Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
He looked like shit in WWE and fell off the face of the earth after that. I'm not as down on him as some people, but he has a lot to prove.
TNA, I am impressed.
- Thread starter The Doctor
- Start date
He looked like shit in WWE and fell off the face of the earth after that. I'm not as down on him as some people, but he has a lot to prove.
He looked awful on Impact, like a bloated corpse.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
I wouldn't be surprised. I haven't watch Impact in months. I really want to like TNA, but I just can't.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
X thinks he is objective. There is no point in trying to have a serious discussion with someone that delusional.
Same here. Unfortunately there's not much to like. Shit wrestling, shit booking, shit angles, shit wrestlers getting pushed to the moon. Not much for a wrestling fan to enjoy there, unless you like watching bad shows in a car-crash kind of way, like throwing on an old Nitro from 2000 just to laugh at the badness. But atleast then you still had the cruiserweights.
X thinks he is objective. There is no point in trying to have a serious discussion with someone that delusional.
Hey everyone, look! It's Shattered Dreams completely ignoring my responses to his posts in favor of posting an LOL icon because as usual, he realizes he has no actual point. Nothing new here, same old shit from the biggest, saddest mark I've ever seen.
And yes, I am objective. I grade TNA the same I would the WWE, ROH, or any other promotion. Try and argue differently.
Joe's Gonna Kill You
The Hunt is On
Can there ever be a TNA thread that doesn't turn into a pissing contest?
It's a wrestling forum, every thread about every topic turns into a pissing match. Same shit happens in every thread in the WWE section as it does here.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Anyone with half a brain can tell you exaggerate both against those you dislike and in favor of those you like. Shows up less in your match ratings than in your commentary or discussions. You are fairly objective in rating what you personally like to see physically in a wrestling match. Too bad you do not stick to that and present it as such.
Why should I waste my time trying to have a serious conversation with someone that says no one cares about Anderson, changes his story in the next post then attempts to berate me for not ignoring his first idea a few minutes later because he made a very mild CHANGE?
Why should I waste my time trying to have a serious conversation with someone that says no one cares about Anderson, changes his story in the next post then attempts to berate me for not ignoring his first idea a few minutes later because he made a very mild CHANGE?
Joe's Gonna Kill You
The Hunt is On
I just don't see the point in you two arguing all the time He likes the product you Don't and neither of you are going to convince the other to change their views on the product so whats the point?
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Don't worry Joe. This is my semi-retirement from pointlessly giving X the attention he desperately desires for his silly ideas. Easily my least interesting spam feud over TNA.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Positivity Disciple reporting. What is my first mission Doc? Teach me to enjoy prowrestling again like only someone that hasn't tasted the forbidden fruit can.
Everyone, STOP THE PRESSES! A wrestling fan likes to say positive things about his favorite wrestlers and negative things about his least favorite. This is a staggering development everyone! Tune in at 6 to hear more on this groundbreaking story.
My analysis, regardless of my feelings on certain wrestlers, remains objective. I've yet to see you show one shred of evidence to the contrary. I have fucking dozens of reviews for you to choose from too, so I have no idea why you can't find an example of me being such a subjective critic if it's so "obvious".
I criticize WWE and ROH for the same shit I criticize TNA for. Fortunately WWE and ROH don't make the same bad choices that TNA does at the impressive rate they do.
Please find me where I have ever said that "NO ONE cares about Mr. Anderson". I'll wait. What's that, you can't find me saying that in this thread anywhere? Why it's almost like I never fucking said that. Gee, how about that.
I said Anderson get's a poor reaction in comparison to most other main eventers in the company. Which he does. RVD, Sting, Styles, Fortune, even Hogan gets a better face reaction than Anderson does. Which you have not even once attempted to refute.
Your routine has grown so fucking boring SD. You can't start one fucking thread about TNA on this forum without you popping in to defend the company for fucking every last thing they do, while sniping at the WWE when they do the same fucking thing. You're a blind mark, simple as that. That's fine and dandy, marks make the world go round, but no one is interested in even attempting to have a serious conversation with you about TNA other than your fellow blind marks, because we know it's absolutely pointless. Please stop pretending you're anything but a completely biased mark, it's pretty sad to watch.
Yes, I'm just dying for attention from the great Shattered Dreams. Clearly I seek your approvement, duh. Nevermind the fact that I'm actually getting paid to analyze these shows on the most respected wrestling review site on the internet where I get more than enough TNA marks to argue with, no, it's all for naught unless I get your approval SD.
Keep dreaming. I was saying this shit before you were here, I'd be saying it if you weren't here, and I'll be saying it long after you're gone.
>Make a thread designed to be positive.
>It gets derailed into shitstorms and arguing everywhere.
>When there's already a LOLTNA Thread for this.
Goddammit, WZ. I'm going back to playing Heavy Rain.
>It gets derailed into shitstorms and arguing everywhere.
>When there's already a LOLTNA Thread for this.
Goddammit, WZ. I'm going back to playing Heavy Rain.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Unshunned.
Tune in at 6:30 to learn the definition of objective.
[YOUTUBE]juFZh92MUOY[/YOUTUBE]
Shunned.
Tune in at 6:30 to learn the definition of objective.
[YOUTUBE]juFZh92MUOY[/YOUTUBE]
Shunned.
The Bearded One
Love is not admissable evidence.
Impact was pretty good last night. I actually watched more than half of it without fast forwarding, which is a step in the right direction. The main event actually had me cheering for Bully Ray, so they've done a great job of building him up into a credible threat. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing him get a TV Title reign somewhere in the future.
As for the name Impact Wrestling, is that the company's name or the show's name? I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.
As for the name Impact Wrestling, is that the company's name or the show's name? I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.
I have no interest in the subject at hand; but how exactly does consistency in any way equate to objectivity.
Your reviews may or may not be consistent, I've read a grand total of one so I wouldn't know. They are absolutely not, in any way, shape or form even remotely objective.
Having favorite wrestlers means I'm incapable of objective analysis? Sure you want to stick with that line? Roger Ebert loves Orson Welles, but I'm pretty sure he was able to objectively analyze films not involving Orson Welles. Not exactly rocket science.
Still waiting on even one actual example of how I'm so biased.
And also good job at failing reading comprehension 101. In that sentence you quote, I said that the fans continue to not care about Mr. Anderson as the number one babyface, not that they didn't care about him AT ALL. I in fact said several times in the posts following that that the fans DO care about Anderson, just not as much as Angle. Hence why I was talking about the Angle chants in the battle royal he was booked to win, you fucking dolt.
Is it really this difficult to utilize reading comprehension skills? Or do you just read one sentence out of a paragraph and then move on, not bothering to read the context in which that sentence was written?
How doesn't it? I fault other promotions for the same things I fault TNA for. I give them positive marks for the same things I give positive marks to other promotions for. This isn't being objective?
Do explain how they aren't objective Gelgarin?
Dictionary.com said:
I absolutely despise Bully Ray on a personal level, but I've given him nothing but praise for his microphone work. I think Ric Flair has become a total joke of a person, yet I still gave him praise for his performance in the Lethal Lockdown. I think Mr. Anderson is one of the most annoying people in wrestling today and is a mediocre worker at best, yet when he has great matches, I gladly give him and his opponent the proper credit for it.
Yes, I'll let my feelings on certain angles/matches be known. That's the entire fucking point of a review. Every review is subjective to a degree by that very definition, but when it comes to analyzing the in-ring work and the booking, I am consistent with every promotion I judge. That's about as objective as any critic can possibly be. Thus, yes, I am objective in how I analyze different promotions.
Well this is just too good an opportunity to pass up. Being a respected film critic who knows the meaning of words, I very much doubt Roger Ebert would ever claim to be objective in his reviews. In fact, there is a rather nice quote on his website on this very subject.
"Any product or result of human creativity is inherently subjective, due to the beliefs, biases and knowledge of the person creating the work. Work that attempts to be objective will always be subjective, only instead it will be subjective in a dishonest way."
Roger Ebert turns heel on Xfear and joins Gelgarin's Nation of Information.
If this is still necessary, sure. Point me in the direction of one of your reviews and I'll fish out half a dozen examples of transparent subjectivity.
See: what I literally just said about subjectivity in reviews. The entire point of a review is subjective by it's very nature---it's the author's viewpoints on something. That's subjective by definition. But, just like Ebert looks for certain things in a film to grade them on (acting, direction, writing, etc), I look for certain things in a wrestling match or show to grade them on, and I try to do that on as consistent of a basis as possible. That is a form of objectivity. Many film critics think Roman Polanski is a despicable human being, but that doesn't stop them from praising his films. Is that not objectivity? The same thing applies to a wrestling critic. I'm hardly a Hulk Hogan or Ultimate Warrior fan, but I'll gladly argue that their Wrestlemania 6 match is a classic in every sense of the word.
I remain as objective in my reviews as is physically possible for someone whose job it is to analyze and critique. All analysis by definition is subjective, but to say that a critic is incapable of objectivity, as you've just said in so many words, is false.
Totally off topic but Heavy Rain is fucking win.
So you now concede that your reviews aren't actually objective?
No... it's not.
That's still being completely subjective, it's just being subjective in a consistent manner. Applying the same standards to different wrestlers is not objective, because they are still your standards. As long as what you write is based off of your own opinion or interpretation (in other words, everything that is not demonstrable fact) then it is completely an unambiguously subjective.
Being subjective isn't bad, it's completely normal. The review of yours I read would have been far more readable if it focused more on subjective material. Subjectivity is par for the course, which is why I've always felt it was rather dumb that you so frequently try to distance yourself from it with comments like
Hopefully I've provided enough shreds by now.
No... it's not.
That's still being completely subjective, it's just being subjective in a consistent manner. Applying the same standards to different wrestlers is not objective, because they are still your standards. As long as what you write is based off of your own opinion or interpretation (in other words, everything that is not demonstrable fact) then it is completely an unambiguously subjective.
Being subjective isn't bad, it's completely normal. The review of yours I read would have been far more readable if it focused more on subjective material. Subjectivity is par for the course, which is why I've always felt it was rather dumb that you so frequently try to distance yourself from it with comments like
Hopefully I've provided enough shreds by now.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Not trying to be a douche about it, because I like you
, but it seems you're only concerned with being positive when it fits what you like. If it's something you dislike (as in Orton beating Christian for the title), you have no problem complaining as much as the rest of us.Similar threads
