OT: Difference between "fact" and "opinion"
Dawg
constitutes "opinion." I know nobody asked me for my input, but since when
does anybody in this group have to be asked to post?
A fact is something which can be proven, or which is universally accepted as
true. A synonym for fact is "reality." Stating something is a fact implies
there is no room for argument. There are some things in this world that are
accepted as facts, such as:
*2+2=4 (absolute truth)
*Ice is cold (may not be true, but it's universally held that ice is indeed
cold)
*Computers are faster and more powerful today than 20 years ago (I have a
calculator that's more powerful than the first generation of Mac's)
*The WWF is making more money right now than WCW (look at their financial
statements)
*The XFL is a newer league than the NFL (the NFL was founded before last
year)
*A Porsche is faster than a Ford Focus (the Porsche has a higher top speed)
An opinion is a view that someone holds which may, or may not be true. It
all depends on the person holding the opinion, and is, therefore, subjective
to the person making the statement. An opinion implies that someone holds a
certain view, but is still open to discussion over the matter. Examples of
opinions are:
*It is warm outside (depends on where you are. It's cold for me, but for
someone in Argentina, it's warm.)
*Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream (true for me, but not
for Jeanne, as she pointed out in another post)
*Banking is a better career than teaching (again, true for me, but not for
others)
*The NFL is better than the XFL (true for me, but not for RnR and others in
this group.)
*The WWF is better than WCW (not to me, but to many others in here)
*"The Magnificent Seven" is the best film ever made (true for some people,
but definitely not true for others)
Generally, any use of the words "good," "better," or "best" imply a
comparison based on opinion. Saying "Steak and eggs are a good breakfast" is
opinion. Some folks don't like that sort of thing.
Short form of this post:
If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
truth, it's a fact.
--
Dawg
-------------------------
Never knock on Death's door.
Ring his doorbell and run. (He hates that.)
-------------------------
You know what they say:
If you put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters,
Soon you'd have a room full of dead monkeys.
(It's a good idea to feed the monkeys...) - Scott Adams
-------------------------
Matango
like this:
Are you gonna say that the wrestling in WCW is better than in the WWF?
Are the storylines in WCW better than the WWF?
Are the personalites better in WCW than in WWF?
If you said yes to any of these, it is your opinion. The fact is the WWF is all
around MORE superior to WCW, and if you say otherwise, you have to use facts to
back up your statement or esle settle for personal taste as a reason. No onew
can debate personalk tase, but as a storyteller, there is no opinion as to how
to tell a good story. The WWF does it better. The wrestling in the WWF is
better, that cannot be debated. The storylines as well cannot be debated.
Preferrign WCW over the WWF is not a matter of what yout hink is better, rather
it is about what you prefer more. If you're gonna be objkective, the WWF is
better, no doubt about it. THAT is fact. And I'm a WCW fan.
Matango
Jeanne
<snip>
> Short form of this post:
> If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
> truth, it's a fact.
Well said, Dawg.
Although I'm sure it will not prevent some posters from continuing to argue
the point. Casting your pearls again...
You are, however, WRONG about the ice cream! Vanilla rulz!! And that's a
fact...Jack. :op
Jeanne
GTS
,with help from large dodes of Prozak, wrote:
>I've read the recent debate over what constitutes "fact" and what
>constitutes "opinion." I know nobody asked me for my input, but since when
>does anybody in this group have to be asked to post?
>
>A fact is something which can be proven, or which is universally accepted as
>true. A synonym for fact is "reality." Stating something is a fact implies
>there is no room for argument. There are some things in this world that are
>accepted as facts, such as:
>*2+2=4 (absolute truth)
True, but if you are talking about taking drugs, such as stimulants
remember 1+1=7 (One dose of one stimulant plus one dose of another
stimulant has the effect of taking SEVEN doses of either one by
itself)
>*Ice is cold (may not be true, but it's universally held that ice is indeed
>cold)
And that leads us to the most painful word in the English language:
Pisscicle (Happens when it's so cold your pee freezes before it hits
the ground. If it freezes to your weemer there's hell to pay)
>*Computers are faster and more powerful today than 20 years ago (I have a
>calculator that's more powerful than the first generation of Mac's)
If you dropped both a P3-850 and a 286 out of an airplane, both would
hit the ground at nearly the same time. The 286, being older, thus
heavier, would actually hit the ground first due to the fact that
computer case sizes haven't changed much. Thus, a 286 is faster than a
p3-850
>*The WWF is making more money right now than WCW (look at their financial
>statements)
True, but at the cost of their dignity. <SARCASM> Besides, they spend
98% of their profits paying amazing journalists like Rev </SARCASM>
>*The XFL is a newer league than the NFL (the NFL was founded before last
>year)
I'll have to check into this one.
>*A Porsche is faster than a Ford Focus (the Porsche has a higher top speed)
They're nearly the same if you consider the fact that they are on the
surface of the surface of the earth which, (at the equator), is
traveling about 1000 MPH, on a planet traveling around the sun at
about 31,000 mph, a Sun which is in a part of the galaxy which is
moving at about 330,000 mph away from it's center. If you look at it
like that, a couple dozen MPH really doesn't mean that much.
>
>An opinion is a view that someone holds which may, or may not be true. It
>all depends on the person holding the opinion, and is, therefore, subjective
>to the person making the statement. An opinion implies that someone holds a
>certain view, but is still open to discussion over the matter. Examples of
>opinions are:
>*It is warm outside (depends on where you are. It's cold for me, but for
>someone in Argentina, it's warm.)
There is no such thing as cold, just different degrees of warmth.
>*Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream (true for me, but not
>for Jeanne, as she pointed out in another post)
My sister spilled vanilla ice cream in the back of her car. At least
that's what she said it was.
>*Banking is a better career than teaching (again, true for me, but not for
>others)
But a being a piano player in a whorehouse is better yet.
>*The NFL is better than the XFL (true for me, but not for RnR and others in
>this group.)
>*The WWF is better than WCW (not to me, but to many others in here)
>*"The Magnificent Seven" is the best film ever made (true for some people,
>but definitely not true for others)
Never saw it, but I bet it's not as good as the series "Red Dwarf"
>
>Generally, any use of the words "good," "better," or "best" imply a
>comparison based on opinion. Saying "Steak and eggs are a good breakfast" is
>opinion. Some folks don't like that sort of thing.
>
>Short form of this post:
>If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
>truth, it's a fact.
For those who don't recognize it, This was a (poor) attempt at humor,
humor that stems completely from boredom. I meant to offend nobody
(Except maybe Rev)
I don't care if he is DEAD, I'm voting for Zappa next election!
Greg The Stud, Machinist, Genius, Maybe even GOD himself!
Justice By Pipebomb: It's the American way.
If you don't get accused of being either completely stupid or
totally insane at least twice a day, then you're not having all
the fun you could be having.
The reason so many people are against using animal fur for clothing
and so few are against the use of leather is that it's easier to harass
a little old lady in a mink coat than to harass a bunch of bikers.
Flashbacks are freebies
We put the CAT in CATapult
A lapdance is so much better when the stripper is cryin'.
-The Bloodhound Gang
Don't kill the stupid people: It wrecks the grade curve!
They say Beer damages your liver, memory, kidneys, memory,
central nervous system, and your memory also.
Jesus died for our sins, So lets make them worth it!
Beer: Helping ugly people get laid for over a century!
Greg the Stud: Trying for the longest signature in the history
of the internet.
RnR Stone Cold
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Dawg <gd...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87Ih6.38382$v.23...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
brewsbrothers
X8oD
~Chuck
"Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A877CB9...@worldnet.att.net...
Matango
Matango
Dawg
it
> like this:
> Are you gonna say that the wrestling in WCW is better than in the WWF?
Lance Storm is a better wrestler than Rikishi in my opinion.
> Are the storylines in WCW better than the WWF?
Some of them, yes. I preferred the whole "Coach Nash" angle over the
McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
> Are the personalites better in WCW than in WWF?
Again, some of them are. To me, Sting is a more entertaining personality
than Too Cool.
>
> If you said yes to any of these, it is your opinion. The fact is the WWF
is all
> around MORE superior to WCW, and if you say otherwise, you have to use
facts to
> back up your statement or esle settle for personal taste as a reason.
That's the whole point. An opinion cannot be backed up with fact. I cannot
use facts to back up my opinion that chocolate ice cream is better than
vanilla. You can only back up opinions with other opinions. If it could be
backed up with facts, then it would be a fact. Since it is an opinion, there
are no facts involved.
>No onew
> can debate personalk tase, but as a storyteller, there is no opinion as to
how
> to tell a good story. The WWF does it better.
Yes, how to tell a good story is a matter of opinion. I love Stephen King's
writings. Others despise it. Same goes for Tom Clancy. Some folks think SNL
is the funniest thing on television. I cannot stand it. Story telling is all
about opinion. There is no fact involved in story-telling skills. Dickens is
hailed as one of the greatest story-tellers of all time, but many cannot
stand to read his works.
>The wrestling in the WWF is
> better, that cannot be debated.
That all depends on who you look at. I will grant you that the WWF has more
skilled wrestlers than WCW, but there are members of the WCW roster that far
outshine some members of the WWF roster. Storm and Rikishi are two examples.
>The storylines as well cannot be debated.
Yes they can. As I stated above, it all comes down to personal taste.
> Preferrign WCW over the WWF is not a matter of what yout hink is better,
rather
> it is about what you prefer more.
What exactly is the difference here? If I think something is better, that
implies I prefer it to the alternative. Also, preferring something also
implies that you think it is better than something else. These are
synonymous terms.
>If you're gonna be objkective, the WWF is
> better, no doubt about it. THAT is fact. And I'm a WCW fan.
>
But, as I stated when I started this thread, personal taste is all
subjective. Objective implies fact, and no, it is not a fact. It is your
opinion. My opinion differs from yours. Hence, since it can be debated, it
is an opinion, not a fact.
A valentines Zombie
>::wonders why Matango is trying to debate a rhetorical post::
>
>~Chuck
The post was made. Matango responed to it. He didn't disagree or agree
really. He just wrote a post. I thought it was very good. He was
making a point. :-)
Zombie
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dawg
news:h3le8tg4spl4oju46...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:45:24 GMT, "Dawg" <gd...@rochester.rr.com>
> ,with help from large dodes of Prozak, wrote:
>
> >I've read the recent debate over what constitutes "fact" and what
> >constitutes "opinion." I know nobody asked me for my input, but since
when
> >does anybody in this group have to be asked to post?
> >
> >A fact is something which can be proven, or which is universally accepted
as
> >true. A synonym for fact is "reality." Stating something is a fact
implies
> >there is no room for argument. There are some things in this world that
are
> >accepted as facts, such as:
> >*2+2=4 (absolute truth)
> True, but if you are talking about taking drugs, such as stimulants
> remember 1+1=7 (One dose of one stimulant plus one dose of another
> stimulant has the effect of taking SEVEN doses of either one by
> itself)
>
justify why they think 2+2=5, they can be considered correct. And these
people will lead the nation one day.
> >*Ice is cold (may not be true, but it's universally held that ice is
indeed
> >cold)
> And that leads us to the most painful word in the English language:
> Pisscicle (Happens when it's so cold your pee freezes before it hits
> the ground. If it freezes to your weemer there's hell to pay)
>
Thank you very much for that visual!!! I'll never forgive you now.
> >*Computers are faster and more powerful today than 20 years ago (I have a
> >calculator that's more powerful than the first generation of Mac's)
> If you dropped both a P3-850 and a 286 out of an airplane, both would
> hit the ground at nearly the same time. The 286, being older, thus
> heavier, would actually hit the ground first due to the fact that
> computer case sizes haven't changed much. Thus, a 286 is faster than a
> p3-850
>
Point for GTS, in a bizarre, applied physics sort of way.
> >*The WWF is making more money right now than WCW (look at their financial
> >statements)
> True, but at the cost of their dignity. <SARCASM> Besides, they spend
> 98% of their profits paying amazing journalists like Rev </SARCASM>
>
If they're paying him, they're wasting their money.
> >*The XFL is a newer league than the NFL (the NFL was founded before last
> >year)
> I'll have to check into this one.
>
> >*A Porsche is faster than a Ford Focus (the Porsche has a higher top
speed)
> They're nearly the same if you consider the fact that they are on the
> surface of the surface of the earth which, (at the equator), is
> traveling about 1000 MPH, on a planet traveling around the sun at
> about 31,000 mph, a Sun which is in a part of the galaxy which is
> moving at about 330,000 mph away from it's center. If you look at it
> like that, a couple dozen MPH really doesn't mean that much.
> >
But, even if it's almost insignificant, the Porsche is still travelling
faster. And if you had a pisscicle on your weiner, which would you rather
ride in on the way to the hospital, the Porsche or the Focus?
> >An opinion is a view that someone holds which may, or may not be true. It
> >all depends on the person holding the opinion, and is, therefore,
subjective
> >to the person making the statement. An opinion implies that someone holds
a
> >certain view, but is still open to discussion over the matter. Examples
of
> >opinions are:
> >*It is warm outside (depends on where you are. It's cold for me, but for
> >someone in Argentina, it's warm.)
> There is no such thing as cold, just different degrees of warmth.
>
Fine, it's negative warm outside where I live.
> >*Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream (true for me, but
not
> >for Jeanne, as she pointed out in another post)
> My sister spilled vanilla ice cream in the back of her car. At least
> that's what she said it was.
>
Um, you might want to send your sister to a convent...
> >*Banking is a better career than teaching (again, true for me, but not
for
> >others)
> But a being a piano player in a whorehouse is better yet.
>
But who sleeps with the piano player?
> >*The NFL is better than the XFL (true for me, but not for RnR and others
in
> >this group.)
>
>
> >*The WWF is better than WCW (not to me, but to many others in here)
> >*"The Magnificent Seven" is the best film ever made (true for some
people,
> >but definitely not true for others)
> Never saw it, but I bet it's not as good as the series "Red Dwarf"
>
Still wasn't as good as Leonard Part VI...
> >
> >Generally, any use of the words "good," "better," or "best" imply a
> >comparison based on opinion. Saying "Steak and eggs are a good breakfast"
is
> >opinion. Some folks don't like that sort of thing.
> >
> >Short form of this post:
> >If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
> >truth, it's a fact.
>
> For those who don't recognize it, This was a (poor) attempt at humor,
> humor that stems completely from boredom. I meant to offend nobody
> (Except maybe Rev)
>
Who cares about rev?
HULKSTER256
>fact...Jack. :op
Hell yeah!
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> Who cares about rev?
You obviosuly do, otherwsie you woulnd't continue to repsond to his posts.
Matango
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> "Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3A877CB9...@worldnet.att.net...
> > You made some good points, but in the case of WCW and WWF, let's anaylyze
> it
> > like this:
> > Are you gonna say that the wrestling in WCW is better than in the WWF?
> Certain wrestlers in WCW are superior to members of the WWF roster, yes.
i didn't ask you if the wrestlers in WCW were better. i asked you if the
WRESTLING (verb, not noun) is better in WCW then in WWF. The answer is no.
> Lance Storm is a better wrestler than Rikishi in my opinion.
Of course he is, but Rikishi is better than the Harrises put together.
> > Are the storylines in WCW better than the WWF?
> Some of them, yes. I preferred the whole "Coach Nash" angle over the
> McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not handle the
coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
>
>
> > Are the personalites better in WCW than in WWF?
> Again, some of them are.
most of them in the WWF are. I guarantee you compile a list of comparisons and
it will favor the WWF.
> To me, Sting is a more entertaining personality
> than Too Cool.
Sure, it won't go 100 percent in favor of the WWF-- maybe about 75 to 80.
> >
> > If you said yes to any of these, it is your opinion. The fact is the WWF
> is all
> > around MORE superior to WCW, and if you say otherwise, you have to use
> facts to
> > back up your statement or esle settle for personal taste as a reason.
>
> That's the whole point. An opinion cannot be backed up with fact.
but facts can be backed up wth facts.
> I cannot
> use facts to back up my opinion that chocolate ice cream is better than
> vanilla.
You simply prefer WCW over the WWF. You're a WCW fan and you're not objective.
It's okay if you like WCW over the WWF, that's not the point. The point is both
feds offer the same product, the WWF being alot more superior in execution and
talent over WCW. That's a fact.
> >No onew
> > can debate personalk tase, but as a storyteller, there is no opinion as to
> how
> > to tell a good story. The WWF does it better.
>
> Yes, how to tell a good story is a matter of opinion.
Nope. I went to an art school, and god storytelling is not a matter of opinion.
Sure, one can like a certain story but that doesn't mean it is good
storytelling. i kno what good storytelling is.
> I love Stephen King's
> writings. Others despise it. Same goes for Tom Clancy. Some folks think SNL
> is the funniest thing on television. I cannot stand it. Story telling is all
> about opinion. There is no fact involved in story-telling skills. Dickens is
> hailed as one of the greatest story-tellers of all time, but many cannot
> stand to read his works.
Good storyteling is" charatcerization, plot, climax, and solution with a payoff.
As someone who has strudied storytelling, I can tell you Steopehn King is
overrated as a storyteller.
> >The wrestling in the WWF is
> > better, that cannot be debated.
>
> That all depends on who you look at. I will grant you that the WWF has more
> skilled wrestlers than WCW, but there are members of the WCW roster that far
> outshine some members of the WWF roster.
Okay, you're right, but that's not the point. It's not wrestlers, it WRESTLING
as a whole.
> Storm and Rikishi are two examples.
So are the Harrises and Nash.
>
>
> >The storylines as well cannot be debated.
>
> Yes they can. As I stated above, it all comes down to personal taste.
and as a storyteller, I can tell you the WWF hands down is way above WCW.
> > Preferrign WCW over the WWF is not a matter of what yout hink is better,
> rather
> > it is about what you prefer more.
>
> What exactly is the difference here? If I think something is better, that
> implies I prefer it to the alternative.
I think WWF is better, but I prefer WCW.
> Also, preferring something also
> implies that you think it is better than something else.
not always. I think Laurence of Arabia is a better movie than the Original
Godzilla film, but I porefer Godzilla over that film.
> These are
> synonymous terms.
no they are not.
>
>
> >If you're gonna be objkective, the WWF is
> > better, no doubt about it. THAT is fact. And I'm a WCW fan.
> >
> But, as I stated when I started this thread, personal taste is all
> subjective. Objective implies fact,
agreed. And the fact is that theWWF has better overall wrestling than WCW. That
is NOT debatable. the storytelling in the WWF is better, also not debatable.
Matango
Jason Adcock
> "Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3A877CB9...@worldnet.att.net...
> > You made some good points, but in the case of WCW and WWF, let's
anaylyze
Snippie
>
> Yes, how to tell a good story is a matter of opinion. I love Stephen
King's
> writings. Others despise it. Same goes for Tom Clancy. Some folks think
SNL
> is the funniest thing on television. I cannot stand it.
Dude! Did you not see the Jeopardy skit this past week after Friends? It
was freakin hilarious!!!!
Matango
Jason Adcock wrote:
> Dude! Did you not see the Jeopardy skit this past week after Friends? It
> was freakin hilarious!!!!
I habven';t seen jeaopardy in years. Oh, you';re talking about SNL? Hmm,
mayber there were a few insatnces where Jeapoardy was actually funny. I mean
Trbek..he can be a hoot.
Sorry.
Matango
Jason Adcock
"Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A879191...@worldnet.att.net...
Matango
X8oD wrote:
> Well that, and "You obviosuly do, otherwsie you woulnd't continue to repsond
> discredit him.
About the Dawg and Rev situation...I'm not trying to discredit him, but if he
feels Rev is worthless, he would obviosuly stop replying to his posts. i'm not
trying to discredit him, Chuck, Don't start instigating anything. you said it
yourself, you didn't read the spout between me and RnR, so you have nothing to
go on.
Matango
Matango
Matago
X8oD
Matango Spout. But the way each of them replied to Dawgs Post, I'm on the
assumption that Dawg just shot down one of MAtangos arguments. And now
matango is attempting to spin circles [picks one line out of the entire
post] in order to go in a different direction. He's done that to me on many
occasions, its weird to see it on the outside, looking in.
Well that, and "You obviosuly do, otherwsie you woulnd't continue to repsond
to his posts" sounds like he is pissed Dawg said anything, and is trying to
discredit him.
~Chuck
"A valentines Zombie" <Nzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hj2g8t4nk6k868nje...@4ax.com...
GTS
,with help from large dodes of Prozak, wrote:
>"GTS" <Sto...@Duuh.net> wrote in message
>news:h3le8tg4spl4oju46...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:45:24 GMT, "Dawg" <gd...@rochester.rr.com>
>> ,with help from large dodes of Prozak, wrote:
>>
>> >I've read the recent debate over what constitutes "fact" and what
>> >constitutes "opinion." I know nobody asked me for my input, but since
>when
>> >does anybody in this group have to be asked to post?
>> >
>> >A fact is something which can be proven, or which is universally accepted
>as
>> >true. A synonym for fact is "reality." Stating something is a fact
>implies
>> >there is no room for argument. There are some things in this world that
>are
>> >accepted as facts, such as:
>> >*2+2=4 (absolute truth)
>> True, but if you are talking about taking drugs, such as stimulants
>> remember 1+1=7 (One dose of one stimulant plus one dose of another
>> stimulant has the effect of taking SEVEN doses of either one by
>> itself)
>>
>Ok, you've got me there. Then again, in today's classrooms, if a kid can
>justify why they think 2+2=5, they can be considered correct. And these
>people will lead the nation one day.
Psst.... I think they already are. Do you remember when Al Gore
corrected that kid, insisting there is an "E" on the end of the word
potato.
Even if the Ford were faster, I'd still go in a porsche. If you're
going to arrive with your weemer out, you might as well do it with
some style.
>
>> >An opinion is a view that someone holds which may, or may not be true. It
>> >all depends on the person holding the opinion, and is, therefore,
>subjective
>> >to the person making the statement. An opinion implies that someone holds
>a
>> >certain view, but is still open to discussion over the matter. Examples
>of
>> >opinions are:
>> >*It is warm outside (depends on where you are. It's cold for me, but for
>> >someone in Argentina, it's warm.)
>> There is no such thing as cold, just different degrees of warmth.
>>
>Fine, it's negative warm outside where I live.
>
>> >*Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream (true for me, but
>not
>> >for Jeanne, as she pointed out in another post)
>> My sister spilled vanilla ice cream in the back of her car. At least
>> that's what she said it was.
>>
>Um, you might want to send your sister to a convent...
>
>> >*Banking is a better career than teaching (again, true for me, but not
>for
>> >others)
>> But a being a piano player in a whorehouse is better yet.
>>
>But who sleeps with the piano player?
What do you think the piano player gets for a Christman bonus?
>
>> >*The NFL is better than the XFL (true for me, but not for RnR and others
>in
>> >this group.)
>>
>>
>> >*The WWF is better than WCW (not to me, but to many others in here)
>> >*"The Magnificent Seven" is the best film ever made (true for some
>people,
>> >but definitely not true for others)
>> Never saw it, but I bet it's not as good as the series "Red Dwarf"
>>
>Still wasn't as good as Leonard Part VI...
>> >
>> >Generally, any use of the words "good," "better," or "best" imply a
>> >comparison based on opinion. Saying "Steak and eggs are a good breakfast"
>is
>> >opinion. Some folks don't like that sort of thing.
>> >
>> >Short form of this post:
>> >If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
>> >truth, it's a fact.
>>
>> For those who don't recognize it, This was a (poor) attempt at humor,
>> humor that stems completely from boredom. I meant to offend nobody
>> (Except maybe Rev)
>>
>Who cares about rev?
A lot of people, but they're all alter-egos of himself
Jason Adcock
"Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A879526...@worldnet.att.net...
GTS
,with help from large dodes of Prozak, wrote:
>>
>> >If you're gonna be objkective, the WWF is
>> > better, no doubt about it. THAT is fact. And I'm a WCW fan.
>> >
>> But, as I stated when I started this thread, personal taste is all
>> subjective. Objective implies fact,
>
>agreed. And the fact is that theWWF has better overall wrestling than WCW. That
>is NOT debatable. the storytelling in the WWF is better, also not debatable.
YES IT IS DEBATABLE! IT IS BASED ON OPINION!
>
>Matango
A valentines Zombie
>
>Well that, and "You obviosuly do, otherwsie you woulnd't continue to repsond
>to his posts" sounds like he is pissed Dawg said anything, and is trying to
>discredit him.
Husker buddy :-)
I don't think Tango is trying to do anything of the sorts. Look Friend
or not. The way i look at is this way. Tango is sticking by his
opinion. He isn't backing out of it like i do. Sometimes when i can't
take the heat :oP
he's trying to get you guys to see his point. The way i look at is. I
agree with what he's saying. I think he has a good point. I don't
think he is trying to make Dawg look bad at all. Because if that is
being said about Tango. Then the same thing should be said about Dawg.
Shouldn't it?
Zombie
no this was not a cheap shot at dawg anyone :-) I am just making a
point :-P
Matango
Matango
Jason Adcock
Facts are that WCW and the WWF have won the ratings for such and such amount
of weeks, the WWF posted a profit and WCW posted a loss on the books. Those
are facts.news:tf6g8t4m1d89ufm1u...@4ax.com...
>
> >I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not
handle the
> >coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
>
>
> better than WCW. I do think it's a fact that the WWF do things better
> than WCW. I do think it's a fact. That WWF has better wrestlers than
> WCW. Hell i know there are good wrestlers in WCW. Compare to the WWF
> it's nothing.
>
> Just like the WWF a few years ago. It was fact that WCW was doing a
> better job than the WWF. It was fact that WCW had better talent. IT
> was fact the WCW had the better product.
>
> I don't' care about ratings, what is more popular to watch etc. WCW
> does not have better wrestlers than WWF. just like WWF at one time
> only had a group of main eventers.
>
> it happens neither fed can be good at one time. I don't' know why. It
> dosen't usually happen. That's my opinion.
>
> Also even though it's an opinion that WCW has better wrestlers, or
> that WCW is better. It is basically a fact that WCW has made many
> mistakes. That have cost them big time. They may not ever be able to
> recover from those mistakes.
>
> Zombie
A valentines Zombie
<jgad...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>It being a better show or ran better are not facts. Those are all opinions.
>Facts are that WCW and the WWF have won the ratings for such and such amount
>of weeks, the WWF posted a profit and WCW posted a loss on the books. Those
>are facts.
yes but if WCW was such a well ran show. Why are they in the postion
they are in? Hmmm?
Just like when WWF was sucking & WCW was kicking ass. They did a
better job of it.
It is an opinion that i think the WWF is better than WCW.
I also belive there is more than enough evidance to back up a FACT.
that WCW is not as good as the WWF.
If i said, the WWF uses there talent better.
That is opinion.
If i say i think the WWF is the greatest fed in the world that is
opinion as well.
In my eyes. It is fact that WCW dropped the ball big time. They didn't
do the things they should of. To keep them on top. Now they are
suffering because of it.
This isn't a oh WWF is better & WCW sucks. This is a I think WCW
messed up badly & there paying for it now.
I do think it's a fact that they messed up.
A valentines Zombie
wrote:
>I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not handle the
>coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
actually i do think it is a fact that the WWF ran there business
better than WCW. I do think it's a fact that the WWF do things better
than WCW. I do think it's a fact. That WWF has better wrestlers than
WCW. Hell i know there are good wrestlers in WCW. Compare to the WWF
it's nothing.
Just like the WWF a few years ago. It was fact that WCW was doing a
better job than the WWF. It was fact that WCW had better talent. IT
was fact the WCW had the better product.
I don't' care about ratings, what is more popular to watch etc. WCW
does not have better wrestlers than WWF. just like WWF at one time
only had a group of main eventers.
it happens neither fed can be good at one time. I don't' know why. It
dosen't usually happen. That's my opinion.
Also even though it's an opinion that WCW has better wrestlers, or
that WCW is better. It is basically a fact that WCW has made many
mistakes. That have cost them big time. They may not ever be able to
recover from those mistakes.
Zombie
R Watson
"HULKSTER256" <hulks...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010211232409...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >fact...Jack. :op
>
> Hell yeah!
Top Ice Cream Picks
1) Baskin Robbins Chocolate Chip Mint
2) B&J Cherry Garcia
3) Tutle Tracks
4) The Green McShake during St. Patrick's
5) DQ's Brownie delight (ya I know its Vanilla but its on top of 2 brownies with hot fudge)
strata
don't go any further with it, there's nothing good about it:
>
>"HULKSTER256" <hulks...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010211232409...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
>> >You are, however, WRONG about the ice cream! Vanilla rulz!! And
>> >that's a fact...Jack. :op
>>
>> Hell yeah!
>
>Vanilla is the missionary position of ice cream. Nothing wrong with it,
>a good safe choice, and better than nothing.
ROFLMAO. Good line.
>Top Ice Cream Picks
>
>1) Baskin Robbins Chocolate Chip Mint
>2) B&J Cherry Garcia
>3) Tutle Tracks
>4) The Green McShake during St. Patrick's
>5) DQ's Brownie delight (ya I know its Vanilla but its on top of 2
>brownies with hot fudge)
>
>Attachment decoded: untitled-1.txt
1) chocolate chip cookie dough (you cannot fuck it up)
2) peanut butter fudge
3) DQ's brownie delight (that thing kicks ass)
4) cherry vanilla
5) blue bunny strawberry cheesecake
--
strata
mhm27x19 ICQ#34579920 smeeter #7
http://home.hiwaay.net/~janus/Welcome.html
RnR Stone Cold
category was
"S" Words. Connery kept on asking for the category "Swords" Trebek
couldn't convince him it was "S" Words. You had to see it.
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Jason Adcock <jgad...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:K9Kh6.1908$5A5....@news3.atl...
GTS
Here's a helpful tip from your Uncle Greg:
Fill a standard size blender with Vanilla Ice Cream and 1 scoop of
frozen concentrated OJ. Mix it up (If your blender is like mine and
too wimpy to blend ice cream, Nuke a couple scoops as you are filling
it, makes it go faster). There you have a milkshake that tastes like
the old dreamcicles.
OR
Vanilla Ice cream, 4 bananas (Yes, you must peel them, and it's a good
idea to discard the peels, they don't taste good) and a spoonful of
brown sugar. Great Banana Shakes!
I don't care if he is DEAD, I'm voting for Zappa next election!
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > "Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A877CB9...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > You made some good points, but in the case of WCW and WWF, let's
anaylyze
> > it
> > > like this:
> > > Are you gonna say that the wrestling in WCW is better than in the WWF?
>
> > Certain wrestlers in WCW are superior to members of the WWF roster, yes.
>
> i didn't ask you if the wrestlers in WCW were better. i asked you if the
> WRESTLING (verb, not noun) is better in WCW then in WWF. The answer is no.
>
wrestlers, does it not? As you stated, the Harris brothers and Nash are not
good wrestlers, so you're not going to see a good wrestling match coming
from either of them. I already stated that the WWF has more quality
wrestlers than WCW. But my point was that in order to compare the quality of
the wrestling matches, you have to look at the skills of the individual
wrestlers.
> > Lance Storm is a better wrestler than Rikishi in my opinion.
>
> Of course he is, but Rikishi is better than the Harrises put together.
>
> > > Are the storylines in WCW better than the WWF?
>
> > Some of them, yes. I preferred the whole "Coach Nash" angle over the
> > McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
>
> I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not
handle the
> coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
>
As a whole, I would still say I prefer WCW's storytelling. From the little
I've seen of the WWF lately, it just feels like the whole show revolves
around the McMahon's. Not compelling in any way, shape, or form to me.
> >
> >
> > > Are the personalites better in WCW than in WWF?
>
> > Again, some of them are.
>
> most of them in the WWF are. I guarantee you compile a list of comparisons
and
> it will favor the WWF.
>
Not for someone like me. The main reason I don't watch the WWF is because I
don't care for the personalities. I used to enjoy SCSA and the Rock, but
they've grown stale to me. That's the way I feel about most of the WWF
personalities. They just don't interest me.
> > To me, Sting is a more entertaining personality
> > than Too Cool.
>
> Sure, it won't go 100 percent in favor of the WWF-- maybe about 75 to 80.
>
> > >
> > > If you said yes to any of these, it is your opinion. The fact is the
WWF
> > is all
> > > around MORE superior to WCW, and if you say otherwise, you have to use
> > facts to
> > > back up your statement or esle settle for personal taste as a reason.
> >
> > That's the whole point. An opinion cannot be backed up with fact.
>
> but facts can be backed up wth facts.
>
Agreed, but all you've used to back up your argument is opinion. Hence, your
argument is an opinion, just like mine.
> > I cannot
> > use facts to back up my opinion that chocolate ice cream is better than
> > vanilla.
>
> You simply prefer WCW over the WWF. You're a WCW fan and you're not
objective.
> It's okay if you like WCW over the WWF, that's not the point. The point is
both
> feds offer the same product, the WWF being alot more superior in execution
and
> talent over WCW. That's a fact.
>
Talent yes, execution, not necessarily.
> > >No onew
> > > can debate personalk tase, but as a storyteller, there is no opinion
as to
> > how
> > > to tell a good story. The WWF does it better.
> >
> > Yes, how to tell a good story is a matter of opinion.
>
> Nope. I went to an art school, and god storytelling is not a matter of
opinion.
> Sure, one can like a certain story but that doesn't mean it is good
> storytelling. i kno what good storytelling is.
>
I can't stand critics. If I listened to critics, I wouldn't watch half the
movies that I've enjoyed.
> > I love Stephen King's
> > writings. Others despise it. Same goes for Tom Clancy. Some folks think
SNL
> > is the funniest thing on television. I cannot stand it. Story telling is
all
> > about opinion. There is no fact involved in story-telling skills.
Dickens is
> > hailed as one of the greatest story-tellers of all time, but many cannot
> > stand to read his works.
>
> Good storyteling is" charatcerization, plot, climax, and solution with a
payoff.
> As someone who has strudied storytelling, I can tell you Steopehn King is
> overrated as a storyteller.
>
Why not? His stories all follow that pattern. They all have
characterization, plot, climax, and a solution with a payoff... Why exactly
isn't he a good storyteller?
> > >The wrestling in the WWF is
> > > better, that cannot be debated.
> >
> > That all depends on who you look at. I will grant you that the WWF has
more
> > skilled wrestlers than WCW, but there are members of the WCW roster that
far
> > outshine some members of the WWF roster.
>
> Okay, you're right, but that's not the point. It's not wrestlers, it
WRESTLING
> as a whole.
>
How do you compare wrestling without comparing wrestlers?
> > Storm and Rikishi are two examples.
>
> So are the Harrises and Nash.
>
> >
> >
> > >The storylines as well cannot be debated.
> >
> > Yes they can. As I stated above, it all comes down to personal taste.
>
> and as a storyteller, I can tell you the WWF hands down is way above WCW.
>
I'm a storyteller too, and I can tell you that for me, the WCW's understated
stories are often superior to the WWF in my eyes.
> > > Preferrign WCW over the WWF is not a matter of what yout hink is
better,
> > rather
> > > it is about what you prefer more.
> >
> > What exactly is the difference here? If I think something is better,
that
> > implies I prefer it to the alternative.
>
> I think WWF is better, but I prefer WCW.
>
> > Also, preferring something also
> > implies that you think it is better than something else.
>
> not always. I think Laurence of Arabia is a better movie than the Original
> Godzilla film, but I porefer Godzilla over that film.
>
> > These are
> > synonymous terms.
>
> no they are not.
>
Ok, you're defining "better" in a different way than I am.
> >
> >
> > >If you're gonna be objkective, the WWF is
> > > better, no doubt about it. THAT is fact. And I'm a WCW fan.
> > >
> > But, as I stated when I started this thread, personal taste is all
> > subjective. Objective implies fact,
>
> agreed. And the fact is that theWWF has better overall wrestling than WCW.
That
> is NOT debatable. the storytelling in the WWF is better, also not
debatable.
>
Ok, RnR was right. You are incapable of debate on this issue. What you see
as fact, many others see as opinion.
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > Who cares about rev?
>
> You obviosuly do, otherwsie you woulnd't continue to repsond to his posts.
>
let a single one of his posts slip by unchallenged. You wanted him to post
on-topic, and even when he does, you resort to flaming him...
It cuts both ways.
Dawg
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:36:22 -0600, "Jason Adcock"
> <jgad...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >It being a better show or ran better are not facts. Those are all
opinions.
> >Facts are that WCW and the WWF have won the ratings for such and such
amount
> >of weeks, the WWF posted a profit and WCW posted a loss on the books.
Those
> >are facts.
>
>
> yes but if WCW was such a well ran show. Why are they in the postion
> they are in? Hmmm?
>
is that tastes change, or other things come along to replace them. "The
Cosby Show" was the #1 show in America for a long time. Then people got
bored and started watching other shows. The Republicans held the White House
for 12 years. Then the Democrats for 8, and now we're back to the
Republicans. People's tastes and opinions can change.
> Just like when WWF was sucking & WCW was kicking ass. They did a
> better job of it.
>
> It is an opinion that i think the WWF is better than WCW.
>
> I also belive there is more than enough evidance to back up a FACT.
> that WCW is not as good as the WWF.
>
> If i said, the WWF uses there talent better.
>
> That is opinion.
>
> If i say i think the WWF is the greatest fed in the world that is
> opinion as well.
>
> In my eyes. It is fact that WCW dropped the ball big time. They didn't
> do the things they should of. To keep them on top. Now they are
> suffering because of it.
>
The first part of this sentence says it all "In my eyes." Yes, in your eyes,
it is a fact, but using that phrase implies that it is an opinion. It is a
fact for you, implying it is a strongly held belief, but it is still an
opinion. To people who didn't like Benoit or Malenko, it could be viewed as
a positive. There are people out there who do enjoy the current WCW product,
as odd as that sounds, but that's their opinion.
> This isn't a oh WWF is better & WCW sucks. This is a I think WCW
> messed up badly & there paying for it now.
>
> I do think it's a fact that they messed up.
>
And you're allowed to think whatever you choose. This is America after all
(at least you and I are in America...) But, as you said, you think it's a
fact. That alone implies it is an opinion. Qualifying a statement with "I
think" illustrates that what you are saying is what you believe, and hence,
your opinion.
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > "Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A877CB9...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Preferrign WCW over the WWF is not a matter of what yout hink is
better,
> > rather
> > > it is about what you prefer more.
> >
> > What exactly is the difference here? If I think something is better,
that
> > implies I prefer it to the alternative.
>
> I think WWF is better, but I prefer WCW.
>
Right here, you said it all. You said "I think WWF is better." In our
language, "think" implies belief. So it would be just as correct to say "I
believe WWF is better." A belief is an opinion. I can believe in God, but
that does not make God's existence a fact to anyone other than myself. My
belief in God is an opinion, just as is your opinion that WWF is better.
Joolz
moving! LOL
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone. I have a cable modem now
and I can finally access all the newsgroups without having to use the
dreaded Deja! (Including alt.nzwa!!!!!!)
;-)
Joolz
"Dawg" <gd...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZrRh6.125834$o91.12...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
RnR Stone Cold
Talk about caring about Extreme1.
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Dawg <gd...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zmQh6.125517$o91.12...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Jason Adcock
Which one you think id better is just an opinion. Which one uses talent
better, manages their money better, is more entertaining, etc are all
opinions. Now, it is fac that more people watch WWF shows than WCW shows.
That is fact. The WWF makes more money than WCW is fact.
"Dawg" <gd...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nMQh6.125634$o91.12...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> Then by the same token, you obviously care about Extreme, since you never
> let a single one of his posts slip by unchallenged.
First of all, don't say I care about Earline, because then he might start
flirting with me. Second, I'm not petitioning him to get out of the NG. Nor did
I bring him up in any conversation I have here because he is an afterthought to
me.
> You wanted him to post
> on-topic, and even when he does, you resort to flaming him...
When did I say i want him to post on-topic? SO what if he doesn' post on topic?
I could care less. I like to annoy him. In the same breath I don't say I want
him out or that I don;t care what he thinks.
Matango
Matango
Dawg referred to Rev? I never mention Extreme in any of my posts other than my
replies to his gay posts. And the fact that you takle the time to say You hate
me and put me in a spot next to Nitroperv and THe Phoenix shows you care more
about me than you need to.
Matango
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> But, the quality of the wrestling comes down to the quality of the
> wrestlers, does it not? As you stated, the Harris brothers and Nash are not
> good wrestlers, so you're not going to see a good wrestling match coming
> from either of them. I already stated that the WWF has more quality
> wrestlers than WCW. But my point was that in order to compare the quality of
> the wrestling matches, you have to look at the skills of the individual
> wrestlers.
I asked you which fed offers the best overall wrestling, and you just proved my
point. The WWF has more skilled wrestlers, and sometimes in the WWF the worst
wrestlers offer more exciting matches than the worst in WCW. That is where the
WWF excels. It's not individual wrestlers, it's the wrestling as a whole.
> > I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not
> handle the
> > coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
> >
> As a whole, I would still say I prefer WCW's storytelling. From the little
> I've seen of the WWF lately, it just feels like the whole show revolves
> around the McMahon's. Not compelling in any way, shape, or form to me.
True, the WWF has gotten stale i storytelling, but it's lights out far superior
to WCW. What compellign story in WCW uiseven remotely on the level with any in
the WWF? None. There are none. Give me what you think is an example because I
see none.
> >
> Not for someone like me. The main reason I don't watch the WWF is because I
> don't care for the personalities.
Okay, so you said it, youre a WCW fan and only a WCW fan, which is okay with me.
You won't show objectivity here so regardles of what anyone says, you will
always watch WCW no matter how bad it is. For me, I view the feds on an
objective level, and objectively speaking, the WWF is MORE superior in eveyr to
WCW. I can give examples of that. Can you give examples of WCW being superior
over WWF?
> Agreed, but all you've used to back up your argument is opinion. Hence, your
> argument is an opinion, just like mine.
I didn;t use opinino. Good storytelling is a fact- a fundamental fact. I am a
storyteller and the WWF offers better sotrytelling than WCW. That is not
opinion. It is your opinion to say WCW is better, but you;d be wrong. The
execution of storyteling in the WWF is far better than WCW.
> >
> Talent yes, execution, not necessarily.
Much better than in WCW. Please.
>
>
> > Sure, one can like a certain story but that doesn't mean it is good
> > storytelling. i kno what good storytelling is.
> >
> I can't stand critics. If I listened to critics, I wouldn't watch half the
> movies that I've enjoyed.
No one said you had to listen to them. you can watch or read whatever you want.
But those who are skilled in the art of storyteling are experts in what good
storytelling is. Don't tell them what good storytelling is or where to find it,
that's all.
>
>
> > Good storyteling is" charatcerization, plot, climax, and solution with a
> payoff.
> > As someone who has strudied storytelling, I can tell you Steopehn King is
> > overrated as a storyteller.
> >
> Why not? His stories all follow that pattern. They all have
> characterization, plot, climax, and a solution with a payoff... Why exactly
> isn't he a good storyteller?
Because he tries to manipulate the readers emotions. Here's a good example.
Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING comapred to King's approved version of THE
SHINING. Kubrick's version was FAR superior to King's because Kubrick presented
a story without manipualting the viewers emotions, while King , like Speilberg,
is very guilty of that. Good storytellers don't manipulate the emotions of the
viewer/reader.
> How do you compare wrestling without comparing wrestlers?
Simple. It's no talent we're comaring, it's effort and enthusiasm.
>
>
>
> I'm a storyteller too, and I can tell you that for me, the WCW's understated
> stories are often superior to the WWF in my eyes.
You're not a storyteller if yo think WCW is better. How are you a storyteller?
Did you go to school for that? Do you show an undying love for the craft that
you';re willing to get crucified by the politically correct who will stop at
nothing to discredit your story citing offenses towards certain people? Are you
willing to take chances at telling stories that haven't been told before?
>
> Ok, RnR was right. You are incapable of debate on this issue. What you see
> as fact, many others see as opinion.
Opinions aren't always right. That's a fact.
Matango
Jason Adcock
>
> > Ok, RnR was right. You are incapable of debate on this issue. What you
see
> > as fact, many others see as opinion.
>
> Opinions aren't always right. That's a fact.
Opinions are never right or wong. A lot of people get confused over this.
An opinion is still an opinion, no matter how hard a person believes it is
"right" or "wrong".
>
> Matango
>
>
>
RnR Stone Cold
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > Then by the same token, you obviously care about Extreme, since you
never
> > let a single one of his posts slip by unchallenged.
>
> First of all, don't say I care about Earline, because then he might start
> flirting with me.
Why would that thought even occur to you? I think deep inside you want
Extreme1 to flirt with you.
RnR Stone Cold
> Wow, you;re a biger puppet than I thought. When did I refer to Earline the
way
> Dawg referred to Rev? I never mention Extreme in any of my posts other
than my
> replies to his gay posts. And the fact that you takle the time to say You
hate
> me and put me in a spot next to Nitroperv and THe Phoenix shows you care
more
> about me than you need to.
You did in "FACT", mention the word Earline in one of those posts in our
long argument.
It doesn't take much time to say you're up there on the same list that Perv
and Phoenix are on.
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > Then by the same token, you obviously care about Extreme, since you
never
> > let a single one of his posts slip by unchallenged.
>
> First of all, don't say I care about Earline, because then he might start
> flirting with me. Second, I'm not petitioning him to get out of the NG.
Nor did
> I bring him up in any conversation I have here because he is an
afterthought to
> me.
>
case, then you need to learn the meaning of sarcasm. I actually enjoy having
rev around to an extent. He's fun to mess with. That's all I'm doing here,
messing with him. I don't take it seriously, and I doubt he does either.
And when did I bring up rev?
> > You wanted him to post
> > on-topic, and even when he does, you resort to flaming him...
>
> When did I say i want him to post on-topic? SO what if he doesn' post on
topic?
> I could care less. I like to annoy him. In the same breath I don't say I
want
> him out or that I don;t care what he thinks.
>
And you just summed up my feelings toward rev. Thank you very much.
--
Dawg
-------------------------
Never knock on Death's door.
Ring his doorbell and run. (He hates that.)
-------------------------
You know what they say:
If you put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters,
Soon you'd have a room full of dead monkeys.
(It's a good idea to feed the monkeys...) - Scott Adams
-------------------------
> Matango
>
>
>
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> Why would that thought even occur to you? I think deep inside you want
> Extreme1 to flirt with you.
Geeze, I hope you weren't masturbating during the exchanges in post between
Earline and me.
Matango
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > But, the quality of the wrestling comes down to the quality of the
> > wrestlers, does it not? As you stated, the Harris brothers and Nash are
not
> > good wrestlers, so you're not going to see a good wrestling match coming
> > from either of them. I already stated that the WWF has more quality
> > wrestlers than WCW. But my point was that in order to compare the
quality of
> > the wrestling matches, you have to look at the skills of the individual
> > wrestlers.
>
> I asked you which fed offers the best overall wrestling, and you just
proved my
> point. The WWF has more skilled wrestlers, and sometimes in the WWF the
worst
> wrestlers offer more exciting matches than the worst in WCW. That is where
the
> WWF excels. It's not individual wrestlers, it's the wrestling as a whole.
>
wrestling. Not every wrestler performs to their full potential.
> > > I'm asking as a whole. As a whole, the WWF is better. And WCW did not
> > handle the
> > > coach Nash angle very good, an example of bad storytellling.
> > >
> > As a whole, I would still say I prefer WCW's storytelling. From the
little
> > I've seen of the WWF lately, it just feels like the whole show revolves
> > around the McMahon's. Not compelling in any way, shape, or form to me.
>
> True, the WWF has gotten stale i storytelling, but it's lights out far
superior
> to WCW. What compellign story in WCW uiseven remotely on the level with
any in
> the WWF? None. There are none. Give me what you think is an example
because I
> see none.
>
As I said before, I felt the Coach Nash bit was more entertaining and
executed better than the McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
> > >
> > Not for someone like me. The main reason I don't watch the WWF is
because I
> > don't care for the personalities.
>
> Okay, so you said it, youre a WCW fan and only a WCW fan, which is okay
with me.
> You won't show objectivity here so regardles of what anyone says, you will
> always watch WCW no matter how bad it is. For me, I view the feds on an
> objective level, and objectively speaking, the WWF is MORE superior in
eveyr to
> WCW. I can give examples of that. Can you give examples of WCW being
superior
> over WWF?
>
Saying the WWF is more superior, besides being horrendous grammar, is not
objective. Please give your examples. I think you'll find that they're all
opinions, and not facts. I can give examples of WCW being superior to the
WWF, but they'll just be my opinions.
> > Agreed, but all you've used to back up your argument is opinion. Hence,
your
> > argument is an opinion, just like mine.
>
> I didn;t use opinino. Good storytelling is a fact- a fundamental fact. I
am a
> storyteller and the WWF offers better sotrytelling than WCW. That is not
> opinion. It is your opinion to say WCW is better, but you;d be wrong. The
> execution of storyteling in the WWF is far better than WCW.
>
Once again, you're completely mixing the ideas of fact and opinion, and yet
you continue to deny it.
> > >
> > Talent yes, execution, not necessarily.
>
> Much better than in WCW. Please.
>
Not always.
> >
> >
> > > Sure, one can like a certain story but that doesn't mean it is good
> > > storytelling. i kno what good storytelling is.
> > >
> > I can't stand critics. If I listened to critics, I wouldn't watch half
the
> > movies that I've enjoyed.
>
> No one said you had to listen to them. you can watch or read whatever you
want.
> But those who are skilled in the art of storyteling are experts in what
good
> storytelling is. Don't tell them what good storytelling is or where to
find it,
> that's all.
>
So who exactly is skilled in the art of storytelling that gets to make up
the rules?
> >
> >
> > > Good storyteling is" charatcerization, plot, climax, and solution with
a
> > payoff.
> > > As someone who has strudied storytelling, I can tell you Steopehn King
is
> > > overrated as a storyteller.
> > >
> > Why not? His stories all follow that pattern. They all have
> > characterization, plot, climax, and a solution with a payoff... Why
exactly
> > isn't he a good storyteller?
>
> Because he tries to manipulate the readers emotions. Here's a good
example.
> Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING comapred to King's approved version of THE
> SHINING. Kubrick's version was FAR superior to King's because Kubrick
presented
> a story without manipualting the viewers emotions, while King , like
Speilberg,
> is very guilty of that. Good storytellers don't manipulate the emotions of
the
> viewer/reader.
>
How so? Most of the stories out there hailed as the best almost always rely
on the readers' emotional response. Please give me examples of the best
stories out there.
>
> > How do you compare wrestling without comparing wrestlers?
>
> Simple. It's no talent we're comaring, it's effort and enthusiasm.
>
And I've seen inspired efforts in WCW and lacksadaisical efforts in the WWF.
What does that prove?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm a storyteller too, and I can tell you that for me, the WCW's
understated
> > stories are often superior to the WWF in my eyes.
>
> You're not a storyteller if yo think WCW is better. How are you a
storyteller?
> Did you go to school for that? Do you show an undying love for the craft
that
> you';re willing to get crucified by the politically correct who will stop
at
> nothing to discredit your story citing offenses towards certain people?
Are you
> willing to take chances at telling stories that haven't been told before?
>
Yes to all your questions.
> >
>
>
>
> > Ok, RnR was right. You are incapable of debate on this issue. What you
see
> > as fact, many others see as opinion.
>
> Opinions aren't always right. That's a fact.
>
No, opinions are always right to those who hold them. That's the subjective
nature of opinons.
X8oD
wrong. Based on today's standards, it isn't right. But If they didn't make
that opinion by today's standards.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I recall you saying you were Mexican. By
the standards set forth back in the 1800's and early 1900's, you weren't
allowed to have an opinion. There for, the argument is moot, lol.
But by today's standards, racism is wrong. But by the standards set forth
during the times, it was the "in thing" to do.
~Chuck
"Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A889186...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Jason Adcock wrote:
>
> > Opinions are never right or wong.
>
> It was a popular opinion during the 1800's and early 1900's that black
people
> were not equal to white people and in fact were about as eual to animals.
> You're gonna tell me that isn't wrong?
>
>
> > An opinion is still an opinion, no matter how hard a person believes it
is
> > "right" or "wrong".
>
> But facts can show whether an opinion or not is BS.
>
> Matango
>
>
>
Matango
Jason Adcock wrote:
> Opinions are never right or wong.
It was a popular opinion during the 1800's and early 1900's that black people
were not equal to white people and in fact were about as eual to animals.
You're gonna tell me that isn't wrong?
> An opinion is still an opinion, no matter how hard a person believes it is
> "right" or "wrong".
But facts can show whether an opinion or not is BS.
Matango
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
>
>
> You did in "FACT", mention the word Earline in one of those posts in our
> long argument.
Not in the context that Dawg mentioned Rev. Correct your facts..er,, I mean
opinion.
> It doesn't take much time to say you're up there on the same list that Perv
> and Phoenix are on.
But it takes plenty of time to make an impression on you as I have.
Matango
Matango
X8oD wrote:
> If you were white, and brought up during that time, no that opinion wasn't
> wrong.
You're assuming that all white poeple during that time were racist, which is
incorrect. Many other people thought their opnions were wrong. Based on the
facts available at the time, you;re gonna tell me the racist view was just?
>
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but I recall you saying you were Mexican.
I never said I was MExican.
> By
> the standards set forth back in the 1800's and early 1900's, you weren't
> allowed to have an opinion. There for, the argument is moot, lol.
But i;'m not Mexican. LOL Where did I say that?!
>
>
> But by today's standards, racism is wrong. But by the standards set forth
> during the times, it was the "in thing" to do.
Again, assuming EVERYONE was racist, which isn't the case. There were alot of
whites who fought for the struggle of the minorities, so obvioduly the racist
opnion was wrong even back then..just that those who held such opnions were
powerful.
Matango
Jason Adcock
fact v. opinions.
"Matango" <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A889186...@worldnet.att.net...
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> The skill of the wrestlers is not necessarily the same as the quality of
> wrestling. Not every wrestler performs to their full potential.
Again, where are you proving me wrong? Your argument is that WCW has better
wrestlers, and I can tell you those wrestlers haven't performed to their full
potential (sometimes it's due in fact to horrible opponents.) A WWF show top to
bottom has better wrestling than WCW. The WWF doesn't cram its shows with trash
like the Harrises, Nash, The Wall, & Retardo Steiner.
> As I said before, I felt the Coach Nash bit was more entertaining and
> executed better than the McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
How was it better executed? I want youto explain to me how it was better
executed. Please?
> Saying the WWF is more superior, besides being horrendous grammar, is not
> objective. Please give your examples.
Examples? How is the wrestling in WCW better? Nobody in the WWF half-ass their
prfomrance in the ring. Find on performer in the WWF who phone in their
performances the way Nash, Harrises, and Retardo Stiener do.
> I think you'll find that they're all
> opinions, and not facts. I can give examples of WCW being superior to the
> WWF, but they'll just be my opinions.
Alright, give me your "facts" on how WCW is more supwerior.
>
>
> So who exactly is skilled in the art of storytelling that gets to make up
> the rules?
These are rules that existed long before our generation was born.If done right,
it will bve a strong story. But alot fo so-called sotrytellers don;t follow the
foundation properly and therefore make up crap.
>
>
>
>
> How so? Most of the stories out there hailed as the best almost always rely
> on the readers' emotional response. Please give me examples of the best
> stories out there.
Go watch any Stanley Kubrick film or Martin Scorsese film, or even an Akira
Kurosawa film. They are pretty good examples of good storytelling..they don't
tell you how to feel for the charatcer,they just present the story and let the
viewer decide how to feel.
> And I've seen inspired efforts in WCW and lacksadaisical efforts in the WWF.
> What does that prove?
It porves once in a while WCW can have a good match. Who does bneter overall
shows?
> >
> No, opinions are always right to those who hold them.
So a racist is right, then?
Matango
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> Do you seriously think I'm trying to get rid of rev? Please. If that's the
> case, then you need to learn the meaning of sarcasm. I actually enjoy having
> rev around to an extent. He's fun to mess with. That's all I'm doing here,
> messing with him. I don't take it seriously, and I doubt he does either.
>
> And when did I bring up rev?
In your response to GTS. Here is his origianl quote and your reply:
> For those who don't recognize it, This was a (poor) attempt at humor,
> humor that stems completely from boredom. I meant to offend nobody
> (Except maybe Rev)
>
Who cares about rev?
--
Dawg
In fairness, you didn;t BRING him up but that statement made had to be replied
to since you are among the only people here who responds to Rev's posts. Hey, I
didn't say you were wrong for messing with him. Let's drop this portion of the
argument, okay?
Matango
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > The skill of the wrestlers is not necessarily the same as the quality of
> > wrestling. Not every wrestler performs to their full potential.
>
> Again, where are you proving me wrong? Your argument is that WCW has
better
> wrestlers, and I can tell you those wrestlers haven't performed to their
full
> potential (sometimes it's due in fact to horrible opponents.) A WWF show
top to
> bottom has better wrestling than WCW. The WWF doesn't cram its shows with
trash
> like the Harrises, Nash, The Wall, & Retardo Steiner.
>
are better than some of the wrestlers in the WWF. You're the one arguing for
absolutes. I'm not. I'm being totally subjective here. You're the one
claiming objectivity, when the best you can do is be subjective.
> > As I said before, I felt the Coach Nash bit was more entertaining and
> > executed better than the McMahon/Helmsley marriage angle.
>
> How was it better executed? I want youto explain to me how it was better
> executed. Please?
>
The acting was better in my opinion. And that's the central focus of this
entire thread - my OPINION. I'm not claiming anything I say is a fact. I'm
pointing out my opinions.
>
> > Saying the WWF is more superior, besides being horrendous grammar, is
not
> > objective. Please give your examples.
>
> Examples? How is the wrestling in WCW better? Nobody in the WWF half-ass
their
> prfomrance in the ring. Find on performer in the WWF who phone in their
> performances the way Nash, Harrises, and Retardo Stiener do.
>
See above. I'm talking opinion. But, I've seen SCSA phone in his
performances. Same goes for Undertaker, Kane, X-pac...
> > I think you'll find that they're all
> > opinions, and not facts. I can give examples of WCW being superior to
the
> > WWF, but they'll just be my opinions.
>
> Alright, give me your "facts" on how WCW is more supwerior.
>
I didn't say it was "fact." You're the one claiming to have facts, when all
you have are opinions.
My opinions:
-The characters in WCW are more entertaining TO ME.
-The storylines don't take up the whole program. This is a plus TO ME.
> >
> >
> > So who exactly is skilled in the art of storytelling that gets to make
up
> > the rules?
>
> These are rules that existed long before our generation was born.If done
right,
> it will bve a strong story. But alot fo so-called sotrytellers don;t
follow the
> foundation properly and therefore make up crap.
>
And to some people, the deviance from that foundation is better than a
formulaic story, myself included.
> >
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > How so? Most of the stories out there hailed as the best almost always
rely
> > on the readers' emotional response. Please give me examples of the best
> > stories out there.
>
> Go watch any Stanley Kubrick film or Martin Scorsese film, or even an
Akira
> Kurosawa film. They are pretty good examples of good storytelling..they
don't
> tell you how to feel for the charatcer,they just present the story and let
the
> viewer decide how to feel.
>
I don't care for a lot of Kubrick's stuff, and I haven't really enjoyed a
Scorsese film in years. But look at 2001. It was pretty clear Kubrick wanted
us to dislike HAL.
> > And I've seen inspired efforts in WCW and lacksadaisical efforts in the
WWF.
> > What does that prove?
>
> It porves once in a while WCW can have a good match. Who does bneter
overall
> shows?
>
Depends on your opinion.
> > >
> > No, opinions are always right to those who hold them.
>
> So a racist is right, then?
>
In their own minds, yes. Just because you and I disagree does not make their
opinion any less valid. Opinions are never right or wrong in the objective
sense. They're only right or wrong in the subjective sense. The whole debate
over racism, abortion, and the death penalty hinge on opinion. Both sides of
these issues attempt to cite facts to back up their opinions, but for every
fact cited by an pro-lifer, a pro-choice advocate can cite an equally valid
fact. It all comes down to opinions. In his/her own mind, a racist is
completely right. In your mind, racism is completely wrong.
Matango
Matango
Dawg
because it's fun. I don't care one way of the other what he has to say. It's
just fun to point out his logical inconsistencies.
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> >
> No, my argument is that it is my opinion that many of the wrestlers in WCW
> are better than some of the wrestlers in the WWF.
ANd it is FACT that all round if you compare the entire roster (not individuals,
we're talking whole) of the WWF with WCW, there is no way WCW is beter. Fact.
>
> > How was it better executed? I want youto explain to me how it was better
> > executed. Please?
> >
> The acting was better in my opinion.
So acting is the only criteria for a good story? What about the the whole
setup? The execution of the story? The pay-off? Whoever ended uo going over?
You';re gonna tell me WCW did this better? If you say yes, explain how.
> > Examples? How is the wrestling in WCW better? Nobody in the WWF half-ass
> their
> > prfomrance in the ring. Find on performer in the WWF who phone in their
> > performances the way Nash, Harrises, and Retardo Stiener do.
> >
> See above. I'm talking opinion.
Good wrestling is not opnion, it's fact!!! Technical moves, high flying,
stamina, ability to make your opponents look as good as you..these are the very
things WCW lacks now. THESE can be proven, and these are my criteria for stating
the FACT that WWF is better all around than WCW>
> But, I've seen SCSA phone in his
> performances. Same goes for Undertaker, Kane, X-pac...
But they look bteer doing it than the obvious criminals in WCW.
> My opinions:
> -The characters in WCW are more entertaining TO ME.
Okay, that is your opinion.
> -The storylines don't take up the whole program. This is a plus TO ME.
ANother opnion. If you want wrestling and don;t care for stories, okay. it's no
tin my place to tell you what to watch, but since both feds offer the same
product, you judge it based on whop does it better, and as a whole there is now
way you can say WCW is better without supplying facts.
> >
> >
> > Go watch any Stanley Kubrick film or Martin Scorsese film, or even an
> Akira
> > Kurosawa film. They are pretty good examples of good storytelling..they
> don't
> > tell you how to feel for the charatcer,they just present the story and let
> the
> > viewer decide how to feel.
> >
> I don't care for a lot of Kubrick's stuff, and I haven't really enjoyed a
> Scorsese film in years. But look at 2001. It was pretty clear Kubrick wanted
> us to dislike HAL.
If you know how to tell a story, you don;t need devices like music or opnionated
narration to get a charatcer to be disliked. THe actions of HAL nmade us hate
him, but that is attributed to Kubrick's storytelling.
>
>
> > So a racist is right, then?
> >
> In their own minds, yes.
I don't care aboput their own minds. If an opnion is backed up by facts, it is
not an opnion. If an opnion is made BS by fatcs, it is BS. You're gonna tell a
black man that in the racist' view he is irght> Who cares. I'm asking you, is
the racist right?
> In his/her own mind, a racist is
> completely right. In your mind, racism is completely wrong.
DO you think it's wrong? If so, why?
Matango
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > >
> > No, my argument is that it is my opinion that many of the wrestlers in
WCW
> > are better than some of the wrestlers in the WWF.
>
> ANd it is FACT that all round if you compare the entire roster (not
individuals,
> we're talking whole) of the WWF with WCW, there is no way WCW is beter.
Fact.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > How was it better executed? I want youto explain to me how it was
better
> > > executed. Please?
> > >
> > The acting was better in my opinion.
>
> So acting is the only criteria for a good story? What about the the whole
> setup? The execution of the story? The pay-off? Whoever ended uo going
over?
> You';re gonna tell me WCW did this better? If you say yes, explain how.
>
enough. I did not care for the setup or payoff of the WWF angle. To me, the
WCW angle was better, but that is only my opinion. I make no claims to speak
of fact, unlike your repeated assertions.
> > > Examples? How is the wrestling in WCW better? Nobody in the WWF
half-ass
> > their
> > > prfomrance in the ring. Find on performer in the WWF who phone in
their
> > > performances the way Nash, Harrises, and Retardo Stiener do.
> > >
> > See above. I'm talking opinion.
>
> Good wrestling is not opnion, it's fact!!! Technical moves, high flying,
> stamina, ability to make your opponents look as good as you..these are the
very
> things WCW lacks now. THESE can be proven, and these are my criteria for
stating
> the FACT that WWF is better all around than WCW>
>
But, that's your opinion of what good wrestling entails. Others feel that
technical skill is irrelevant. Some fans prefer to watch a couple of
brawlers go out there and pound each other, with nary a drop-toe-hold or
suplex in sight. SCSA's and Hogan's popularity alone are evidence of that.
To some fans, the qualities you describe are absolutely irrelevant. Your
choices of what makes a good match are subjective to you, and you alone.
>
> > But, I've seen SCSA phone in his
> > performances. Same goes for Undertaker, Kane, X-pac...
>
> But they look bteer doing it than the obvious criminals in WCW.
>
To some people, but not for all.
> > My opinions:
> > -The characters in WCW are more entertaining TO ME.
>
> Okay, that is your opinion.
>
> > -The storylines don't take up the whole program. This is a plus TO ME.
>
> ANother opnion. If you want wrestling and don;t care for stories, okay.
it's no
> tin my place to tell you what to watch, but since both feds offer the same
> product, you judge it based on whop does it better, and as a whole there
is now
> way you can say WCW is better without supplying facts.
>
But I cannot supply facts. An opinion cannot be backed up with facts. You
can claim all the "facts" you want about why you feel the WWF is superior,
but they'll only be your opinions, as evidenced above in your explanation of
what you feel makes for an entertaining match.
BTW, when did I say WCW was better? I only said I prefer WCW to the WWF.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Go watch any Stanley Kubrick film or Martin Scorsese film, or even an
> > Akira
> > > Kurosawa film. They are pretty good examples of good
storytelling..they
> > don't
> > > tell you how to feel for the charatcer,they just present the story and
let
> > the
> > > viewer decide how to feel.
> > >
> > I don't care for a lot of Kubrick's stuff, and I haven't really enjoyed
a
> > Scorsese film in years. But look at 2001. It was pretty clear Kubrick
wanted
> > us to dislike HAL.
>
> If you know how to tell a story, you don;t need devices like music or
opnionated
> narration to get a charatcer to be disliked. THe actions of HAL nmade us
hate
> him, but that is attributed to Kubrick's storytelling.
>
But you just said a good storyteller doesn't tell you how to feel about a
character. Now you just said Kubrick did tell us how to feel about the
character. Which is it?
> >
> >
> > > So a racist is right, then?
> > >
> > In their own minds, yes.
>
> I don't care aboput their own minds. If an opnion is backed up by facts,
it is
> not an opnion. If an opnion is made BS by fatcs, it is BS. You're gonna
tell a
> black man that in the racist' view he is irght> Who cares. I'm asking you,
is
> the racist right?
>
The racist is right in his/her own mind. Black people have learned this, and
if you pay attention, they've been trying to point out to racists for years
why they disagree with that opinion. They're attempting to educate racists
why they disagree with that opinion. An opinion is a strong belief, but it
can be changed.
> > In his/her own mind, a racist is
> > completely right. In your mind, racism is completely wrong.
>
> DO you think it's wrong? If so, why?
>
I feel racism is wrong because I believe that all men and women are created
equal. But, that is just my opinion. I don't know for certain whether it is
correct or not. I see instances every day where men and women are not
created equal. I cannot run like Carl Lewis, or play basketball like Michael
Jordan. Nor am I as intelligent as Madeline Vos Savant. Obviously these men
and women have abilities that I can only dream of having. So, in a way, I am
not equal to them in those regards. I feel that being prejudice against
someone for something they cannot change is wrong, but that does not make
their opinion any less valid for them. Opinions are entirely subjective.
Just as I believe in God. I don't know if it is a correct opinion, but it's
the one I hold. I don't make any claim that it is the correct view for
everyone to hold, but it is the correct view for me.
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> > So acting is the only criteria for a good story? What about the the whole
> > setup? The execution of the story? The pay-off? Whoever ended uo going
> over?
> > You';re gonna tell me WCW did this better? If you say yes, explain how.
> >
> No, I did not say that. I felt the execution was better.
You have to explain how. Obviously you felt there was a reason for better
execution.
> For me, that is
> enough. I did not care for the setup or payoff of the WWF angle. To me, the
> WCW angle was better, but that is only my opinion. I make no claims to speak
> of fact, unlike your repeated assertions.
Because you refuse to explain youtrself. I asked you how the WCW angle was
better, including payoffs, who got over, the sensibility of the angle..you
provided none of that,s o i can't take your opnion seriously. I have provided
fatcs while yo ukeep saying "it is my opnion." Explain to me where you came too
the conclusion fo your opnion.
> But, that's your opinion of what good wrestling entails. Others feel that
> technical skill is irrelevant. Some fans prefer to watch a couple of
> brawlers go out there and pound each other, with nary a drop-toe-hold or
> suplex in sight. SCSA's and Hogan's popularity alone are evidence of that.
> To some fans, the qualities you describe are absolutely irrelevant.
Many of those fans then aren't wrestling fand..they are sports entertainment
fans. That is why SCSA and Hogan were over. If wrestling alone did it, those two
never would have been over.
>
>
> >
> But I cannot supply facts. An opinion cannot be backed up with facts.
But if an opnion can be backed up with facts, it is no longer an opnion, it is
fact. If facts disprove an opnion, the opinion becomes BS. I have supplied
evidence of my statements but you conitnue to say that is opnion, thereforre you
fail to see the evidence and thus this argument will never end.
> You
> can claim all the "facts" you want about why you feel the WWF is superior,
> but they'll only be your opinions, as evidenced above in your explanation of
> what you feel makes for an entertaining match.
You're going of the point. Who offer better OVERALL wrestling? You didn;t
ansewer that wuestion. Answer that question. Not individual wrestling..not
individual wrestlers..WHO offers the best OVERALL product?
> . But look at 2001. It was pretty clear Kubrick
> wanted
> > > us to dislike HAL.
> >
> > If you know how to tell a story, you don;t need devices like music or
> opnionated
> > narration to get a charatcer to be disliked. THe actions of HAL nmade us
> hate
> > him, but that is attributed to Kubrick's storytelling.
> >
> But you just said a good storyteller doesn't tell you how to feel about a
> character.
He doesn't. Once again, you're missing the point. How did he manipulate our
emotions? Explain.
> Now you just said Kubrick did tell us how to feel about the
> character. Which is it?
Because you fail to see what good storytelling is. He didn't tell us how to feel
about the charatcer. Hepresented the charatcer in a certain way, and we the
viewer made our own judgements.
>
> > > > So a racist is right, then?
> > > >
> > > In their own minds, yes.
> >
> > I don't care aboput their own minds. If an opnion is backed up by facts,
> it is
> > not an opnion. If an opnion is made BS by fatcs, it is BS. You're gonna
> tell a
> > black man that in the racist' view he is irght> Who cares. I'm asking you,
> is
> > the racist right?
> >
> The racist is right in his/her own mind.
I'm asking YOU--is racism right? If not, explain why.
>
>
> > > In his/her own mind, a racist is
> > > completely right. In your mind, racism is completely wrong.
> >
> > DO you think it's wrong? If so, why?
> >
> I feel racism is wrong because I believe that all men and women are created
> equal.
What facts do you have to support that all men and women are created equal?
Matango
RnR Stone Cold
it.
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Matango <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A8893BA...@worldnet.att.net...
RnR Stone Cold
>
I'm glad you're proud of yourself that you made an impression on me. I could
never thank you enough.
RnR Stone Cold
between
> Earline and me.
>
I didn't read much of your posts with him. I don't read stuff that belongs
in a fag newsgroup.
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> Matango <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3A889837...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Racism uis an opnion, isn't it? well, is it a right opnion?
>
> If someone thinks all mexicans are lazy, they're entitled to that belief,
they're entitled to it, but they're not right.
> but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree with it.
Ofcourse. But it does mean thye are wrong.
Matango
Matango
see the point.
Matango
RnR Stone Cold
> Racism uis an opnion, isn't it? well, is it a right opnion?
If someone thinks all mexicans are lazy, they're entitled to that belief,
but that doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree with it.
Matango
of yourself.
Matango
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> >
>
> I didn't read much of your posts with him. I don't read stuff that belongs
> in a fag newsgroup.
More cheap heat? don't worry..I'll pretend to be ofended.
Matango
Jeanne
R Watson <Rawa...@mcleodusa.net> wrote
> Vanilla is the missionary position of ice cream. Nothing wrong with it, a
good safe choice, and better than nothing.
I prefer to think of it as the epitome of flavor in its' purist form, all
else is simply derivitive. ;-)
Jeanne
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > > So acting is the only criteria for a good story? What about the the
whole
> > > setup? The execution of the story? The pay-off? Whoever ended uo going
> > over?
> > > You';re gonna tell me WCW did this better? If you say yes, explain
how.
> > >
> > No, I did not say that. I felt the execution was better.
>
> You have to explain how. Obviously you felt there was a reason for better
> execution.
>
throat like the McMahon/Helmsley angle was. The Coach Nash bit was intended
to give a rub to the NBT's. The McMahon/Helmsley angle was an attempt to put
HHH over more than he already was.
> > For me, that is
> > enough. I did not care for the setup or payoff of the WWF angle. To me,
the
> > WCW angle was better, but that is only my opinion. I make no claims to
speak
> > of fact, unlike your repeated assertions.
>
> Because you refuse to explain youtrself. I asked you how the WCW angle was
> better, including payoffs, who got over, the sensibility of the angle..you
> provided none of that,s o i can't take your opnion seriously. I have
provided
> fatcs while yo ukeep saying "it is my opnion." Explain to me where you
came too
> the conclusion fo your opnion.
>
And as I said, I preferred the acting in the WCW angle. If you won't accept
that, then you're being closed minded.
> > But, that's your opinion of what good wrestling entails. Others feel
that
> > technical skill is irrelevant. Some fans prefer to watch a couple of
> > brawlers go out there and pound each other, with nary a drop-toe-hold or
> > suplex in sight. SCSA's and Hogan's popularity alone are evidence of
that.
> > To some fans, the qualities you describe are absolutely irrelevant.
>
> Many of those fans then aren't wrestling fand..they are sports
entertainment
> fans. That is why SCSA and Hogan were over. If wrestling alone did it,
those two
> never would have been over.
>
But, that's your opinion of what makes a good match. Obviously wrestling
alone doesn't do it, because those two are arguably the most popular ever.
Therefore, your definition of what makes a good match is your opinion.
> >
> >
> > >
> > But I cannot supply facts. An opinion cannot be backed up with facts.
>
> But if an opnion can be backed up with facts, it is no longer an opnion,
it is
> fact. If facts disprove an opnion, the opinion becomes BS. I have supplied
> evidence of my statements but you conitnue to say that is opnion,
thereforre you
> fail to see the evidence and thus this argument will never end.
>
People hold opinions in spite of facts all the time. Copernicus proved that
the Earth moved around the sun, but people didn't believe him for hundreds
of years. Science has proved that AIDS cannot be transmitted through causal
contact, but people still refuse to believe it. There are still people out
there who believe the Earth is flat. At one time, poeple believed tomatoes
were poisonous, until it was proven otherwise. To those who hold the
contrary opinions, their views are just as valid in their own minds.
>
> > You
> > can claim all the "facts" you want about why you feel the WWF is
superior,
> > but they'll only be your opinions, as evidenced above in your
explanation of
> > what you feel makes for an entertaining match.
>
> You're going of the point. Who offer better OVERALL wrestling? You didn;t
> ansewer that wuestion. Answer that question. Not individual wrestling..not
> individual wrestlers..WHO offers the best OVERALL product?
>
That is entirely subjective!!! In my opinion, WCW offers a better product.
I'm not interested in the WWF, so I still feel WCW is better. It's my
opinion, and no matter how hard to claim your views are facts, nothing will
dissuade me from my belief that your views are nothing more than your
opinions. So far, you have not made the case that anything you've said is
fact. I'm still waiting for you to provide one fact that proves that the WWF
is superior. All you've stated is your opinions, and I've countered them by
pointing out contrary opinions.
> > . But look at 2001. It was pretty clear Kubrick
> > wanted
> > > > us to dislike HAL.
> > >
> > > If you know how to tell a story, you don;t need devices like music or
> > opnionated
> > > narration to get a charatcer to be disliked. THe actions of HAL nmade
us
> > hate
> > > him, but that is attributed to Kubrick's storytelling.
> > >
> > But you just said a good storyteller doesn't tell you how to feel about
a
> > character.
>
> He doesn't. Once again, you're missing the point. How did he manipulate
our
> emotions? Explain.
>
He made it very clear that we were supposed to feel negativity towards HAL.
> > Now you just said Kubrick did tell us how to feel about the
> > character. Which is it?
>
>
>
> Because you fail to see what good storytelling is. He didn't tell us how
to feel
> about the charatcer. Hepresented the charatcer in a certain way, and we
the
> viewer made our own judgements.
>
I know what good storytelling is for me. He presented the character in a way
that was intended to make us feel a certain way towards the character. Our
"own" judgements were supposed to agree with the judgements of the
storyteller. Good storytelling relies on affecting the viewers' emotions.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > > > So a racist is right, then?
> > > > >
> > > > In their own minds, yes.
> > >
> > > I don't care aboput their own minds. If an opnion is backed up by
facts,
> > it is
> > > not an opnion. If an opnion is made BS by fatcs, it is BS. You're
gonna
> > tell a
> > > black man that in the racist' view he is irght> Who cares. I'm asking
you,
> > is
> > > the racist right?
> > >
> > The racist is right in his/her own mind.
>
> I'm asking YOU--is racism right? If not, explain why.
>
And I explained that already. I feel it isn't because I believe that all men
and women deserve to be treated in an equitable and fair manner.
> >
> >
> > > > In his/her own mind, a racist is
> > > > completely right. In your mind, racism is completely wrong.
> > >
> > > DO you think it's wrong? If so, why?
> > >
> > I feel racism is wrong because I believe that all men and women are
created
> > equal.
>
> What facts do you have to support that all men and women are created
equal?
>
I have no facts, just opinions that agree with my own. I can go to the book
of Genesis that states God created man and woman in His image. I can go to
the Declaration of Independence that states all men (and women) are created
equal. I can go to the Constitution that states in various places that all
American citizens are to have equal rights. They're all opinions of various
people. Not one of them is fact. Rather, they are the views of people, with
whom I agree. Some people do not agree with them. That's a fact of life. Not
everyone agrees with me, and I have no right to call them stupid because
they disagree. Instead I try to see their side of the issue and try to
understand why they hold that view.
Dawg
news:qJIh6.8148$Nj5.4...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Dawg <gd...@rochester.rr.com> wrote
> <snip>
> > Short form of this post:
> > If it can be debated, it's an opinion. If it's universally accepted as
> > truth, it's a fact.
>
> Well said, Dawg.
> Although I'm sure it will not prevent some posters from continuing to
argue
> the point. Casting your pearls again...
I'm glad you didn't finish that sentence. That would have gotten ugly...
> You are, however, WRONG about the ice cream! Vanilla rulz!! And that's a
> fact...Jack. :op
Actually, my favorite is pistachio. I just have this thing about
pistachio's... Vanilla/pistachio swirl is awesome.
RnR Stone Cold
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Matango <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A88A831...@worldnet.att.net...
RnR Stone Cold
> I didn't say I was proud. you juast assum,e it cuz you have such a high
vision
> of yourself.
>
> Matango
Yup, I do have a high vision of myself.
RnR Stone Cold
belief,
>
> they're entitled to it, but they're not right.
In your mind it isn't right.
> Ofcourse. But it does mean thye are wrong.
They're wrong in your mind.
RnR Stone Cold
belongs
> > in a fag newsgroup.
>
> More cheap heat? don't worry..I'll pretend to be ofended.
Damn, I knew calling you a fag wouldn't offend you. You get all excited by
that word. My sincere apologies.
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> Yup, I do have a high vision of myself.
Which explains why alot of people don't like you.
Matango
Matango
cuz you';re scared to be proven wrong. So obviously you have to take cheap
shots at me. GO ahead. Make your dreams come true.
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> Damn, I knew calling you a fag wouldn't offend you. You get all excited by
> that word. My sincere apologies.
>
Hmm, I'm now convinced you masturbate to my posts, othjerwise these cheap
shots on me wouldn't be on the level of corny and cliched.
Matango
A valentines Zombie
<jgad...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Now, it is fac that more people watch WWF shows than WCW shows.
>That is fact. The WWF makes more money than WCW is fact.
well jason read my post you will find i am saying the same thing that
you are.
Zombie
thinking he needs to be more clear :-)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
A valentines Zombie
wrote:
>he first part of this sentence says it all "In my eyes." Yes, in your eyes,
>it is a fact, but using that phrase implies that it is an opinion. It is a
>fact for you, implying it is a strongly held belief, but it is still an
>opinion. To people who didn't like Benoit or Malenko, it could be viewed as
>a positive. There are people out there who do enjoy the current WCW product,
>as odd as that sounds, but that's their opinion.
lets look it like this.
Please do not give me a definition of opinion & fact i am very much
aware of what they are.
IMO
on a entertainment level WWF is better.
IMO
i think WCW is doing a good job right now.
IMO
both feds need wrok.
This where the fact comes in. Please pay attention to what i am
reading.
it is fact that WWF is doing better than WCW in a business standpoint
is it not?
It is fact that the WWF has more talent than WCW am i right?
it is fact that WWF is not struggiling the same way WCW is right now.
Right?
this HAS Nothing to do with the entertaintment level OK??????
That's what i am saying.
This does not I REPEAT does not have anything to do with WWF being
better than WCW. If people will actually read my posts. Hell i gave
WCW good reviews. When most WCW fans in this group bash it. So lets
get the fact that i am not prasing WWF over WCw.
I am simply starting that there are some fact that WWF is better than
WCW.
Not as an entertainment level though.
It won't last.
Just liek WCW a few years back. was doing to the WWF.
What is the problem with that?
Zombie
awaits for Dawg's replies
Dawg
news:2nri8to480j69jpi3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:35:31 GMT, "Dawg" <gd...@rochester.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >he first part of this sentence says it all "In my eyes." Yes, in your
eyes,
> >it is a fact, but using that phrase implies that it is an opinion. It is
a
> >fact for you, implying it is a strongly held belief, but it is still an
> >opinion. To people who didn't like Benoit or Malenko, it could be viewed
as
> >a positive. There are people out there who do enjoy the current WCW
product,
> >as odd as that sounds, but that's their opinion.
>
>
> lets look it like this.
>
> Please do not give me a definition of opinion & fact i am very much
> aware of what they are.
>
> IMO
>
> on a entertainment level WWF is better.
>
> IMO
> i think WCW is doing a good job right now.
>
Agree that this is an opinion.
> IMO
>
> both feds need wrok.
>
Agree that this is an opinion.
> This where the fact comes in. Please pay attention to what i am
> reading.
>
> it is fact that WWF is doing better than WCW in a business standpoint
> is it not?
>
Very true. I believe I stated the same thing when I started this thread.
> It is fact that the WWF has more talent than WCW am i right?
>
I will agree at this point. Before the Radicals went to the WWF, I would
probably argue this one.
> it is fact that WWF is not struggiling the same way WCW is right now.
> Right?
>
Correct.
> this HAS Nothing to do with the entertaintment level OK??????
>
> That's what i am saying.
>
> This does not I REPEAT does not have anything to do with WWF being
> better than WCW. If people will actually read my posts. Hell i gave
> WCW good reviews. When most WCW fans in this group bash it. So lets
> get the fact that i am not prasing WWF over WCw.
>
> I am simply starting that there are some fact that WWF is better than
> WCW.
>
> Not as an entertainment level though.
> It won't last.
> Just liek WCW a few years back. was doing to the WWF.
>
> What is the problem with that?
>
I have no problem with that. My problem is with Matango stating that it is a
fact that the WWF is better, while at the same time using the entertainment
value of the WWF as a basis for stating it's fact. Entertainment value is
purely opinion. It's subjective for each person. Many folks are entertained
by Survivor. Does that mean it's the best show out there? Not in my opinion.
BTW, thanks for the clarification. :o)
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> > What is the problem with that?
> >
> I have no problem with that. My problem is with Matango stating that it is a
> fact that the WWF is better, while at the same time using the entertainment
> value of the WWF as a basis for stating it's fact. Entertainment value is
> purely opinion. It's subjective for each person. Many folks are entertained
> by Survivor. Does that mean it's the best show out there? Not in my opinion.
>
> BTW, thanks for the clarification. :o)
Didn't you say the wrestlers in WCW were better? You just agreed with Zombie
that the talent in the WWF was better. Didn't this contradict what you said
about WCWE havign better individual wrestklers?
Matango
Dawg
skilled technical wrestlers. Before the Radicals jumped, that could be
debated. As of now, the WWF has more technicians that WCW. I stated that
before. However, just because the WWF has more technicians does not make
them "better." It all depends on if you enjoy technical wrestling. If you
do, then you'll likely feel that the WWF is better, but that is your
opinion.
My statements about WCW having better individual wrestlers was that some of
the wrestlers in WCW are better than some of the wrestlers in the WWF. I am
not the one making blanket statements about the wrestlers in the two feds.
You are.
RnR Stone Cold
Zombie
> that the talent in the WWF was better. Didn't this contradict what you
said
> about WCWE havign better individual wrestklers?
How dumb are you Matango? What's wrong with feeling that overall WWF has
better talent, but thinking on an individual basis, WCW has wrestlers that
are more talented than any in the WWF? For example, "I think WWF has better
talent overall, but in WCW I think Lance Storm is better than anyone in
WWF." How is that contradict anything?
RnR Stone Cold
Unlike you, I feel good about myself and have high self esteem and it
doesn't matter what others think of me. You on the other hand lack self
esteem and need others to compliment you in order to avoid slipping into a
state of depression.
RnR Stone Cold
every attack.
--
RnR Stone Cold
"It's true, it's true" - Kurt Angle
Matango <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A88F115...@worldnet.att.net...
RnR Stone Cold
> How about actually sticking to the point and answering the question? You
won't
> cuz you';re scared to be proven wrong. So obviously you have to take cheap
> shots at me. GO ahead. Make your dreams come true.
Slavery was right in many people's minds. Everything happens for a reason.
The US may not be in as good shape as it is now if slavery didn't occur.
Slavery was a major part of establishing an economy.
To answer your question: Yes, the racial view was just for the time. Believe
it or not, many slave owners treated their slaves well. Also, many had it
much better in the US than they would have if they were left in Africa.
Michael Grover
say that it is not because of entertainment level? WCW is not as exciting
and I will go as far to say that it is boring to watch. You contradict
yourself by giving reasons for why the wwf is doing better and then
turning around and saying the entertainment level has nothing to do with
it. I don't understand where you are coming from.
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> How dumb are you Matango? What's wrong with feeling that overall WWF has
> better talent, but thinking on an individual basis, WCW has wrestlers that
> are more talented than any in the WWF?
Because, Puppetron, the argument was NOT-pay attention now- NOT whethr certain
wrestlers in WCW were more talented than WWF wrestlers, the argument was who on
a whole has better wrestlers. WHOLE--- or is it your opinion that the word
"whole" means one person in a company?
Matango
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> My statements about WCW having better individual wrestlers was that some of
> the wrestlers in WCW are better than some of the wrestlers in the WWF. I am
> not the one making blanket statements about the wrestlers in the two feds.
> You are.
No, it is your opinion that I am making blanket statements. ANd iti s fact that
you haven;t really answered my question concerning this argument.
Matango
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> Slavery was right in many people's minds.
And there were those who opposed it. In an objective viewpoint, who was REALLY
right?
> The US may not be in as good shape as it is now if slavery didn't occur.
The argument was NOT whether slavery was right or not, the argument was were
racists correct for being racist?
> To answer your question: Yes, the racial view was just for the time.
Not in the eyes of those who opposed it. Were they wrong for refusing to enforce
slavery?
>
Matango
Matango
Mexican, which I am not.
Matango
Matango
RnR Stone Cold wrote:
> > Which explains why alot of people don't like you.
>
> Unlike you, I feel good about myself and have high self esteem and it
> doesn't matter what others think of me.
It's good to know that you can read me based on a few words on the com[puter
screen. I feel exopnerated now (uhh..sarcasm.)
> You on the other hand lack self
> esteem and need others to compliment you in order to avoid slipping into a
> state of depression.
Ohh, can you recommend me a good sociologist? I don't think I can handle these
verbal abuses any more, and I am too depressed to turn off the computer.
(uhhh..sarcasm)
Matango
Dawg
Please, repeat your questions, because I have answered every question you've
asked. However, you have not answered any of my questions. I would be happy
with one answer from you: What "facts" do you use to support your claim that
the WWF is better.
Matango
Dawg wrote:
> No, you are making blanket statements.
Once again, it is your opninion.
>
>
> Please, repeat your questions, because I have answered every question you've
> asked.
Okay, I'll do it like this:It is true that there are certain wrestlers in WCW
that are better than in the WWF, right?
Sometimes WCW can put on a beter wrestling match tan the WWF, right?
Okay, Now--- as a whole, who puts on a better overall show, with better overall
talent and better overall pop and heat? (and don't give me this "I would have
said WCW before the Radicals jumped" nonsesne because we are not talking then,
we are talking now.)
Matango
Dawg
>
>
> Dawg wrote:
>
> > No, you are making blanket statements.
>
> Once again, it is your opninion.
>
blanket statements?
> >
> >
> > Please, repeat your questions, because I have answered every question
you've
> > asked.
>
> Okay, I'll do it like this:It is true that there are certain wrestlers in
WCW
> that are better than in the WWF, right?
>
> Sometimes WCW can put on a beter wrestling match tan the WWF, right?
>
> Okay, Now--- as a whole, who puts on a better overall show, with better
overall
> talent and better overall pop and heat? (and don't give me this "I would
have
> said WCW before the Radicals jumped" nonsesne because we are not talking
then,
> we are talking now.)
>
However, saying the WWF puts on better shows is not the same thing as saying
the WWF is BETTER. It's only saying their shows are better. The WWF is more
than their shows. The production and fan reaction is stronger in the WWF,
but that does not mean they are more entertaining.
If production quality is your only reason why you claim it is a fact that
the WWF is better, then you're missing the point of all of my posts.
RnR Stone Cold
Matango <baj...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A89F363...@worldnet.att.net...
Please resend this, it's beyond comprehension. Just revise and I'll be happy
to answer.
RnR Stone Cold
>
>
> RnR Stone Cold wrote:
>
> > Slavery was right in many people's minds.
>
> And there were those who opposed it. In an objective viewpoint, who was
REALLY
> right?
If I was a plantation owner, I would have felt it was right to have slaves.
Looking at today, I wasn't right but I wouldnt want to go back in time and
prevent it.
> > The US may not be in as good shape as it is now if slavery didn't occur.
>
> The argument was NOT whether slavery was right or not, the argument was
were
> racists correct for being racist?
Yeah, they were correct for that time. Times changed and views changed and
more were against racism.
> Not in the eyes of those who opposed it. Were they wrong for refusing to
enforce
> slavery?
Well in the eyes of those for it, it was right. For those against it, there
view was right to them and NO ONE was ever forced to have slaves. Just like
in some peoples eyes WWF is better and for others WCW is better. You just
contradicted your entire argument in this endless debate.
RnR Stone Cold
LOL!!! I've never seen such senseless comebacks. WOOOOO!!!!
--