accessibility of recording, watching stuff when you want, even on Demand Programming and all that.

You right about the boom. Its slowed down drastically, and I think the business is reeling from it now. But if there was an attempt to keep the momentum running, and keep people watching, it may have been different. It (the Boom period) might not have lasted forever, but it could have gone longer than it has.

Take the Invasion. That should have been every wrestling fans wet dream, with massive matches, which could have gone on for years! PPV's, Monday Night RAW or Nitro, SmackDown or Thunder, whatever, the ratings would have gone through the roof, because even the oldest Wrestling fan would have seen Goldberg vs. Steve Austin on his deathbed, and told the Grim Reaper to piss off, because he wasnt missing this match for the life of him.

It could have been so different, but me bitching about it isnt going to solve the problems. Now the Years of 1995/1996 come back into play... the rebuilding to another possible Boom period.

Id say, though, that the outlook is bleak, given there isnt someone with the Draw of Hogan to screw a company, turn his back on friends, family, employers and fans by telling them to shove it.

TNA is fresh. Its a new lease of life in a dull wrestling world. Although its got people like Sting, Steiner, Nash, who seem to be clinging onto the limelight for 5 more minutes, wrestlers like Kaz, Jay lethal, AJ Styles, even Samoa Joe, and the new things, like the 6 Sided Ring and all that. Its something good in Wrestling, which has been missing for a long time.

Right now, i can see innovation as being the only thing that Wrestling could benefit from, but Im not expecting a Boom period off it.

I did think that the Angle to TNA thing was going to start something massive, but it never happened. Whether thats because Angle isnt really that far over, or he wasnt must see in the WWE, I dont know.

Ideal scenario for Wrestling;

Vince moves aside and gives 100% control to Shane McMahon. Steph gets really annoyed at that, and Triple H isnt seen for dust because now he probably wont be the main player in WWE anymore. They divorce, Steph moves away from Wrestling. Triple H, and his lack of in-ring ability, moves to TNA with the goal of bringing Shane's new empire down with a massive bump... and making Vince think twice about his decision. (And lets face it, Triple H is so far over with the kids of the WWE for his DX Tag Team shenanigans, those kids are the future.)

Then it starts all over again. TV Wars, Pops at other promotions, and wrestlers jumping ship from one to the other, with the lure of money and revenge.

Just a financial backer for TNA, and for Vince to make the wrong move, and we have a Boom period that would be set to explode all over our faces, like the proverbial ejaculation of King Kong.

And the best thing? BOTH companies would benefit. If one is close to running out of business, then a very strategic move would be to tone down your show, so the competition can get a foothold, then start pumping the gas again, and the war is back on. Meanwhile, your grooming your future talent to be the future Hulk Hogan, Goldberg, Triple H or whatever.

Of course, this opinion is simply from an Arm Chair Wrestling Fan.

I dont pretend to know anything about this business, or whether my plan would work out, but if you want to make headlines, something like that HAS to work. I respect what people are doing now to keep Wrestling the way it is right now, and I just think a scenario like this would give the Wrestling world a big bump in the ratings, as people from the Attitude/Monday Night Wars will remember Triple H, and see that all of a sudden, he isnt the WWE's Golden Boy anymore.

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

Also, could I just say that if I was a business man, and I dont have the first clue about Wrestling as a Business (I only know what i see on TV) then Glen Gilberti would be one of the first people Id employ!

Hes worked in the ring for most of MY lifetime, and he has entertained. He now has experience in the back with TNA, and single-handedly came up with the innovation known as Ultimate X.

His experience inside and outside of the ring is an extremely valuable asset to have in your business. He can relate to the Wrestlers and can do a lot of other things on the booking side and even commentary.

He deserves a lot more credit than he is actually getting in this forum.

 

[hollyric]

The NWA did not turn into WCW. NWA isn't like a wcw or a wwe. It's a organization that oversees for the most part smaller independent promotions.
WCW was a member of NWA. It was a national promotion unlike some of the other smaller members. ECW was a member of the NWA until 1994 which was 3 years after WCW left NWA.
Think about it, if you were a big star in the 80's and weren't in the WWF chances are you were in a independent promotion that was a part of the NWA. So when WCW became prominent they attracted all those big stars. Thta's why it might seem like NWA turned into WCW.

We are talking about the viewers, the fans, not how the NWA system worked. Every fan who watched the NWA in 80's was then watching WCW in the 90's. So, it was the same audience in the NWA, when they "started" in 1990.

And as far as NWA being abstract and not mean anything, I think a lot of people in NWA and TNA would beg to differ. The NWA name brought credibility to a new Wrestling promotion (TNA). Remember what the show started out as NWA: Total Non-Stop Action.

I would strongly doubt that people watched TNA because of the NWA name, especially in 2002. I think there are a lot of people that thought the NWA name was a copy of the nWo.

I would beg to differ that Sting and Nash weren't big draws. Jesus Sting was like the Biggest Face going in WCW for like a year without even wrestling. And they botched that, but that's besides the point.

Sting was the biggest face for a year, then his pop diminished. Hogan was always over in the WWE. Fans, like myself, wanted to see Hogan and Savage have one more run, just like the fans are screaming to have The Rock come back. I don't think anybody was asking for Sting or Nash, although they are good in TNA.

I think in a time were smackdown is getting 2's (and them leaving CW is mutual I believe) it's not so far fetched that TNA should also be getting the same ratings. Especially with "geniuses" they have behind the scenes.
And they do have stars.
When they're roughly doing the same rating as ECW (and that's a terrible show) that has to be underwhelming.

Yes, it is far fetched. Smackdown didn't start at 1.0 and then doubled their ratings a couple of years later. They started in the 4's and gradually decreased. And Smackdown is pretty terrible too.

So my question to you is....Why ,if WWE serves up so much shit, do so may people watch it instead of TNA? TNA is on Spike which is very accessible it has a good timeslot. It's out there for people to watch. I don't think there are more people DVR'ing TNA then are WWE.

First, I think most WWE fans like what they see. And second, if they didn't like it, they just would not watch wrestling at all. To some, if not most, of the WWE fans, they think that the WWE is all of wrestling. If WWE is bad, then all of wrestling is bad.

 

[lamarre2012]

I would strongly doubt that people watched TNA because of the NWA name, especially in 2002. I think there are a lot of people that thought the NWA name was a copy of the nWo.

you are completely missing the point. But whatever.

Please Glenn if you read this at least agree with me on this point.

There was thought behind originally being a part of the NWA

 

[TheOneBigWill]

i still am not quite sure what it is exactly you want to debate.

Anything, everything.

to put a stamp on the fact that you think you know so much but you don't, but you act like you do and condescendingly post as such, i was not hired to come in here and answer ALL the questions over and over if i have to.

Once again you attempt saying all I'm doing is posting in a condescending manner, when the fact is.. I'm merely posting my opinions of the subject. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yet you, someone who's been in the business (what'd you say it was, some odd 16 yrs.) believes they're almost God-like to wrestling fans.

You know what you remind me of? A child who's Father worked in a candy shop. Who went to school and told all the other children what candy was the best and worst, and when any other child stepped up and said I've tasted better/worst than those.. the child who's Father worked in the shop refused to believe the other child's opinion, all because he felt he was right since his Father worked there, and the other child's didn't.

Do the world a favor, take the knowledge you have as someone who's been in the business, and explain so we can learn from it. But don't presume to assume you know everything and we know nothing. Wrestling fans have evolved from believing everything you put in front of us, to making you work harder to get us to believe anything at all. Why? Because we have the ability to see almost, if not just as much, as you do.. from backstage, dispite being there ourselves.

have you seen my contract? oh! that's right. I don't have one.

Thankfully it won't come as a complete shock when they finally get tired of you and release you then.

I post in the froums a couple times a week, at my discretion, and i write articles. didn't this whole discussion start when you were asking why storm and roode were placed in a "meaningless" tag team? and i answered it. what do you want to debate?

Lets debate that then. Why do you feel I should see the Tag Team of Robert Roode and James Storm as anything other than a product of slapping two talented guys together, for no other reason than..

A.) They need a new Tag Team, to look like a threat.
B.) To get T.N.A.'s Tag Team division from one b-show p.p.v. to the next.

As I said, Storm & Roode have eclipsed all they could in the Tag Team division. Storm & Roode being together are like a lesser accomplished version of pairing the likes of Booker T. & Christian. (both multiple time Tag Team Champions, but no longer need to be in that division)

T.N.A. is merely mismanaging (in my opinion) the talent of Roode and Storm, all because they want to focus harder on allowing Matt Morgan (Cornette's Blue Chipper) more Main Event opportunity. Or focus harder on letting guys like Christian & Rhino, who really could reform in the Tag Team division for a while.. continue to stay in both Tag Team and Single's feuds, while also holding down two Main Event spots.

T.N.A. continues to randomly push Abyss whenever they feel the need to let one of their own rise to the top over a former W.W.E. made Superstar.. yet they do nothing more with Roode or Storm, then feud them with Eric Young. Why? What purpose does that serve? Comedy?! Do Storm & Roode strike T.N.A. Management as a comic duo only??

Roode was red hot from defeating Jeff Jarrett in one of Jarrett's final matches, then having a great feud (that went just a bit too long) with Booker T. From there, what have you done with him, to continue pushing his Main Event status? King of the Mountain, right? But where did that lead him.. back to step one, in the Tag Team division?

James Storm was rising quickly to the top, and his popularity with the fans was picking up. The guy is unique and a very odd mix of Steve Austin, J.B.L. and who knows who else.. he had a feud building with Sting, and bam.. sudden, nothing. Yet Sting is once again back in the rafters.. and looking down upon who.. Joe & Nash? Tell me Sting isn't going to attempt regaining the T.N.A. Championship. Joe v. Sting? PLEASE.

you come in here like your typical message board poster, and blurt out your personal ideas of how booking should go and expect me to treat it as gospel. 3,290 posts?? it's obvious that your wrestling knowledge is based on what you read on the internet.

Or its based on what I've watched. Because unlike the talent and company workers.. the fans actually watch the product thats being shown. Do you literally even watch iMPACT! I mean, you can barely reply with anything more than a handful of sentences.. which leads me to believe you have a short attention span.. so how could you sit for 2 hours, and retain all of whats happened?

I gain my opinion, not just what gets "rumored" (since thats what this site is) but mainly from what I see, and what I've learned from seeing over the course of 15-16 years. Because like you, I've been "involved" with wrestling for that long.

and you want to debate me? that's funny. i am in the business, and i look at the internet and see it overstuffed with misinformation, i come onto the message boards every once in awhile to correct it, because i know the facts, and i'm met with scorn by about 70% of the posters who can't believe that their knowledge comes from alot of stuff that is pure, 100% bullshit.

If the internet is over-stuffed with misinformation, then why is over half of whats reported typically true?

I think you're a blind hopeful, sent by T.N.A. to try and discredit wrestling rumor sites, and its forum members, into thinking that what you read on the internet is more false than accurate. When the fact is, its likely very true, and wrestling companies have to constantly change their storylines repeatedly just to keep one step ahead of the vicious rumor sites that threaten and hurt the company.

Hey, I fully agree. Rumor sites destroy the mystique of the Wrestling business, because if "I" read a rumor that says "Samoa Joe is guaranteed to retain over Booker T. at Victory Road." Then that ruins the Main Event for me, because I might blindfully like to go into that event thinking Booker might have a shot in hell, since its his hometown.

But the fact is, with the exception of a few, most of whats reported actually ends up being true.

you obviously have empowered yourself with an air of authority since you post so much, but honestly, i can tell that your misinformed, 3290 posts provided as sufficient evidence.

Glenn, I've amassed 3,290 some odd posts because I've collectively discussed every issue there could possibly be to discuss on this forum. Wrestling, Sports, Movies, Music, Games, General Events, and anything else you could think of.

I didn't post 3,290 some odd posts of bullshit all the way.. I posted my opinion, which anyone is entitled to take it or leave it. You merely wanna see a large number and attack it, as thats the only thing you can logically grab ahold of, to save your own ass.

The point is, regardless if my post count was 4,000 or 10. I've earned what it is, because I've been on this forum long enough to amass that amount. I've been around long enough to debate, discuss and give my general opinion on everything thats been asked, or is currently being asked.

It doesn't make me wrong, if anything, because I'm in the top branch of posters on this site.. it makes me rather good, because that means I've been around long enough to the point that what I say, people read and take seriously.. which is more than I can say, for the views your articles receive.