All Elite Wrestling

[hammerva]

Hopefully nobody tries to get Meltzer to investigate it.    I mean we know it is just going to be like

something something something "you know about women" something something something "I know about crazy women".  

By the way I am not saying that this disappearance is some mental issues.  Nobody really knows i think.  Just hope it isn't something serious

 

[rovert]

On 9/2/2019 at 11:53 AM, El-P said:

Settle down, trooper, and have some sense of humour. It's healthy to laugh at your own expense, ya know. It was not trolling nor even mean spirited, really. It's called "a joke". Ya know, an attempt to make some people smile, or even laugh.

It wasn't a joke though you were calling into question my knowledge of things.

On 9/2/2019 at 3:05 PM, hammerva said:

Hopefully nobody tries to get Meltzer to investigate it.    I mean we know it is just going to be like

something something something "you know about women" something something something "I know about crazy women".  

By the way I am not saying that this disappearance is some mental issues.  Nobody really knows i think.  Just hope it isn't something serious

 

No matter what I say about the situation people will overly read into what I am saying. I broke the story of AEW departure and her retirement as I know a huge cross section of her friends who gave me the greenlight. A lot of her friends connected with me the 2-3 week period where she went from being a very outgoing friend to every locker room in the Country to complete radio silence and people really worried about her. And since then people have just been trading notes just hoping for the best. It was a sad time and still a sad time.

Anyway, the Wrestling media should look into the circumstances behind her departure and if there's a systemic issue with bullying in the Company. That would be the automatic line of enquiry if I was a journalist. Obviously you have to balance that with Kylie's privacy and welfare. A lot of fans on social media to a maddening degree think you can't do both and are kinda shutting down anyone who says it should be looked into at all.

Once Kylie is in a position to talk I hope she can talk and fans hear her story out. That could take years for all I know and we don't know what she signed to get her release that may prevent her from doing so.

But back to what you said Meltzer's closeness to the Cody, Tony etc doesn't fill me in confidence that we will get more than three lines in the Observer about it.

[El-P]

22 minutes ago, rovert said:

It wasn't a joke though you were calling into question my knowledge of things.

Well, it was a joke. You quoting yourself about Schiavone being WWE bound and then Schiavone ending up in AEW was funny to me. if I were you I would have poked fun at myself for that one. But apparently, you so serious about your knowledge of things and you can't take a joke and have to be on the defensive all the time. Tough shit. 

[El-P]

This however, is not a joke :

29 minutes ago, rovert said:

Anyway the Wrestling media should look into the circumstances behind her departure and if there's a systemic issue with bullying in the Company. That would be the automatic line of enquiry if I was journalist.

Ok, so are you implying there is systemic bullying issue in AEW ? And if you are not a journalist and have no evidence about this, why are you throwing that out of nowhere ?

29 minutes ago, rovert said:

But back to what you said Meltzer's closeness to the Cody, Tony etc doesn't fill me in confidence that we will get more than three lines in the Observer about it.

And now you are implying that Meltz is gonna rub that one under the rug because he is friends with the AEW people ?

So, let me rephrase. We don't know why Kylie Rae left, yet you still are implying that 1/ there may be systemic bullying and 2/ of course Meltz is not gonna talk about it because #MeltzisAEW.

Ok, sorry, but that is pretty fucking thin.

[rovert]

Firstly re-read my very first sentence. 

Also "if there is a systemic bullying issue" isn't implying anything.

 

[El-P]

8 minutes ago, rovert said:

Firstly re-read my very first sentence. 

Also "if there is a systemic bullying issue" isn't implying anything.

Well, actually it is. Because there can be a thousand different reasons why Kylie Rae went silent and left the company. It could be anything, really, that have everything or nothing to do with her job. So, just asking that simple question is implying. The use of "systemic" actually goes further into implying, giving an attribute to the nature of said implied bullying.

If you don't know anything about the reason why she left, why ask that one question ? Either you now something and you are giving us a hint by asking that question, either you don't know and then you are just implying something out of thin air.

[rovert]

 

 

 

 

2

1 minute ago, El-P said:

Well, actually it is. Because there can be a thousand different reasons why Kylie Rae went silent and left the company. It could be anything, really, that have everything or nothing to do with her job. So, just asking that simple question is implying .

Hence the IF in "if there is a systemic bullying issue".

It is clear you are just being difficult for the sake of it. Like you "joking", picking out innocent typos and whatever you are trying to accomplish with your "rephrasing" of my posts.

[El-P]

Well, the joke was a few days ago. You made a big deal out of it. Bad timing I guess

I'm not rephrasing your posts at all. "If" makes it a question. Why ask that one question, when Kylie could have left for pretty much any reason in the world we have no idea about ? Maybe simply because that's the very first thing you thought about. Ok then. But then going on about how Meltz, if that would be the case, would probably not talk about it because he's friends with the AEW people is basically making it a stronger case of implying about stuff. I'm not being "difficult for the sake of it", but your flaunt your knowledge and connections and whatever all the time, so I don't think it's odd for me to wonder why you would talk about "systemic bullying" out of nowhere like that, even going so far to say Meltz would hide it if that was the case... That's a process of intent on something that isn't out there yet in any shape of form.

Well, yeah, I am difficult for the sake of it, because of your habit to say that you know but can't talk about but then give hints and then whoops sometimes you were wrong. But hey, you said it yourself, "people are gonna overly read into what am I saying". There you go. 

[rovert]

42 minutes ago, El-P said:

So, let me rephrase. We don't know why Kylie Rae left, yet you still are implying that 1/ there may be systemic bullying and 2/ of course Meltz is not gonna talk about it because #MeltzisAEW.

Ok, sorry, but that is pretty fucking thin.

In the above post you say let me rephrase in another you deny that you ever have:

4 minutes ago, El-P said:

I'm not rephrasing your posts at all.

Stop trolling and turning this topic into trash. At least you admit to doing that:

6 minutes ago, El-P said:

Well, yeah, I am difficult for the sake of it

 

[FMKK]

18 minutes ago, El-P said:

Well, the joke was a few days ago. You made a big deal out of it. Bad timing I guess

I'm not rephrasing your posts at all. "If" makes it a question. Why ask that one question, when Kylie could have left for pretty much any reason in the world we have no idea about ? Maybe simply because that's the very first thing you thought about. Ok then. But then going on about how Meltz, if that would be the case, would probably not talk about it because he's friends with the AEW people is basically making it a stronger case of implying about stuff. I'm not being "difficult for the sake of it", but your flaunt your knowledge and connections and whatever all the time, so I don't think it's odd for me to wonder why you would talk about "systemic bullying" out of nowhere like that, even going so far to say Meltz would hide it if that was the case... That's a process of intent on something that isn't out there yet in any shape of form.

Well, yeah, I am difficult for the sake of it, because of your habit to say that you know but can't talk about but then give hints and then whoops sometimes you were wrong. But hey, you said it yourself, "people are gonna overly read into what am I saying". There you go. 

I know people are going to read into what I'm going to say so I'm going to bring up something that would potentially be an explosive story and imply that journalists will cover is up but you should know that I don't actually mean anything by it. Ok then. What a joker.

[rovert]

3 minutes ago, FMKK said:

I know people are going to read into what I'm going to say so I'm going to bring up something that would potentially be an explosive story and imply that journalists will cover is up but you should know that I don't actually mean anything by it. Ok then. What a joker.

I didn't say that though. If I did you could quote me and wouldn't need to resort completely making one up.

[El-P]

17 minutes ago, rovert said:

In the above post you say let me rephrase in another you deny that you ever have:

You know how the English langage works, right ? I mean, it's even my native langage, and sometime I feel like I understand it better than you do. Your use of "rephrasing", that you put under quotation, means that I did more than just rephrase but that I gave another meaning to what you first said. Which was not the case. So when I answered to you, I used the term "rephrase", again, because that's how langage works, but this time I used it the way you used it under quotation, meaning "modify" more than simply "rephrase".

17 minutes ago, rovert said:

Stop trolling and turning this topic into trash. At least you admit to doing that:

I'm being difficult for a reason, I'm absolutely not trolling. I'm trying to make sense of what you said in your first post, which was chockfull of stuff you implied.

7 minutes ago, FMKK said:

I know people are going to read into what I'm going to say so I'm going to bring up something that would potentially be an explosive story and imply that journalists will cover is up but you should know that I don't actually mean anything by it. Ok then. What a joker.

Pretty much. 

[El-P]

3 minutes ago, rovert said:

I didn't say that though. If I did you could quote me and wouldn't need to resort completely making one up.

That's absolutely what you said. It's actually a much better and complete rephrasing than what I did.

[rovert]

1 minute ago, El-P said:

That's absolutely what you said. It's actually a much better and complete rephrasing than what I did.

I should know what I said. Again you just trolled from the beginning here and weren't looking to have a discussion. You oddly skipped over hammerva's post.

[El-P]

9 minutes ago, rovert said:

I should know what I said. Again you just trolled from the beginning here and weren't looking to have a discussion.

Nope. I am trying to have a discussion. But just like you can't take a joke, you can't take the fact people are questioning what you are saying.

So, what are you saying about the Kylie Rae situation that you know about *exactly* ? Because if you don't know shit, why are you even talking about systemic bullying that journalist maybe should enquire about and Meltzer possibly hiding it because he's AEW's boys ?

9 minutes ago, rovert said:

You oddly skipped over hammerva's post.

I reply to whatever post I want, really.

[Slasher]

16 minutes ago, rovert said:

I should know what I said. 

This thread would seem to indicate to the contrary.

[rovert]

13 minutes ago, Slasher said:

This thread would seem to indicate to the contrary.

As EL-P has admitted to bad faith posting and continues to do it. His latest is saying I said that Meltzer is covering up the Kylie Raw story. He obviously isn't quoting what I actually said in doing that for obvious reasons.

[Slasher]

You said Meltzer's relationship with Cody and the likes gives you less confidence that he'd give it more than three lines. How does that not imply what El-P thinks you are implying? If you don't understand English, and how words and their arrangement, placement, choice thereof, etc informs the context of the message, then no you don't seem to know what you are saying.

 

Furthermore, you made an impression here and on twitter of appearing to know the situation with her and why she had to make the decision. AFTER doing so, you then "wondered" if bullying was part of the problem. This implies, with the premise that you know the truth, that the problem was bullying. Then when called out, you tried backing away from your statements. No, you don't get to do that, not if you want to maintain any sense of credibility.

[El-P]

13 minutes ago, rovert said:

As EL-P has admitted to bad faith posting and continues to do it.

Nope. I simply analyzed what you wrote. Science langage are a bitch, I admit.

[El-P]

Oh, so rovert has reported me now. Ok. Point taken.

I guess he doesn't like when someone is reading through his bullshit. I'm out of this argument, my point has been made well and clear.

[rovert]

1 hour ago, Slasher said:

You said Meltzer's relationship with Cody and the likes gives you less confidence that he'd give it more than three lines. How does that not imply what El-P thinks you are implying? If you don't understand English, and how words and their arrangement, placement, choice thereof, etc informs the context of the message, then no you don't seem to know what you are saying.

As Meltzer can be lazy, favourable and easily lead by sources and those he likes. It doesn't have to be this mass cover up. Also what hammerva posted above.

 

1 hour ago, Slasher said:

Furthermore, you made an impression here and on twitter of appearing to know the situation with her and why she had to make the decision. AFTER doing so, you then "wondered" if bullying was part of the problem. This implies, with the premise that you know the truth, that the problem was bullying. Then when called out, you tried backing away from your statements. No, you don't get to do that, not if you want to maintain any sense of credibility.

Stop implying and just ask straight questions or just read what I wrote again:

3 hours ago, rovert said:

Anyway, the Wrestling media should look into the circumstances behind her departure and if there's a systemic issue with bullying in the Company. That would be the automatic line of enquiry if I was a journalist. Obviously you have to balance that with Kylie's privacy and welfare. A lot of fans on social media to a maddening degree think you can't do both and are kinda shutting down anyone who says it should be looked into at all.

Where's the wondering here exactly? I haven't backed away from my statements. I reposted part of the original one. You creating narratives out of thin air here. I stand by everything I said.

This thread would be improved by quoting me directly instead of bad faith implying and inventing quotes and positions I've never shared.

[Migs]

Why should they look into bullying? What about her departure would imply bullying?

There's literally a million reasons people decide to leave wrestling. You even mentioning bullying implies that bullying (or a situation *like* bullying) is the cause, especially when the main guess on Twitter has been "undisclosed medical reasons" (a serious injury or illness that she'd rather not discuss publicly, for whatever reason). 

[rovert]

8 minutes ago, Migs said:

Why should they look into bullying? 

As it should be attempted to be ruled out given the circumstances and in my knowledge of the situation in my opinion. Also Cody and Tony are known for their tempers and there was a backstage fight between two women at All Out.

You can disagree that's fine.

[Migs]

Just now, rovert said:

As it should be ruled out given the circumstances in my opinion.

You can disagree that's fine.

What about the publicly available information would require a bullying investigation? 

[PeteF3]

Why should we be launching a bullying investigation regarding Kylie Ray's disappearance and not Kacy Catanzaro's? Or Alex Koslov? Or Dennis Condrey or Brian St. John, for God's sake? People leave the wrestling business all the time. If you have something on this, spill the beans. The "I'm not saying, just saying" act reeks of 1994-era Mean Gene Okerlund.

rovert, seriously, you should probably quit this argument while you're behind.