jdw

You got me there, boss. I tend to think that whether Savage actually banged and/or molested a 14 year old underage kid (as the "rumor" was told back in Version 1.0) is just a bit more important then him being on the outs with a sleazy wrestling promoter. John

We know all that. We also are not inside the "deviant" subculture of pro wrestling. We're just dumb fans of the product. We don't have to play along with it's bullshit that it doesn't matter whether something is true or not, just that it's "story that's told". We have the ability to call "bullshit" when we see it. John

I agree with the last two sentences. John

SLL's "diagnosis" post of Vince is one of the funniest things I've read on a wrestling message board, in a good way... "... which covers a lot of ground." John

I don't think people in the thread are accussing him of believing anything. Meltzer was the one who said Vince Believes, or words to the effect. I think the rest of us are pointing out: If Vince Believes, it really means nothing because Vince is mad as a hatter. John

That Vince is lying about his abuse. He's probably so far gone that he actually now believes he was abused. The brain does that some times. You tell yourself a lie for so long that it becomes the "truth". We saw Ari Fleischer do that last week where he talked about Sadam never attacking the US *again* after we took him out. Reailty: it was those AQ guys who attacked us. But Ari spent so many years selling the Iraq + AQ = 9/11 angle that he's completely lost in the punch of it. If you really get his attention and correct him on it, he *might* go along with the correct just to get out of the interview. But the next day he'll say the same thing if it comes up. His brain is now wired to it. Reality/Fiction is pretty well morphed for Vince it has been for quite some time. John

I never bought the story the way it's been written up. It always came across as one of those Wrestling Stories that was based on True Event A that got twisted into Wrestling Stories X, Y & Z in their retelling. John

And who is to say Steph didn't tell Vince that Savage banged her? That still doesn't mean that Savage molested her or banged her at 14... or 17 if the story ever becomes consistent. John

The most powerful man in the world over the past 8 years was (and still is) a paranoid delusional wack job. People who knew him closely prior to the past 8 years have openly wondered where the fellow they once knew went, and comment how lost he's gotten in his own delusions. Lots of people mad as a hatter are "successful" or are able to "run things". John

It's surprising that Sham hasn't been caught more. I can't imagine he's been clean for the past 20 years. He's just been good at beating tests. John

"Don't know." John

*laugh* And I doubt that Steph being 17 would offend him either. This guy has employed Lawler for how long? Lord knows where Vince draws the line for "age of consent" when he has a freaking dirty old man like Jerry on the payroll, and brought him back just as soon as the smoke blew away on King's problems. John

Don't know. My point wasn't that Savage copped to Dave. More that Savage copped having a fling with Steph to "someone" (or several "someones"), and that person (or persons) told Dave. Because I'm still not getting Dave's logic for believing other than coming at it from that direction. "Vince Believes"... you've read 20+ years of WON's, Loss. How many times have you come across Dave taking something that "Vince believes" and ripped the fuck out if it? Or laughed and dismissed it? Even before Vince completely lost his mind in the past decade, back in the 80s and 90s there were plenty of Vince Believes that were dismissed as being stupid. Such as Vince's repeated pushing of Big Men like Sid and Nash to turn around the company. Hell... Dave's "Vince Will Go Back To A Big Man" spot was done so often it was almost a cliche if it wasn't so true. I don't get it. John

I take that to mean: Vince told Dave in 1998 that he would have loved to have Macho back? John

I'm wondering if Dave now believes not because "nothing else adds up" or "Vince believes it", and instead because Savage copped to someone (or several people) that he and Steph had a fling? John

Dave's e-mail doesn't help clarify it. Seriously... Dave starts hearing about it in 2001-2002, but even in 2004 Vince would love to have Savage back. It doesn't add up. The only thing hat this seems to hang on is that Vince believes it *now*, and all of us are assuming that's because Steph at some point had to have "confirmed" it to him. Since those two things appear to have happened *after* 2004, a decade or more after it allegedly happened, and has a pair of major nutters (Vince and Steph) at the center of it... Why is anyone exactly buying this? Sarah Palin believes in abstinance only education, even through both her and her own daughter got knocked up before marriage. Just because that nutter "believes" doesn't mean we should believe. John

Just because Vince "believes" it doesn't make it true. That's the point that some of us are trying to make. Even if Steph at some point "came clean to Vince", that doesn't mean that she wasn't blowing smoke up his ass. These are two nutjobs. We all agree that Savage is a nutter as well. But the story keeps morphing as different elements end up conflicting with reality. It's really "Jumbo Is Lazy" territory. Somewhere buried in the bottom there may be a grain of "something" that made people believe it. But the evidence/timeline didn't match, so new facts had to be created, that didn't match, then a new version... at a certain point you just throw up your arms. Is it possible that Vince thinks Macho was banging Steph at some point between she was 14 to 18? Sure. Is it possible that Steph told Vince that Macho was banging her at some point between she was 14 to 18? Sure. True? So far, the story hasn't added up other than the "evidence" that Vince Hates Macho. Stuff like this gets nutty in terms of the truth. I have a cousin who was molested by her stepfather, and he's went to the slammer. It was extremely hard for her to get it out, but she was 100% truthful when she broke through on it. I have an aunt who years after the fact claimed she was, and my mother is 100% certain she's full of shit. And over time we've seen that the aunt is just fucking nuts in the head on lots of stuff. In this case, we have three nuts. Vince is the biggest nut of the three, and that he "believes" really means nothing. John

It just doesn't pass the laugh test. I think people want to believe it because it fits the sleeze of the business, and stuff like Cornette and the Banana is old news. Folks need New Dirt. John

More likely a joke that's become "true" just by being retold. There are times where I just don't get Dave's "everybody believes it's true so it must be" nonsense. Most people in wrestling thought UFC was a work early. Then they thought they weren't really tough and the toughest guys in pro wrestling could take them. Dave use to laugh that stuff off. That and more... and endless string of things that people in the business believed that Dave would laugh off. I'd be interested in the answer to the questions above. John

So perhaps someone can ask Dave a few questions: * what year did it allegedly happen? * when did Dave first hear the rumor? * when did Vince allegedly first find out about it? John

Mine is here: http://www.deathvalleydriver.com/Bestof90s/jdwwcwballot.html I'm loathed to actually read it and instead will just do the old Right-Click, Copy & Paste. It's probably as embarassing as all hell. John

Sound like something you'd say to someone you just fired because he was fucking your 17 year old daughter? Setting aside that Vince is really fucked in the head, he was *that* fucked in the head back in 1994 to put over Randy like that. Macho signed with WCW in the middle of Novermber 1994 for around $400K base, which was large money at the time since wrestling was really down. He had been talking to WCW before that. I think the "hate" that Vince worked up over Savage came later. He was fond of him when he left. At the time, Eric was throwing some big cash around for Hogan and Savage. Vince wasn't remotely in the Billion Dollar Ted mode at that point as everyone thought Eric would just spend himself out of business at that point even with a few deals like that. Vince also thought he had The Next Big Thing in Nash. It's possible that Dave is joking in the stuff above. It's hard to imagine him buying the bullshit on this one. John

Release Dates 06/87 Predator 06/89 No Holds Barred 11/87 The Running Man 10/91 Suburban Commando Perfect Hulk-style timeline. John

The Austin-Hogan drawing discussion/debate isn't fully thought out. It hasn't been for the years that Dave has been making it. Frankly I think Dave wastes more time trying to figure out "who is bigger" than looking at what each did: Austin turned around an ailing National Wrestling Promotion and anchored it through it biggest money period Hogan was the tool used to great that National Wrestling Promotion They are very different things. They are very valuable things. Which is "bigger" or "more signficant"? Who knows. But when looking at Hogan, it's really meaningless to compare him with someone who came along to anchor the promotion after he laid the foundation. It's not terribly relevant to putting a value on his impact. What's relavant it to take a look at the where the WWF went from 12/83 to 04/92. Did they promote in Los Angeles before Hogan, and how often did they promote in LA before Hogan? Were they successful in LA before Hogan? Answer those two questions for what happened during Hogan's 01/84 - 04/92 run. Ask the same questions for Chicago. Detriot. Denver. Cleveland. Twin Cities. St. Louis. Indy. Miami, St. Pete and the rest of FL. Arizona. Cincy. San Fran, SD, SacTo, Portland, Seattle, Fresno... Etc. The WWF actually was doing okay business in Chicago before Austin got on top. It had been up and down over the years, but it hardly was at the bottom when Austin went on top. The WWF wasn't in Chicago when Hogan led the Expansion. Worse - it was one of another promotion's top cities. Hogan led the charge to enter the city, start pounding down the home team, and eventually claim the city as a WWF stronghold. It's a waste to say that Hogan was drawing $150K gates in Chicago while Austin was drawing $1M gates (or whatever the hell they were). The more important thing to see is that there was no WWF in Chicago before Hogan. There was during Hogan, and they destroyed one of the strongest promotions in the country in taking the city. Austin happened to light the town back on fire for the WWF. It's Hogan... Evil Hulk to Our Hero Ric so we often miss the significance of what was going on, or now look back 25 years later projecting current viewpoint onto it in Orwellian fashion: "Chicago has always been a WWF City" It really misses the boat. John

Yeah... very little of it adds up given what we know about Flair's looseness with $$$, his repeated financial fuck ups over the years, and even what Dave has written in the past about him and his finances. Then suddenly out of the blue, Ric is as loaded as Baba. Doesn't really pass the laugh test. Does anyone honestly think that Ric and his financial advisers (the ones who have helped him get fucked up with Uncle Sam on taxes a lot over the years) are smarter than Mrs. Flair's Lawyers: Ric's folks can hide it better than Bonnie's folks can find it? Credible at all? John