Liking and disliking stuff

[Bob Morris]

With regards to the thread topic, my bigger issue are with those people who profess a like or dislike for something and never want to explain why they do or didn't like beyond "OMG IT RULEZ" and "OMG IT WAS SHIT" or some variant thereof of those expressions, in which they aren't able to explain what really made it work or not work for them.

 

SLL's YouTube link raises a valid point, but it could also be raised about those who like something just as much as those who don't like something.

 

That being said, sometimes discussions will get heated, particularly if people feel strongly about one side or the other. But as long as they are able to articulate their points, I'm fine with it. When they get into simplistic response or, worse yet, insults, that's when I'm gonna tune out the discussion, regardless of who I agree or disagree with.

[S.L.L.]

SLL's YouTube link raises a valid point, but it could also be raised about those who like something just as much as those who don't like something.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, WildPegasus may have been as much of a dick about liking Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid as he was about disliking Jerry Lawler. That is a very important corollary to what I posted to keep in mind.

 

That being said, sometimes discussions will get heated, particularly if people feel strongly about one side or the other. But as long as they are able to articulate their points, I'm fine with it. When they get into simplistic response or, worse yet, insults, that's when I'm gonna tune out the discussion, regardless of who I agree or disagree with.

I would suggest that not wanting to/being able to articulate your points specifically is OK if you're not pressing the issue nor have an interest in pressing the issue. A casual statement can have casual support, or one made about a subject that the speaker just isn't interested in. Jerome, just as an example, not wanting to explain his dislike of post-'04 WWE in detail because he doesn't like it and has no desire to spend his time discussing it, makes perfect sense to me. I don't think that stance is unfair. But by that same token, he shouldn't actually push the issue himself if he isn't ready to back it up. And if you're going to be a dick about something, you better be ready to answer EVERYTHING you get called out on in the process.

 

I think it goes without saying that articulating points with bullshit is unacceptable under any circumstances, but especially if you're being a dick about it.

[Matt D]

Basically, if you're going to push it, articulate it.

[goodhelmet]

Wondering if it's worth getting that DA comp on top of 92 yearbook? Next month is pretty much solidly All Japan for me, but just wondering.

You can ask this question in any thread you want. Of course you should pick it up!

[artDDP]

I don't watch all that much wrestling anymore. I have stockpiled DVDs for the last few years and have hardly watched a 1/4 of them. When I watch wrestling, I stick to matches, never entire shows.

This is me, exactly. I haven't watched any current professional wrestling--excluding some TNA telecasts my friend DVRs--since Chris Benoit won the world title. I was losing interest rapidly and the angle where the Undertaker buried Paul Bearer in cement just turned me off.

 

I have a large collection of DVDs, quite a few of them released in the last year. The only ones I've actually sat and watched start-to-finish were the "Best of 'Raw' Volume 1 & 2" and "Best of 'WCW Monday Nitro'".

[Guest Grifftrain]

I like WWE, but I don't have cable, do I don't have the chance to watch every week. I enjoy ROH for two reasons. One, it's not on cable, and two, at times it reminds me of mid Atlantic NSA wrestling, which I grew up watching. Wrestling has peaks and valleys, so no real reason to complain. If your a fan, just keep watching and it will get better for a while, then hit a few boring patches. All in all it's a good show.