JerryvonKramer

Jim Ross and Jim Cornette mentioned a great one recently: "The Carpenter" -- this is a midcard guy who is great at making other people stars.

Was this some snarky attempt at lampooning my position on this? If so, go fuck yourself. One of the least considered, most ill thought out contributions anyone has made to this thread to date. Dick. Actually, it wasn't, although it certainly looks that way, doesn't it? I initially wrote this as sort of a summation of the points John and Will were making, which in turn seemed more in response to the article you quoted rather than your own take on it. It was only after I posted it that I realized it was right after your post, and that it looked like a response, but it's not. I've stopped trying to argue with you. No good comes of it - you refuse to have your views challenged about anything ever, and that's that. Fine. Unlike you, I will not let something as simple and commonplace as a contrary opinion diminish my enjoyment of a message board. No, that post was not meant to be snarking at you. This post is meant to be snarking at you, but that one was aimed at this Gabler bozo. If you were angered by that post, I'm sorry. I genuinely did not mean it that way, and I realize it totally looks like I did, so I can understand you being upset. If you're angered because you attached your ego to Gabler's article, I'm not sorry. I meant what I said, and if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. If you're angered by this post, I'm not sorry, but take comfort in the fact that I generally don't respond to you anymore about anything, because I know I can handle walking on eggshells around your posts and you can't do the same with anyone else's even if you literally use the ignore feature on them twice, so I generally avoid participating in threads you're in unless I'm going to post something I know you'll find inoffensive. Getting into shouting matches that the mods have to come in and break up accomplishes nothing, so I just don't do it anymore, and I don't intend to start again now. No problem dude, sorry for calling you names

No shit. "Back when I was a kid, we didn't have TV. We read. Kids today don't read." -My Dad in the 70s You're missing the point of what I'm arguing. The pre-TV generations weren't all reading the same books at the same time, they were off doing their own shit / reading different books at different times. Culture was actually more heterogeneous before mass media. Why? Because there were sharper divisions between the various different pockets of culture. TV acted as a kind of democratization of knowledge and culture. It made things accessible. It gave vast swathes of people a set of shared reference points. But above all: TV was an amazing instrument for getting millions of people to watch the same thing at the same time. Let me repeat this phrase so that it might resonate with you: TV was an amazing instrument for getting millions of people to watch the same thing at the same time. millions of people same thing same time Got it? This statement is really meaningless, especially if you follow the logic of your argument. So you admit the internet is changing the world, but the fact it's merely the latest technology to be changing the world has the net effect of continuity and of not actually changing anything? Work that one out. Here's all I was saying: The internet delivers content in a fundamentally different way (from TV) by offering "on demand" content. This leads, as I've explained already, to a few key changes in the way people consume content and in what people know: 1. Super hits spread by word of mouth across social media. See Breaking Bad. In this way, you still get the big show that everyone broadly watches at the same time. These shows are necessarily new. I am not "against" that. I've also never denied that new stuff is naturally going to be the most popular thing at any given time, that's obvious and natural. No one with an ounce of sense would deny that. The only real change here from the hit TV shows of old is that the "word of mouth" happens globally. 2. It generally means that people only consume media they think they want to be consuming. This actually manifests in a reduced amount of total time watching TV. The main consequence is that it GREATLY reduces the amount of incidental "by the by" viewing that that any given person would have done 10-20 years ago. This is where old stuff -- re-runs, showings of movies and so on -- start to fall by the wayside. Before, just on your sofa, you might have caught something you didn't think you'd enjoy just by leaving a given channel on. TV habits aren't like this any more. People are more targeted. They'll watch Breaking Bad and Breaking Bad alone and then go on Facebook or watch another show they like "on demand". Surely you can see this? I've labelled the old form "passive osmosis", which I think is greatly declining. 3. One possible consequence of this is that if a child grows up picking and choosing whatever they want, they no longer pick up "incidental knowledge" of tv shows and films that they would have consumed more or less passively in the past. It leads to this disconnect with the past that many social commentators and studies have identified. 4. It leads to my other key thesis here that shared cultural knowledge of the past is in sharp decline with the current generation. "But Jerry, but Jerry, back in the 1967 kids were like that too! They didn't care about the past either!" Sit down and think about what I'm really saying here. I'm not saying that kids from the 70s-mid-00s particularly CARED about the past, I'm saying they just picked up a hell of a lot of it through passive osmosis. This doesn't happen if the internet is your primary tool of content delivery. What can't the internet do that TV can? Well, while it can encourage millions of people to watch the same hit TV show at the same time, it can't make millions of people watch the same OLD TV show or OLD film at the same time. Compared to TV, it is hopeless at this very specific function. Why? Because there are thousands and thousands of websites out there recommending key tv shows and films. The net effect might be the handful of interested people all go and watch different stuff. Now let's think about the random TV showing of Ghostbusters in 1996 that got 20+ million viewers just because it was on at 9pm on a big network. There is literally no comparison. Now 20 million people know and have seen Ghostbusters. The internet simply CANNOT replicate that. Evidence suggests that young people are not engaged with TV in the same way. Many don't own TVs. Many watch content from online sources. You'll never get millions of them watching the same old thing at the same time. Do you see and acknowledge how that's a real change? This is not me being cranky. I mean I do hate the attitude of people simply not caring about things because they are old, but my argument does not derive from that hatred. It derives from an observation of a genuine social change. I don't give a shit about Neal, by the way, I didn't even quote that to kickstart this conservation (as if I'd want to rehash all this with YOU of all fucking people), the context of me posting that was Mookie's thing about the "Millenial" generation. I read the Wiki article and the Neal article and posted it here. Did I say I approve of Neal's article? Where? When? I just said I despise the attitude he describes. I hope the nuances of my argument above -- once you understand them -- can deal with this basic non-point. This is not about me saying "oh fuck the youth and their love of the new", this is me saying "hmmm, there are reasons why these kids don't know anything, it's because they don't watch old stuff on TV like we used to". You see the distinction? So are books and newspapers. People in my youth were linking them, and if we go back further I'm sure we'll find Marrow talking about TV killing stuff of. TV was its own phenomenon. It created its own paradigm. I am saying that the internet is now killing that paradigm. What you're missing, in your usual Stalin-esque crude way of approaching these things, is that each of those changes also came with consequences. Books were never homogenous mass media like radio and TV were. You might have had hit novels, but you didn't get millions of people reading the same OLD books at the same time. Didn't happen. Radio and TV were homogenous mass media. TV especially, through re-runs and showings, was able -- almost effortlessly -- to get millions of people watching the same OLD shows and OLD films at the same time. Also, note, I'm not saying that the internet is killing TV shows, I'm saying that the internet is killing something very very specific: lots of people watching the same old shows at the same time. I don't think I could be any clearer or more coherent on this. This point therefore is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying. If I was actually making the argument that the internet was killing TV shows in general, you'd have a point. As it is, you're simply putting words in my mouth. If it's not already abundantly clear, I am talking about something really specific. Teenager in 1997: * A show he likes is on at 9pm[show X], it is 8pm * He sits down and puts on the TV on the channel that will be showing his program. * It's still 8pm and he watches the show that precedes show X -- he doesn't particularly want to watch it but it'll do for an hour * It's now 9pm and he watches show X * It's now 10pm and the network is showing a film made in 1976 * He gives it a go and watches that too. Teenager in 2013: * A show he likes is on Netflix [show Y], it's 8pm * He watches show Y * It's now 9pm and he does something else Quibble all you want with the specifics here, that's my broadbrush take on what has changed. Multiply that evening hundreds of times over years and years. How much stuff is the first teenager seeing that the second one would never ever even think of watching? It's hours and hours of stuff. Of course people ALWAYS had a choice, but I'm saying the practical experience of watching TV and watching content online are not the same at all. Shit, one has a schedule the other is completely free form dictated by your own choice alone. The decision process for watching show x is the same, but the way you receive the content may affect what ELSE you do that evening. I don't care to discuss specifics like this. It's a derailment and of no actual interest. The proportion of kids who will actively seek out a given old show on the internet as opposed to the number who just happen to catch an old show after their favourite show is much much smaller. EDIT: I've toned down the vitriol a bit. I meant every word of it, but hey, it's Xmas and even jdws have feelings

A lot of them are watching TV after 11pm it would seem -- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/2003-1...g-viewers_x.htm This is interesting, although I'd want to know how many "young viewers" even own a TV vs. 10 years ago.

What has changed is that people aren't watching tv, so the rerun that picked up millions of incidental numbers just by being on is effectively lost. Those people who used to be watching tv are now online doing other shit. Why do you reject this patently true phenomena? TV numbers are in terminal decline. The internet doesn't work like tv, it requires active choice. Most people -- just as the tosser SLL correctly put it -- don't go out of their way for things. They might not change the channel if a rerun comes on, but they aren't going to seek out that show if left to their own devices. This appears obvious and self-evident to me. It's also *shock horror* a change. Save the 10,000 word dissertation on why you think that's wrong because it isn't wrong, it's basically the case. Just say "yes that's true Jerry now you mention it" and then shut the fuck up for once.

You are such a boring bastard. I don't care what anyone says, it was fucking INCREDIBLE to me that The Undertaker or any wrestler was mentioned in that book.

Was this some snarky attempt at lampooning my position on this? If so, go fuck yourself. One of the least considered, most ill thought out contributions anyone has made to this thread to date. Dick.

Feel like Pete still brings up Chad's love for Al Perez on a weekly basis.

Had to stop 20 mins in because Pete dropped the big 5.0 on Martel vs. Rose. I'm actually going to have to watch some Portland. I have a vague idea about doing this over Xmas with a mince pie and a glass of port. "Portland with port". I'll do a little write up here once I'm done.

I feel like I explained all this stuff perfectly well 6 weeks ago.

The Undertaker is ranked as the 2nd biggest celebrity in the world in a study published by Cambridge University Press and this is the shit we're talking about? Just in case you missed it: !!!!

You are not going to believe who is mentioned in this book. Considering this thread, I couldn't fucking believe it. Study some of these tables carefully.

Had to buy. Scans to follow.

I don't really want to go over the debate again because I have nothing new to add. I think people have changed, others think people have always been the same. At times in history that is patently untrue. For example, the early moderns were self-consciously neo-classicist looking back to the Greeks as being purveyors of a golden age. The question is whether you can have real shifts in outlook in the space of one or two generations. Whatever you think, it seems like these sorts of "generational studies" might be the gateway into proper research on the topic. It is quite an interesting area I think.

I'm out of the loop- this was a new term for me when I read the Harris poll. Curious to read links. Don't really want to derail the other thread, but the wiki is not a bad starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials This actually sheds some light on the long debate we had here. Some of this stuff speaks to my theories about the internet affecting the way the youth of today engages with media and thinks about films and so on. Check out this line: There's a link to a related article: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/14/en...ovelty-20120715 A key passage: There it is right there. I will make no secret of the fact that I genuinely despise that attitude. Genuinely and deeply.

Just spent a while reading about the "Echo Boomer" generation. I kinda object to being lumped in with the 18 year olds!

I've got nothing else to say re: Watts himself as this one seems pretty self-evident to me. But I do want to say there's some confusion going on between: 1. People with athletic bodies and 2. People who happen to play sports The two can be mutually exclusive, as Butch's list of lardy footballers can attest.

Saying it in a Jedi voice doesn't make it any more true. I would describe Erik Watts's body as "normal". It is ridiculous to suggest that it is "athletic". I will brook no arguments about this. Here are some nice athletes from 1948. No needles. No six-packs either. Here is Erik Watts once more. More athletes from the 40s Erik Watts Bill Watts Erik Watts

I'm sorry but I will not accept the notion that 1992 Erik Watts is representative of the "typical athlete". The "typical young male" maybe. Hell, I don't look a million miles away from that with my shirt off -- and I'm partial to a burger or three! I will continue to scoff at any claim made about Erik Watts's "althetic" body. "Athletic" my arse!

I was just looking for a clip of Watts from around 1992 when I stumbled on a match of his tagging with Kensuke Sasaki vs. Arn and Steve Austin in which Arn submits to the STF. I was almost sick into my own mouth.

Have you had your eyes checked recently?

From what I can make out Thanksgiving is just a glorified Harvest Festival. (to my fellow Brits: ha ha, remember harvest festival in school? lol) I was thinking about this before, but the US seems to have more "big name" holidays than here. You've got that Independence Day (*spits*), Halloween is a bigger deal over there. Easter seems to be a bigger deal. Labor Day. Here we've just got Xmas and, well, "the summer" which isn't even a proper holiday. Other holidays are really fucking weak. Whitsun anyone? August Bank Holiday? May Day? These are rubbish holidays no one cares about. Some of them have interesting ancient pagan histories though. Easter is a jobber of a holiday here. I think the UK only has one "drawing" holiday.

What I don't get is why the presentation and model hasn't moved on since the Attitude era -- or even just gone back to what it was before then. The WWF was set up for a ratings war in the late 90s. 2001 was over a decade ago. I don't get why they need star vs. star matches all the time, it's not like the wrestling fan has Nitro to turn to. It's not just getting over finishers either, but whole gimmicks. Think of the role jobbers played in shit like getting over DiBiase's "$100 bill in the mouth" routine. A star vs. star match should feel special. There should be a discernable difference between PPVs and RAWs. Guys in feuds should be kept apart for longer, not have these retarded showdowns during 20 minute promos and so on. These were all criticisms of the product I made in 2003 -- everyone made those criticisms. They all still stand in 2013. Why? How? Does the criticism not still stand?

That's his mistake. Williams is shaking his head at the thought of that much effort.