JerryvonKramer

I want a steward's enquiry on the random generation used to produce this. It cannot possibly be fair.

Would just like to point out another 30-pick gap for me. I have been royally screwed by the randomiser there can be no doubt about it. No one has had to endure more huge gaps than I have.

You'll note that all of these examples are man-made things.

Sorry, I won't allow for any argument that allows "El Gigante is a great worker" as one of its possible conclusions, because something in that argument must be wrong.

Is the cloud doing that thinking then? Okay, but what is the cloud expressing? You've just told me what it is "driven by". I mean, it basically isn't art is it, it's a cloud. Art is made by people. The cloud wasn't made by anyone. But you thinking the cloud is art is just objectively wrong, because art is made by people. Therefore, all it means is that you are confused about what art actually is. It's really just common sense. No theory or anything, but just knowing what "art" means and applying the term correctly. I am rigid because I believe that words have meanings? "My take" on the world is that art is made by human beings? It's not exactly a controversial belief. Right, but your take is at odds with the entire written history of art and literature going back to Plato. The distinction between art and nature is pretty fundamental. I don't know why you think you can just override it willy nilly as you're doing with that cloud. Inspiration for art maybe. They are not art themselves. This is a basic misuage of language. "Full of art" means "full of human creative endeavour" or something similar. You seem to have confused the word "art" with "beauty". The Romantic poets who were so awe-struck by mountains and flowers and so on, also maintained at all times the distinction between natural beauty and man-made beauty. The distinction between natural beauty and man-made beauty is an age-old debate. I don't know why you think you can just resolve it and magically conjoin them by declaring a cloud art. You've just got the word wrong.

Great to know that we have some people here who are magic and can single-handedly change the meanings of words and concepts that have stood for centuries. Bill Thompson can literally give a cloud in the sky the status of being art. Can I try? "I declare that this banana shall thenceforth be known as mathematics!"

The cloud isn't art even if you have you head in it. Language doesn't work like that. It changes slowly through usage and over time. It is also communal and driven by mass change. You, one person, declaring the cloud art means nothing. It isn't art and doesn't change the definition of the word. If 50,000 people do it, then maybe. If 2,000,000 peope do it, then the word might start to morph and change. Nature isn't art because art is defined as being something made through human creativity. No amount of you calling the cloud "art" can change it until you can start a mass movement to change it. It is literally narcissism to believe otherwise.

I'd argue that it is intellectually limited to try to make out like there are no objective standards when in fact there are some. - How well can El Gigante bump? - How well does El Gigante execute a suplex? - What is El Giagante's knowledge of holds and counters? - What is El Gigante's grasp of basic wrestling psychology? Are these really questions that have no empirical answer? I see the need to relativise things to the point where "everything is subjective" as a form of intellectual cowardice. I mean, if nothing else, it simply isn't true that there aren't standards in any genre that one can't point to. There are. Criteria exist even in fields that are "subjective". I don't understand the drive to deny that.

The OED might be a place to start: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art

And Lord Al ...

Yeah, fine. Not all opinions are created equal though. So the opinion that The Gent is better at guitar than Hendrix is ... not very well informed about guitars, just as the opinion that El Gigante is a better worker than Flair is ... absolutely fucking clueless and doesn't actually know what to look for when assessing wrestling. If you are agreed on that, then there's no point in continuing to discuss this is there? If you aren't agreed on it and wish to staunchly defend the guy who sincerely believes that El Gigante is better than Flair .... then go for it, whatever, someone else can continute with it or not. I get that you can't prove it as an objective fact, but for all practical purposes it is an objective fact to anyone who has a clue about the thing itself, and that's enough for discussing wrestling on a message board.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory. is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer. Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency. Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't. Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement. The art question is more like the money question. I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm. Bollocks they do. The status of something as art isn't a matter of opinion. For example, there are certain things that aren't art: science, for example, explicitly isn't art. Nature, for example, explicitly isn't art. So it is a concept that has some sort of stable signification in something other than someone's opinion whereas "is this worker great?" only exists as an opinion. I think you are confusing the fact that art is subject to interpretation and that we can have opinions about works of art with art itself. I think you are choosing to take an incredibly limited view on art. You're quick to lash out when your worldview is challenged. In someone's hands anything can become art, even science and nature. You may not see it, and again that's fine, but myself and others do see it. Besides, you've already damned your own argument from the start with your Coke can example. That Coke can most certainly can be a piece of art, depending on a lot of factors. It's all in how someone chooses to see it and treat it. You are choosing to not treat it as art, but others will treat it differently. That's the beauty of art, and why it is without limitations. The Coke can be art if enough people accept it as art. It can't be art if just one person thinks it is, all it means is that everyone else thinks the one person is strange. Anything can *become* art, but it becoming art is entirely dependent on a certain context -- just as anything can become money but its status as money is dependent on context. A sheep in a field is not art. Stick it in a white perspex box in a gallery and it can become art. It cannot be art just being a sheep in a field. It's a sheep. Science likewise, by its very definition, is not art. It is literally defined by its not being art. If you have a concept so nebulous that it is literally *anything* what you have is no longer really a concept. Art is not *anything*. I can't look at a cloud in the sky and declare it art. I can paint a picture of it and that can be art. I can take a photo of it and that can be art. But the cloud itself is not art. Don't be silly now. I understand the impetus behind wishing to protect people's rights to opinions and wishing to maintain subjectivty and "eye of the beholder" and all of that stuff. I get it. But don't try and change the definitions of words and concepts. You treating a sheep in a field going about its life chewing grass as art doesn't make the sheep art, it makes you a nutter. End of.

So you're saying it's possible to argue that a man who can't play the guitar is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix? I don't get it.

Even being denied my jobbers now.

I have to say, I'm fearing less about the state of the "development" matches on WWF Challenge now.

Man that society with its "rules" like the basic definitions of words and shit. Fuck that society. I'm not going to call it an "apple" any more. That's what the man wants! I'm going to call it the "potato of the sky!" YEAHH! Art pertains to things that are man-made or else arranged. Nature to things that occur naturally. Science to the scientific method. "Man you and your RIGID RULES about words and their meanings!"

Hippy crap. Science is definitively not art. Nature is definitively not art either. Don't talk shit now.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory. is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer. Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency. Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't. Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement. The art question is more like the money question. I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm. Bollocks they do. The status of something as art isn't a matter of opinion. For example, there are certain things that aren't art: science, for example, explicitly isn't art. Nature, for example, explicitly isn't art. So it is a concept that has some sort of stable signification in something other than someone's opinion whereas "is this worker great?" only exists as an opinion. I think you are confusing the fact that art is subject to interpretation and that we can have opinions about works of art with art itself.

Absolute nonsense. If someone made a film that is literally inept it would be worse than a film that is competent. As in, there are portions where they accidentally left the cap on the camera lens. Where the audio isn't quite synced up to the images. Where the continuity editing is off. Where the script makes no sense and just loops back round incoherently. etc. etc. Not in any deliberate surreal or absurdist way, just in a way that is inept. Similarly there are standards in wrestling. El Gigante couldn't fucking throw a punch or bump or feed or sell or do anything, he was inept. He was an appalling wrestler. There's no valid opinion that can get around to saying that El Gigante was better than Bret Hart. He simply wasn't. The idea that "everything is subjective" therefore "all opinions are on the table and valid" is fucking stupid. There is such a thing as skill. There is such a thing as competence and incompetence. There is such a thing as minimum standards. Don't pretend there isn't. I don't see the point in pretending that. Jimi Hendrix was a better guitarist than ... a man who can't play a guitar. It's as simple as that.

All out for big arena shows and TV, essentially just results for the two smaller house show loops.

If you're gonna limit it to just that, which is insane, than the crowd . But it's not as simple as that while being incredibly simple. Fuji and Strongbow gave THEIR AUDIENCE what they wanted to see. You can look at it and say "But it stunk!". And that's completely irrelevant. It was never meant to be something looked back at. It existed within its time and place with the only goal being engaging the live audience they were performing in front of. I honestly think you're not just anti-criticism (as in being critical of whatever), you are actually against the critical process of assessment and evaluation.

I'm going to get Dominic to tell him David is taking drugs and steroids.

Bruno is only ever coming back to WWF

Dominic Denucci

SD Jones