Hogan will be involved, on team WCW
Slick Rik
The only possible scenerio that can occour at Bash @ the Beach is for a
Lugar/Savage heel turn and then a Hogan rescue. They have been running
those stupid Hogan promo's on Nitro showing the old man flexing and riding
his bike. Those are shown for a reason, and as you may remember Nash said
on Nitro a few weeks ago, while verbally assulting the WCW, "where is the
old man now? shooting another show of Blunder in paradise" These things
aren't random, they are there for a reason. I can say that either Lugar
will heel, to go along with the Lugar/Sting feud that has died down in the
past few weeks, or Savage turning seeing how he's "crazy" and then setting
up the Hogan/Savage match, which I can only see Hogan winning, seeing how
Savage will be looked upon as the ultimate sinner and Hogan the Ultimate
savior.
Mark Davenport
In <xtreme-2406...@p2s09.gwis.com> xtr...@gwis.com (Slick Rik)
writes:
God you just want the angle to fail don't you. That is not the only
possible way things will work out. Alot of people thought the only
possible way for the nfl vs horseman match to end would be arn and
flair jobbing, did'nt happen did it.
You totaly underestimate the pull Nash has on wcw now. Essentialy he
has the same contract and same pull as Hogan on normal angles and he
has 100% pull on angles he is involved with.
It seems no matter how creative or good an angle in wcw people always
like to throw in the Hogan crap. He's not even in the match he's not
even on the card and all reports say he won't be back till august. He
was one of the people that was in the running for that match and he
still is'nt in it.
At least let the thing playout more before you start saying you know as
a fact how it will turn out. Sorry but it's a total cop out to always
pull out the Hogan crap when ever wcw puts together good angle. Most
people thought that Hogan would have pillman job to him did'nt happen
that was their excuse to put down the pillman angle.
John D. Williams
Mark Davenport wrote:
> You totaly underestimate the pull Nash has on wcw now. Essentialy he
> has the same contract and same pull as Hogan on normal angles and he
> has 100% pull on angles he is involved with.
You mean Nash is getting 25% of the buyrate grosses too? If so, where
exactly did you come by that info, big guy.
--
jdw
"I have 0 credibility here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
"It would be wise to ignore my posts" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
"I have hit bottom here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
Carl
>--
>jdw
This is a bit much, isn't it, John? Granted, Mark Davenport makes an
easy target, seeming to invite abuse. I almost never watch the WWF,
and, up until recently, found RSPW and it's nearly constant bashing of
WCW a few months ago very hard to take, but even I've come to dread
another Davenport posting, and wish he would just tone it down, and
stop this Quixote-like attacks on anyone who posts anything negative
about WCW. But your constant attacks are making you look like the
school bully picking on the special ed kid.
John, you can be very entertaining and informative-I learned a lot
from the debate you had with Evan on Japanese booking (before it
degenerated into simple flaming). I look forward to your posts, and
even when I disagree, I respect your opinion, and enjoy reading your
thoughts. I just think it's time to put this Davenport obsession of
yours away.
Can't we all just talk wrestling? (getting along while doing it would
be too much to ask, perhaps). :)
Carl
Mark Davenport
In <4r9ihf$1...@goodnews.voicenet.com> and...@omni.voicenet.com (Carl)
writes:
a few things.
1. I won't respond or answer anything he posts when it is in a flame.
2. Like I have said I have hit bottom here so by continuing to flame me
when I ignore his flames it just makes him look bad in the long run.
3. I will not join in on his little flames and if you have not noticed
im flamed on a regular basis yet I still post which means getting
flamed in no way effects me in the least.
Personal flames wars have gotten tiresome here to the point even a mark
is an asshole thread did'nt last more than a few days. Realize John you
cannot win. Your in a no win siatuation John if you make a fool out of
me in rspw it won't be anything new and if you keep up the flames
toward me you are only lowering your own status in rspw. Feel free to
flame away John but trust me their is no way you can come out on top by
doing so.
Bob Barnett
I'm still waiting to see Kevin Nash's contract that you stated
specifics about. BTW=lesbians were hardcore back in All japan
Women 1984 with Dump Matsumoto.
Bob Barnett
John D. Williams
Carl wrote:
>
> "John D. Williams" <johndw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark Davenport wrote:
> >
> >> You totaly underestimate the pull Nash has on wcw now. Essentialy he
> >> has the same contract and same pull as Hogan on normal angles and he
> >> has 100% pull on angles he is involved with.
>
> >You mean Nash is getting 25% of the buyrate grosses too? If so, where
> >exactly did you come by that info, big guy.
>
> >--
> >jdw
>
> >johndw...@worldnet.att.net
>
> >"I have 0 credibility here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
>
> >"It would be wise to ignore my posts" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
>
> >"I have hit bottom here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
>
> This is a bit much, isn't it, John? Granted, Mark Davenport makes an
> easy target, seeming to invite abuse. I almost never watch the WWF,
> and, up until recently, found RSPW and it's nearly constant bashing of
> WCW a few months ago very hard to take, but even I've come to dread
> another Davenport posting, and wish he would just tone it down, and
> stop this Quixote-like attacks on anyone who posts anything negative
> about WCW. But your constant attacks are making you look like the
> school bully picking on the special ed kid.
Carl, I don't know about the "special ed" kid comment. I agree on the
rest, but a better analogy for a bully-runt would work. The analogy
gives off the impression to those that might not be following this
closely (lucky them ;) )that I might be making light of Davenport's
problem. I have not, and will not do that. The one thing I do respect
about the guy is that he's fighting a tough battle there, and he doesn't
need an asshole ripping him on that.
Carl, I won't stoop that low. There are plenty of other things Davenport
says that I don't respect and will glady limit it to slapping him around
about those. ;)
> John, you can be very entertaining and informative-I learned a lot
> from the debate you had with Evan on Japanese booking (before it
> degenerated into simple flaming). I look forward to your posts, and
> even when I disagree, I respect your opinion, and enjoy reading your
> thoughts. I just think it's time to put this Davenport obsession of
> yours away.
It's not an obsession, Carl. Davenport's love affair with WCW is an
obsession. I'm just having fun slumming around with him.
After a hard day of work, and prior to sinking my teeth into another
one of those never ending threads with Dean Rasmussen, I kind of like to
unwind a bit. If it's Wednesday night, I can pop in the weekly Japan TV
tape. On other nights, I find Davenport to be a damn entertaining
substitute.
Carl, if you want to look forward to my posts, this is my advice: Don't
read ones following a Davenport post in a thread. That might be a sign
as to what I'm up to.
> Can't we all just talk wrestling? (getting along while doing it would
> be too much to ask, perhaps). :)
Well, I have gotten along with plenty of people in various threads up
here. And talked wrestling in the threads a time or two.
Would love to have you drop in them too, Carl. And anyone else that
wants to talk wrestling.
Regards,
--
jdw
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
The star of England. Fortune made his sword,
By which the world's best garden he achieved...
Chorus
King Henry The Fifth, By William Shakespeare
Epilogue Lines 5-7
Mark Davenport
In <31D889...@earthlink.net> Bob Barnett <jap...@earthlink.net>
writes:
>I'm still waiting to see Kevin Nash's contract that you stated
>specifics about. BTW=lesbians were hardcore back in All japan
>Women 1984 with Dump Matsumoto.
I don't have it I made it all up are you happy now.
John D. Williams
Mark Davenport wrote:
> >"John D. Williams" <johndw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Davenport wrote:
> >>
> >>> You totaly underestimate the pull Nash has on wcw now. Essentialy
> >>> he has the same contract and same pull as Hogan on normal angles
> >>> and he has 100% pull on angles he is involved with.
> >
> >>You mean Nash is getting 25% of the buyrate grosses too? If so,
> >>where exactly did you come by that info, big guy.
> >
> >>--
> >>jdw
> >
> >>johndw...@worldnet.att.net
> >
> >>"I have 0 credibility here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
> >
> >>"It would be wise to ignore my posts" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
> >
> >>"I have hit bottom here" - Mark Davenport on RSPW
> If he wants to get in a flame war with me fine but he needs to realize
> a few things.
Mark, I'm not trying to get in a "flame war" with you. That would be a
waste of our time.
No, I have a far more valuable goal here, Mark. I'm just trying to ask
you some questions, that's all. Trying to glean a little bit from your
obvious knowledge and learn a little more about your "facts".
But somehow, it seems that I keep offending you. After all this time, I
just can't seem to get a straight answer out of you, and tend to make you
a little bit defensive to the point that you "forget" about the
questions and focus on something else I might have said.
I mean, maybe if you answered a few questions, pal, we might get this
thing straigtened out.
> 1. I won't respond or answer anything he posts when it is in a flame.
Really? I posted two messages last night that you clearly read to be a
"flame war" (though IMHO they actually were just trying get you to open
up and share a bit more of your vast knowledge with the group). Yet,
despite this denial that you won't respond to anything "he" posts when
it's a flame, damn if you didn't respond to both.
Oh, since I have you attention, here are the outstand questions of the
moment:
(1) You were going to explain to us when WCW/NWA had triangle
matches before ECW came into being. And then you were going to essay us
on how those early WCW/NWA triangle matches were not copied from Mexican
triangle matches.
(2) You were going to explore in detail the finer point of
Nash's contract with WCW, which is essentialy the same contract as
Hogan's, including that little clause about 25% of the buyrate grosses
of the top of the company.
Waiting in anticipation. No help from the studio audience.
> 2. Like I have said I have hit bottom here so by continuing to flame me
> when I ignore his flames it just makes him look bad in the long run.
Glad to see you care that much about how I look Mark. And glad to see
how you're ignoring my "flames".
> 3. I will not join in on his little flames and if you have not noticed
> im flamed on a regular basis yet I still post which means getting
> flamed in no way effects me in the least.
Oh, I think it "effects" you, big guy. I've seen fewer of your "You
Stupid Fucking Lemming" comments in the past week. I think you're
mellowing a bit, pal. I kind off am humoring myself that maybe I and
that "Davenport Is An Asshole" thread might have gotten you to be a
kinder, gentler Mark Davenport.
> Personal flames wars have gotten tiresome here to the point even a mark
> is an asshole thread did'nt last more than a few days.
Well, Mark, I not trying to start threads. Just ask a few questions when
you throw out a new "fact" that I would like to learn more about. But
you're pretty cheap when it comes to sharing info with the group, so a
lot good it does me.
> Realize John you
> cannot win. Your in a no win siatuation John if you make a fool out of
> me in rspw it won't be anything new and if you keep up the flames
> toward me you are only lowering your own status in rspw.
Could have sworn I explained this to you once, Mark. I'm not in here to
get respect. Like any of us in here need RSPW to get respect. If that
was the point for anyone here, they need a life.
No, Mark, I'm in here for *F*U*N*, to *L*E*A*R*N* and to *T*A*L*K*
*W*R*E*S*T*L*I*N*G*.
And I'm just asking you a few questions everyonce in a while in the hopes
of learning something from you. And it's just talkin' wrestling, and
it's kind of fun to do. What more can a guy ask for.
> Feel free to
> flame away John but trust me their is no way you can come out on top by
> doing so.
"Flames"
Come on now Mark, they're just questions.
You post something with authority in your tone that "You totaly
underestimate the pull Nash has on wcw now". You expect us not to be a
little curious in this and not to dare to aske you about it? Are you so
thin skined that mere questions become daggers in your mind?
Mark Davenport
In <31D8D1...@worldnet.att.net> "John D. Williams"
Everything I have stated I completely 100% made up. I have no facts to
back up any of my opinions ever. Im a loser with no life and everything
I say is either made up or a complete lie. I will never back up my
opinions with facts ever cause their are none to back me up with.
The questions you asked me I can't answer cause again they were all
made up. Everything you say about me is true and I should be in a
mental insititution to keep me away from all the nomral people of RSPW.
If theirs anything I forgot John just let me know.
the...@buffnet.net
William [Billy] Harrison
Mark Davenport (gig...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Everything I have stated I completely 100% made up. I have no facts to
: back up any of my opinions ever. Im a loser with no life and everything
: I say is either made up or a complete lie. I will never back up my
: opinions with facts ever cause their are none to back me up with.
: The questions you asked me I can't answer cause again they were all
: made up. Everything you say about me is true and I should be in a
: mental insititution to keep me away from all the nomral people of RSPW.
: If theirs anything I forgot John just let me know.
Um...what? :)
I don't understand why anyone would make something up, then humiliate himself
like this afterwards. If it's made up, you could just say it's a joke, you
know. You must have a real problem with self esteem, Mark. I mean, even if
what you've written above is total bull (the parts about you thinking you're
a loser, etc.), you must really need to feel good about yourself to try this
hard in putting one over on us (John specifically). Sheesh.
--
_________________________________________________________________
| William Harrison harr...@ug.cs.dal.ca |
| |
| Student at Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, |
| e-wrestling participant, video game lover and Internet junkie |
|_________________________________________________________________|
Jeff Amdur
In article <4ram37$3...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
gig...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Davenport) wrote:
Not really an unreasonable request, IMHO.
> Everything I have stated I completely 100% made up. I have no facts to
> back up any of my opinions ever. Im a loser with no life and everything
> I say is either made up or a complete lie. I will never back up my
> opinions with facts ever cause their are none to back me up with.
> The questions you asked me I can't answer cause again they were all
> made up. Everything you say about me is true and I should be in a
> mental insititution to keep me away from all the nomral people of RSPW.
> If theirs anything I forgot John just let me know.
I'll admit I had been deleting a lot of this thread rather than read it,
but from what I've seen today, we're being worked here big-time my Mr.
Davenport, as surrealistic in his own manner as Zoogz is. Maybe we were
always being worked here big-time. Either that, or my God, Mark, that's
no way to rebut criticism.
I'll admit that as a previous poster stated, Mark with his spelling
errors, etc., makes an easy target for flames, and the number of such
flames over the past year have conditioned Mark for some type of reflex
response. This time, however, it was not the case of someone criticizing
HOW Mark wrote something but rather someone calling him on WHAT he wrote.
Isn't criticism and debate over SUBSTANCE the essence of what discussion
here is supposed to be about?
I understand Mark's shrinking from debate, as he has been frequently
flamed for his style. But here, Mark, it isn't a question of style but
rather of substance, and to retreat by saying "I surrender. You win. I
have no proof. I made it all up." is rather lame. And if the "I made it
all up" is actually the truth, it is lamer yet. This here was a
legitimate debate, not a flame war. Mark should not have interpreted it
as such.
--
Jeff Amdur
Quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
Quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
Doing all that stuff at Arundel High School in Gambrills, Md. since 1977
je...@clark.net jef...@aol.com jia...@umd5.umd.edu
Dave Scherer
harr...@ug.cs.dal.ca (William [Billy] Harrison) wrote:
>Mark Davenport (gig...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Everything I have stated I completely 100% made up. I have no facts to
>: back up any of my opinions ever. Im a loser with no life and everything
>: I say is either made up or a complete lie. I will never back up my
>: opinions with facts ever cause their are none to back me up with.
>
>: The questions you asked me I can't answer cause again they were all
>: made up. Everything you say about me is true and I should be in a
>: mental insititution to keep me away from all the nomral people of RSPW.
>: If theirs anything I forgot John just let me know.
>
>Um...what? :)
>
>I don't understand why anyone would make something up, then humiliate himself
>like this afterwards. If it's made up, you could just say it's a joke, you
>know. You must have a real problem with self esteem, Mark. I mean, even if
>what you've written above is total bull (the parts about you thinking you're
>a loser, etc.), you must really need to feel good about yourself to try this
>hard in putting one over on us (John specifically). Sheesh.
You know, I read stuff from Mark and then I read the replies he gets
here and I can't help but think that he is sitting behind his monitor
laughing his ass off at you people. I could be totally wrong here,
but Mark reminds me a lot of one of the greatest posters in the
history of r.s.p-w, Stan "The Man" Murch.
True, he has not called his girlfriend his "women" yet, but he does
have his own bright points.
He throws out bizarre opinions and "news," and like the sun rising in
the morning, he gets the reactions he is looking for from people.
Then, when called a fool, he agrees with people furthering what he
said to begin with that if you argue with him you will look silly.
Is he is a genius, or a simp? Does it really matter?
Maybe he is working every one of you, or maybe he's not, but to me,
what he says is true, and I have paraphrased it many times myself:
When you swim in the cesspool, you are going to end up smelling like
shit.
The Wrestling Lariat Newsletter
P. O. Box 612
Marmora, NJ 08223-0612
*EMail for current rates*
Carl
"John D. Williams" <johndw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Carl wrote:
>>
. But your constant attacks are making you look like the
>> school bully picking on the special ed kid.
>Carl, I don't know about the "special ed" kid comment. I agree on the
>rest, but a better analogy for a bully-runt would work.
Good point. I should have thought about that one for a moment.
>> John, you can be very entertaining and informative-I learned a lot
>> from the debate you had with Evan on Japanese booking (before it
>> degenerated into simple flaming). I look forward to your posts, and
>> even when I disagree, I respect your opinion, and enjoy reading your
>> thoughts. I just think it's time to put this Davenport obsession of
>> yours away.
>It's not an obsession, Carl. Davenport's love affair with WCW is an
>obsession. I'm just having fun slumming around with him.
It just seems like too easy a target.
>After a hard day of work, and prior to sinking my teeth into another
>one of those never ending threads with Dean Rasmussen, I kind of like to
>unwind a bit. If it's Wednesday night, I can pop in the weekly Japan TV
>tape. On other nights, I find Davenport to be a damn entertaining
>substitute.
>Carl, if you want to look forward to my posts, this is my advice: Don't
>read ones following a Davenport post in a thread. That might be a sign
>as to what I'm up to.
Agreed. I'll do that from now on.
Carl
Cannonbawl
In article <4rbo2d$m...@News.Dal.Ca>, harr...@ug.cs.dal.ca (William
[Billy] Harrison) writes:
> The questions you asked me I can't answer cause again they were all
>: made up. Everything you say about me is true and I should be in a
>: mental insititution to keep me away from all the nomral people of RSPW.
>: If theirs anything I forgot John just let me know.
>
>Um...what? :)
>
>I don't understand why anyone would make something up, then humiliate
himself
>like this afterwards. If it's made up, you could just say it's a joke,
you
>know. You must have a real problem with self esteem, Mark. I mean, even
if
>what you've written above is total bull (the parts about you thinking
you're
>a loser, etc.), you must really need to feel good about yourself to try
this
>hard in putting one over on us (John specifically). Sheesh.
>
>--
Bill,
I gotta say this, and bear in mind, this is my own personal opinion,
which, basically counts for shit, but here goes, anyhow.
On Mark Davenport...
I sincerely believe Mark, while, as Mr. Amdur points out, has a
conditioned response as pertains to his manner of posting, he is also not
at all concerned about handing us a line like this (I made it all up, etc)
due to the simple fact that Mark just does not give a sweet shit about
what we think. I wouldn't jump to the obvious conclusion and lable Mr.
Davenport as one with low self-esteem, rather, I would say he has more
self-assurance and self-confidence than the average person, because
someone who was lacking self-esteem would most likely be quite unwilling
to put himself on the line as Mark Davenport has done time and time again.
I don't agree with some of what Mark has had to say, nor do I necessarily
disagree with everything he has to say. He and I have very different
opinions on the relative worth of WCW. However, on a one to one basis,
Mr. Davenport is very intelligent, articulate (in that his opinions and
ideas are cohesive and intelligent) and pleasant. Perhaps if he had not
recieved the harsh treatment he has recieved here about his spelling and
punctuation, he would be more willing to provide the same type of
interesting and inciteful conversation which I have been priveledged to
entertain.
I hate for one moment to minimize what I have said here by appearing to be
ass-kissing Mr. Davenport, because that is not my intention. I simply
feel that RSPW, as a group, has served this guy an injustice, and how
unfortunate for the rest of you to be deprived of potential wit and
intelligence that far and away exceeds your expectations.
CannonBawl!!!
<Pillman may be the Cannon, but I am the Bawlz!!!>
William [Billy] Harrison
I too have recently had the pleasure to talk to Mr. Davenport on private
e-mail, and I must say he's been given a bum wrap. Who cares about his
punctuation or his spelling? I haven't seen anything so bad that I couldn't
make perfect sense out of it, and when given the opportunity he is very
much capable of giving an intelligent and thoughtful response.
I personally know that there are grammatical rules I break at times. I don't
know every little detail about the English language, and don't care if I
ever do. Nitpicking over using a period instead of a question mark isn't
worth wasting bandwidth over, nor should it be an excuse to attack another
person's post (unless it's a troll or pointless flame, in which case be my
guest. :). Mark's opinions are as valuable as anyone else's, and I hope he
continues to post here regardless of what anyone says. As long as it's
about wrestling, and makes sense, I have no problem with it whatsoever.
John D. Williams
William [Billy] Harrison wrote:
> I too have recently had the pleasure to talk to Mr. Davenport on
> private e-mail, and I must say he's been given a bum wrap. Who cares
> about his punctuation or his spelling? I haven't seen anything so bad
> that I couldn't make perfect sense out of it, and when given the
> opportunity he is very much capable of giving an intelligent and
> thoughtful response.
>
> I personally know that there are grammatical rules I break at times.
> I don't know every little detail about the English language, and don't
> care if I ever do. Nitpicking over using a period instead of a
> question mark isn't worth wasting bandwidth over, nor should it be an
> excuse to attack another person's post (unless it's a troll or
> pointless flame, in which case be my guest. :).
William, you have choosen to completely ignore the premise of this and
this thread. It has nothing to do with Davenport's grammar. I have
already clearly stated that I would never attack that given Davenport's
admitted difficulties. I respect that aspect of Davenports, and will not
and have not made light of it in any post to RSPW.
Beyond my belief that it would be a chickenshit thing to make light of, I
will go further that I am not one to attack on grammar and spelling. I
am pretty damn lazy with repsect to those two items when posting on RSPW
at 2:00 AM, especially when involced in a never ending "Dean & John"
thread.
> Mark's opinions are as valuable as anyone else's, and I hope he
> continues to post here regardless of what anyone says. As long as
> it's about wrestling, and makes sense, I have no problem with it
> whatsoever.
Again, "opinions" have nothing to do with this thread. I have here
and in other threads simply asked Davenport a few questions about the
*facts* he was using to slap around those that he considers "WWF
Lemmings". Davenport has either choosen to ignore the questions, or
simply cop out by saying "I made them all up". Fine, that's his choice.
I did not "attack" his opinions in this thread. I have no desire to bar
Davenport from expressing his opinions, or even his "facts", on RSPW. I
am simply, every once in a while, interested in the "facts" he uses to
flame his chosen arch enemies here on RSPW, those evil "WWF Lemmings".
And those "WWF Lemmings" he attacks should now know to take his "facts"
with a grain of salt when Davenport comes-a-flaming, or at least until he
cares to back them up a bit.
William, we agree that flamming or even making light of Davenport's
grammar is out of line. We agree that Davenport's opinion shouldn't be
barred from RSPW, though I suspect that even you would conceed that they
are open to "response" from those whoose opinions are different from his.
As far as his "fact", I have no idea where you stand on that. You know
where I do.
Regards,
William [Billy] Harrison
John D. Williams (johndw...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: William, you have choosen to completely ignore the premise of this and
: this thread. It has nothing to do with Davenport's grammar. I have
: already clearly stated that I would never attack that given Davenport's
: admitted difficulties. I respect that aspect of Davenports, and will not
: and have not made light of it in any post to RSPW.
Oh, I wasn't addressing this to you. I was merely responding to what the
previous poster had already written. Certainly not meaning to be accusing
anyone...
: Again, "opinions" have nothing to do with this thread. I have here
: and in other threads simply asked Davenport a few questions about the
: *facts* he was using to slap around those that he considers "WWF
: Lemmings". Davenport has either choosen to ignore the questions, or
: simply cop out by saying "I made them all up". Fine, that's his choice.
Again, not pointing fingers.
: I did not "attack" his opinions in this thread. I have no desire to bar
: Davenport from expressing his opinions, or even his "facts", on RSPW. I
: am simply, every once in a while, interested in the "facts" he uses to
: flame his chosen arch enemies here on RSPW, those evil "WWF Lemmings".
: And those "WWF Lemmings" he attacks should now know to take his "facts"
: with a grain of salt when Davenport comes-a-flaming, or at least until he
: cares to back them up a bit.
I totally agree. I just don't understand why Mark would make such posts
when he knows he won't be taken seriously. If he's got a good source that
can offer proof, why won't he just come out and say it?
: William, we agree that flamming or even making light of Davenport's
: grammar is out of line. We agree that Davenport's opinion shouldn't be
: barred from RSPW, though I suspect that even you would conceed that they
: are open to "response" from those whoose opinions are different from his.
: As far as his "fact", I have no idea where you stand on that. You know
: where I do.
Certainly. Debate is the most important thing there is in Usenet. Since
everyone is free to voice their opinion, everyone is free to question all
other opinions and try to give reasons why he's right. Or just to state his
opinion as a counterpoint, if he so chooses.
I am of the definite opinion that:
A. WCW's wrestling is currently better than the WWF's
B. that more people whose workrates are high (and as Dean pointed out in
another thread, are stiff and can sell) should be given pushes.
and most of all...
C. that no one should state anything as fact unless they're prepared to
back it up with proof (or are prepared to get lambasted).
If Mark chooses the latter part of C., more power to him. If he is able to
choose the first half, even better.
Mark Davenport
Since everyone is wondering ill post it again even though I said this
before and even e mailed John Williams about it but he seems to have
ignored that.
Thier is a local hotline run by joe pedicino.
In his hotline over the last few weeks he has stated the following
things: Nash's contract is very similar to Hogans in terms of how much
pull he has on angles and general booking. He has stated that Nash has
100% full control of all angles involving him and has a strong pull on
all the general angles. As for the 25% of ppv royalties I never even
said word one about that someone else brought that up I have no idea
about that part of his contract. I also gather my information from rspw
and other internet resources and hotlines just like everyone here on
rspw does.
As far as the court case is concerened I used common sence along with a
few items I heard about the case. I gathered all the info I had on the
matter from various sources which includes the 511 hotline joe runs and
also the internet. I did what is called speculation I never clamied to
be a laywer and never claimed it to be fact although some people seem
to think I did. If you do not beleive me ill ask anyone on here to
quote me where I said anything was 100% because fact, I never made
those claims.
I had enough info to form an opinion in this matter I also had enough
to specualte on what the outcome might in the case, considering that
their was no injunction which supports my opinion that the lawsuit will
eventually fail.
If you still flame me for speculation you better flame every single
person that has said anything about the case. I was just as informed as
anyone else and I had the right to speculate on this matter.
Again if you feel im lying or dodging anything ill will ask you to
bring up anything I have said to prove me wrong. This is the last I
will say on this matter as I have posted it before and have e mailed
John Williams about it but he seems to have ignored that e mail.
As for the triangle match I vagley remember a match at one of the
clashes in the early 90s but again I could be wrong but I felt it was
worth mentioning. I seem to be the only person here that is questioned
on my opinions well after this I will not go into this again.
I will give any opinions and specualtions that I feel like and if you
think they are wrong or not factual get over it as im not going to get
into this again. If you don't like me or what I have to say DO NOT READ
MY POSTS.
I skip over at least half of all posts because I either know by the
header or the person that I will not like what they have to say.
I suggest you do the same if you feel that you do not like me or what I
have to say.
But let me say this I will post what I want and I will specualte on
things. If you do not like that all I can say is oh well get over it
cause im not going anywhere. I have just as much rights as anyone to
post here.
Id also like to thank the people that had kind words to say about me
during all of this.Posting that in rspw took guts seeing as Im not
liked here. If you have any problem of what I said e mail me and spare
more flame wars in this newsgroup.
John D. Williams
William [Billy] Harrison wrote:
> Certainly. Debate is the most important thing there is in Usenet. Since
> everyone is free to voice their opinion, everyone is free to question all
> other opinions and try to give reasons why he's right. Or just to state his
> opinion as a counterpoint, if he so chooses.
>
> I am of the definite opinion that:
>
> A. WCW's wrestling is currently better than the WWF's
It's a close call, but I concede that neither is exactly my cup of tea.
To me they are inconsistent as hell.
WCW's Battle Bowl was a mind numbing experiance. GAB was pretty damn
entertaining.
KOR opened well, and closed well. In between was some that was bad, and
some that was quite watchable. Any number of WWF PPV this year weak.
If the two promotions put on the best show (work wise) that they have the
potential to do based on the talent available to them, I tend to believe
WCW would clean up.
> B. that more people whose workrates are high (and as Dean pointed
> out in another thread, are stiff and can sell) should be given pushes.
I generally agree. But there is a business aspect to wrestling - namely
it's a business. I've watched Cien Caras stink out the joint live for
four plus years. God I hate watching him. But I've also seen him draw
monster crowds in Los Angles and all over Mexico. And draw heat, not
exactly for what he does, but "who" he is. There is value for people
like that in a drawing position.
Hogan always bored me, even when he was *good*. But what promoter would
give their right (and left?) nut to have someone with the drawing power
he had from 1980-89.
That said, I agree with pushing workers, exposing and getting them over
with the audience. Obviously if you can educate the fans, the workers
can be your "draws" at some point.
> and most of all...
>
> C. that no one should state anything as fact unless they're prepared
> to back it up with proof (or are prepared to get lambasted).
Agreed.
> If Mark chooses the latter part of C., more power to him. If he is
> able to choose the first half, even better.
I wish it were the first half. Other than the flaming tone, and
occasional exageration and/or mistatement of some facts, he is usually
right when defending *his* WCW. I have no bones about saying that.
John D. Williams
VIA POST & E-MAIL
Mark Davenport wrote:
> Since everyone is wondering ill post it again even though I said this
> before and even e mailed John Williams about it but he seems to have
> ignored that.
No, Mark, I didn't intend to ignore it for long. I thought I'd wait for
our direct heat to cool a bit before responding to you directly on either
RSPW or via e-mail. I didn't think any think I would say to you at that
time would get across given the nature of our direct posts.
When I thought it cooled enough, I planned on doing it via e-mail, since
that semed to be what you wanted. And I hoped we could *talk* so you
could understand the intent of my posts.
I've read this post, and I've read the others you've done recently. I'd
say the heat has dropped enough that we can *talk* and perhaps understand
each other better. We can do it on RSPW or via e-mail, it doesn't matter
to me. Send me an e-mail and let me know what you eant to do. I suspect
that it could help us avoid dances in the future.