Niners Fan in CT Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 This is a non-story. Meltzer at least knows who was involved and when it happened.
Spontaneous Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 He should of just signed Brian's name on it, Meltzer would have been in the clear
HumanChessgame Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Every wrestler death is some sort of conspiracy. Just ask Billy Jack.
Petey Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Someone on PWO suggested that maybe Meltz said likely as in it was likely that it actually happened on this day but no one knows 100% what day it all went down and so he didn't want to just assume today was the day the crime was committed. That's total bullshit if he was trying to say that 'likely' would have been before 'seven years ago' You're right, although it is Meltz and he isn't exactly Mr. Grammar.
piranesi Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Sshhh. Mr. Grammer is my father. Call me Kelsey. Now, let's get you out of those wet clothes and into a dry martini. 3
hammerva Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Did I hear right but did Mike Sempervive confuse Ted Williams with Hank Williams on the 2nd Sim Limite show? I would completely understand if Bryan did that
Greggulator Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Okay, as someone who makes his bones in journalism, and writing about the law in particular:1) If someone is pressing charges, you constantly have to say things like "allegedly" in order to hedge. For example: When the police arrested O.J., articles should have said "The LAPD arrested O.J. Simpson for allegedly murdering his wife."2) However, if a case is solved -- a court finds a party guilty, etc. -- then you don't need to say allegedly or likely. The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a series this week on a guy arrested for raping teenagers 30 years ago. So they say "Mark Johnson raped 10 girls in 1977." (Sorry to list something so horrifying in this explanation. It's the first thing that came to mind. I just read today's story.) However, there should be a qualifier statement early in the story. "Mark Johnson, convicted of raping several teenagers in 1977, waits for a parole hearing."3) The Benoit case was ruled by homicide detectives as a murder-suicide. The AP and USA Today and other places with really in-depth style policies do not use that qualifying statement.4) Using likely to hedge on the date makes some sense if the exact date of their murder wasn't determined. However, he should have written around that.For example: It's the seven-year anniversary of when the bodies of Chris Benoit and his family were discovered.OrThe exact date of when Benoit murdered his family has not been determined. 1
hammerva Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 So let me understand this. Todd Grisham was a geek in the WWE but now that he is doing UFC commentary on countdown shows he is this cool and energetic guy? Interesting leap there from Alvarez Still living on this "I WANT IT ALL NOW" whining by Bryan saying that UFC Fight Pass is doing great business (debatable) and they have all the old fights while the WWE network doesn't have all the RAW and Nitro's and doing terrible business (debatable as well). Yeah I am sure sales of Fight Pass are going through the roof because people are dying to see WEC 5 and UFC 29 and Ultimate fighter season 6.
Ace Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 Still living on this "I WANT IT ALL NOW" whining by Bryan saying that UFC Fight Pass is doing great business (debatable) and they have all the old fights while the WWE network doesn't have all the RAW and Nitro's and doing terrible business (debatable as well). Yeah I am sure sales of Fight Pass are going through the roof because people are dying to see WEC 5 and UFC 29 and Ultimate fighter season 6. I've mentioned twice on their board that they were there when Triple H specifically announced the Attitude era Raw and Nitros would be rolled out in their own show this summer.
Spontaneous Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 Not like UFC has a tremendous amount of material to upload anyways. How many people watching it now would want to watch anything before UFC 40 anyways? Talk about a niche market, no one wants to watch Shamrock vs Gracie for 36 minutes.
odessasteps Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 33 minutes of tna talk to start the observer show. Bad thing i was driving and couldnt change podcast.
Ryan Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 You could have always crashed into a tree, that would alleviate some of the horror and pain. 1
Elsalvajeloco Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Still living on this "I WANT IT ALL NOW" whining by Bryan saying that UFC Fight Pass is doing great business (debatable) and they have all the old fights while the WWE network doesn't have all the RAW and Nitro's and doing terrible business (debatable as well). Yeah I am sure sales of Fight Pass are going through the roof because people are dying to see WEC 5 and UFC 29 and Ultimate fighter season 6. I don't think it's really debatable. They've pretty much done all they needed to do in a relatively short span of time. Anytime you can get ANY number of people to pay for Marquardt/Te Huna (happening at an ungodly hour too), that should be considered a victory. But they also satisfied (or at least quieted them down) the number of fans who were freaking out with the "why is ___________'s fight with __________ from five months ago not on Fight Pass?". Now they've moved on to get stuff they don't necessarily own (although they could buy Invicta with two twenties and a balled up five at this point) being added as content. People wanna watch Chael Sonnen and Andre Galvao grapple for some odd reason.
sydneybrown Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Still living on this "I WANT IT ALL NOW" whining by Bryan saying that UFC Fight Pass is doing great business (debatable) and they have all the old fights while the WWE network doesn't have all the RAW and Nitro's and doing terrible business (debatable as well). Yeah I am sure sales of Fight Pass are going through the roof because people are dying to see WEC 5 and UFC 29 and Ultimate fighter season 6. I think it's an absolute no-win situation. The Network could have debuted with all the RAWs and Nitros and not something else, like the PPVs, and Bryan would complain about that (you have all the build up but NO payoff!) or it could have debuted with everything and he'd be as bored with it as he is now (there's 2000 hours but I don't want to watch any of it.)
greenbat Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 I completely disagree. I'm almost done with the ecw episodes which is the only thing I care about on right now and without the nitro and raws the ppvs are pointless.how can I watch a season when 97 percent is missing? I'm unsubscribing until they get weekly television I care about
Bustronaut Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 By the time your subscription is up there'll be weekly TV you care about.
drshowtime Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 By the time your subscription is up there'll be weekly TV you care about. I highly dobut they will ever upload any of the WWECW stuff or velocity though which is not at all a draw for anyone (aside from me) so I don't see why that kind of stuff couldn't be there on launch or shortly after. Nobody cares about it so it's not like the Raw episodes where they air them first and then put them up either. It's not like they're only holding the big guns to have something new for when the first subs are up, they still have a lot of stuff that would at least be nice to pad the library even if it's not going to get anyone to buy it. As it is now it's pretty much just all PPVs with no context aside from 93 and 94 WWF and some WCCW.
JonnyLaw Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 By the time your subscription is up there'll be weekly TV you care about. I highly dobut they will ever upload any of the WWECW stuff or velocity though which is not at all a draw for anyone (aside from me) so I don't see why that kind of stuff couldn't be there on launch or shortly after. Nobody cares about it so it's not like the Raw episodes where they air them first and then put them up either. It's not like they're only holding the big guns to have something new for when the first subs are up, they still have a lot of stuff that would at least be nice to pad the library even if it's not going to get anyone to buy it. As it is now it's pretty much just all PPVs with no context aside from 93 and 94 WWF and some WCCW. So basically you're saying they should have taken time at launch to make sure there was a bunch of stuff on there no one really cared about.
drshowtime Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 So should I wait for years for the "important" stuff to be out before they add other things? And why do I have to wait so long for the "important" stuff then?
JonnyLaw Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 I'm saying at launch, their priorities were: have every PPV ever up and make sure it works. Even then, they were/are taking down PPVs and still working on restoring music and things like that. Expecting them to put that same (or any) effort in to make sure a bunch of C-shows that aren't a draw(in your words) are online and working at launch is entirely unrealistic. You and everyone else, has to wait "so long" (it hasn't even been six months yet) for important stuff because they have to roll stuff out incrementally to create an incentive people to re-up. I'd argue having all the PPVs up at launch isn't "so long", and having to wait six months or so for the Raws/Nitros also isn't "so long".
Bustronaut Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Yeah, they're already at the Raws in '95, by August the Monday night wars begin.
Hagan Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Anyone know what this Scott Keith vs Dave Scherer kerfluffle is about? I feel like this is the ECW reunions of online pundit squabbling.
Petey Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 On Scott's blog, one of the other posters does a daily news post thing where he summarizes all the wrestling news stories for the day. Apparently, someone told Scherer this was happening and he cancelled said poster's Elite account and sent emails to both Scott and the poster threatening lawsuits and the like. It's pretty ridiculous because 1) the poster wasn't directly copying and pasting the content, rather summarizing the info and 2) he always gave credit to where the news came from. Scherer seems to be legit obsessed with the situation. It's pretty bizarre. 1
BillThompson Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 By the time your subscription is up there'll be weekly TV you care about. I highly dobut they will ever upload any of the WWECW stuff or velocity though which is not at all a draw for anyone (aside from me) so I don't see why that kind of stuff couldn't be there on launch or shortly after. Nobody cares about it so it's not like the Raw episodes where they air them first and then put them up either. It's not like they're only holding the big guns to have something new for when the first subs are up, they still have a lot of stuff that would at least be nice to pad the library even if it's not going to get anyone to buy it. As it is now it's pretty much just all PPVs with no context aside from 93 and 94 WWF and some WCCW. I fully expect them to upload stuff like Velocity, Jakked, Super Astros, Worldwide, Saturday Night, etc. They'll need the variety of content as the Network grows and I expect them to use the C shows to boost the amount of content they offer.
jstout Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 Okay, as someone who makes his bones in journalism, and writing about the law in particular: 1) If someone is pressing charges, you constantly have to say things like "allegedly" in order to hedge. For example: When the police arrested O.J., articles should have said "The LAPD arrested O.J. Simpson for allegedly murdering his wife." 2) However, if a case is solved -- a court finds a party guilty, etc. -- then you don't need to say allegedly or likely. The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a series this week on a guy arrested for raping teenagers 30 years ago. So they say "Mark Johnson raped 10 girls in 1977." (Sorry to list something so horrifying in this explanation. It's the first thing that came to mind. I just read today's story.) However, there should be a qualifier statement early in the story. "Mark Johnson, convicted of raping several teenagers in 1977, waits for a parole hearing." 3) The Benoit case was ruled by homicide detectives as a murder-suicide. The AP and USA Today and other places with really in-depth style policies do not use that qualifying statement. 4) Using likely to hedge on the date makes some sense if the exact date of their murder wasn't determined. However, he should have written around that. For example: It's the seven-year anniversary of when the bodies of Chris Benoit and his family were discovered. Or The exact date of when Benoit murdered his family has not been determined. You can also say "LAPD officials said O.J. Simpson murdered his wife." You're not saying it, they said it. Using "police said" and "allegedly" in the same sentence is writing death. I'd much rather pin it on the police so you can say "just reporting what they told me." "Allegedly" is a loaded word in that it casts doubt in whatever you're saying it about. You can almost see the air quotes around it. Simpson "allegedly" murdered his wife. You can also say "LAPD officials charged O.J. Simpson with murdering his wlfe." He's just charged, that's no statement on his guilt or innocence. Charged doesn't equal guilty. Meltzer didn't have to be so easy on Benoit - you can't libel the dead. He can say "Benoit killed them, yes he did" and nothing can happen to him. It's easy for writers to get trapped in worrying about not proclaiming someone guilty, but he didn't need to throw in qualifiers.
Recommended Posts