SorceressKnight
-
Posts
1,796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SorceressKnight
-
-
3 hours ago, christopher.annino said:
Can we make a concerted effort to dial back the insults? Can we go back to the thread about Hana Kimura's tragic passing and remember when we all said how mind-blowing it was that people on the internet could be so cruel? I'd like that, a lot, and I have the feeling I'm not alone.
Thanks for reading
You mean the same thread that, even while people cried crocodile tears about people using the Internet to insult Hana Kimura and cause her death, @Smelly McUgly flat-out said it was okay to bully me because people disagree with my opinions and that everyone should pick on me and not only did he not get punished, but people outright took his side?
Yeah, it's not so much about dialing back the insults and it never has been. There's been a lot of people who pull this shit, even when they know the problems.
Did I hold back on it for a while? Yes- luckily someone else called them out for it instead, and I am grateful for that- but the same thing's been going on- and admitting that thread as proof of how people can be kind and not insult people here just gets to me.
-
22 hours ago, supremebve said:
I'd probably argue against that being art as well. I think art is an exercise in creativity. Once you start mass producing "art" to be sold, or designing things for someone else to paint, or limiting your creative process to appeal to more people you are no longer producing true art. You can be a painter, or a musician, or a sculptor, and you can create high quality work, but that isn't what I would consider art.
Honestly, this might be the opposite. Art is an exercise in creativity, but more specifically, to make art is to want other people to see it and understand something going on. No matter what it is- to paint, to create music, to sculpt, to write, to wrestle- whether it's as big as the musician making "I am making a three minute pop song because it'll be a huge hit and everyone will see it", or as small as "I wrote a piece of fanfiction and maybe two or three people will think it's interesting", the very act of making art is wanting someone else to see it and understand something you want them to see or feel.
Art may be about creativity, but if someone truly does not care if anyone sees your artwork after its finished and truly not caring about whether anyone else in the world likes it? They're not making art, they're masturbating.
16 hours ago, supremebve said:Yes and no. I think Flair is great, but he's like the Shawn Michaels prototype. If you went to see Flair you were going to get you money's worth, but it's all steak and lobster. If you want innovative vegetarian fare, they'd just look at you and say, "why would you want that when you could have this?" Ric Flair was trying to give you the best that he had every single night, but what he thought was the best had much more to do with his effort and much less to do with giving you something unique. I think the reason him and Foley never got a long is that Foley was constantly doing something to give the fans something they've never seen, when Flair wanted to give you the best version of the thing you're used to watching. Flair wasn't attempting to be creative as much as he was trying to be the best.
Well, this also ties into the fact that Flair started being formulaic when he was the touring champion, because ALL touring champions had to do that. Again, going with the same comparison to big chain restaurants, the point of a chain restaurant isn't that "you're getting a generic steak", but rather "Any schmendrick can cook this. We don't need to find a world-class chef to make this, pretty much anyone off the street can follow this recipe and it'll be pretty good...and even if they're so bad at this they can't even boil water, they can at least throw some of these into a microwave and at least satisfy people."
Hell, I'd go further and say the ability of "yeah, you're only going to put on a two star match with anyone- no matter how good they are....but on the other hand, you'll put on a two-star match with ANYONE. Take any person, no matter how bad they are or untrained they are, and you'll pull them to the match of their life and make them look like a superstar for one night" is FAR more valuable than "put this person in the ring with another good wrestler, who they've worked with for a while, and you'll get a five star match without thinking...but if you put them in with someone they don't know, it'll be mediocre." It actually ties into the weakness there- if it ties to the NXT claims, it goes to "any two human beings on earth, if you teach them implicitly, have them rehearse it over and over again, and only teach them exactly what it would take to put on this and only this match, until it becomes muscle memory, could put on a three star match together."
-
1 hour ago, Brian Fowler said:
I don't have any particular problem with a team tanking, but the Hinkie "do it for half a decade straight" thing is infuriating.
Like if you know it's gonna be a bad year anyway, or your team had obviously peaked a bit short of contender, and you don't get a shot at a game changer like Kawhi, or if you are two months into the season and your superstar is hurt and the year is lost... Yeah, go ahead and try to get a top pick.
But planning to do nothing but lose for years... I don't think it was the end of sports or an insult to the game, but I also don't think it was a good thing. And, right now, the end results looks to be "not good enough to make the ECF"
Honestly, even that was the problem with a team trying to be rebuilt from orbit, since even just tanking "once" is not enough to make a contender. If a team tanks to get a top pick once and lucks into winning the lottery...great. You got ONE All-Star. Doesn't matter since right now in the NBA, One All-Star MIGHT get you to the playoffs, but you need at least two All-Stars to have a chance at a playoff run...and in all likeliness, you'll need at least three to have a chance at a championship.
MAYBE one generational talent on your team is enough to get you to the 8 seed in the East and put you in "pretty bad but not bad enough" territory- and in the process, guarantee when they're eligible for free agency, the All-Star is running away from the team and going to a super-team. Hence, your only hope to tank isn't just tanking for one year, but tanking enough years to get the amount of All-Stars to make a super-team (and thus have title hopes and/or make your team a destination for top free agents.)
-
13 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:
does WWE really need to own Keith Lee's music? They are hardly strapped for cash. They would make MORE money with Keith Lee becoming a huge star than they will by trademarking some SHIT generic rock trash.
Better question for the similar problem: Shouldn't WWE ALREADY OWN Keith Lee's music? Lee didn't use his NXT theme on the indie scene, meaning WWE had to have at least produced the song.
The rules of song rights would mean that either the writer of the song (presumably either Lee himself or the WWE) or the producers of the song (which, if this is the case, WWE would have produced) get full rights to use the song freely (and if you have both, you're covered forever- hence why R-Truth was able to take his theme song from TNA to WWE).
Even the "well, maybe CFO$ wrote the song and it's WWE just being petty for the sake of being petty since they had the audacity to leave the company" wouldn't make sense since so many other people's CFO$ songs are still there.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:
GIF
I wish I was joking (and was slightly beaten to it, since I can safely say that was also what @Niners Fan in CT was referring to that he put in before I posted.)
...we all saw the Thunderdome contract last week- the people pulling this shit do know that WWE knows who they are and has reason to strike them down, right?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, clintthecrippler said:
And given Benoit's appearance, as well as GCW, Fire Velveteen Dream, and...ahem, an image of a KKK dude popping up, i wouldnt be shocked if someone makes a production call to just bank a bunch of footage from the fans that have been acting accordingly to what WWE wants and start to just recycle that in the Thunderdome moving forward instead of going live with everyone, like looping footage of the people that have been cheering and clapping like how Keanu Reeves and Jeff Daniels tricked Dennis Hopper in Speed.
Don't forget the footage of ISIS beheading someone- that also popped up on the Thunderdome wall.
-
4 hours ago, _MJ_ said:
What are you guys talking about? No home court advantage? Are YOUR Orlando Magic not in the playoff bubble? They earned this moment as the lowest 8 seed. The championship goes through Orlando. Bucks beware.
But, having said that, home ice matters more in playoff hockey than home court in basketball, and both Toronto and Edmonton went out in the qualifying round- so that's not a guarantee either.
-
1 hour ago, Hamhock said:
The more games a team in that scenario doesn’t play, the more that issue cascades to its scheduled opponents’ records as well. For an extreme example, if we pretend that the Cardinals were wiped out for the year at five games played overall, that’s ten games out of 60 that the Cubs/Reds/Brewers don’t play and seven games that the Pirates don’t play.
But that issue would still be covered in this theory:
If the Cardinals are wiped out for the season at 5 games played overall, that's 55 games they don't play (so they'd be 27.5 games back.)
The Pirates lose seven games, they're 3.5 games back of their record, with the Cubs/Reds/Brewers 5 games back of their record (and likewise for teams intended to play the Cardinals.)
For NL Central purposes, however: since all five teams are missing out of games, it becomes "if every team missed these games, then no one missed any games". Since every NL Central team missed at least seven games, the Pirates are treated as if they missed no games. The Cubs/Reds/Brewers are only ticked for 1.5 games since they only missed three games less than their opponents, and the Cardinals are treated as if they only missed 48 games and only get ticked for 24 games back.
Complicated? Yes, but that happens in a season this completely and utterly messed up.
-
On 8/8/2020 at 5:05 PM, Dolfan in NYC said:
Your usual reminder that Johnny Damon could be (and probably has been) outsmarted by a squirrel or clever bird.
Wasn't Damon one of the high profile players since the Red Sox/Yankees feud went to DEFCON 1 to switch teams? Of course that's the guy who wants Fenway to reopen to fans...
-
6 hours ago, RIPPA said:
I keep thinking about it and I can't see a single scenario where all the other teams don't pitch a huge fucking fit if the Cards have any more than 2-3 less games than everyone else
Shouldn't that be covered by the half-game back rule in standings, so like "Team A has more wins than Team B, but played 2 less games so far, so Team B gets one game higher in the standings than they should be?"
That'd seem to cover it for the Cardinals, so like "oh, you played 15 less games than the rest of the teams, so we're tacking 7.5 games onto the standings to accommodate it" would make sense.
-
12 hours ago, Kuetsar said:
They should have added a zero. . . .
Honestly, it's make more sense to go that far if they just change the tampering rule to "The fine isn't paid to the NBA- the money is taken off the team's cap room and added to the salary cap of the team who's player is being tampered with."
Do that, and I think you'll see the tampering go lower, quicker.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, The Batboy said:
Re: Kevin Nash; what if this was the Diesel we got?
Somehow, I think "Happy go lucky trucker" is a bit better for a top star than "Member of Color Me Badd".
-
8
-
-
18 hours ago, twiztor said:
ahh hell. was looking forward to seeing how it was presented on tv
Honestly, it wasn't even just how it was presented on TV there: I thought the Field of Dreams game was going to be important this year due to how over the winter, Manfred had claimed he was willing to define a lifetime ban from baseball as a lifetime ban from baseball and that upon their death, banned players would become eligible for a Hall of Fame induction.
It was a little questionable when the news hit that time, but considering 2020 is a pre-1945 voting year, it seemed a lot like the reason they didn't formally announce it this winter was because MLB planned on the Field of Dreams game to formally announce "Shoeless Joe is eligible for Veterans' Committee consideration."
-
1
-
-
On 8/2/2020 at 5:02 PM, Lawful Metal said:
i feel like the League wants Lakers vs Bucks for their Finals. Might be fine with Clippers, but probably wants LeBron. Anyone beating the Bucks in the East is a disaster for the league.
Rockets winning is obviously worst case scenario.
Even Clippers, or Rockets, or well...any team in this is a dream world for the League. It was said before and will keep going:
The NBA is successful because it is a narrative-driven league and they know the narrative they want...and this whole return is an example of the narrative driving everything. Make no mistake, the NBA has decided the narrative they want for the title this year, and it's "Lebron and the Lakers win the title for Kobe." They would not have even reopened the season if not for that.
-
Triple post.
-
Double post.
-
Honestly, this is more the problem with wrestlers' being "stale". WCW taught people that there's two different ages that matter: "real age" and "TV age." The names who were seen as "stale" vs. "young talent" is the best example: Chronologically, Randy Orton and Shayna Baszler both turn 40 this year, but "2020 Main Roster Rookie Shayna Baszler" is far, far fresher than "18 year main roster veteran Randy Orton."
If this is an example of any problem with WWE, it's an example where WWE getting the best athletes is starting to bite them in the ass. Traditionally in wrestling, wrestlers seemed to peak in their mid-late '30s, make it to the top at that time period, and after a few years of stardom they take a shorter schedule and wind things down. Now, since WWE can get top-tier athletes and prospects when they're younger, you're seeing a bumper crop of wrestlers who are still in the prime of their career, still doing a lot of great wrestling and haven't even come close to losing a step, much less being ready to wind things down...but they've been on WWE TV for so long they've gone past stale and gone to petrified, and it's impossible to care anymore since we've basically seen them do everything possible. Using the example @L_W_P used: Austin's WWE career was 7 years long. The Rock's career was only about 8 years long. ...by contrast, Dolph Ziggler has played "The Showoff"- not even Ziggler's career as a 15 year main roster veteran, but merely playing the "The Showoff" character- for 9 years. Even if you have @Yo-Yo's Roomie using Bret as a 7 year veteran and Shawn as an 8 year veteran before winning the World Title, at least then you have the "I love this midcarder and I'd really like to see him win the big one" factor to it. You don't even have that for Ziggler since his character is "he's a good midcarder who never wins the World Title except for that time he totally did, oh- and I guess we can count that other time he totally did on a technicality."
The WWE's biggest problem is that they need someone who's willing to give the roster an enema and say "We're done. You've gone as far as you can go. The audience just doesn't care anymore. You want out? Fine. Leave the company. Go to AEW, New Japan or Impact- go be their problem now. We're better off without you because we'll remain fresh"...but it's not even like the washed-up WCW main eventers because most of the WWE main eventers are still very, very good in the ring.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:
Now that they essentially have designated, created crowds, could they not put those people where the hard camera would be pointed at instead of focusing on a rather large venue? They basically got rid of one problem and created another.
Somehow, trying for the hard cam to place people is one of those things guaranteed to not end well.
It's almost shocking that we haven't seen some promoter try to pull the "well, we can only have 25% attendance? Put everyone sitting together in the hard cam quarter of the arena so it looks like we're sold out- we still only did 25% attendance so you can't get mad at us" yet.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, twiztor said:
that takes some intense conspiracy theory gymnastics to make plausible.
the much simpler scenario is that Savage liked them on the young side (see: Gorgous George and her claim that Savage wanted to have a threesome with her and her 17 y/o sister) and got a bit friendly with Steph (aka a bit statutory rapey) when he was in Stamford doing voiceovers or something. Huge IF they ever hooked up for real.
Well, I'm just going with the alleged claim on the IF with what people argue on the claim for this theory. (Personally, the simpler reason is why I take stock in the simplest scenario: Slim Jim was one of WWF's biggest advertisers, and when Savage went to WCW, he took the Slim Jim sponsorship with him. It makes more sense, and doubles with how WWE was willing to work with Savage again for figures, video games, DVDs, etc. in 2010...which just so happened to be when Slim Jim started sponsoring WWE programming again.)
-
1
-
-
On 7/25/2020 at 1:42 AM, Al Madril's Lighter said:
Savage bailed the WWF two months after Stephanie turned 18. She said she grew up idolizing Miss Elizabeth as a child, and it's not a stretch to say by proxy she had a crush on Randy. Randy was supposedly staying over at Vince's a lot as he was working in the office at the time. What's to say that Stephanie didn't swoop in when the two were drinking a bit on a night Vince was out of town, she laid it down to him that "hey, I'm 18 now". Randy probably woke up the next morning thinking, "well, I gotta get the fuck out of here now." Vince might not have learned the truth until later.
I thought, if the Stephanie/Savage thing wasn't just something we made up, the story was "supposed to be" that Savage was on the prowl to go after Stephanie, and he had it planned as far back as the 1980s (with the alleged claim Savage banging Stephanie was his revenge on Vince for Vince refusing to book Angelo Poffo in some throwaway legends' battle royal in 1987.) Likewise, Vince apparently didn't find out until 1996, when Vince was in talks to bring Savage back to WWF and Stephanie would have disclosed it at that time.
-
1
-
-
On 7/25/2020 at 2:16 AM, BobbyWhioux said:
here's a fun thought: you could theoretically walk the first batter in extra innings, then if the next guy hits into a triple play you've had a 2 batter inning.
here's another one: you could declare an intentional walk for that first batter, then if the next guy hits into a triple play on the first pitch, you'd have had an entire inning with only ONE officially recorded pitch thrown.
these must be the unlikely pie in the sky best case scenarios that Manfred and his brain squad envisioned when they thought this would IMPROVE PACE OF PLAY~!
Honestly, the bigger question there would go to:
If a team declares an intentional walk for the first batter, then the next guy hits into a triple play on the first pitch to have an entire inning with one recorded pitch thrown, would that turn of events mean that the team doing that followed the "3 batter minimum" rule?
-
3 hours ago, thee Reverend Axl Future said:
Would Hulk Hogan have been more popular/over if he had better/more hair for his whole career? This is a serious question. My answer would be that he was the pinnacle of success in pro wrestling and there was no higher level to attain, but his outside ventures, if not celebrity, would have been bigger had his Crowning Glory not been all skint.
- RAF
Hogan didn't have a chance to do much more than he did.
Having better hair wouldn't have changed that he wasn't a good enough actor to truly cross over and be a BIG action star, and by the time he was a big enough star to have a chance at crossing over, he had the aura of being too kid-friendly to get into the '80s action movie explosions over talent group of action stars.
It seems inevitable Hogan would devolve into "B-level family film actor", "cameos in family movies or for nyuk-nyuk value", and "the closest thing that our world would have to Krusty the Clown".
-
4 hours ago, Andy in Kansas said:
Latest rumour: The governor of Connecticut was on the phone with the Experiencing Homelessness Blue Jays for an hour today regarding a minor league stadium in Hartford.
...if Hartford got the Blue Jays, that would probably be it for me as a baseball fan.
Yeah, it's a forlorn hope otherwise- but Pawtucket's AAA-level, Rhode Island is widely seen as the state that's had COVID locked down since day one, and considering the minor league season shutting down clinched Rhode Island losing baseball with a whimper (Pawtucket moves to Worcester in 2021), baseball kind of owes us one. If you're going with a AAA ballpark, you can make a pretty fair case.
-
I don't think "how Vince would look at Rick Rude in 1995" would have been a problem, considering that British Bulldog's closest time to sniff being a main eventer was in 1995, and Bulldog had the similar "midcarder in his last run, WCW tried him as a main eventer, and he went back to WWF" thing.
The mixture of "Rude vs. Michaels wrote itself", plus "He was a bonafide top star in WCW", multiplied by "WWF was losing stars to WCW left and right at the time, and Rick Rude would be one of the first true 'we got one BACK' moments in the war" would likely mean Rude would be a big deal.
-
2
-
AUG 2020 WRESTLING DISCUSSION
in The PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING
Posted
They attacked me, in a thread about how cyberbullying is wrong. And even now, they don't even have the decency to admit they might have been wrong- hell, they're doubling down right here. If you don't see how relevant that is to what you're saying about how people shouldn't be making unfair insults to people, at least have the common decency to admit that personal attacks are okay as long as you don't like the person.