Pledge of the IWC

[d_henderson1810]

Here is how to know if you fit into the 10% of the IWC that Eric Bischoff talks about. I have actually come across the pledge that a member must make to be considered part of the IWC.

I will quote it for you.

I, as an aspiring member of the IWC pledge:-

(a) to be completely negative about wrestling today, and bitch and moan about how it was better in the old days (specifically 1997-99). I promise to never say that anything in wrestling is better today than the "Attitude Era".

(b) to give total devotion to Legends such as "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and the Rock, forgetting that one walked out on us constantly, and liked to get violent with women, and the other claims to be for the "people" and then left to go and feather his nest by letting the "people" have to see him only on the big screen.

(c) to criticise John Cena at every opportunity, to consider him a cancer on wrestling, blame him for all the ills of the industry, and say that he is too much of a "Superman", and only having a limited moveset and appealing to dumb children (forgetting that I was a kid once, and didn't seem to have a problem watching "Hulk Hogan's Rock N' Wrestling" cartoon on Saturday morning, wearing my Hulkamania pyjamas, under my Hulkamania quilt, hugging my George "The Animal" Steele soft toy, dancing along to "Grab Them Cakes" with the Junkyard Dog, and sucking on my Hulk Hogan ice-cream bar).

(d) to complain about how the title picture gets boring with Cena and Orton always holding the title, and bleat about wanting a new face as champion, except if it is Sheamus, or Miz, or John Morrison, or Jack Swagger, or Kofi Kingston, or R-Truth etc.

(e) to say that, the hotter the diva, the worse in-ring performer she must be. To put down and bag any hot diva, because those bitches dare to look like the same types of girls who reject me constantly.I will instead commend less attractive divas, and say how they are world-beaters (such as Beth Phoenix, Natalya and Kharma). I mean, not only can she wrestle, but I bet that Natalya has a good personality as well.

(f) to bag TNA at any and every opportunity. To bag Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff for forming a faction, forgetting the fact that I tuned in each week to see what the NWO would get up to next. To also say how ex-WWE people have sold their soul for going to TNA, and that they are holding back the non-descript such as A.J. Styles and the Motor City Machine Guns. To vilify Kurt Angle and the Hardys, forgetting that I used to get hard-ons for Angle in WWE, and didn't mind Matt and Jeff near killing themselves for my amusement in TLC matches.

(g) to bag wrestlers using Youtube or Twitter to air their thoughts, such as the Hardys.(How dare Matt and Jeff have their own thoughts on things). But it is okay if your name is Zack Ryder. Then you're cool if you use modern technology.

(h) to crown someone a "future superstar" ONLY if they can talk on a mike, regardless of their wrestling ability, and that anyone who can't cut a promo on a regular basis, or doesn't have the charisma of the Rock, or Barack Obama, cannot be a superstar. I won't stand for it. To proclaim that no wrestler can ever be WWE or World Champion, unless they give a weekly promo, unless you're Masked Kane, Chris Benoit, Great Khali, Umaga, Andre The Giant, Bret Hart etc.

(i) must claim to be "smart" because I am one of fifty people on earth who know that ROH exists, and know every superstar by name, and think that it is a conspiracy (C-O-N-spiracy) that it is not the biggest wrestling company on earth.

(j) to say that I don't watch WWE or TNA PPV's for years, but somehow know how bad one was, because I just happened to walk past a bar that was showing it for free, and accidentally found myself inside watching it. But I will never watch another one. Then the next month......

(k) to love superstars like "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and C.M. Punk, who stand up to their boss, so I can live vicariously through them and think what I can do to my supervisor who makes me clean floors at my job at Seven-Eleven.

(l) to blame Vince Russo for everything (when I'm not blaming Cena), and will say that he never did anything good for wrestling. I will not even acknowledge his contribution as head of WWF/E during the "Attitude Era". I mean, the words and stories that Austin and McMahon found themselves in each week must of just appeared miraculously on the pages by themselves.

I promise to do the above, and if I fail to live up to these expectations, will be expelled from the IWC, and be forced to be a lover of wrestling instead, and a normal functional member of society.

Sign below,

 

[Rayne]

IWC is what people on professional wrestling message boards like to call other people on professional wrestling message boards who disagree with them. It stands for "Internet Wrestling Community", which means everyone who's looked up professional wrestling on the internet, but is now used as shorthand to describe whoever you happen to be arguing with as an idiot who only thinks he knows what really happens in professional wrestling.

See: "10%er"

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

Thanks for saying that Rayne, as I had no idea what the IWC was all about. Now what if you post stuff in a thread does stating your opinion make you a member of the IWC? I often try not to bash a wrestler even though it has happened in the past am I part of this IWC? I try not to criticize wrestling just understand it and I also try to avoid threads that are not of my interest as I am not anywhere near a know-it-all about wrestling or business.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

what is the IWC?

Iranian Warrior Coalition. This is a front for Shiite Muslims to recruit young men and women to commit terrorist acts on Western Society. One you take the pledge they kidnap you in your sleep and brain wash you. You have no legal recourse since you took the IWC pledge.

Or this could be just a bitter poster who just likes to generalize a group of people because some posters have strong opinions that he may or may not share. It sounds like battling smugness with super smugness.

 

[poppycock]

The IWC does not exist unless you want it to. I do not see myself as part of any IWC in any case. I am interested in pro wrestling so I go on this forum to find out information and see other peoples views/opinions, the same as when I go online to read the news/current events relating to Nirvana or any other favourite bands of mine. I go online to find recipes for food, visit websites relating to my interests hobbies and use websites to advertise my band and put up songs. The only one of these I see myself as being part of something is the last one..the rest is just me using the internet to read, comment on, be informed about things that interest me. I guess some people would see this as a internet community but not I. It's just a really fucking cool website dedicated to something I like. A lot of know it alls on here but also a lot of nice posters with good, interesting things to say. I try to avoid all the moaning, definitely avoid/ignore the petty comments and hair splitting posters. It's fun, I am not a wrestler or have never worked in wrestling so all I can do is give my opinions as a viewer and fan of the sport, hopefully without sounding pretentious like some. The majority here are as far as I am aware generally nice people who are here for the same reasons.

 

[d_henderson1810]

To the top ten percent of the IWC, I found an event for you to attend:-

THE FIRST ANNUAL IWC FORUM
(Subject:- If it ain't ROH, it sucks, or "How Vince McMahon ruined the wrestling industry).

Ever pretended to be wrestling fan, but actually hate it, and are embarrassed to admit you watch it, this forum is for you!

Guest speakers:-

Mark Madden
Jim Cornette
Kevin Kelly

and special guest "The Ultimate Warrior", speaking on the subject "How I am morally superior to professional wrestling".

SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY BILL "THE WRESTLING INDUSTRY IS BENEATH ME!" GOLDBERG!

You will be taught workshops in:-

hating wrestling
hating John Cena
hating divas
hating today's PG wrestling
hating everything else about the sport, if it comes from the two most weel-known companies in wrestling (WWE and TNA).
(Bush leagues and pool hall wrestling are exempt).

Also, the workshop on "How I have outgrown wrestling!"

We will teach it all at this three day workshop.

At this IWC forum, you will come away knowing as much about wrestling as Paul Heyman does about financial management.

Remember our motto:-
"IF IT ISN'T ROH, IT SUCKS!"

 

[Rayne]

Thanks for saying that Rayne, as I had no idea what the IWC was all about. Now what if you post stuff in a thread does stating your opinion make you a member of the IWC? I often try not to bash a wrestler even though it has happened in the past am I part of this IWC? I try not to criticize wrestling just understand it and I also try to avoid threads that are not of my interest as I am not anywhere near a know-it-all about wrestling or business.

The key here is to understand that the IWC is a meaningless term, especially when used by someone on a professional wrestling message board on the internet. Generally, when people complain about "the IWC", they're complaining about people who don't like what they're seeing on television and choose to discuss it. As you can see from the original poster, this often has any number of implied negative statements added to it; for instance, that "IWC" members only watch ROH, and always think Vince McMahon is an idiot.

People bitch about "the IWC" because it is far easier to attack a set of opinions that you write for a non-existent adversary, than it is to examine the opinions of whoever you're talking with and challenge the merits of that.

If you'd like an excellent example from elsewhere in society, think of how it's in vogue right now to call people "socialists". Most people using it don't know what socialism means. They aren't at all interested in learning about socialism. But it's a buzz word, perceived as a negative, that can be thrown at their opponents to attack them without ever having to actually examine their positions.

The term "10%er" is often used in the same way. The term comes from a wonderful piece of public relations spin from Eric Bischoff. After a public tirade where he tore apart "the 10% of wrestling fans who use the internet", there was a localized shitstorm on professional message boards across the internet. He went on a rebranding campaign, even giving an interview to Chris Cash, where he said what he really meant was "the 10% of fans on the internet who are never satisfied", or, in other words, the people on the internet who disagree with the direction he's taken TNA/IW in. Now, anytime someone doesn't like the kind of wrestling you like, you can call them a "10%er", without having to explain what you mean or even understanding the genesis of the term.

I laugh my ass off whenever I hear someone on these boards call someone else a 10%er. It's the ultimate art-imitates-life-imitates-art-imitates-life: Someone criticizing someone else for being smarky by showing they can be smarkier.

Don't worry about the terms too much. They are merely strawman phrases for people who aren't smart enough to do any better with their arguments.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

The key here is to understand that the IWC is a meaningless term, especially when used by someone on a professional wrestling message board on the internet. Generally, when people complain about "the IWC", they're complaining about people who don't like what they're seeing on television and choose to discuss it. As you can see from the original poster, this often has any number of implied negative statements added to it; for instance, that "IWC" members only watch ROH, and always think Vince McMahon is an idiot.

People bitch about "the IWC" because it is far easier to attack a set of opinions that you write for a non-existent adversary, than it is to examine the opinions of whoever you're talking with and challenge the merits of that.

If you'd like an excellent example from elsewhere in society, think of how it's in vogue right now to call people "socialists". Most people using it don't know what socialism means. They aren't at all interested in learning about socialism. But it's a buzz word, perceived as a negative, that can be thrown at their opponents to attack them without ever having to actually examine their positions.

The term "10%er" is often used in the same way. The term comes from a wonderful piece of public relations spin from Eric Bischoff. After a public tirade where he tore apart "the 10% of wrestling fans who use the internet", there was a localized shitstorm on professional message boards across the internet. He went on a rebranding campaign, even giving an interview to Chris Cash, where he said what he really meant was "the 10% of fans on the internet who are never satisfied", or, in other words, the people on the internet who disagree with the direction he's taken TNA/IW in. Now, anytime someone doesn't like the kind of wrestling you like, you can call them a "10%er", without having to explain what you mean or even understanding the genesis of the term.

I laugh my ass off whenever I hear someone on these boards call someone else a 10%er. It's the ultimate art-imitates-life-imitates-art-imitates-life: Someone criticizing someone else for being smarky by showing they can be smarkier.

Don't worry about the terms too much. They are merely strawman phrases for people who aren't smart enough to do any better with their arguments.

I think I remember you for doing something last month l. The name rayne seems familiar.

I will refer back to a term I use a lot. You are insulting yourself! Man talk about low self esteem! For those who say that the IWC doesn't exist well, I have a question for you: do we use the internet? Do we discuss mainly wrestling? If so then any internet wrestling fan is a part of the IWC from YouTubers to wrestlezone posters. We do what we do best at which is bitching l. Moaning, and complaining. The whole pledge though I will admit is funny.

 

[akrassikauda]

Kudos to the OP green rep from me. Funniest post I've read in weeks because it's all true. Look I love ROH but ROH has flaws and one major flaw which is ROH will not be seen in any major tv markets especially NYC which ROH constantly says is one of there most die hard loyal fanbases. Way to treat a die hard loyal fan base ROH. UH OH! I just criticized ROH which means I know nothing about wrestling and just a WWE/TNA fanboy.

Hey I love the in ring action but I want to be entertained at the same time. So what if a guy knows 50000 moves it means nothing if he can't cut a promo to get himself over or have charisma to get the crowd excited during a match.

10%ers or Smarks whatever you crazy kids like to call yourselves today are ruining the pro wrestling experience for those who get it. Yes we all have complaints about the product but you guys go overboard without any reason then tell the rest of us and the next generation don't cheer for this or that guy because it's not real wrestling.

 

[Rayne]

Akrassikauda's post is an alpha example of what I was talking about. A poster on the internet who uses insider terms and discusses the science of how to run a promotion, while at the same time criticizing people who do that and have an opinion which doesn't agree with theirs.

Kudos to the OP green rep from me. Funniest post I've read in weeks because it's all true. Look I love ROH but ROH has flaws and one major flaw which is ROH will not be seen in any major tv markets especially NYC which ROH constantly says is one of there most die hard loyal fanbases. Way to treat a die hard loyal fan base ROH. UH OH! I just criticized ROH which means I know nothing about wrestling and just a WWE/TNA fanboy.

All IWC fans think that ROH is awesome!!! They are delusional people who can't understand the financials of why a small, niche based promotion isn't the greatest thing on television. Do you see how Akrassikauda isn't actually arguing with anyone, or responding to anyone's opinion, but telling the "IWC" what their opinions are, and then attacking those preconceived notions? This is the root of why the term "IWC" is such bullshit, because most often it is used as a strawman by people who aren't smart enough to recognize that people who discuss wrestling on the internet have a wide and diverse series of opinions. Why argue with people individually when you can just say "you're a 10%er, you must like ROH and they'll never be successful"?

He even threw in that qualifier at the end to hint that anyone who disagreed with him must disagree with his statement, and thereby be mindlessly attacking him as a fanboy. Cute!

Hey I love the in ring action but I want to be entertained at the same time. So what if a guy knows 50000 moves it means nothing if he can't cut a promo to get himself over or have charisma to get the crowd excited during a match.

If you're in the IWC, that means you don't understand the use of a promo! All IWC fans believe that technical wrestling is the only kind of wrestling that should exist. People who are arguing this here, or anywhere recently: zero. But it's ok! You can "battle internet smarks" while talking about the proper balance of promo space and wrestling content. Because you understand what a promo is, your statement attempts to imply that "the IWC" isn't as smart as you because you've told this amorphous group that they only understand technical wrestling.

This is how the "IWC" is the biggest misconception around here. It's one smark talking about people he doesn't like on the internet by showing off how he REALLY knows how things should be, and the "IWC" is stupid because they believe ____________.

10%ers or Smarks whatever you crazy kids like to call yourselves today are ruining the pro wrestling experience for those who get it. Yes we all have complaints about the product but you guys go overboard without any reason then tell the rest of us and the next generation don't cheer for this or that guy because it's not real wrestling.

The final bit here is best off. The "IWC" is ruining wrestling for people that "get it", which, we are supposed to understand by implication, is Akrassikauda. It's easy to make a group that you made up look stupid by putting ridiculous opinions in its mouth. It takes particular talent to say that you're so much better because you do the same thing.

After this post I hope no one uses the term "IWC" anymore in recognition of how stupidly it is used in arguments.

 

[H33LTurn]

Lol man I loved this, agreed with most of it. The only part I dont like is when you mention The Rock. He didnt walk out on anybody, he went to live his damn life. Hes not married to the business, he has the right to do something else if he wants to. Its selfish to badmouth him for leaving when he gave so many years of his life to the business.

 

[mlp420]

Eric Bischoff defined "10%er" as ten percent of the IWC. Ten percent is far from generalizing internet fans and even EB himself admitted he's apart of the IWC.

Is the term "10%er" a way to label someone without debating them? Damn right it is. I know ignorant posters when I see them, and I sure as hell don't want to get a headache trying to argue with them. So I put them in the "10%er" category and keep it moving.

I've been visiting these forums since I was 14 (2003) and I'm not convinced there is a wide varying range of opinions here. All I see is the same shit, worded differently again and again. So why not address these "IWC" opinions in general instead of going person by person?

 

[Rayne]

Eric Bischoff defined "10%er" as ten percent of the IWC. Ten percent is far from generalizing internet fans and even EB himself admitted he's apart of the IWC.

Is the term "10%er" a way to label someone without debating them? Damn right it is. I know ignorant posters when I see them, and I sure as hell don't want to get a headache trying to argue with them. So I put them in the "10%er" category and keep it moving.

I've been visiting these forums since I was 14 (2003) and I'm not convinced there is a wide varying range of opinions here. All I see is the same shit, worded differently again and again. So why not address these "IWC" opinions in general instead of going person by person?

"I already know what people are going to say, so I don't have to listen to them and can tell them what they're arguing." Wow. Fantastic logic. I don't know why I ever bothered trying to make a point that instead of listening to opinions, people would just make up a very easy set of opinions to debate, tell their opponent that that's what they believe, and walk off as if they've proved something.

See, I know ignorant posters when I see them too. I consider them people who don't want to use their brains, accept the word of people who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lie professionally at face value, and insist that anyone who disagrees with them must have a set of opinions which is both easily categorized and obviously foolish on the surface. But, unlike other people on these boards who accuse me of this frequently while doing it themselves, I'm not so high and mighty in my own opinions that I insist people who disagree with me just can't get it, and so should be summarily labeled and dismissed without considering their arguments.

I can spend five minutes here and tell you that there's a lot of different opinions. I actually pay attention to what's going on around me, which is why I remember Eric Bischoff's first definition of 10%er, the one he used before going on a massive publicity campaign to change this perception: "The 10% of wrestling fans that use the internet." (The top TNA/IW guppies really hate it when you remind them of this. It doesn't fit in with the official narrative.) On these boards, as in life, there are lazy people who don't want to think, who try to reduce every confrontation into "us vs. them" terms with buzzwords and strawmen attacks. This is what the root of the "IWC" and "10%er" nonsense is; people who don't want to think, but a nice premade pallet of insults that they don't have to think about, while still being able to leave an argument pretending that they are morally superior. You're 21-22. This kind of attitude isn't too unusual in kids your age, but you're eventually going to learn that the world isn't so easy you can say "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, I'll call them a name and won't have to deal with them!"

 

[akrassikauda]

@ Rayne. I AM Better than the 10%ers because I Fucking understood the product for what it is before I was 5. Good guys bad guys cheer for who you want. Super heroes and super villains the male soap opera don't be a dick like I see now as a grown man to kids who have to put up with 10%ers at live events telling them you suck for rooting for Cena you do know this is fake right. That's the equivalent to telling them Spongebob isn't real let them get it themselves

I got it you 10%ers don't and will never get it. We the major consumers control the business not a small portion 13 years ago the people who wanted the blood and violence to end were in the minority 10% of the consumers. You should have been in these forums back then the difference between now and then we said Fuck it either watch or don't watch. Now smarks complain about the product but the only action they take is to try and ruin the experience for everyone else who just want to watch and see how everything unfolds then complain you guys complain about hotshotting storylines in the middle of a storyline, then try to pick everything apart before the second act is about to begin. "Oh he lost, he got buried" and on and on and on it's Fucking Annoying.

Then someone like you comes on forums and still tries to tell me that I put you in a certain group that I myself am in. Wrong. Once again there is the 90% group who just want to be entertained and complain later or just stop watching then there's the 10%ers who watch don't take it as it is,complain before the finish then pick on kids at live events come on forums and question those who question smarks you my friend need to come with a better song I've seen your posts and it's the same shit anyone who questions the minority and their actions is stupid and doesn't have an argument. Go pick on someone with less intelligence and who hasn't been watching the same dance called pro wrestling since 1997. Oh but people like you who are now in the minority tell people like me those were the best years right bring those days back.
I'm done with you don't even respond because I'm not going to read it peasant.

 

[Rayne]

The problem with telling people "don't bother to respond to me, I won't read it" in a public message board is that there are more readers than you and me. Putatively, this is a place where ideas are discussed. It is my goal to demonstrate that your argument is faulty, and put a stop to this "IWC" and "10%" nonsense once and for all.

@ Rayne. I AM Better than the 10%ers because I Fucking understood the product for what it is before I was 5. Good guys bad guys cheer for who you want. Super heroes and super villains the male soap opera don't be a dick like I see now as a grown man to kids who have to put up with 10%ers at live events telling them you suck for rooting for Cena you do know this is fake right. That's the equivalent to telling them Spongebob isn't real let them get it themselves

I got it you 10%ers don't and will never get it.

Again, you set up a group, tell it what it believes, and then, as a kicker, throw me inside of that group. You've never actually bothered to consider my arguments. You just yell "10%er!!! You believe this! And it's stupid!" It's a way of dismissing the opinions of other people, setting yourself up as superior, without ever reading or considering what they've had to say. NO WONDER you don't want to respond to my post and just call names instead; you don't know where to begin to disagree with it.

Then someone like you comes on forums and still tries to tell me that I put you in a certain group that I myself am in. Wrong. Once again there is the 90% group who just want to be entertained and complain later or just stop watching then there's the 10%ers who watch don't take it as it is,complain before the finish then pick on kids at live events come on forums and question those who question smarks you my friend need to come with a better song I've seen your posts and it's the same shit anyone who questions the minority and their actions is stupid and doesn't have an argument. Go pick on someone with less intelligence and who hasn't been watching the same dance called pro wrestling since 1997. Oh but people like you who are now in the minority tell people like me those were the best years right bring those days back.
I'm done with you don't even respond because I'm not going to read it peasant.

No; you don't understand that it's not an issue of your being a 'real wrestling fan' who is entertained by the right stuff. You have a passionate disagreement with people who aren't entertained by the same stuff you are. Save me all the "I'm so smart, I won't fall for this", and the "I've been watching wrestling since 1997" stuff (I've been watching it MUCH longer); you haven't even bothered to take the time to dissect the nature of your own opinions. The "10%er" term even goes to the root of that psychology, because the person using it automatically places themselves in a never-enumerated mass majority.

I'm picking on you specifically because you don't have intelligence enough to understand that you do act exactly like the people you criticize. You don't understand your reliance on false flag tactics to describe your "opponents", whose arguments you can't even identify. Grats on watching wrestling for fourteen years, but you haven't been able to figure out the most basic popular psychology tactics wrestling uses in all that time.

So, any responses based on the merits of my arguments, or are we going back to "you're a stupidhead, don't talk to me"?

 

[GrandSword]

Here is my pledge

(a) To watch all the wrestling I can get my hands on.

(b) To not mindlessy dismiss any company for any reason, be it the evil empire or an indy promotion with "no bodies" in them - just enjoy their wrestling

(c) To enjoy watching the legends in the ring as it might be one of the last times we ever see them

(d) To allow storylines to unravel before condemning them

(e) To be happy that my 'favourite" wrestler is getting tv time and not worry about if they are being "buried" or not. The fact they are on tv is cool.

(f) Try my best to just allow kayfabe to exist. If Cena wins he must be the best in the biz, if Crimson is undefeated then he must be a monster inside the ring, if AJ Styles loses he must be having a tough few months and wll bounce back...

(g) To remind those assholes who tell me it's fake how many broken necks Cena, Taz, Sabu, Edge and Angle etc. have had.

 

[d_henderson1810]

"I already know what people are going to say, so I don't have to listen to them and can tell them what they're arguing." Wow. Fantastic logic. I don't know why I ever bothered trying to make a point that instead of listening to opinions, people would just make up a very easy set of opinions to debate, tell their opponent that that's what they believe, and walk off as if they've proved something.

See, I know ignorant posters when I see them too. I consider them people who don't want to use their brains, accept the word of people who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lie professionally at face value, and insist that anyone who disagrees with them must have a set of opinions which is both easily categorized and obviously foolish on the surface. But, unlike other people on these boards who accuse me of this frequently while doing it themselves, I'm not so high and mighty in my own opinions that I insist people who disagree with me just can't get it, and so should be summarily labeled and dismissed without considering their arguments.

I can spend five minutes here and tell you that there's a lot of different opinions. I actually pay attention to what's going on around me, which is why I remember Eric Bischoff's first definition of 10%er, the one he used before going on a massive publicity campaign to change this perception: "The 10% of wrestling fans that use the internet." (The top TNA/IW guppies really hate it when you remind them of this. It doesn't fit in with the official narrative.) On these boards, as in life, there are lazy people who don't want to think, who try to reduce every confrontation into "us vs. them" terms with buzzwords and strawmen attacks. This is what the root of the "IWC" and "10%er" nonsense is; people who don't want to think, but a nice premade pallet of insults that they don't have to think about, while still being able to leave an argument pretending that they are morally superior. You're 21-22. This kind of attitude isn't too unusual in kids your age, but you're eventually going to learn that the world isn't so easy you can say "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, I'll call them a name and won't have to deal with them!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See, Rayne is the type of guy who gets offended with being labelled a 10%er (the truth hurts) and instead of arguing my points, he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "strawman" or "isn't smart enough to debate".

Well, come on, Rayne, why not share with us your pearls of wisdom? You act like no-one is smarter than you, and you say you want a debate. Then I lay down a challenge to you!

Go to my original post, and go, paragraph by paragraph, with your reasons of disagreement. You say I call you a "10%er" instead of debating, tell me what you think of the issues I brought up, state your opinion, and I will respond. Then we can have healthy debate. But don't come on here, cry about being called a member of the "IWC" (if you think it is a nothing term, then it shouldn't offend you), and then throw out names, accusing anyone who disagrees with the almighty Raine as "dumb" and "strawmen".

Is calling me a "strawman" a subtle reference to the Wizard Of Oz character, who didn't have a brain?

 

[Rayne]

See, Rayne is the type of guy who gets offended with being labelled a 10%er (the truth hurts) and instead of arguing my points, he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "strawman" or "isn't smart enough to debate".

Well, come on, Rayne, why not share with us your pearls of wisdom? You act like no-one is smarter than you, and you say you want a debate. Then I lay down a challenge to you!

Oh dear.

I didn't call you a strawman. I thought that even if you weren't familiar with the term (a common if flawed debate tactic, where one invents an argument, states that their opponent believes it, then attacks the argument they had invented), you would be able to grasp its meaning through the context it was used in. I have never said that anyone "isn't smart enough to debate", for instance. While not quite up to the standard of a strawman (that's just an out-and-out lie), the premise is the same. I prefer to let people demonstrate that they aren't smart enough to debate.

Take your original post for instance. You challenge me to debate it paragraph by paragraph; but there are no ideas or theories there that could be debated. Debate comes from two differing opinions discussing the merits and the pratfalls of each one. What you have done is made up a list of ridiculous statements, stated "people in the IWC believe this!", and then throw anyone you feel like into this imaginary "IWC" group. It is a series of strawman attacks against an adversary that does not exist. There are no arguments or issues in your original post to debate. You are asking me to divide by zero. I would love to rip the logic of your post to shreds just to prove the point, but it is quite literally impossible as you are not making an argument based in logic, but providing a list of ridiculous slurs.

I'm not offended by being called a "10%er", or "IWC" or whatever. Hypocrisy in others is something I have come to accept and perhaps even expect; I take no personal offense at all. The offense I take is of one against logic and reason; the offense I take is against the idea that someone should feel as if they've proven something in an argument by going "neener neener, you believe THIS, and I'm nothing like that, obviously." That's what I take offense to. It's futile in this day and age where the quick one-liner is superior to the well reasoned exposition (not that I'm not good at both!), but I am a purist.

I'm also far, far more eloquent than to call someone "dumb". I would let them demonstrate in a public forum that they didn't understand what debate was and that they were simply making up people to attack. I'd prefer to let someone SHOW they were dumb. It's funnier that way.

By all means, if you'd like to have an actual debate, I'm up for it. You'll have to provide an argument that can actually be discussed. You could, for instance, create an argument explaining how I'm a "10%er", although this would require you to define the term beyond Eric Bischoff's "that unmeasured 10% of the internet who doesn't like what I do". (The term works pretty good if you're just trying to call people names, which is all that it was meant for, but falls apart pretty quickly when you try to define it.) If you'd like to try to prove that there is an "IWC" group that exists, rather than a disparate series of opinions which may or may not actually exist on these boards that you don't like and that you use in order to feel superior to a group of people, even if they don't exist, I'd be happy to debate that topic. You have to give me something that can be debated, however, and preferably opinions that someone real on this board has.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Oh dear.

I didn't call you a strawman. I thought that even if you weren't familiar with the term (a common if flawed debate tactic, where one invents an argument, states that their opponent believes it, then attacks the argument they had invented), you would be able to grasp its meaning through the context it was used in. I have never said that anyone "isn't smart enough to debate", for instance. While not quite up to the standard of a strawman (that's just an out-and-out lie), the premise is the same. I prefer to let people demonstrate that they aren't smart enough to debate.

Take your original post for instance. You challenge me to debate it paragraph by paragraph; but there are no ideas or theories there that could be debated. Debate comes from two differing opinions discussing the merits and the pratfalls of each one. What you have done is made up a list of ridiculous statements, stated "people in the IWC believe this!", and then throw anyone you feel like into this imaginary "IWC" group. It is a series of strawman attacks against an adversary that does not exist. There are no arguments or issues in your original post to debate. You are asking me to divide by zero. I would love to rip the logic of your post to shreds just to prove the point, but it is quite literally impossible as you are not making an argument based in logic, but providing a list of ridiculous slurs.

I'm not offended by being called a "10%er", or "IWC" or whatever. Hypocrisy in others is something I have come to accept and perhaps even expect; I take no personal offense at all. The offense I take is of one against logic and reason; the offense I take is against the idea that someone should feel as if they've proven something in an argument by going "neener neener, you believe THIS, and I'm nothing like that, obviously." That's what I take offense to. It's futile in this day and age where the quick one-liner is superior to the well reasoned exposition (not that I'm not good at both!), but I am a purist.

I'm also far, far more eloquent than to call someone "dumb". I would let them demonstrate in a public forum that they didn't understand what debate was and that they were simply making up people to attack. I'd prefer to let someone SHOW they were dumb. It's funnier that way.

By all means, if you'd like to have an actual debate, I'm up for it. You'll have to provide an argument that can actually be discussed. You could, for instance, create an argument explaining how I'm a "10%er", although this would require you to define the term beyond Eric Bischoff's "that unmeasured 10% of the internet who doesn't like what I do". (The term works pretty good if you're just trying to call people names, which is all that it was meant for, but falls apart pretty quickly when you try to define it.) If you'd like to try to prove that there is an "IWC" group that exists, rather than a disparate series of opinions which may or may not actually exist on these boards that you don't like and that you use in order to feel superior to a group of people, even if they don't exist, I'd be happy to debate that topic. You have to give me something that can be debated, however, and preferably opinions that someone real on this board has.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See people, what Rayne does is try to use big words to cover up his own insecurity about himself. He has to pretend he knows what he is talking about, so that you don't know that he has nothing to say.

Okay, "Rayne on everyone's parade", I think the reason you won't debate me is because you are having problems refuting truth.

Haven't you been reading the forums here? The arguments I addressed are things that are constantly stated. If someone says that they actually respect John Cena, they are shouted down and mocked. If someone likes the diva division, it's the same thing. The fact that you are attacking me and others who agree with me tells me that you think those very things, otherwise you wouldn't need to keep calling people "strawmen".

You probably agree with Mark Madden, do you?

 

[Rayne]

See people, what Rayne does is try to use big words to cover up his own insecurity about himself. He has to pretend he knows what he is talking about, so that you don't know that he has nothing to say.

I responded to your challenge by stating the literal impossibility of the challenge. You respond by saying that I must be insecure and use big words which obviously means I'm a stupidhead. Jeez, how can I compete with that logic? Which, by the way- in one post I'm the guy who thinks he's so smart, in the next I'm the guy that's insecure. If you're going to toss out insults, c'mon man, keep them logically coherent.

Okay, "Rayne on everyone's parade"

I hope you didn't stay up all night thinking that up. I've heard some pretty bad wordplay puns on these boards and that is the worst in a long time.

I think the reason you won't debate me is because you are having problems refuting truth.

Truth would be difficult to refute, yes. But what you've done is taken a random series of ridiculous statements and said that a made up group of people holds those as their central beliefs. You can't identify ONE specific poster on this board who would agree with the statements you've made. (If people actually believed any of what you posted, they might be a bit more eager to defend those ideas, rather than attacking you for posting a bunch of bullshit about people that don't exist.) If I ask you to divide by zero, and you say you can't, is it because you suck at math?

Haven't you been reading the forums here? The arguments I addressed are things that are constantly stated. If someone says that they actually respect John Cena, they are shouted down and mocked. If someone likes the diva division, it's the same thing. The fact that you are attacking me and others who agree with me tells me that you think those very things, otherwise you wouldn't need to keep calling people "strawmen".

I read the forums plenty. I see just as many people holding up John Cena as do attacking him, yet because you don't like people who attack John Cena, that's "an IWC opinion". You don't like people who don't like the Divas division, so it's "an IWC opinion". Your "IWC" doesn't exist; it's a collection of the opinions you don't like and don't want to hear. Whenever someone expresses a viewpoint you don't like, instead of providing a compelling argument why they're wrong, you whine about being shouted down.

You are insisting an attack on your fools' logic is an attack on the ridiculous statements you made (faulty assumption #1), which, vis a vis, must mean that I believe the ridiculous statements you made (faulty assumption #2).

And for fucks' sake, I'm not calling YOU a strawman. A "strawman" is the faulty debate tactic you are attempting to use. Just because you refuse to understand the term after I've explained it to you twice now does not mean I have to stop using it. I can't hold that too much against you, however, as I've already discovered that you don't seem to understand what "debate" means. (It's not "the other person has to respond to a lot of ridiculous statements that no one on the board would defend or-else-I-win".)

You probably agree with Mark Madden, do you?

I must, obviously, because everyone in "the IWC" does, right?

Maybe if you can go out and find us a single person on these boards who will support your original post, we can have a discussion. If we can start from a factual basis, rather than saying "IWC people believe this and you don't like my post so YOU MUST BE IWC!!!", we can have a discussion. But what you're doing isn't "debate", where two people form differing arguments and discuss the pros and cons. What you are doing is called "making shit up", which is what people do when they can't debate.

 

[Karilas]

Damn, Rayne, looks an awful lot like you're banging your head against a wall here. That can't be fun. I know it can be fun to feed trolls, but this one looks frustrating as hell.

As for the OP, I think the post shows a ridiculous amount of generalisation and is amusingly off the mark. But what is described is definitely more of a stereotype that nobody exactly conforms with. Like a syndrome. A set of symptoms. There will certainly be folks who agree with one or more points on that last, but the likelihood of finding anybody willing to adopt that drivel as a manifesto or pledge is somewhat slim. Almost non-existent.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I responded to your challenge by stating the literal impossibility of the challenge. You respond by saying that I must be insecure and use big words which obviously means I'm a stupidhead. Jeez, how can I compete with that logic? Which, by the way- in one post I'm the guy who thinks he's so smart, in the next I'm the guy that's insecure. If you're going to toss out insults, c'mon man, keep them logically coherent.

I hope you didn't stay up all night thinking that up. I've heard some pretty bad wordplay puns on these boards and that is the worst in a long time.

Truth would be difficult to refute, yes. But what you've done is taken a random series of ridiculous statements and said that a made up group of people holds those as their central beliefs. You can't identify ONE specific poster on this board who would agree with the statements you've made. (If people actually believed any of what you posted, they might be a bit more eager to defend those ideas, rather than attacking you for posting a bunch of bullshit about people that don't exist.) If I ask you to divide by zero, and you say you can't, is it because you suck at math?

I read the forums plenty. I see just as many people holding up John Cena as do attacking him, yet because you don't like people who attack John Cena, that's "an IWC opinion". You don't like people who don't like the Divas division, so it's "an IWC opinion". Your "IWC" doesn't exist; it's a collection of the opinions you don't like and don't want to hear. Whenever someone expresses a viewpoint you don't like, instead of providing a compelling argument why they're wrong, you whine about being shouted down.

You are insisting an attack on your fools' logic is an attack on the ridiculous statements you made (faulty assumption #1), which, vis a vis, must mean that I believe the ridiculous statements you made (faulty assumption #2).

And for fucks' sake, I'm not calling YOU a strawman. A "strawman" is the faulty debate tactic you are attempting to use. Just because you refuse to understand the term after I've explained it to you twice now does not mean I have to stop using it. I can't hold that too much against you, however, as I've already discovered that you don't seem to understand what "debate" means. (It's not "the other person has to respond to a lot of ridiculous statements that no one on the board would defend or-else-I-win".)

I must, obviously, because everyone in "the IWC" does, right?

Maybe if you can go out and find us a single person on these boards who will support your original post, we can have a discussion. If we can start from a factual basis, rather than saying "IWC people believe this and you don't like my post so YOU MUST BE IWC!!!", we can have a discussion. But what you're doing isn't "debate", where two people form differing arguments and discuss the pros and cons. What you are doing is called "making shit up", which is what people do when they can't debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, a few things!

Firstly, I'm not being illogical! I'm not saying you are smart AND insecure. I am saying that you like to portray yourself as smarter than the rest, but the truth is you're insecure. So, no contradicition. One is a perception you want to put forward about yourself, the other is what, in reality, you are.

Then you say I say you're smart, than later, you say that I say that you are a stupid head. Talk about being logically coherent, you can't even decide what I did call you.

Secondly, you say that I don't provide compelling arguments for what I say. Well, I have written on many threads on this site, stating why people shouldn't knock Cena, or the diva division etc. If you are really interested, you should search some of my posts from the past, and what I said on these issues. I don't have time to repeat them on this post, as I have stated my opinions on all these things before. So, stop being a lazyass, and find out why I don't like these things. But I know you won't, because people like you stick their head in the sand and throw names, rather than research people's reasoning. Once you have read some of my posts about my opinions on Cena, the divas etc, come back and debate them with me. I'll be waiting!

But how can you debate my past posts, when you can't even read this thread properly? You say that when I find ONE person who agrees with me, then we can have a discussion. Well, read over the responses to my post again. At least two people agree with me, one of them saying that they agree, but thought I was unfair about the Rock leaving to make movies. You can't even bother to read the above posts, because you would rather say a lot, but yet say nothing.

Finally, my post was a bit tongue in cheek, requiring a sense of humour. Most saw it for what it was, a cornacopia of different opinions of many posts I have read, and combining them into one "mythical" person to poke fun at the opinions. Even the use of "IWC" was a poke at Eric Bischoff terminology to describe it as he does.I am being a bit mischeivious, and most people see that. Only a P.O.S. like you who lacks a sense of humour would miss it, and your reaction, like you are personally insulted, might make you angry because it hits too close to home.

So, Rayne , do the following:- (a) toughen up, (b) grow a brain, (c) go to my past posts, see what my arguments are, come back and debate me if you don't agree (d) Read the other posts on this thread. Read the posts above you to see what other people have said about this (e) then, when you have done all of that, f the hell off!