JerryvonKramer

I haven't argued for my methods to be valued above all else, and I don't think I ever once in the whole thing said that BIGLAV was ever anything but a method to help me feel like my back 50 was less arbitrary, as I was having a tough time deciding on who was 78 and who was 68, etc. That is a misnomer, and something widely misunderstood. What I've argued for is a recognition that GWE is about something more than just personal connection and more than a personal favourites list. And if you accept that, then I don't see how you don't also accept that there are some objective factors you can actually point to when making cases. There will be workers with 140+ votes, regardless of how people made their lists, there are other workers who are not even nominated. If you can sit there with a straight face and still say "it's all subjective" then so be it. To me, the evidence suggests that there are at least shared standards that helps cream rise. If there aren't, how do you explain it?

I don't really understand the concept of giving reasons for making decisions in that which you have insisted is totally subjective. There is no need to defend. There is no need to justify. There is no need to debate. There is no need to define criteria. There is no need for discussion. "It's my view" is the only argument required. And a shrug really can be the only response. I don't see much alternative if you hold to an idea of zero standards of evidence, burden of proof, or anything else, and only opinion. If you abandon the notion that your views are actually what you believe to be true, then essentially there's nothing at stake. Nothing at all. The passion you showed for each of your picks was passion really for nothing. If you don't deep down believe your top ten guys are really -- actually, totally, objectively, truthfully -- the top ten wrestlers, then what were you getting passionate about? I don't get the concept of arguing strongly for things that you also maintain can't possibly be true, are only relevant to yourself, and cannot be demonstrated with evidence.

Shaking my head. Luger is so much better than Sting. Ridiculous. Is it just me or HHH better than Angle? I can't believe he has a chance at the top 100. It's all just subjective. Any and all views are possible and valid. No view is wrong. No view is ridiculous. If someone thinks El Gigante personally connects with them more than Kenta Kobashi, hey, who is anyone to disagree! Let's just embrace it. I, for one, will not be reacting to a single other placement. I am just going to note which of my guys fell and when.

Seems to me if you insist that "anything goes", if you dispense with the categories of evidence and burden of proof, if you dispense with any sense of a shared criteria, there isn't much left to say but "hey this was my pick, tell me yours." Even with criteria, people would see it in different ways. Still trying to squeeze objectivity out of a subjective medium. Child's last point is spot on. You recorded a ten hour podcast giving reasons for each of your picks. If you remove any notion of objectivity from things, the entire concept of defending a pick or indeed of making an argument at all collapses. In which case your podcast need only have been about ten minutes, not ten hours.

Seems to me if you insist that "anything goes", if you dispense with the categories of evidence and burden of proof, if you dispense with any sense of a shared criteria, there isn't much left to say but "hey this was my pick, tell me yours."

One thing I discovered is that all arguments can be defeated with the line "it's my opinion". I maintain that it is the end rather than the start of most convos.

Stacey has an anti pot-belly bias! (Race, Murdoch)

Damn, even your Iphone fell asleep at the mere mention of Dory. Wow, the quality has been great overall, but this is the post of the project for me.Nice to see my Learning to Love Dory thread had such a great impact on challenging pre-conceptions.

Conservative voter.

We live in a world of pussies now.

I have yet to be a high vote for anyone.

With Dory and Fuchi, I'm now 24 men down.

I was out and saw the Dory reveal the moment my iPhone ran out of battery. A shame he couldn't make it to the top 100

Beast, I don't believe a #20 vote on Gotch is based on footage watching. As one example.

Matt when so many voters were not PWOers, I'm not sure there are any lessons or conclusions to draw from the results and I say that expecting Flair will finish #1 I said months ago that the results won't mean much. Just enjoying the reveals.

Sting my 22nd soldier.

My primary motivation for keeping track is to beat both Steven and Chad, because I'm competitive about everything. I don't even know what "beating" means in this context, just want to win.

21 with Wahoo

I just like my wrestlers I picked and want them to do as well as possible. Do you think it's possible people are taking things a lot more seriously than us at this point?

One of those guys who talks about PWO a lot on Twitter but who doesn't post here said this: Why do y'all want your ballots to have the most guys listed? To prove you are the woolliest of the sheep?#pwogwe Just wondering how many people here feel that and how others might respond to that criticism.

You probably didn't save the Dory stuff right?

Grimmas, did you rank Pirata Morgan? I need to make three back on you some how, lucha guys falling is my great hope.

Blackwell my 20th down

True. ... Gotta say, since I've been a pretty vocal biglav supporter, I'm glad you still have 81 guys left. I could convince myself that's a sign that there's something to that system. It's more a sign I think that the areas I consider to be "niches", and didn't rank, are in fact niches. Trouble is, Steven didn't bother with shootstyle either and I think his 83 guys and my 81 guys have about a 90% overlap. I need a few more of those lucha punks to fall if I'm going to "beat him", lol

Bigelow being that high just shows me how many ballots there are outside of the 'PWO bubble' because the idea he is one of the best big men ever has been thoroughly debunked around here. How the fuck do you debunk an opinion? This isn't Mythbusters. Yes, debunking an opinion is something that would almost require a............hivemind. When people stay stuff like that, what they mean is, a bunch of people sat down and watched a bunch of footage and drew different conclusions from the received wisdom. It's less about a hive mind and more about an approach. Outside of here, a lot of people draw conclusions from watching mainly supercards, PPVs, that sort of thing. There's a certain concentration of footage watching that goes on that isn't reflected in many other places. And people still draw different conclusions. Look at OJ's mostly incorrect takes on Hase, for example.