Steven Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually, that is not true at all. Even out penal system has different punishments and different codes for killing people. 1st degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter. crimes of passion, etc. "Once you start saying killing someone due to _SELF DEFENSE_ is better than _KILLING A DEFENSELESS CHILD_ you lead down a slippery slope as shown in this thread" Not defending Benoit but murder is still murder. Doesn't change it. Everything should be done to avoid it. I try to avoid these kind of conversations, EDIT: n/m, I'm going to continue doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 The Snuka/Nancy Argentino case is as sick the Benoit case. It's just that the WWF was able to cover it all up, which allows them to avoid the disclaimer. Which is yet another reason why it's as sick: Snuka's walking around, and Vince is essentially an after the fact accomplice in covering it up... some sick shit. Let's not build up the Benoit case as the most heinous thing ever, and pawn off the Snuka case as some low level thing. They both sick, comfortably high on the scale, but not remotely close to the worst that any of us have read about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this. So you are missing all the posts where I say that I am in favor of Benoit being marginalized? Reduced to a nameless being that these other great wrestlers just happens to be in the ring with? I get that you are playing the role of the overzealous defender of all that is right and just in the world. The guy is burning in hell right now. Believe me, he is being punished. Now let the great matches by OTHER guys in that ring be shown. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I worked with Alzheimer's victims for 23 years and never once did any of them go on a murder suicide spree that lasted three days. The phrasing of "he had the brain of an Alzheimer's victim" deal always bugged me. So does the whole "Verne's a murderer too" thing you see sometimes. No, what Verne did is just one of those tragedies that happens with actual Alzheimer's victims. Sometimes in their dementia they can become aggressive towards their peers. Verne basically knocked down his roommate who took a fall that led to his death. And Verne never knew what he had done and forgot it seconds after it happened. That's not murder. And Hall struggling over a gun a guy pulled on him when he was bouncing and then it going off as he was defending himself isn't murder either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 People were criticizing them when they did that too. That's my point. They can't make everyone happy no matter what they do. But are any complaints of "you're not putting enough footage of a murderer on your network!" really worth listening to? No one would say that but they might ask for Royal Rumble 2003, Wrestlemania 2004, etc etc. It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. You're seriously suggesting that the WWF should promote a family annihilator just so certain matches of Angle, Jericho and Guerrero can be given a bigger spotlight? C'mon man. Yes let's ignore everything else I said. This is exactly what I am suggesting. It's what you lead with and to be fair, the rest of what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Comparing a drug-related coronary to a guy that wiped out his family? Oh yeah, you're on top of this. So you are missing all the posts where I say that I am in favor of Benoit being marginalized? Reduced to a nameless being that these other great wrestlers just happens to be in the ring with? I get that you are playing the role of the overzealous defender of all that is right and just in the world. The guy is burning in hell right now. Believe me, he is being punished. Now let the great matches by OTHER guys in that ring be shown. Simple as that. I'm responding to what you said. If you don't want attention drawn to ridiculous things you say, you may want to stop saying ridiculous things. If you're trying to walk it back to something less ridiculous, that's cool. But this is you in this thread: It's not fair to a guy like Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero who have had some of their best matches against he who shall not be named. Eddie Guerrero dropped dead of heart failure linked to steroid abuse and drug abuse. Should we put disclaimers that WWE does not support drug use? Verne killed an old man. New Jack killed someone. Are we only judging murders by age now? Adults are okay, but kids are off limit? And beyond the unfairness to guys to wrestled him and outrageous false equivalencies, your main concern seems to be WWE's legal protection. Is it that "overzealous" of me to suggest that some things are bigger than making sure we have access to the absolute complete works of Kurt Angle? It's perspectives like the one you're putting forth which cements the view of those who look at rasslin fans as the lowest common denominator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Ridiculous? I am recalling how anti-Benoit you are so that is fine. Don't try to paint me as some deranged Benoit supporter because that has not at all been the angle I've come from. I don't give a flying fuck if they show Benoit matches again. I am simply saying if they CHOSE to, for other guys in the ring or to showcase the events he took part in, just do it. I did not think an advisory warning was a good idea. Redman brought up the legal aspect which I admitted I hadn't considered. I withdrew my objection on that merit. The Eddie comment was a bad example I admit. Congratulations. You caught me. Score one for you. Then you bring up my comment about Verne and New Jack (didn't bring up Hall because I was not aware of that incident) without proper context which I framed not too long after which was that it was done in response to goodhelmet talking about how they didn't kill their kids, and I simply flippantly tossed out support for the guy he was responding to... which essentially was that murder is murder. I respect Johnny Sorrow's experience with alzheimer's patients but here is one of my own. My father in law has vascular dementia. Not quite the same thing but here's what I've seen. He would follow up days of clarity with days of being batshit crazy...and continuing that cycle. I refuse to excuse Benoit from his atrocities anyways as I've mentioned in a different post. So that isn't even where I am going to come from. However I don't blame those who will. So anyways, any more of my comments you care to take out of context or attack belatedly after I have already expanded on those that you will conveniently ignore to feel morally superior to, dear Dooley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Not to derail the current topic of conversation, but do we know of any journalists (wrestling or otherwise) who will be in Las Vegas to cover the WWE's announcement next week, and is it known if there will be some kind of live stream of the event? I know at least one video game website had posted a copy of the invitation saying they had no idea why WWE was sending it to them but they were going to cover it. I can't find the link on ipad. I do hope at least some organization with a clue reports. If it is a network announcement there isn't a reason that people can't be well versed on he lead up to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Ridiculous? Yes, ridiculous. Don't try to paint me as some deranged Benoit supporter because that has not at all been the angle I've come from Wasn't what I was doing, although I genuinely question your priorities in this matter. But you're doing a pretty good part of doing the "deranged" part all by your lonesome the deeper you get into this. The Eddie comment was a bad example I admit. Congratulations. You caught me. Score one for you. Don't get all pissy just because you said something ridiculous and someone else noticed. Again, if you want to avoid that the best idea is to stop saying ridiculous things. Then you bring up my comment about Verne and New Jack (didn't bring up Hall because I was not aware of that incident) without proper context I brought it up because it in was a pattern of ridiculous things you've been saying in the discussion. If you want to avoid being called on that....see above. So anyways, any more of my comments you care to take out of context or attack belatedly after I have already expanded on those that you will conveniently ignore to feel morally superior to, dear Dooley? Nah, watching you spiral out like this is fine. I've done nothing other than respond to what you've said. I haven't left out anything that makes you look good in this conversation, there just isn't anything there. It has nothing to do with feeling morally superior, I'm usually the last guy on the morality train. But when your biggest concern about Benoit being showcased on the network is whether it's fair to Kurt Angle or the liability of WWE for doing so, do you really honestly expect no one to stop and go "huh"? Does that really not reflect to you any sort of misplaced priorities? But hey, keep thinking that you were just taken out of context or whatever instead of just saying ridiculous things. Shine On You Crazy Diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 So you have nothing of real value to say? Just name calling? Gotcha. Sorry guys for derailing this thread for that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 The Snuka/Nancy Argentino case is as sick the Benoit case. It's just that the WWF was able to cover it all up, which allows them to avoid the disclaimer. Which is yet another reason why it's as sick: Snuka's walking around, and Vince is essentially an after the fact accomplice in covering it up... some sick shit. Let's not build up the Benoit case as the most heinous thing ever, and pawn off the Snuka case as some low level thing. Yep that was my initial point actually. I have no idea what should be done with Benoit's footage. But let's not be hypocritical when the same company will happily show tons of Jimmy Snuka's matches and ignore the fact he beat up his girlfriend to death then kayfabed his dumb savage gimmick with the help of Vince to get off the hook. And while Steve Austin didn't kill Debra, he sure beat up her ass enough that she got scared to death and had to do something about it. What did the WWF do at the time ? So yeah, this disclaimer business is making me chuckle a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 No one is pretending that those crimes aren't as bad. "Not the same thing" means "not the same thing as a PR issue to the company". They feel the need to issue a Benoit disclaimer because it's something people actually know about that got a ton of mainstream coverage. Most people don't know that Jimmy Snuka is a murderer, he was never convicted and there has been no media circus which they need to preemptively strike. I don't look at it as a moral decision. I look at it as a business decision. Yet it's being debated as a moral decision, which would be an entirely separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Following up on my previous post: 1. Dave and Bryan will be attending the CES announcement. 2. WWE.com announced they will be streaming the event on Wednesday starting at 9:30 PM Eastern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Following up on my previous post: 1. Dave and Bryan will be attending the CES announcement. 2. WWE.com announced they will be streaming the event on Wednesday starting at 9:30 PM Eastern. It's at 9:00 PM ET, not 9:30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 That's the time on the front page of wwe.com. Where did you see 9 PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 That's the date on the front page of wwe.com. Where did you see 9 PM? The Facebook RSVP link they tweeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 It's strange that they've posted two different times. Must be 9 PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 The text alert they sent also indicated a 9:30 start time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 The text alert they sent also indicated a 9:30 start time. They said 9:30 on TV last night and the FB invite now says 9:15 so it was probably just a buffer/typo at first. I hope the legends answer tech journalist questions on bandwidth and pricing theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 BTW, if anyone was doubting that this wasn't the Network launch announcement, the Corporate site sent out a press release today entitled, "WWE Event: WWE Network Announcement". They sent out a wacky link that forgot the snl.com portion, but here's the corrected address. http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx/?i...;fid=1001181976 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Is there a good timeline of the process of the Network? I'm trying to figure out stuff like when WWE tried to negotiate with providers to get the Network on an expanded basic package (before they tried to get on sports tiers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Is there a good timeline of the process of the Network? I'm trying to figure out stuff like when WWE tried to negotiate with providers to get the Network on an expanded basic package (before they tried to get on sports tiers). I tried to do some timeline stuff in the original piece about the WWE Network: http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...rk-succeed.html I include links to most statements but I also emailed you a copy of the original word document where I cited some sources that weren't hyperlinked in the blog article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 BTW, if anyone was doubting that this wasn't the Network launch announcement, the Corporate site sent out a press release today entitled, "WWE Event: WWE Network Announcement". They sent out a wacky link that forgot the snl.com portion, but here's the corrected address. http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx/?i...;fid=1001181976 Network isn't mentioned in the document on that link. Business Wire press release also doesn't mention it: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tune-advisor...-190000600.html Did they change something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts