[DISCUSSION] Pro Wrestling Torch and Bruce Mitchell
Hayabu2354
Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am not gay and
I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would just ask them about
this and not post it. But, after reading this week's issue of the Pro
Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and somewhat perplexed, about Bruce
Mitchell's column and assertions that he made. What I guess I want to know is
am I living in a black hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would
appreciate feedback from anyone on this. I have some passages from the article
quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult" nature of wrestling
nowadays.
"Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a guy who his
act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one visit to the adult book
store than a real life pervert, and the audience seems to sense it."
Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno mags and I
sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like a big joke, and that is
what he is going for. Is what Mitchell sees something that only one who looks
at things from a gay point of view would see?
"Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick in the sport
isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same promotion that Eric
Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it
bluntly, ought to be renamed Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This
All Male-Revue features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive
relationship with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went
back to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed independence.
Raven constantly talks of his alienation and rejection from his parents,
without being specific as to the reason. Everyone in the Nest vies for Raven's
love. Saturn didn't steal his look from Taz, he took it from Biker Boys
magazine. Lodi's look is straight out of every college gay bar in America.
Hammer, whose name fits this concept perfectly, comes right from the peep
shows. Nice fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus Station Runaway look
down cold."
Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this conclusion?
Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never read (or even
heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried to pick up a "Bus Station
Runaway". I have also never been in a "butch/fem abusive relationship" (and
thank God I don't even know what one is". All of that being said, when I look
at Raven's nest I don't see the group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does.
Do you?
"Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose only
distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American) male model (and
Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the climactic moment in Raven's courtship came when
Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious, then lamented damaging his face and claimed to
feel his "pain." Hammer then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What
did Raven and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to embrace his true
nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply too
straight."
Raven will only feud with people who are straight? He beats people up and
"converts" them to homosexuals? Is this rational thinking or some truly warped
line of reasoning?
As I said, this column was really strange and I would like to hear what you all
have to say.
Stevie
Interesting post. Well, like you, due to the subject matter I feel
inclined to start of by announcing that I too, am not homosexual.
That being said, I never looked at Raven's nest like that either, but
now that he brought it up...
Actually, I think you could make similar analogies to almost anything in
wrestling if you wanted to. It's all just a matter of putting the right
spin on things. That guy's observations are just a bit more clever and
thought out than most. But I remember hearing similar (if less
elaborate) scenerios involving the implied relationship of the
quarterback and the center. And that's not to mention all those sweaty
men patting each other on the butt and showering together. See, it's
easy.
--
Stevie
"I'm from Hollywood and I have many rich and powerful friends"
John D. Williams
Hayabu2354 wrote:
> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
> just ask them about this and not post it. But, after reading this
> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a black
> hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate feedback
> from anyone on this. I have some passages from the article
> quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult" nature
> of wrestling nowadays.
You're living in a black hole.
> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
> audience seems to sense it."
>
> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno
> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like
> a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what Mitchell
> sees something that only one who looks at things from a gay point
> of view would see?
Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a "kink"
point of view.
How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a wrestling
analogy for it.
Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan and
Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots have
little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little depth to it.
That's Goldust. He's throwing out spots he's seen, but the storyline
doesn't have any depth to it. Some of the spots are pretty funny - I
thought Goldust sending up Sable was a riot. I thought the first bit he
did in the wheelchair was exceptional... I wish Ironsidesdust would make
a come back. But the spot with the bit in his mouth... where did that
lead beyond that one segment? It was just tossed out.
The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so much
depth that it goes right over people's head.
> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick in
> the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same
> promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera
> misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and rejection
> from his parents, without being specific as to the reason. Everyone
> in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't steal his look from
> Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine. Lodi's look is straight
> out of every college gay bar in America. Hammer, whose name fits
> this concept perfectly, comes right from the peep shows. Nice
> fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus Station Runaway look down
> cold."
>
> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
> conclusion?
Probably not the only one.
Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
newsletter in a long time.
> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never read
> (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried to pick
> up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a "butch/fem
> abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know what one is".
> All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest I don't see the
> group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does. Do you?
Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose only
> distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American) male
> model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the climactic moment in
> Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious, then
> lamented damaging his face and claimed to feel his "pain." Hammer
> then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What did Raven
> and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to embrace his true
> nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply
> too straight."
I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to embrace his
true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what great foils.
> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the Raven
vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get Tommy to
embrace his true nature. ;)
> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
> As I said, this column was really strange and I would like to hear
> what you all have to say.
I'm not a big fan of the angle... but then I never cared for Raven vs.
Dreamer in ECW. The Benoit & Woman Triangle Angle was more my taste.
;)
--
jdw
"Johnny, take a walk with your sister the moon.
Let her pale light in to fill up you room."
Marcadv
There's a lot more truth in that column than you'd probably like to see and
it's basic closemindness that doesn't allow you to see.
All angles (good angles) 80% truth and 20% work.
That's why the Raven angle is so subversive. Golddust, to use another
wrestling analogy, hits you over the head with a frying pan and juices you.
It's all flash. The Raven angle is like a wear down into a submission hold, it
takes longer but does longer damage (or makes you think longer, and the
connotations of knowledge being both illuminating and painful are quite
interesting).
Hayabu2354
>From: "John D. Williams
>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
>> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
>> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
>> just ask them about this and not post it. But, after reading this
>> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
>> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
>> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a black
>> hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate feedback
>> from anyone on this. I have some passages from the article
>> quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult" nature
>> of wrestling nowadays.
>
>You're living in a black hole.
Am I? Really? Or is Mitchell living in an alternate universe?
>> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
>> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
>> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
>> audience seems to sense it."
>>
>> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno
>> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like
>> a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what Mitchell
>> sees something that only one who looks at things from a gay point
>> of view would see?
>
>Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a "kink"
>point of view.
Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people like me. I
like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us looked at Goldust like
Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
>How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a wrestling
>analogy for it.
>
>Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
>
>He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan and
>Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots have
>little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little depth to it.
He just seems kind of like Adrian Adonis in the flower shop to me.
>The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so much
>depth that it goes right over people's head.
My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some people see
something that they think they see (or want to see)?
>> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick in
>> the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same
>> promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera
>> misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
>> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
>> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
>> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
>> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
>> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and rejection
>> from his parents, without being specific as to the reason. Everyone
>> in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't steal his look from
>> Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine. Lodi's look is straight
>> out of every college gay bar in America. Hammer, whose name fits
>> this concept perfectly, comes right from the peep shows. Nice
>> fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus Station Runaway look down
>> cold."
>>
>> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
>> conclusion?
>
>Probably not the only one.
I don't think I am.
>Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
>newsletter in a long time.
Why?
>> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never read
>> (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried to pick
>> up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a "butch/fem
>> abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know what one is".
>> All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest I don't see the
>> group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does. Do you?
>
>Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask because you are
sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on fact or opinion.
>> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose only
>> distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American) male
>> model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the climactic moment in
>> Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious, then
>> lamented damaging his face and claimed to feel his "pain." Hammer
>> then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What did Raven
>> and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to embrace his true
>> nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply
>> too straight."
>
>I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to embrace his
>true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what great foils.
I guess you and I must look at wrestling differently. I just thought this was
all a grand theory kind of thing, like the whole Hogan jumping to WWF story.
>> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
>
>Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the Raven
>vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get Tommy to
>embrace his true nature. ;)
No, it was about them being childhood friends and Raven mistreating the fat
girl from youth, who got pretty when she grew up.
>> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
>> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
>
>It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this opinion or fact?
I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how did Levy get this
whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss, when he is on the record about
being against that kind of stuff?
>> As I said, this column was really strange and I would like to hear
>> what you all have to say.
>
>I'm not a big fan of the angle... but then I never cared for Raven vs.
>Dreamer in ECW. The Benoit & Woman Triangle Angle was more my taste.
>;)
I liked them both.
John D. Williams
Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >From: "John D. Williams
> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >
> >> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
> >> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
> >> just ask them about this and not post it. But, after reading this
> >> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
> >> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
> >> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a
> >> black hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate
> >> feedback from anyone on this. I have some passages from the
> >> article quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult"
> >> nature of wrestling nowadays.
> >
> >You're living in a black hole.
>
> Am I? Really? Or is Mitchell living in an alternate universe?
Based on your post... *really*. Read other people's responses. Barnett
was going off on the angle a few weeks before Mitchell's piece was
published.
> >> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
> >> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
> >> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
> >> audience seems to sense it."
> >>
> >> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno
> >> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like
> >> a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what Mitchell
> >> sees something that only one who looks at things from a gay point
> >> of view would see?
> >
> >Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a "kink"
> >point of view.
>
> Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people like
> me. I like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us looked at
> Goldust like Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
I think you miss the point - Mitchell looks at it the same way you do -
Goldust is an obvious gay/kink gimmick. A blind man could get it.
Why? Because Goldust does obvious gay/kink spots that even a shut-in
would see.
> >How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a wrestling
> >analogy for it.
> >
> >Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
> >
> >He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan
> >and Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots
> >have little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little
> >depth to it.
>
> He just seems kind of like Adrian Adonis in the flower shop to me.
He's a bit more extreme than Adonis, since I don't remember Adrian being
lead around by a collar with a bit in his mouth. That said - they are
both obvious gimmicks. There isn't much depth to them.
> >The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so
> >much depth that it goes right over people's head.
>
> My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some
> people see something that they think they see (or want to see)?
It goes over people's head's, Busa. Yours is one of them.
> >> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick
> >> in the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same
> >> promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera
> >> misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
> >> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
> >> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
> >> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
> >> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
> >> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and
> >> rejection from his parents, without being specific as to the
> >> reason. Everyone in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't
> >> steal his look from Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine.
> >> Lodi's look is straight out of every college gay bar in America.
> >> Hammer, whose name fits this concept perfectly, comes right from
> >> the peep shows. Nice fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus
> >> Station Runaway look down cold."
> >>
> >> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
> >> conclusion?
> >
> >Probably not the only one.
>
> I don't think I am.
We agree on something.
> >Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
> >newsletter in a long time.
>
> Why?
(i) Because he was ahead of the curve, (ii) it's hilarious, (iii) he
sums up the angle, (iv) it makes people think... like you, (v) it's not
what people would expect.
> >> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never
> >> read (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried
> >> to pick up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a
> >> "butch/fem abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know
> >> what one is". All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest
> >> I don't see the group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does.
> >> Do you?
> >
> >Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
>
> Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask
> because you are sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on
> fact or opinion.
Fact.
> >> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose
> >> only distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American)
> >> male model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the climactic moment
> >> in Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious,
> >> then lamented damaging his face and claimed to feel his "pain."
> >> Hammer then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What
> >> did Raven and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to
> >> embrace his true nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit
> >> because he's simply too straight."
> >
> >I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to embrace
> >his true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what great foils.
>
> I guess you and I must look at wrestling differently.
I have no idea how you look at wrestling.
I tend to look at it for great matches, for some interesting stories,
how the business works, and its history. Mostly the great match part.
Raven's Flock doesn't deliver any of that to me. It's another of Scott
Levy's jerk offs, and they've bored me for a good three years. And I'd
rather watch Benoit and Malenko in some great matches rather than being
Raven's, er, straight men.
> I just thought this was all a grand theory kind of thing, like the
> whole Hogan jumping to WWF story.
Someone else can defend the "Hogan may jump" story. I never did think
he was going to jump, and still don't think he's going to jump. I'll be
happy to admit I'm wrong if he does jump, much like I'll be happy to be
proven right if he ends up staying. Of course, the same could be said
about WCW buying New Japan... which *looks at calendar* was suppose to
happen back in April as I recall.
> >> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
> >
> >Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the
> >Raven vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get
> >Tommy to embrace his true nature. ;)
>
> No, it was about them being childhood friends
Think about that one, Busa.
> and Raven mistreating the fat girl from youth, who got pretty when
> she grew up.
Uh... let's see, why would he be abusing her? And why would Tommy
having affection for her rather than his old school, er, mate Scotty
have meaning? And why would Tommy be so open to her fling with Kimona?
And Tommy trying to prove his manhood... that he's hardcore through and
through? Sheez... wake up.
> >> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
> >> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
> >
> >It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
>
> Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this opinion
> or fact?
Fact.
> I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how
> did Levy get this whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss, when he
> is on the record about being against that kind of stuff?
Eric's working you.
Hayabu2354
>From: "John D. Williams"
>
>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
>> >From: "John D. Williams
>> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
>> >> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
>> >> just ask them about this and not post it. But, after reading this
>> >> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
>> >> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
>> >> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a
>> >> black hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate
>> >> feedback from anyone on this. I have some passages from the
>> >> article quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult"
>> >> nature of wrestling nowadays.
>> >
>> >You're living in a black hole.
>>
>> Am I? Really? Or is Mitchell living in an alternate universe?
>
>Based on your post... *really*. Read other people's responses. Barnett
>was going off on the angle a few weeks before Mitchell's piece was
>published.
So, just because you, Mitchell, Barnett, and a few other people see all of
this, it's true?
I don't agree.
>> >> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
>> >> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
>> >> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
>> >> audience seems to sense it."
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno
>> >> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like
>> >> a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what Mitchell
>> >> sees something that only one who looks at things from a gay point
>> >> of view would see?
>> >
>> >Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a "kink"
>> >point of view.
>>
>> Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people like
>> me. I like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us looked at
>> Goldust like Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
>
>I think you miss the point - Mitchell looks at it the same way you do -
>Goldust is an obvious gay/kink gimmick. A blind man could get it.
>Why? Because Goldust does obvious gay/kink spots that even a shut-in
>would see.
I don't miss the point at all. Mitchell pointed out that the audience sensed
something. I don't think they sensed it all, and don't care too.
>> >How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a wrestling
>> >analogy for it.
>> >
>> >Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
>> >
>> >He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan
>> >and Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots
>> >have little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little
>> >depth to it.
>>
>> He just seems kind of like Adrian Adonis in the flower shop to me.
>
>He's a bit more extreme than Adonis, since I don't remember Adrian being
>lead around by a collar with a bit in his mouth. That said - they are
>both obvious gimmicks. There isn't much depth to them.
Things have also changed since Adrian did his thing. With the relative
acceptance of society to the respective gimmicks at the time, they are not much
different.
>> >The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so
>> >much depth that it goes right over people's head.
>>
>> My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some
>> people see something that they think they see (or want to see)?
>
>It goes over people's head's, Busa. Yours is one of them.
I counter with you and Mitchell are seeing something that is not there. Like a
Picasso painting, you can see whatever you want to be the real meaning of the
picture. It is still just your interpretation.
>> >> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick
>> >> in the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same
>> >> promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera
>> >> misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
>> >> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
>> >> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
>> >> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
>> >> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
>> >> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and
>> >> rejection from his parents, without being specific as to the
>> >> reason. Everyone in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't
>> >> steal his look from Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine.
>> >> Lodi's look is straight out of every college gay bar in America.
>> >> Hammer, whose name fits this concept perfectly, comes right from
>> >> the peep shows. Nice fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus
>> >> Station Runaway look down cold."
>> >>
>> >> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
>> >> conclusion?
>> >
>> >Probably not the only one.
>>
>> I don't think I am.
>
>We agree on something.
Middle ground is a nice place.
>> >Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
>> >newsletter in a long time.
>>
>> Why?
>
>(i) Because he was ahead of the curve, (ii) it's hilarious, (iii) he
>sums up the angle, (iv) it makes people think... like you, (v) it's not
>what people would expect.
Ahead of what curve? Anyone could surmise something based on a few possible
leads, much as Keller himself has done with speculation of the Hogan story. It
does not mean it is true. Mitchell was just guess.
I did not think it was hilarious, and I paid to read it. I just kind of found
it creepy.
He sums up how he sees the angle, but not the angle that me, or a lot of
others, see.
It did make me think though and it was not what people expect.
>> >> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never
>> >> read (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried
>> >> to pick up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a
>> >> "butch/fem abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know
>> >> what one is". All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest
>> >> I don't see the group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does.
>> >> Do you?
>> >
>> >Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
>>
>> Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask
>> because you are sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on
>> fact or opinion.
>
>Fact.
I think someone lied to you then. From everything I saw in the tapes I got, I
never saw a gay relationship. That is like saying every mentor-student
relationship is sexual.
>> >> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose
>> >> only distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American)
>> >> male model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the climactic moment
>> >> in Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious,
>> >> then lamented damaging his face and claimed to feel his "pain."
>> >> Hammer then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What
>> >> did Raven and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to
>> >> embrace his true nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit
>> >> because he's simply too straight."
>> >
>> >I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to embrace
>> >his true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what great foils.
>>
>> I guess you and I must look at wrestling differently.
>
>I have no idea how you look at wrestling.
Trust me, this thread shows me that I look at it differently from you.
>I tend to look at it for great matches, for some interesting stories,
>how the business works, and its history. Mostly the great match part.
I like that too. I like the angles and pomp just as much though. What good is
a great match if it happens for no reason?
>Raven's Flock doesn't deliver any of that to me. It's another of Scott
>Levy's jerk offs, and they've bored me for a good three years. And I'd
Scotty Levy's jerkoffs? What is that? Scotty Levy does not book WCW does he?
>rather watch Benoit and Malenko in some great matches rather than being
>Raven's, er, straight men.
Me too, as long as they have a reason to feud.
>> I just thought this was all a grand theory kind of thing, like the
>> whole Hogan jumping to WWF story.
>
>Someone else can defend the "Hogan may jump" story. I never did think
Only if he jumps. Otherwise, it was a waste of a few issues I paid good money
for.
>he was going to jump, and still don't think he's going to jump. I'll be
No one seems to think he will.
>happy to admit I'm wrong if he does jump, much like I'll be happy to be
>proven right if he ends up staying. Of course, the same could be said
>about WCW buying New Japan... which *looks at calendar* was suppose to
>happen back in April as I recall.
Didn't Eric Bischoff say that one though? I can see being worked by the
promoters. We should not be worked by the sheets though.
>> >> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
>> >
>> >Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the
>> >Raven vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get
>> >Tommy to embrace his true nature. ;)
>>
>> No, it was about them being childhood friends
>
>Think about that one, Busa.
I just did. Nothing came to me. Are you saying that Raven tried to come on to
Dreamer and that is what started their feud? If so, you are reaching so far
you are past the bottom of the well.
>> and Raven mistreating the fat girl from youth, who got pretty when
>> she grew up.
>
>Uh... let's see, why would he be abusing her? And why would Tommy
Because he is a jerk and he treats everyone he comes in contact with like
garbage. He knew her as a fat ugly girl and was mean to her. Then Richards
found her and brought her back, and when she was pretty, he wanted her.
How can you get he is gay out of that? I still say you are seeing what you
want to see.
>having affection for her rather than his old school, er, mate Scotty
>have meaning?
Because Tommy is not now, and never was, gay. Why would he have affection for
Scotty. Your whole theory is based on the fact that Raven is gay, and Tommy
was gay with him. There is nothing to back that up.
> And why would Tommy be so open to her fling with Kimona?
Go rent porno flix. Almost all of them have a lesbo scene in them. It is
accepted. Gay men are not. Plus, it was all just an angle, not the real life
story it seems you are turning it into.
>And Tommy trying to prove his manhood... that he's hardcore through and
>through? Sheez... wake up.
Wake up? I counter with, Go to sleep already! Sleep deprivation is causing
you hallucinations!
>> >> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
>> >> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
>> >
>> >It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
>>
>> Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this opinion
>> or fact?
>
>Fact.
Again, you were worked then.
>> I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how
>> did Levy get this whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss, when he
>> is on the record about being against that kind of stuff?
>
>Eric's working you.
Eric doesn't talk to me. He works all of us with his chats, for sure. Someone
worked you over the Raven thing if you say definitively that it is fact.
Jeff Amdur
In article <19980118151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
hayab...@aol.com (Hayabu2354) wrote:
> What good is
> a great match if it happens for no reason?
The athleticism, the spots, the natural storyline of the match itself as
developed during the match. *That's* what good a great match is.
Take some of the Japanese stuff, for instance.
I only have about 4 or 5 Japan tapes, and I don't watch enough of the
product nor do I have the background to be the expert in the stuff that
jdw, Dean, Lee, Scott and some others on the ng are. I couldn't recognize
individual wrestlers by name or face, I haven't the slightest idea of what
the background of any of the feuds are, and Japanese is one language that
this Cunning Linguist doesn't speak. That being said, I can sit back and
enjoy as great matches the stuff that I see on the tapes. I don't have to
know the background of Williams-Kobayashi (sp?) to recognize it as a great
piece of wrestling. Ditto with regards to the "Barely Legal" Michinoku Pro
match. Likewise with a Benoit-Jericho encounter I have on one of those
tapes.
Judging by your screen name, I gather you know something about the Japanese
stuff. Can you honestly tell me that you couldn't enjoy those intense,
high-impact matches without being versed in whatever angle may have
preceded it?
The one thing that frustrates me about many wrestling fans who are 20-30
years younger than I am. The post-1984 wrestling crowd has been made to be
so dependent on angles and storylines developed outside of the actual
wrestling matches themselves that it has lost the ability to enjoy a match
for the sake of the match itself.
Ob Bruce Mitchell: Could jdw or someone else versed in Torchdom give me
some background on Bruce Mitchell--where he's from, what his wrestling
background (fan? promoter? journalist? ex-wrestler?) is? Not being a
Torch reader, I am not familiar with his writings; but he certainly seems
to be a controversial sort.
--
Jeff Amdur
Quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
Quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
John Henry, net.bastard
Jeff Amdur wrote in message ...
>Ob Bruce Mitchell: Could jdw or someone else versed in Torchdom give me
>some background on Bruce Mitchell--where he's from, what his wrestling
>background (fan? promoter? journalist? ex-wrestler?) is? Not being a
>Torch reader, I am not familiar with his writings; but he certainly seems
>to be a controversial sort.
I'm not *sure*, Jeff, but I have an idea that Mitchell is Wade Keller's 'Bad
Cop.' Seems like when all that BS was going down about the ECW PPV,
Mitchell was one of those that was constantly trying to push the
worst-case/biggest heat issues -- make things worse than they really were to
drive up interest in his product. Seems like Mitchell also recently
reported that Hogan was *definitely* going back to WWF (as opposed to
Keller's safer, 'this could happen' approach) on the Torch hotline, IIRC
(someone posted about it).
Come to think of it, seems like Mitchell's name turns up at the head of a
*lot* of lists like this.
This business being what it is, I just kind of see Mitchell as a combination
Gene Okerlund/Jerry Lawler to Wade's Vince/Jim Ross/Mike Tenay. Of course,
while I have dealt with some of these people personally, I'm not a Torch (or
Observer) subscriber, but these are just the feelings I get after reading
about these guys' work for the last year or so.
John Henry
net.bastard
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/4308/
Hotline News
je...@home.com (Jeff Amdur) wrote:
> developed during the match. *That's* what good a great match is.
Well said.
> Take some of the Japanese stuff, for instance.
>
> I only have about 4 or 5 Japan tapes, and I don't watch enough of the
> product nor do I have the background to be the expert in the stuff that
> jdw, Dean, Lee, Scott and some others on the ng are. I couldn't recognize
> individual wrestlers by name or face, I haven't the slightest idea of what
> the background of any of the feuds are, and Japanese is one language that
> this Cunning Linguist doesn't speak. That being said, I can sit back and
> enjoy as great matches the stuff that I see on the tapes. I don't have to
> know the background of Williams-Kobayashi (sp?) to recognize it as a great
^^^^^^^^^
Kobashi, Kenta
> The one thing that frustrates me about many wrestling fans who are 20-30
> years younger than I am. The post-1984 wrestling crowd has been made to be
> so dependent on angles and storylines developed outside of the actual
> wrestling matches themselves that it has lost the ability to enjoy a match
> for the sake of the match itself. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed 100% (even though I'm one of
those wrestling fans who is 20-30 years younger than you are :)
Hesham
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "To me the match will always be more important, with the angle being |
| used to build up and support the match." Jeff Amdur, 4/20/97 |
| |
| HOTLINE NEWS Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/1722 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John D. Williams
John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
> Jeff Amdur wrote in message ...
>
> >Ob Bruce Mitchell: Could jdw or someone else versed in Torchdom give
> >me some background on Bruce Mitchell--where he's from, what his
> >wrestling background (fan? promoter? journalist? ex-wrestler?) is?
> >Not being a Torch reader, I am not familiar with his writings; but he
> >certainly seems to be a controversial sort.
Here's his e-mail, Jeff... ask *him*.
> I'm not *sure*, Jeff, but I have an idea that Mitchell is Wade
> Keller's 'Bad Cop.' Seems like when all that BS was going down about
> the ECW PPV, Mitchell was one of those that was constantly trying to
> push the worst-case/biggest heat issues -- make things worse than
> they really were to drive up interest in his product.
Yep, John. He was the one who sent the Mass Transit tape to Request
TV... wait... that's right, he didn't really do that. Someone... or a
number of folks... just reported that he did. ;)
> Seems like Mitchell also recently reported that Hogan was *definitely*
> going back to WWF (as opposed to Keller's safer, 'this could happen'
> approach) on the Torch hotline, IIRC (someone posted about it).
Neither reported that it was "definitely*, John. And it was posted to
RSPW that *Keller* was the one who said it was definite.
> Come to think of it, seems like Mitchell's name turns up at the head
> of a *lot* of lists like this.
Generally speaking, people have a bug up their ass about him.
> This business being what it is, I just kind of see Mitchell as a
> combination Gene Okerlund/Jerry Lawler to Wade's Vince/Jim Ross/Mike
> Tenay. Of course, while I have dealt with some of these people
> personally, I'm not a Torch (or Observer) subscriber, but these are
> just the feelings I get after reading about these guys' work for the
> last year or so.
I'd say it make you well qualified to speak on him, John. :)
I tend to recall your posts in the "ECW PPV Cancelled" thread, and how
you leapt without a net before you had a chance to read reality. I'd
recommend not leaping here unless you've read what a fair amount of what
he writes, John. Not a knock... but there are subs on the group who've
read him for years that can speak pro/con on him.
Obviously I'll pass since he's a friend and colleague. ;)
John D. Williams
Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >From: "John D. Williams"
> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >> >From: "John D. Williams
> >> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that
> >> >> I am not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay,
> >> >> otherwise I would just ask them about this and not post it.
> >> >> But, after reading this week's issue of the Pro Wrestling
> >> >> Torch, I was very curious, and somewhat perplexed, about Bruce
> >> >> Mitchell's column and assertions that he made. What I guess I
> >> >> want to know is am I living in a black hole, or is Mitchell way
> >> >> off base, and I would appreciate feedback from anyone on this.
> >> >> I have some passages from the article quoted below. The topic
> >> >> of said article was the "adult" nature of wrestling nowadays.
> >> >
> >> >You're living in a black hole.
> >>
> >> Am I? Really? Or is Mitchell living in an alternate universe?
> >
> >Based on your post... *really*. Read other people's responses.
> >Barnett was going off on the angle a few weeks before Mitchell's
> >piece was published.
>
> So, just because you, Mitchell, Barnett, and a few other people see
> all of this, it's true?
>
> I don't agree.
Could care less, Busa. I'm confident that it is true. As in 100%, and
beyond the "speculation" stage. Put your head in the sand if you care
to. I try not to.
> >> >> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
> >> >> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
> >> >> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
> >> >> audience seems to sense it."
> >> >>
> >> >> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few
> >> >> porno
> >> >> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems
> >> >> like a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what
> >> >> Mitchell sees something that only one who looks at things from
> >> >> a gay point of view would see?
> >> >
> >> >Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a
> >> >"kink" point of view.
> >>
> >> Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people
> >> like me. I like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us
> >> looked at Goldust like Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
> >
> >I think you miss the point - Mitchell looks at it the same way you
> >do - Goldust is an obvious gay/kink gimmick. A blind man could get
> >it. Why? Because Goldust does obvious gay/kink spots that even a
> >shut-in would see.
>
> I don't miss the point at all. Mitchell pointed out that the
> audience sensed something. I don't think they sensed it all, and
> don't care too.
*shrug*
> >> >How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a
> >> >wrestling analogy for it.
> >> >
> >> >Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
> >> >
> >> >He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan
> >> >and Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots
> >> >have little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little
> >> >depth to it.
> >>
> >> He just seems kind of like Adrian Adonis in the flower shop to me.
> >
> >He's a bit more extreme than Adonis, since I don't remember Adrian
> >being lead around by a collar with a bit in his mouth. That said -
> >they are both obvious gimmicks. There isn't much depth to them.
>
> Things have also changed since Adrian did his thing. With the
> relative acceptance of society to the respective gimmicks at the
> time, they are not much different.
I thought you don't know much about this stuff?
Dustin goes into territory far beyond the fairly sterotypical "flamer"
role Adrian played. And really... society hasn't changed much since
1986-87 when Adrian was at the peak of that gimmick.
> >> >The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's -
> >> >so much depth that it goes right over people's head.
> >>
> >> My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some
> >> people see something that they think they see (or want to see)?
> >
> >It goes over people's head's, Busa. Yours is one of them.
>
> I counter with you and Mitchell are seeing something that is not
> there. Like a Picasso painting, you can see whatever you want to
> be the real meaning of the picture. It is still just your
> interpretation.
I'd say one then can ask Picasso, "It looks like this to me... is it off
base?"
> >> >> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive
> >> >> gimmick in the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW,
> >> >> the same promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down
> >> >> on-camera misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought
> >> >> to be renamed Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle.
> >> >> This All Male-Revue features Raven, who had the classic
> >> >> butch/fem abusive relationship with Stevie Richards, so much
> >> >> that the Richards character went back to submissively serving
> >> >> Raven after declaring his supposed independence. Raven
> >> >> constantly talks of his alienation and rejection from his
> >> >> parents, without being specific as to the reason. Everyone in
> >> >> the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't steal his look
> >> >> from Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine. Lodi's look is
> >> >> straight out of every college gay bar in America. Hammer,
> >> >> whose name fits this concept perfectly, comes right from the
> >> >> peep shows. Nice fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus
> >> >> Station Runaway look down cold."
> >> >>
> >> >> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
> >> >> conclusion?
> >> >
> >> >Probably not the only one.
> >>
> >> I don't think I am.
> >
> >We agree on something.
>
> Middle ground is a nice place.
Nah... too safe.
> >> >Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
> >> >newsletter in a long time.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >(i) Because he was ahead of the curve, (ii) it's hilarious, (iii) he
> >sums up the angle, (iv) it makes people think... like you, (v) it's
> >not what people would expect.
>
> Ahead of what curve? Anyone could surmise something based on a few
> possible leads, much as Keller himself has done with speculation of
> the Hogan story. It does not mean it is true. Mitchell was just
> guess.
Guess? I wouldn't say it was that. It certainly isn't a guess anymore.
> I did not think it was hilarious, and I paid to read it. I just kind
> of found it creepy.
Which was my (iii) and (iv) above.
Life isn't nice, safe, middle ground. It's fucking creepy at times.
In real life, if UT was set on fire... it'd be pretty creepy. If you've
ever seen someone burn up... it's damn creepy.
On the Rumble, it was either (i) funny, (ii) stupid, or (iii) so stupid
it was funny. For me it was (iii)... and we paid for it.
In real life, a 36 year old man recruiting (i) a young runaway, (ii) a
pretty boy, (iii) a muscle boy, etc. into his flock... that's kinda
creepy to most people. I can't say that I'd find fun to watch.
In wrestling, it's either a (i) interesting angle, (ii) boring one,
(iii) waste of Benoit, (iv) goes right over people's heads.
For me... it's (ii) and (iii).
> He sums up how he sees the angle, but not the angle that me, or a
> lot of others, see.
Read, think and learn. Or read, don't think and bury your head. Or
don't read. It's like watching the Rumble tonight - no one would make
you watch it.
> It did make me think though and it was not what people expect.
No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a fair
number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various circles. I
still get people telling me Hardcore Heaven was good... or N2R was
good. *shrug*
> >> >> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never
> >> >> read (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried
> >> >> to pick up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a
> >> >> "butch/fem abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even
> >> >> know what one is". All of that being said, when I look at
> >> >> Raven's nest I don't see the group of kinky homosexuals that
> >> >> Mitchell does. Do you?
> >> >
> >> >Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
> >>
> >> Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask
> >> because you are sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on
> >> fact or opinion.
> >
> >Fact.
>
> I think someone lied to you then. From everything I saw in the tapes
> I got, I never saw a gay relationship. That is like saying every
> mentor-student relationship is sexual.
*shrug* Why such conviction on what you "never saw"? You confess to
being clueless on this. He created a character that had aspects that
went right over your head. Enjoy what you understood, and leave it at
that if the rest doesn't come to you.
> >> >> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose
> >> >> only distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an
> >> >> (American) male model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the
> >> >> climactic moment in Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd
> >> >> Riggs unconscious, then lamented damaging his face and claimed
> >> >> to feel his "pain." Hammer then carried Riggs out lovingly
> >> >> over his shoulder. What did Raven and his boys do to Riggs,
> >> >> exactly, to get him to embrace his true nature? And the Nest
> >> >> doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply too straight."
> >> >
> >> >I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to
> >> >embrace his true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what
> >> >great foils.
> >>
> >> I guess you and I must look at wrestling differently.
> >
> >I have no idea how you look at wrestling.
>
> Trust me, this thread shows me that I look at it differently from you.
*shrug*
> >I tend to look at it for great matches, for some interesting stories,
> >how the business works, and its history. Mostly the great match
> >part.
>
> I like that too. I like the angles and pomp just as much though.
> What good is a great match if it happens for no reason?
I tend to agree with Amdur on this one. The match is the *end*. Angle
is often just a means to it. Great angle followed by crappy match...
it's foreplay leading to nothing.
But most every great match has a reason for being there. Be it a title,
or trying to move up the ladder, or rivalry, or hate. I don't know if
people always see the reason.
Of course bad matches can have a reason for being there too. Godwins
vs. the LOD had plenty of reasons for happening all those times we saw
it. The angles were okay... the matches were a waste of time. I'd
rather see the Michinoku Pro match from Barely Legal, which had little
angle or storyline on the ECW end of things. Of course they did have a
storyline in Japan stretching over a year... so maybe that had something
to do with it on my end. Didn't seem to bug Amdur that he didn't know
the story.
> >Raven's Flock doesn't deliver any of that to me. It's another of
> >Scott Levy's jerk offs, and they've bored me for a good three
> >years. And I'd
I wish you wouldn't edit this mid-sentence. It's annoying habit that
makes the follow-ups hard to read. ;)
> Scotty Levy's jerkoffs? What is that? Scotty Levy does not book
> WCW does he?
Uh... he is writing his own storyline in WCW. Someone has told you
that, right?
> >rather watch Benoit and Malenko in some great matches rather than
> >being Raven's, er, straight men.
>
> Me too, as long as they have a reason to feud.
Reasons are easy to come up with, even if it's just "rivalry". You
know... like Eddy and Dean had in ECW.
> >> I just thought this was all a grand theory kind of thing, like the
> >> whole Hogan jumping to WWF story.
> >
> >Someone else can defend the "Hogan may jump" story. I never did
> >think
There you go cutting sentences in the middle again... really, you should
stop that. It's a very annoying habit. ;)
> Only if he jumps. Otherwise, it was a waste of a few issues I paid
> good money for.
If you're concerned, write Wade. His e-mail address is on the back
page. Include your name and address... he's always interested in what
paying customers think about the newsletter.
> >he was going to jump, and still don't think he's going to jump. I'll
> >be
There you go again...
> No one seems to think he will.
Actually some people do. I personally think he's just doing the typical
brilliant Hogan job of working Eric for the best deal possible, which
he'll get. Hogan's the smartest man in wrestling when it comes to
looking out for #1... and every year since 1994 has out flanked Eric.
This year is no different.
> >happy to admit I'm wrong if he does jump, much like I'll be happy to
> >be proven right if he ends up staying. Of course, the same could be
> >said about WCW buying New Japan... which *looks at calendar* was
> >suppose to happen back in April as I recall.
>
> Didn't Eric Bischoff say that one though? I can see being worked by
> the promoters. We should not be worked by the sheets though.
Wade's not working. He has sources that he believes are reliable.
Whether they are or aren't reliable will be shown down the road.
Working is saying you're going to acquire New Japan. Being worked is
believing it. Passing said work along to your readers isn't working -
it's simply being manipulated and not knowing better.
Working is being Nancy Sullivan and saying you're not going to WCW.
Being worked is believing it. Pass said work along to your readers
isn't working - it's simply being manipulated and not knowing better.
Is Wade being worked? I don't know. But passing along what he believes
to be a possibility isn't working.
FWIW, he has done this before. He reported Bret Hart sitting out after
WrestleMania '96 about... oh... three or four months before anyone took
that seriously. He was right on that one. And it wouldn't be too hard
to dig for one going in the other direction - where he was wrong a few
months.
> >> >> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
> >> >
> >> >Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the
> >> >Raven vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get
> >> >Tommy to embrace his true nature. ;)
> >>
> >> No, it was about them being childhood friends
> >
> >Think about that one, Busa.
>
> I just did. Nothing came to me. Are you saying that Raven tried to
> come on to Dreamer and that is what started their feud? If so, you
> are reaching so far you are past the bottom of the well.
You're not thinking too hard about the childhood friends part. *shrug*
> >> and Raven mistreating the fat girl from youth, who got pretty when
> >> she grew up.
> >
> >Uh... let's see, why would he be abusing her? And why would Tommy
And another sentence chopped...
> Because he is a jerk and he treats everyone he comes in contact with
> like garbage.
Scotty would be sad that you're not giving him enough credit as a
character writer/creator.
> He knew her as a fat ugly girl and was mean to her. Then Richards
> found her and brought her back, and when she was pretty, he wanted
> her.
>
> How can you get he is gay out of that? I still say you are seeing
> what you want to see.
Nah... you're seeing what you want to see, ignoring what might be
troubling to you.
> >having affection for her rather than his old school, er, mate Scotty
> >have meaning?
>
> Because Tommy is not now, and never was, gay.
*laugh* Okay, dude...
> Why would he have affection for Scotty. Your whole theory is based
> on the fact that Raven is gay, and Tommy was gay with him. There
> is nothing to back that up.
Not a thing to it. It would put a very nasty spin on what it means to
be hardcore, right?
Christ... I remember a time when Tommy got "fagot" chants. Yep, as
Lucifer would say... wrestling isn't a place for people who have
memories.
> > And why would Tommy be so open to her fling with Kimona?
>
> Go rent porno flix.
Been there, done that.
> Almost all of them have a lesbo scene in them. It is accepted. Gay
> men are not.
Ah... but that was the end point - to try to get Tommy across as not
being gay. Lord knows the promotion invested enough time to try to get
that point across.
> Plus, it was all just an angle, not the real life story it seems you
> are turning it into.
I never said it was real life. A story created by Scott Levy and Paul
Heyman.
And Scott's got another one going in WCW.
> >And Tommy trying to prove his manhood... that he's hardcore through
> >and through? Sheez... wake up.
>
> Wake up? I counter with, Go to sleep already! Sleep deprivation is
> causing you hallucinations!
Been sleeping fine. But thanks for caring.
> >> >> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
> >> >> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
> >> >
> >> >It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
> >>
> >> Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this
> >> opinion or fact?
> >
> >Fact.
>
> Again, you were worked then.
Nah.
> >> I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how
> >> did Levy get this whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss,
> >> when he is on the record about being against that kind of stuff?
> >
> >Eric's working you.
>
> Eric doesn't talk to me. He works all of us with his chats, for
> sure.
And his "no crotch shot", "no chair shots"... etc., etc.... all a bunch
of bullshit that he bends to those that have a little creative control
over their storylines.
> Someone worked you over the Raven thing if you say definitively
> that it is fact.
*shrug*
John Henry, net.bastard
John D. Williams wrote in message <69uriv$6...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
>> Jeff Amdur wrote in message ...
>> >Ob Bruce Mitchell: Could jdw or someone else versed in Torchdom give
>> >me some background on Bruce Mitchell--where he's from, what his
>> >wrestling background (fan? promoter? journalist? ex-wrestler?) is?
>> >Not being a Torch reader, I am not familiar with his writings; but he
>> >certainly seems to be a controversial sort.
>Here's his e-mail, Jeff... ask *him*.
> <bmit...@guilford.k12.nc.us>
>> I'm not *sure*, Jeff, but I have an idea that Mitchell is Wade
>> Keller's 'Bad Cop.' Seems like when all that BS was going down about
>> the ECW PPV, Mitchell was one of those that was constantly trying to
>> push the worst-case/biggest heat issues -- make things worse than
>> they really were to drive up interest in his product.
>Yep, John. He was the one who sent the Mass Transit tape to Request
>TV... wait... that's right, he didn't really do that. Someone... or a
>number of folks... just reported that he did. ;)
Now, that's not nice...
>> Seems like Mitchell also recently reported that Hogan was *definitely*
>> going back to WWF (as opposed to Keller's safer, 'this could happen'
>> approach) on the Torch hotline, IIRC (someone posted about it).
>Neither reported that it was "definitely*, John. And it was posted to
>RSPW that *Keller* was the one who said it was definite.
I know the post you're talking about...I had seen another that quote
Mitchell as saying that Wrestlemania would be Hogan vs. Tyson.
Of course, there's about a 60% chance that whoever worte it was full of it,
and another 20% that I misread the damned thing. Seems to be a bad week for
me.
>> Come to think of it, seems like Mitchell's name turns up at the head
>> of a *lot* of lists like this.
>Generally speaking, people have a bug up their ass about him.
I've noticed. I realy don't know the guy well enough to say if he deserves
it or not, but all his writing that *I* have seen, while certainly on
controversial or spectacular subjects, doesn't seem to lead to the grief he
seems to get around here.
>I'd say it make you well qualified to speak on him, John. :)
Hardly, just trying to offer whatever I could.
>I tend to recall your posts in the "ECW PPV Cancelled" thread, and how
>you leapt without a net before you had a chance to read reality.
You seem to have forgotten how quickly I leaped back, and apologized, for
doing so, as well as doing what I could to sort the whole thing out.
>I'd
>recommend not leaping here unless you've read what a fair amount of what
>he writes, John. Not a knock... but there are subs on the group who've
>read him for years that can speak pro/con on him.
>Obviously I'll pass since he's a friend and colleague. ;)
Honorable of you.
I'm not trying to say anything good or bad about the guy, John, I'm just
passing on my observations (to make a small, bad pun). I conceded in the
first 3 words of my post that I wasn't an authority on the subject.
Big Daddy
Jeff Amdur <je...@home.com> wrote in article
<jefam-ya02408000R1801981233440001@news>...
> In article <19980118151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> hayab...@aol.com (Hayabu2354) wrote:
>
> > What good is
> > a great match if it happens for no reason?
>
> The athleticism, the spots, the natural storyline of the match itself as
> developed during the match. *That's* what good a great match is.
> Judging by your screen name, I gather you know something about the
Japanese
> stuff. Can you honestly tell me that you couldn't enjoy those intense,
> high-impact matches without being versed in whatever angle may have
> preceded it?
>
> The one thing that frustrates me about many wrestling fans who are 20-30
> years younger than I am. The post-1984 wrestling crowd has been made to
be
> so dependent on angles and storylines developed outside of the actual
> wrestling matches themselves that it has lost the ability to enjoy a
match
> for the sake of the match itself.
Bingo! I can't wait to see how everyone thought the RR was so great
because UT's casket was set on fire. There will be very little mention of
"wrestling". Look at people's Monday night reviews. A show with zero
quality wrestling matches is fine with this crowd as long as there was some
angle development. It's pretty damn frustrating for me to see the art of
wrestling take a backseat to the angles. Both feds are guilty of pushing
guys who aren't exactly ring technicians (exceptions being Michaels, Hart,
and a few others). But let's face it, Hulk Hogan will draw better ratings
than Chris Benoit most of the time. Hell, most people's (not mine) North
American match of the year involved Undertaker. That says a lot about the
state of "Wrestling" today.
Big Daddy
Hayabu2354
>From: "Big Daddy" <dau...@pchnet.com>
>
>Jeff Amdur <je...@home.com> wrote in article
><jefam-ya02408000R1801981233440001@news>...
>> In article <19980118151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> hayab...@aol.com (Hayabu2354) wrote:
>>
>> > What good is
>> > a great match if it happens for no reason?
>>
>> The athleticism, the spots, the natural storyline of the match itself as
>> developed during the match. *That's* what good a great match is.
I am sorry Jeff. I misstated my position. I like good matches. Obviously, I
am a fan of Japanese wrestling given my logon name. I was speaking of American
wrestling. It like that it's different that Japanese wrestling. I like that
the storylines add to it all.
>
>> Judging by your screen name, I gather you know something about the
>Japanese
>> stuff. Can you honestly tell me that you couldn't enjoy those intense,
>> high-impact matches without being versed in whatever angle may have
>> preceded it?
>>
>> The one thing that frustrates me about many wrestling fans who are 20-30
>> years younger than I am. The post-1984 wrestling crowd has been made to
>be
>> so dependent on angles and storylines developed outside of the actual
>> wrestling matches themselves that it has lost the ability to enjoy a
>match
>> for the sake of the match itself.
But wrestling is not a sport. It is entertainment. And the angles entertain
me.
>Bingo! I can't wait to see how everyone thought the RR was so great
>because UT's casket was set on fire. There will be very little mention of
It does sound like a wild sight.
>"wrestling". Look at people's Monday night reviews. A show with zero
>quality wrestling matches is fine with this crowd as long as there was some
>angle development. It's pretty damn frustrating for me to see the art of
>wrestling take a backseat to the angles. Both feds are guilty of pushing
By the same token, if so many people like the angles, and given how well the
business is doing that is a safe thing to say, it makes sense to give the
people what they want.
>guys who aren't exactly ring technicians (exceptions being Michaels, Hart,
>and a few others). But let's face it, Hulk Hogan will draw better ratings
>than Chris Benoit most of the time. Hell, most people's (not mine) North
Yes he will, so it makes sense to give the people Hogan.
>American match of the year involved Undertaker. That says a lot about the
>state of "Wrestling" today.
That was a great match though (if you are referring to the cage match).
CASPICER
>
> > >The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so
> > >much depth that it goes right over people's head.
> >
> > My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some
> > people see something that they think they see (or want to see)?
>
> It goes over people's head's, Busa. Yours is one of them.
>
Perhaps it's just a case of obvious clues going over the heads of some
fans. But I've had several gay friends over the years who knew something of
the "rough trade" world, including one who died as a direct result of past
participation in that world (he got out, but was already HIV+) and this
view of Raven's crew didn't occur to me at all. I always thought that Raven
was updating the Kevin Sullivan Satanic angle, from Kevin's days in
Florida, by overlaying it with more recent pop culture references. The
mind control aspect, "converting" face wrestlers over to his side, bizarre
get ups-all of these facets are lifted straight from Sullivan's run as
Dusty Rhodes' arch-enemy in Florida Championship Wrestling. Hell, what were
Beulah, Kimona and Lori Fullerton but Raven's version of Fallen Angel? And
Tommy Dreamer was obviously playing the Dusty role.
Or Raven is a wrestling anti-christ, with his dark version of the apostles.
There are many templates for this gimmick, many possible influences. The
look of Raven's flock ranges from pure grunge rip-off (Raven, Sickboy) to
androgynous club dweller (Hammer)-but these are looks that are in the pop
cultural atmosphere.
Truth is, I'm not saying you and Mitchell don't have the right spin on
this-it's very possible, and I can now see the various clues, after reading
this thread. But it didn't jump out at me before-I was simply approaching
it from a different angle.
Carl
Hayabu2354
From: "John D. Williams"
>
>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
>> >From: "John D. Williams"
>> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
>> >> >From: "John D. Williams
>> >> >Hayabu2354 wrote:
>> >> >You're living in a black hole.
>> >>
>> >> Am I? Really? Or is Mitchell living in an alternate universe?
>> >
>> >Based on your post... *really*. Read other people's responses.
>> >Barnett was going off on the angle a few weeks before Mitchell's
>> >piece was published.
>>
>> So, just because you, Mitchell, Barnett, and a few other people see
>> all of this, it's true?
>>
>> I don't agree.
>
>Could care less, Busa. I'm confident that it is true. As in 100%, and
I couldn't care less if you could care less.
>beyond the "speculation" stage. Put your head in the sand if you care
>to. I try not to.
You call it putting my head in the sand. I am just as confident that you are
seeing something that you want to see. Unless you can prove me wrong, with
facts, then it is just our own interpretations.
Yours are no better that mine, no matter how you try to present them.
>> >> >Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a
>> >> >"kink" point of view.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people
>> >> like me. I like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us
>> >> looked at Goldust like Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
>> >
>> >I think you miss the point - Mitchell looks at it the same way you
>> >do - Goldust is an obvious gay/kink gimmick. A blind man could get
>> >it. Why? Because Goldust does obvious gay/kink spots that even a
>> >shut-in would see.
>>
>> I don't miss the point at all. Mitchell pointed out that the
>> audience sensed something. I don't think they sensed it all, and
>> don't care too.
>
>*shrug*
*harumph*
>> >> He just seems kind of like Adrian Adonis in the flower shop to me.
>> >
>> >He's a bit more extreme than Adonis, since I don't remember Adrian
>> >being lead around by a collar with a bit in his mouth. That said -
>> >they are both obvious gimmicks. There isn't much depth to them.
>>
>> Things have also changed since Adrian did his thing. With the
>> relative acceptance of society to the respective gimmicks at the
>> time, they are not much different.
>
>I thought you don't know much about this stuff?
I don't really. What I do know about is society and how it has changed. When
I was a kid, and Adonis was around, gay people were deep in the closet. Him
just doing the gimmick was on the edge. Now, gay is passe and almost even
accepted by the mainstream, so dust has to go farther.
Go to a bar or the mall. People have tattoos everywhere. Nose and eye rings.
Purple hair. Things have changed.
>Dustin goes into territory far beyond the fairly sterotypical "flamer"
>role Adrian played. And really... society hasn't changed much since
>1986-87 when Adrian was at the peak of that gimmick.
I really disagree.
>> >> >The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's -
>> >> >so much depth that it goes right over people's head.
>> >>
>> >> My question is, does it really "go over people's heads" or do some
>> >> people see something that they think they see (or want to see)?
>> >
>> >It goes over people's head's, Busa. Yours is one of them.
>>
>> I counter with you and Mitchell are seeing something that is not
>> there. Like a Picasso painting, you can see whatever you want to
>> be the real meaning of the picture. It is still just your
>> interpretation.
>
>I'd say one then can ask Picasso, "It looks like this to me... is it off
>base?"
How does one do that? Picasso moved and did not give me his number. Are you
are saying you asked Raven, "Hey Scott, is your angle about a bunch of gay men
who vie for your affection?"
>> >> >> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
>> >> >> conclusion?
>> >> >
>> >> >Probably not the only one.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I am.
>> >
>> >We agree on something.
>>
>> Middle ground is a nice place.
>
>Nah... too safe.
But it beats arguing just for the sake of arguing. There is plenty here we
disagree on.
>> >> >Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
>> >> >newsletter in a long time.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >(i) Because he was ahead of the curve, (ii) it's hilarious, (iii) he
>> >sums up the angle, (iv) it makes people think... like you, (v) it's
>> >not what people would expect.
>>
>> Ahead of what curve? Anyone could surmise something based on a few
>> possible leads, much as Keller himself has done with speculation of
>> the Hogan story. It does not mean it is true. Mitchell was just
>> guess.
>
>Guess? I wouldn't say it was that. It certainly isn't a guess anymore.
How? Where is your proof. This is all just your opinion right now.
>> I did not think it was hilarious, and I paid to read it. I just kind
>> of found it creepy.
>
>Which was my (iii) and (iv) above.
>
>Life isn't nice, safe, middle ground. It's fucking creepy at times.
It sure is. When they blew up Oklahoma City, it was creepy. It was real. I
saw it. I don't see what you see in your theory. I see how it COULD BE TRUE,
but not how it is definitely true.
>In real life, if UT was set on fire... it'd be pretty creepy. If you've
>ever seen someone burn up... it's damn creepy.
And that was a fact. We saw that Kane intended to burn his brother. There is
no interpretation there.
>On the Rumble, it was either (i) funny, (ii) stupid, or (iii) so stupid
>it was funny. For me it was (iii)... and we paid for it.
And we saw what it was. They did not cut the picture before he set fire. They
showed him do it.
>In real life, a 36 year old man recruiting (i) a young runaway, (ii) a
Kidman is a runaway? From what? WCW? He was in the company for a year before
Raven came.
>pretty boy, (iii) a muscle boy, etc. into his flock... that's kinda
How is that different from the NWO adding members? Are they gay too? They
wear black.
>creepy to most people. I can't say that I'd find fun to watch.
It's nothing special to me either. But it is not all gay men either.
>In wrestling, it's either a (i) interesting angle, (ii) boring one,
>(iii) waste of Benoit, (iv) goes right over people's heads.
>
>For me... it's (ii) and (iii).
>
>
>> He sums up how he sees the angle, but not the angle that me, or a
>> lot of others, see.
>
>Read, think and learn. Or read, don't think and bury your head. Or
>don't read. It's like watching the Rumble tonight - no one would make
>you watch it.
I read. I thought. There was nothing to learn about the subject. It is just
your opinion, not a fact. I did learn about you though.
And now you are telling me not to read the Torch, which I happen to like, just
because I disagree with you and Mitchell? What is all that about?
>> It did make me think though and it was not what people expect.
>
>No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a fair
>number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various circles. I
Denial? Are you serious? You are going way overboard. This is a matter of
opinion not fact.
>still get people telling me Hardcore Heaven was good... or N2R was
>good. *shrug*
Now THEY are in denial.
>> >> Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask
>> >> because you are sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on
>> >> fact or opinion.
>> >
>> >Fact.
>>
>> I think someone lied to you then. From everything I saw in the tapes
>> I got, I never saw a gay relationship. That is like saying every
>> mentor-student relationship is sexual.
>
>*shrug* Why such conviction on what you "never saw"? You confess to
Because if you don't see it, and can't prove it, it's not a fact. It's a
theory.
I can make just as strong of a case that you are misguided and seeing things
that you think are there but aren't.
>being clueless on this. He created a character that had aspects that
>went right over your head. Enjoy what you understood, and leave it at
>that if the rest doesn't come to you.
Maybe you are just seeing things that affect you personally. I don't know.
You don't seem to be allowing that your theory may be wrong, and you can't see
your theory is not a fact.
>> >> >> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose
>> >> >> only distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an
>> >> >> (American) male model (and Eric Bischoff)? Tellingly, the
>> >> >> climactic moment in Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd
>> >> >> Riggs unconscious, then lamented damaging his face and claimed
>> >> >> to feel his "pain." Hammer then carried Riggs out lovingly
>> >> >> over his shoulder. What did Raven and his boys do to Riggs,
>> >> >> exactly, to get him to embrace his true nature? And the Nest
>> >> >> doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply too straight."
>> >> >
>> >> >I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to
>> >> >embrace his true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what
>> >> >great foils.
>> >>
>> >> I guess you and I must look at wrestling differently.
>> >
>> >I have no idea how you look at wrestling.
>>
>> Trust me, this thread shows me that I look at it differently from you.
>
>*shrug*
*harumph*
>> >I tend to look at it for great matches, for some interesting stories,
>> >how the business works, and its history. Mostly the great match
>> >part.
>>
>> I like that too. I like the angles and pomp just as much though.
>> What good is a great match if it happens for no reason?
>
>I tend to agree with Amdur on this one. The match is the *end*. Angle
>is often just a means to it. Great angle followed by crappy match...
>it's foreplay leading to nothing.
I see this differently. I like both. If one is good, the other bad, it's not
all bad.
>But most every great match has a reason for being there. Be it a title,
>or trying to move up the ladder, or rivalry, or hate. I don't know if
>people always see the reason.
No point in even addressing this one.
>Of course bad matches can have a reason for being there too. Godwins
>vs. the LOD had plenty of reasons for happening all those times we saw
>it. The angles were okay... the matches were a waste of time. I'd
>rather see the Michinoku Pro match from Barely Legal, which had little
>angle or storyline on the ECW end of things. Of course they did have a
>storyline in Japan stretching over a year... so maybe that had something
>to do with it on my end. Didn't seem to bug Amdur that he didn't know
>the story.
>
>> >Raven's Flock doesn't deliver any of that to me. It's another of
>> >Scott Levy's jerk offs, and they've bored me for a good three
>> >years. And I'd
>
>I wish you wouldn't edit this mid-sentence. It's annoying habit that
>makes the follow-ups hard to read. ;)
AOL cuts the lines, not me. I did better below tho.
>> Scotty Levy's jerkoffs? What is that? Scotty Levy does not book
>> WCW does he?
>
>Uh... he is writing his own storyline in WCW. Someone has told you
>that, right?
Who would tell me that? I read newsletters. I don't remember seeing it there.
>> >rather watch Benoit and Malenko in some great matches rather than
>> >being Raven's, er, straight men.
>>
>> Me too, as long as they have a reason to feud.
>
>Reasons are easy to come up with, even if it's just "rivalry". You
>know... like Eddy and Dean had in ECW.
As long as they come up with them, yeah.
>
>> >> I just thought this was all a grand theory kind of thing, like the
>> >> whole Hogan jumping to WWF story.
>> >
>> >Someone else can defend the "Hogan may jump" story. I never did
>> >think
>
>There you go cutting sentences in the middle again... really, you should
>stop that. It's a very annoying habit. ;)
You will get past it I am sure!
>> Only if he jumps. Otherwise, it was a waste of a few issues I paid
>> good money for.
>
>If you're concerned, write Wade. His e-mail address is on the back
>page. Include your name and address... he's always interested in what
>paying customers think about the newsletter.
After reading this week's issue, I am thinking of doing just that. Over two
pages of pure conjecture for what?
>> >he was going to jump, and still don't think he's going to jump. I'll
>> >be
>
>There you go again...
You will get past it. I have confidence in you.
>> No one seems to think he will.
>
>Actually some people do. I personally think he's just doing the typical
>brilliant Hogan job of working Eric for the best deal possible, which
>he'll get. Hogan's the smartest man in wrestling when it comes to
>looking out for #1... and every year since 1994 has out flanked Eric.
>This year is no different.
Wade Keller does. Who else?
>> >happy to admit I'm wrong if he does jump, much like I'll be happy to
>> >be proven right if he ends up staying. Of course, the same could be
>> >said about WCW buying New Japan... which *looks at calendar* was
>> >suppose to happen back in April as I recall.
>>
>> Didn't Eric Bischoff say that one though? I can see being worked by
>> the promoters. We should not be worked by the sheets though.
>
>Wade's not working. He has sources that he believes are reliable.
>Whether they are or aren't reliable will be shown down the road.
So maybe he is being worked, like when Bischoff said he would buy New Japan.
>Working is saying you're going to acquire New Japan. Being worked is
>believing it. Passing said work along to your readers isn't working -
>it's simply being manipulated and not knowing better.
So is just like Bob Ryder, who passed along Bischoff's quote, attributed to
him.
>Working is being Nancy Sullivan and saying you're not going to WCW.
>Being worked is believing it. Pass said work along to your readers
>isn't working - it's simply being manipulated and not knowing better.
So that is what you think Wade is doing?
>Is Wade being worked? I don't know. But passing along what he believes
>to be a possibility isn't working.
So it is just like Ryder with Bischoff's New Japan quote then.
>FWIW, he has done this before. He reported Bret Hart sitting out after
>WrestleMania '96 about... oh... three or four months before anyone took
>that seriously. He was right on that one. And it wouldn't be too hard
>to dig for one going in the other direction - where he was wrong a few
>months.
I can think if the weekly pay-per-view story, but he took a shot. I don't
blame him for that.
>> >> >> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
>> >> >
>> >> >Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the
>> >> >Raven vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get
>> >> >Tommy to embrace his true nature. ;)
>> >>
>> >> No, it was about them being childhood friends
>> >
>> >Think about that one, Busa.
>>
>> I just did. Nothing came to me. Are you saying that Raven tried to
>> come on to Dreamer and that is what started their feud? If so, you
>> are reaching so far you are past the bottom of the well.
>
>You're not thinking too hard about the childhood friends part. *shrug*
Are you saying they were lovers as kids? Yes or no?
>> >> and Raven mistreating the fat girl from youth, who got pretty when
>> >> she grew up.
>> >
>> >Uh... let's see, why would he be abusing her? And why would Tommy
>
>And another sentence chopped...
You will get past it.
>> Because he is a jerk and he treats everyone he comes in contact with
>> like garbage.
>
>Scotty would be sad that you're not giving him enough credit as a
>character writer/creator.
And he told you this when he was over for the PPV last night?
>> He knew her as a fat ugly girl and was mean to her. Then Richards
>> found her and brought her back, and when she was pretty, he wanted
>> her.
>>
>> How can you get he is gay out of that? I still say you are seeing
>> what you want to see.
>
>Nah... you're seeing what you want to see, ignoring what might be
>troubling to you.
I am not troubled at all by gay people. They have a right to their life. I
watch Ellen. You are the one who is seeing things.
>> >having affection for her rather than his old school, er, mate Scotty
>> >have meaning?
>>
>> Because Tommy is not now, and never was, gay.
>
>*laugh* Okay, dude...
So you are saying he was. I never saw that addressed in any storyline. Did
you?
>> Why would he have affection for Scotty. Your whole theory is based
>> on the fact that Raven is gay, and Tommy was gay with him. There
>> is nothing to back that up.
>
>Not a thing to it. It would put a very nasty spin on what it means to
>be hardcore, right?
In your view it would.
>Christ... I remember a time when Tommy got "fagot" chants. Yep, as
>Lucifer would say... wrestling isn't a place for people who have
>memories.
I have heard a lot of wrestlers get fagot chants. I have heard women called
sluts and said to have herpes. Don't mean it's true.
>> > And why would Tommy be so open to her fling with Kimona?
>>
>> Go rent porno flix.
>
>Been there, done that.
Then you know why.
Ever been with two women at once? It is pretty fun.
>> Almost all of them have a lesbo scene in them. It is accepted. Gay
>> men are not.
>
>Ah... but that was the end point - to try to get Tommy across as not
>being gay. Lord knows the promotion invested enough time to try to get
>that point across.
You are seeing things again. One guy with two women does not make the guy gay.
It makes the women bi.
>> Plus, it was all just an angle, not the real life story it seems you
>> are turning it into.
>
>I never said it was real life. A story created by Scott Levy and Paul
>Heyman.
>
>And Scott's got another one going in WCW.
So you think.
>> >And Tommy trying to prove his manhood... that he's hardcore through
>> >and through? Sheez... wake up.
>>
>> Wake up? I counter with, Go to sleep already! Sleep deprivation is
>> causing you hallucinations!
>
>Been sleeping fine. But thanks for caring.
Then something else is making you see things. Been in the desert lately?
>> >> >> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
>> >> >> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this
>> >> opinion or fact?
>> >
>> >Fact.
>>
>> Again, you were worked then.
>
>Nah.
Sure.
>> >> I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how
>> >> did Levy get this whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss,
>> >> when he is on the record about being against that kind of stuff?
>> >
>> >Eric's working you.
>>
>> Eric doesn't talk to me. He works all of us with his chats, for
>> sure.
>
>And his "no crotch shot", "no chair shots"... etc., etc.... all a bunch
>of bullshit that he bends to those that have a little creative control
>over their storylines.
No dispute.
>> Someone worked you over the Raven thing if you say definitively
>> that it is fact.
>
>*shrug*
*harumph*
Lee Morey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- From johndw...@worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 19 19:45:27 PST 1998
Some people fear threads where John D. Williams posts a lot... but
I, I relish them, even the bitter parts. For it usually means that
somewhere, somehow, someone is thinking too much. :)
Hayabu2354 wrote:
> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
> just ask them about this and not post it.
The only way to be certain one does not have any friends who are gay
is to not have any friends. *shrug* And why such an emphasis on a
disclaimer? One does not have to be gay and/or kinky to understand
a gay and/or kinky point of view. One only has to think it through.
BTW, I don't need any disclaimers. My masculinity is not threatened
by this thread. *shrug*
> But, after reading this
> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a black
> hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate feedback
> from anyone on this. I have some passages from the article
> quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult" nature
> of wrestling nowadays.
You're living in a black hole.
Or one might simply have one's eyes firmly closed. *shrug*
> "Actually, Goldust's attention-seeking gimmicks seem more like a
> guy who his act on a couple of porno mags he bought on his one
> visit to the adult book store than a real life pervert, and the
> audience seems to sense it."
>
> Does anyone else "sense" that? I have read more than a few porno
> mags and I sure never sensed that. To me, Goldust just seems like
> a big joke, and that is what he is going for. Is what Mitchell
> sees something that only one who looks at things from a gay point
> of view would see?
Has little to due with a "gay point of view". It's more of a "kink"
point of view.
There's a lot of, er, bleeding through between the two viewpoints.
Subcultures tend to have a lot of crossover because it's easier for
those alienated from the main culture at large to feel at ease with
others in the same boat.
How does one explain what he's trying to say... here's a wrestling
analogy for it.
Goldust is going kinky *highspots*, sans kinky *psychology*.
He's like a green wrestler who's doing highspts he's seen on Japan and
Lucha tapes... but has no transitions between spots, the spots have
little meaning save for a momentary pop, and there's little depth to it.
He's aping the most outrageous things without understanding the drives
underlying them. The image truly _is_ everything-- that, and the fact
that people are shocked by it. The ultimate in exhibitionism.
That's Goldust. He's throwing out spots he's seen, but the storyline
doesn't have any depth to it. Some of the spots are pretty funny - I
thought Goldust sending up Sable was a riot. I thought the first bit he
did in the wheelchair was exceptional... I wish Ironsidesdust would make
a come back. But the spot with the bit in his mouth... where did that
lead beyond that one segment? It was just tossed out.
It's all a performance. It's about entertaining people... or pissing
them off. Sometimes both. Sometimes the same thing.
The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so much
depth that it goes right over people's head.
Or in some cases, more than one head. ;)
> "Interestingly, the most perverse, unsettling, subversive gimmick in
> the sport isn't in the WWF or even ECW. It's in WCW, the same
> promotion that Eric Bischoff claims is toning down on-camera
> misbehavior. Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and rejection
> from his parents, without being specific as to the reason. Everyone
> in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't steal his look from
> Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine. Lodi's look is straight
> out of every college gay bar in America. Hammer, whose name fits
> this concept perfectly, comes right from the peep shows. Nice
> fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus Station Runaway look down
> cold."
>
> Am I the only one who has no idea how Mitchell came to this
> conclusion?
Probably not the only one.
Personally... I thought it was the best paragraph I've read in a
newsletter in a long time.
:) Well, I didn't read it in a newsletter... I had it read to me over
the phone. And when I heard the part about the Bus Station Runaway, I
was kicking myself for not having written it first. :P Though Lodi
would have been _way_ too far out back when I was in college. Marcus
Bagwell, on the other hand, would have been just right back then...
> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never read
> (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried to pick
> up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a "butch/fem
> abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know what one is".
> All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest I don't see the
> group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does. Do you?
Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
Shhh! Don't tell the ECW fans that! It might ruin their image of
what masculinity is all about...
All pornography is full of stereotypes. Heterosexual porn aimed at
men is often full of lesbian scenes, or a man with two+ women where
it is assumed that the man is double+ masculine (because he is able
to attract/satisfy/control two+ women, right?) while the women are
assumed to be bisexual. But if they're only there for the man, and
they don't interact on their own account, are they really bisexual?
And why is it ok for women to be bisexual anyway, but not men? Why
the need for the disclaimer? Who is feeling threatened, and by what?
I'll let each reader answer those questions for him (or her)self. :)
> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose only
> distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American) male
> model (and Eric Bischoff)?
Now jdw, that's the worst insult I've read since you said AJPW hardcore
fans are getting to be as bad as ECW hardcore fans. (See, anything can
be damning when quoted and read out of context. :P) Poor Riggs...
> Tellingly, the climactic moment in
> Raven's courtship came when Raven DDT'd Riggs unconscious, then
> lamented damaging his face and claimed to feel his "pain." Hammer
> then carried Riggs out lovingly over his shoulder. What did Raven
> and his boys do to Riggs, exactly, to get him to embrace his true
> nature? And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply
> too straight."
I gotta say... I loved paragraph as well. Getting Riggs to embrace his
true nature. And Benoit, and now Malenko... what great foils.
Damn straight they're too straight. *grin*
> Raven will only feud with people who are straight?
Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the Raven
vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get Tommy to
embrace his true nature. ;)
Or the only way Raven is able to express affection is with blows. ;)
> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
And he's only revealing in them what was really there all along... or
so I suspect he would say. I don't know Scott Levy personally, but
usually if one's going to rationalize one's own behavior, projecting
one's own thoughts and feelings onto others is a "good" way to start.
> As I said, this column was really strange and I would like to hear
> what you all have to say.
I'm not a big fan of the angle... but then I never cared for Raven vs.
Dreamer in ECW. The Benoit & Woman Triangle Angle was more my taste.
;)
Yeah, I bet it was. Oh yeah. ;)
Lee Morey, The Dark Cheetah
==========================================================================
from Mae West's "Goin' to Town", Mae as Cleo:
Cleo: For a long time I was ashamed of the way I lived.
Young Man: You mean to say you reformed?
Cleo: No, I got over being ashamed.
==========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNMCVArNT+fE7BL25AQEL2QQApDEgOgG0ajO/1QH7JFc144UukyQmoMSS
HZ6e2tM6dLBFCLInSE4GbRT8xtYPetWuhdAu12qoNelehBWc5HG3Fme5r6e8tYIX
6owRO8jtNdBFG8D2H2YFr7qRS55XZDapcFqtUSerBlJnq94H5erAQu4Gc59MMalf
JS469wqYPD0=
=DyCE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John henry, net.bastard
Hayabu2354 wrote in message
<19980119154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>From: "John D. Williams"
>>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>>I read. I thought. There was nothing to learn about the subject. It is
just
>your opinion, not a fact. I did learn about you though.
Hayabu, I don't want to get deep into this thread, but there a couple of
things that you're forgetting:
a) John's a sheetwriter. He may be saying all he feels he can without
endangering his livelihood.
b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about this
subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't tried hard
enough. No one knows everything.
>>No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a fair
>>number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various circles. I
>Denial? Are you serious? You are going way overboard. This is a matter
of
>opinion not fact.
How do you know?
Really, man, you seem to be trying *awfully* hard to deny the homosexual
overtones that are clearly present in wrestling. Maybe you need to take a
look at *why*. John's a reliable guy, from what I've know of him -- he's
not going to come on here screaming RAVEN'S QUEER, whether it's true or not,
and he quite likely would not even approach the subject if he wasn't sure of
what he was talking about. What would be in it for him to make these
claims?
Think about it.
John D. Williams
John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
> John D. Williams wrote
> >John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
> >> Jeff Amdur wrote in message ...
> >> >Ob Bruce Mitchell: Could jdw or someone else versed in Torchdom
> >> >give me some background on Bruce Mitchell--where he's from, what
> >> >his wrestling background (fan? promoter? journalist?
> >> >ex-wrestler?) is? Not being a Torch reader, I am not familiar
> >> >with his writings; but he certainly seems to be a controversial
> >> >sort.
> >
> >Here's his e-mail, Jeff... ask *him*.
> >
> > <bmit...@guilford.k12.nc.us>
> >
> >> I'm not *sure*, Jeff, but I have an idea that Mitchell is Wade
> >> Keller's 'Bad Cop.' Seems like when all that BS was going down
> >> about the ECW PPV, Mitchell was one of those that was constantly
> >> trying to push the worst-case/biggest heat issues -- make things
> >> worse than they really were to drive up interest in his product.
> >
> >Yep, John. He was the one who sent the Mass Transit tape to Request
> >TV... wait... that's right, he didn't really do that. Someone... or
> >a number of folks... just reported that he did. ;)
>
> Now, that's not nice...
You're right. Sorry. :(
> >> Seems like Mitchell also recently reported that Hogan was
> >> *definitely* going back to WWF (as opposed to Keller's safer,
> >> 'this could happen' approach) on the Torch hotline, IIRC (someone
> >> posted about it).
> >
> >Neither reported that it was "definitely*, John. And it was posted
> >to RSPW that *Keller* was the one who said it was definite.
>
> I know the post you're talking about...I had seen another that quote
> Mitchell as saying that Wrestlemania would be Hogan vs. Tyson.
That was another wrong post. He never said Hogan would be at Mania
opposite Tyson. Simply that it's a scenario that Hogan would find
tempting... which is true. Hogan has long wanted to do something with
Tyson. But being tempted by it doesn't mean it's going to happen.
It's funny... people pay good money to listen to the hotlines... but
they can't quote them well. I guess people hear what they want to hear.
;)
> Of course, there's about a 60% chance that whoever worte it was full
> of it, and another 20% that I misread the damned thing. Seems to be
> a bad week for me.
Nah... you read it well. Guy was spinning, which if you take a look
around is the thing that's going on. It's kinda predictable. You can
go back in Deja and see something like this happened in the winter of
95/96... and the winter of 96/97. The vets know what it's about by this
point. *shrug* You just stumbled into it, John.
> >> Come to think of it, seems like Mitchell's name turns up at the
> >> head of a *lot* of lists like this.
>
> >Generally speaking, people have a bug up their ass about him.
>
> I've noticed. I realy don't know the guy well enough to say if he
> deserves it or not, but all his writing that *I* have seen, while
> certainly on controversial or spectacular subjects, doesn't seem
> to lead to the grief he seems to get around here.
It takes more space than this post to explain... and it old news on the
group going back more than two years... so I'll pass on explaining it
here, or even in e-mail. But "bug up their ass" is very accurate, John.
> >I'd say it make you well qualified to speak on him, John. :)
>
> Hardly, just trying to offer whatever I could.
I know. A joke.
> >I tend to recall your posts in the "ECW PPV Cancelled" thread, and
> >how you leapt without a net before you had a chance to read reality.
>
> You seem to have forgotten how quickly I leaped back, and apologized,
> for doing so, as well as doing what I could to sort the whole thing
> out.
No... I remember that, John. I think you'll find that thing that is
worst in wrestling fans - a long memory. :)
Remembering how you handled it the is why I suggested you, or no one
else, leap here. Sit back, read and learn a bit... because initial
reads might not be full.
I know you know that, John. I don't know if other do... and was taking
the opportunity to toss it out.
> >I'd recommend not leaping here unless you've read what a fair amount
> >of what he writes, John. Not a knock... but there are subs on the
> >group who've read him for years that can speak pro/con on him.
>
> >Obviously I'll pass since he's a friend and colleague. ;)
>
> Honorable of you.
:)
> I'm not trying to say anything good or bad about the guy, John, I'm
> just passing on my observations (to make a small, bad pun).
I actually *like* the *pun*. ;)
> I conceded in the first 3 words of my post that I wasn't an
> authority on the subject.
I know.
My analogy would be someone coming into rps-w and stumbling on one of
periods of "heat". And they think, "This Henry guy is a ____"...
filling in any number of things. My take would be to point the guy to
DejaNews and tell him to read up a bit more on this Henry guy before you
write him off as a ____.
Same thing on Mitchell.
John D. Williams
John henry, net.bastard wrote:
> Hayabu2354 wrote...
> >From: "John D. Williams"
> >>Hayabu2354 wrote:
> >
> >>I read. I thought. There was nothing to learn about the subject.
> >>It is just your opinion, not a fact. I did learn about you though.
>
> Hayabu, I don't want to get deep into this thread, but there a couple
> of things that you're forgetting:
>
> a) John's a sheetwriter. He may be saying all he feels he can
> without endangering his livelihood.
On this... it was a part of our discussion more than a year ago - it's
not my livelihood. The next dollar I make off of a piece I've written
for a sheet (or a mark mag for that matter) will be the *first* dollar
I've made.
So the second half of isn't the case.
> b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about
> this subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't
> tried hard enough. No one knows everything.
I agree with you... and I should be stunned by his comeback. But
knowing my friend 'Busa... I wasn't.
> >>No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a
> >>fair number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various
> >>circles. I
>
> >Denial? Are you serious? You are going way overboard. This is a
> >matter of opinion not fact.
>
> How do you know?
>
> Really, man, you seem to be trying *awfully* hard to deny the
> homosexual overtones that are clearly present in wrestling. Maybe
> you need to take a look at *why*. John's a reliable guy, from what
> I've know of him -- he's not going to come on here screaming RAVEN'S
> QUEER, whether it's true or not, and he quite likely would not even
> approach the subject if he wasn't sure of what he was talking about.
> What would be in it for him to make these claims?
FWIW - I'm not saying Scott Levy is gay. I am saying he created a
"homoerotic" storyline... and for 'Busa's sake - those aren't my words
for the storyline. Nor Mitchell's. But those of the one person who
would know.
> Think about it.
You gotta understand, John... 'Busa doesn't like to think. And no - I'm
not being hard on the guy. It's his track record. And this thread is
his MO. *shrug*
--
jdw
"You're an idiot. Get off the Torch and subscribe to PWI."
- L'2000, 01-11-96
The Taskmistress
The Living Legend Liz Michael noticed that "John Henry, net.bastard"
<jhn...@bellsouth.net> deigned to utter thusly....
>I know the post you're talking about...I had seen another that quote
>Mitchell as saying that Wrestlemania would be Hogan vs. Tyson.
Nobody believed it and I'm not sure he even meant it to be serious.
Hogan is just TOO MUCH of a pussy to ever get in a ring opposing Tyson,
especially one on one, worked match or not. The mere thought of it is
preposterous on it's face.
The Insane Psychotic Taskmistress,
"The Living Legend" Liz Michael!!!!!!
1/2 of the World Tag Team champions-No more Miss Nice Bitch!!!!!!!!!
Bitch World Order Website - http://annex.com/taskmist/wrestlin.htm
Upcoming RSPWWCW cards just to piss people off....
1/20 From Motel California
1/27 From Saint John New Brunswick
2/3 Games of the First RSPW Olympiad Opening Ceremmonies from Tokyo Japan
4/5 Weaselmania from Pasadena CA
The Taskmistress
The Living Legend Liz Michael noticed that hayab...@aol.com
(Hayabu2354) deigned to utter thusly....
>Ok, whatever. The point I was making was it was lost on people like me. I
>like porno as much as my brothers do, but none of us looked at Goldust like
>Mitchell says, and we are "the audience".
Most of my business associates are into women catfighting. Most of them
tell me that the original Goldust gimmick had women's catfighting
written all over it. I can see it after they showed me some stuff.
> Raven's Nest, to put it bluntly, ought to be renamed
>>> Raven's Rough Trade. The clues aren't subtle. This All Male-Revue
>>> features Raven, who had the classic butch/fem abusive relationship
>>> with Stevie Richards, so much that the Richards character went back
>>> to submissively serving Raven after declaring his supposed
>>> independence. Raven constantly talks of his alienation and rejection
>>> from his parents, without being specific as to the reason. Everyone
>>> in the Nest vies for Raven's love. Saturn didn't steal his look from
>>> Taz, he took it from Biker Boys magazine. Lodi's look is straight
>>> out of every college gay bar in America. Hammer, whose name fits
>>> this concept perfectly, comes right from the peep shows. Nice
>>> fishnet, too. Billy Kidman has got the Bus Station Runaway look down
>>> cold."
I commented on this in a twin thread. I don't necessarily agree with the
point by point analysis on gimmick, but I agree with the overall
assessment. Gimmicks like these happen because there are an awful lot of
gays and bis in wrestling, particualrly the upper eschelons of it.
This is why the big two have never been able to figure out women's
wrestling and the proper booking of it. Any red-blooded American
heterosexual male could tell you how to book women's wrestling, but the
movers and shakers in the big two, by and large, aren't normal
heterosexual males....Kevin Sullivan is about the only one I can swear
to, and aside from the idiocy of Jackie being his "lover" and his own
pathetic wrestling skills, he got the rest of that angle down pretty
well.
Intergender matches don't happen in the big two, not because of macho,
but becasue of homosexuality. Most catfight and amazon women fans just
LOVE the idea of wrestling a woman, even a woman who looks like she can
totally kick their ass, like Chyna. In fact, you have no idea how many
men wish they could wrestle Chyna....she's like a dream girl to a lot of
ffb fans.
You have two predominant homosexual angles.....Raven's Nest and the NWO.
If you don't think so, what else would you call a stable full of men
with one beautiful woman whom NOBODY has any sexual interest in?
>>> All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest I don't see the
>>> group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does. Do you?
>>
>>Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
And Paul Heyman is widely reputed to swing both ways sexually. We all
have heard the stories about McMahon and Pat Patterson in particular,
and Eric Bischoff seems to have developed the same reputation, whether
true or not. So when WCW borrows a plot from ECW, using a lot of the
same characters....well, what would you call it? I mean, the common
scuttlebutt is the Billy Kidman is playing the "Lori Fullington" role in
the current Nest. :-)
>>> "Why do you think Raven wanted to "recruit" Scotty Riggs, whose only
>>> distinguishing characteristic is he looks like an (American) male
>>> model (and Eric Bischoff)?
What did most of you think when you first saw Scotty Riggs with Marc
Bagwell as the Americna Males? Probably same thing I saw, too. "Fags."
If I were a homosexual male, I would go after Riggs and Bagwell that
way, too. Ask Jeremy Soria about that.:-)
> And the Nest doesn't like Chris Benoit because he's simply
>>> too straight."
No, they WANT Benoit because he's so hot. That's REALLY it.
>Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this opinion or fact?
>I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how did Levy get this
>whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss, when he is on the record about
>being against that kind of stuff?
Because his boss is full of shit, and if Eric was as wholesome,
cleancut, and straight as you think he is, why couldn't he properly book
women's wrestling? It's not that hard. Not really. Especially when you
have got Turner's money to play with.
The Taskmistress
The Living Legend Liz Michael noticed that gsa...@primenet.com (Lee
Morey) deigned to utter thusly....
> Shhh! Don't tell the ECW fans that! It might ruin their image of
> what masculinity is all about...
Tee hee hee heee
> All pornography is full of stereotypes. Heterosexual porn aimed at
> men is often full of lesbian scenes, or a man with two+ women where
> it is assumed that the man is double+ masculine (because he is able
> to attract/satisfy/control two+ women, right?) while the women are
> assumed to be bisexual. But if they're only there for the man, and
> they don't interact on their own account, are they really bisexual?
Men with two women was even a common theme in Happy Days for crying out
loud. Arthur Fonzerelli (the Fonz) frequently had bi girlfriends. Not
once did anybody say...."hey, Fonz, if you have two girls at the same
time, wouldn't that make them, like........."
To which Fonz would likely only
say....."heeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy......." and shrug his shoulders and
grin.
Let's not even get into Laverne and Shirley. :-)
The Taskmistress
>So, just because you, Mitchell, Barnett, and a few other people see all of
>this, it's true?
>I don't agree.
Think about this, Busa. Some people, like Taskmistress and Barnett, who
seemingly hate each other, are all coming to similar if not nearly
identical conclusions on Raven's Nest. What does this tell you?
>I counter with you and Mitchell are seeing something that is not there. Like a
>Picasso painting, you can see whatever you want to be the real meaning of the
>picture. It is still just your interpretation.
Well, some people can see it and some people need to be hit over the
head with it before they do. Admittedly, people with more exposure to
the seedier side of sex are likely to see it sooner, but it's there.
>>> Is that your opinion or do you know that as a fact? I only ask
>>> because you are sheetwriter and I want to know if this is based on
>>> fact or opinion.
>>
>>Fact.
>I think someone lied to you then. From everything I saw in the tapes I got, I
>never saw a gay relationship. That is like saying every mentor-student
>relationship is sexual.
Raven's Nest is hardly a mentor-student angle.
>Scotty Levy's jerkoffs? What is that? Scotty Levy does not book WCW does he?
Scott Levy and his colleagues have a lot of creative control over the
Nest gimmick and plotline. Not complete control, but a significant
amount of input. It was part of the deal when Levy signed.
>>> >Uh... he feuded with Riggs, until he came over. And what was the
>>> >Raven vs. Dreamer feud all about? Guess Raven never able to get
>>> >Tommy to embrace his true nature. ;)
>>>
>>> No, it was about them being childhood friends
>>
>>Think about that one, Busa.
>I just did. Nothing came to me. Are you saying that Raven tried to come on to
>Dreamer and that is what started their feud? If so, you are reaching so far
>you are past the bottom of the well.
That can start some very serious feuds between friends. One gay or bi
friend hitting on them? Are you THAT sheltered?
>>> and Raven mistreating the fat girl from youth, who got pretty when
>>> she grew up.
>>
>>Uh... let's see, why would he be abusing her? And why would Tommy
>Because he is a jerk and he treats everyone he comes in contact with like
>garbage. He knew her as a fat ugly girl and was mean to her. Then Richards
>found her and brought her back, and when she was pretty, he wanted her.
>How can you get he is gay out of that? I still say you are seeing what you
>want to see.
>>having affection for her rather than his old school, er, mate Scotty
>>have meaning?
>Because Tommy is not now, and never was, gay. Why would he have affection for
>Scotty. Your whole theory is based on the fact that Raven is gay, and Tommy
>was gay with him. There is nothing to back that up.
I think what you are missing is that the storyline is that Raven wanted
Tommy, Tommy didn't want him back. That started the feud. Tommy could,
through violent behavior, expressing insecurity about his own sexuality.
Not the same as being gay. But a difficulty a lot of people have. I've
had the Taskmistress gimmick compared to Tommy Dreamer so I can see it.
>> And why would Tommy be so open to her fling with Kimona?
Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhh!!! Guys like lesbians. Or haven't you heard?
>>And Tommy trying to prove his manhood... that he's hardcore through and
>>through? Sheez... wake up.
Yep. That's actually what a lot of wrestlers are subconsciously trying
to do in real life. After all, they touch and grapple half naked men 3
or 4 times a week for a living. Dreamer's character just expresses that
natural part of most wrestlers.
>>> >> He beats people up and "converts" them to homosexuals? Is this
>>> >> rational thinking or some truly warped line of reasoning?
>>> >
>>> >It's a truly warped line of reasoning - Scott Levy's reasoning.
>>>
>>> Like I asked above, given your position as a writer, is this opinion
>>> or fact?
>>
>>Fact.
>Again, you were worked then.
Ummmmm...the whole thing is a work. I don't believe for a second that
Raven is actually force sodomizing Riggs behind the curtain. But that's
the "story" that's being sold. Yes, it is very subtil but it fits the
rapist/sexual predator psychology very well. And it fits the BDSM scene
very well. Rape as a weapon of conversion. I can tell you, being in that
lifestyle, that Levy is doing this VERY well and pretty accurately, a
lot more accurately than anything Goldust or Adrian Adonis ever did.
>>> I don't want to get the wrong idea. If it is a fact, how
>>> did Levy get this whole subversive gay gimmick past his boss, when he
>>> is on the record about being against that kind of stuff?
Eric is rumored to be a little light in the karate boots.
Hayabu2354
>From: "John D. Williams" <johndw...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Wed, Jan 21, 1998 00:29 EST
>Message-id: <6a411b$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
>
>John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
>
>> John D. Williams wrote
>> >John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
>> >> Jeff Amdur wrote in message
>> Of course, there's about a 60% chance that whoever worte it was full
>> of it, and another 20% that I misread the damned thing. Seems to be
>> a bad week for me.
>
>Nah... you read it well. Guy was spinning, which if you take a look
>around is the thing that's going on. It's kinda predictable. You can
>go back in Deja and see something like this happened in the winter of
>95/96... and the winter of 96/97. The vets know what it's about by this
>point. *shrug* You just stumbled into it, John.
Are you saying that I am spinning? If so, what does that mean?
What do the vets around here know? I get the impression you are talking about
me being here in at those times, but I was not even on the internet then.
Did I miss something here?
Hayabu2354
From gsa...@primenet.com
>- From johndw...@worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 19 19:45:27 PST 1998
>
> Some people fear threads where John D. Williams posts a lot... but
> I, I relish them, even the bitter parts. For it usually means that
> somewhere, somehow, someone is thinking too much. :)
You are welcome. I think this has been interesting.
>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
>> Before I get to the meat of my post. I want to first say that I am
>> not gay and I don't have any friends who are gay, otherwise I would
>> just ask them about this and not post it.
>
> The only way to be certain one does not have any friends who are gay
> is to not have any friends. *shrug* And why such an emphasis on a
> disclaimer? One does not have to be gay and/or kinky to understand
> a gay and/or kinky point of view. One only has to think it through.
>
> BTW, I don't need any disclaimers. My masculinity is not threatened
> by this thread. *shrug*
If I was asking someone about how an engine works, or a theory that someone had
for making a car run better, I would post the same disclaimer. I have very
little knowledge of how engines work. The same goes for the gay community.
>> But, after reading this
>> week's issue of the Pro Wrestling Torch, I was very curious, and
>> somewhat perplexed, about Bruce Mitchell's column and assertions
>> that he made. What I guess I want to know is am I living in a black
>> hole, or is Mitchell way off base, and I would appreciate feedback
>> from anyone on this. I have some passages from the article
>> quoted below. The topic of said article was the "adult" nature
>> of wrestling nowadays.
>
>You're living in a black hole.
>
> Or one might simply have one's eyes firmly closed. *shrug*
Why does it have to be either/or? Why couldn't it just be that I have never
been exposed to the situation?
Why does it have to be a black hole or an ostrich?
>The point is that the true subversive angle/gimmick is Raven's - so much
>depth that it goes right over people's head.
>
> Or in some cases, more than one head. ;)
No one seems to be able to explain why you are right and I am wrong. It's
still all just your theory.
Instead of making comments, can't you explain why you are right, factually?
>> Granted, I have never been to a "college gay bar". I have never read
>> (or even heard of) Biker Boys magazine. I sure never tried to pick
>> up a "Bus Station Runaway". I have also never been in a "butch/fem
>> abusive relationship" (and thank God I don't even know what one is".
>> All of that being said, when I look at Raven's nest I don't see the
>> group of kinky homosexuals that Mitchell does. Do you?
>
>Yep. Er... it was there back in ECW as well.
>
> Shhh! Don't tell the ECW fans that! It might ruin their image of
> what masculinity is all about...
Why would it?
> All pornography is full of stereotypes. Heterosexual porn aimed at
> men is often full of lesbian scenes, or a man with two+ women where
> it is assumed that the man is double+ masculine (because he is able
> to attract/satisfy/control two+ women, right?) while the women are
As a man, all I can tell you is that it means I get to see two women instead of
one. I don't care about what the guy is all about. He is just lucky.
> assumed to be bisexual. But if they're only there for the man, and
> they don't interact on their own account, are they really bisexual?
When women have sex with each other, in addition to the man, they are there for
themselves.
> And why is it ok for women to be bisexual anyway, but not men? Why
Who said it was not OK?
> the need for the disclaimer? Who is feeling threatened, and by what?
Maybe you are here. I never said there was anything wrong with homosexuality.
You took my opening paragraph all wrong.
Hayabu2354
From "John henry, net.bastard"
>Hayabu2354 wrote in message
><19980119154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>From: "John D. Williams"
>>>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
>>>I read. I thought. There was nothing to learn about the subject. It is
>just
>>your opinion, not a fact. I did learn about you though.
>
>
>Hayabu, I don't want to get deep into this thread, but there a couple of
>things that you're forgetting:
I will tell you if I am.
>a) John's a sheetwriter. He may be saying all he feels he can without
>endangering his livelihood.
He already responded to this today, but even if he did get paid, does not
matter. There is a saying that you should believe half of what you see and
none of what you read. I don't believe that totally, but there is truth there.
I don't mean offense to John here but I don't blindly believe everything he
said. What he "knows" could be relative. It could be Wade Keller told him,
and believed it, but whoever told Wade was wrong, so John was then wrong, even
though he thought he was right.
>b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about this
>subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't tried hard
>enough. No one knows everything.
I don't remember how I said that, or in what I said it in response too. I
think I said it in response to John saying my head was in the sand, and I was
wrong, without him explaining why. If that was it, I meant there was nothing
to learn because he taught me nothing.
>>>No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a fair
>>>number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various circles. I
>
>
>>Denial? Are you serious? You are going way overboard. This is a matter
>of
>>opinion not fact.
>
>
>How do you know?
Because he has done nothing to prove why I was in denial. He just says I am
wrong. When he talks about Japan, he backs it up with facts and I learn.
Here, he is not doing that.
>Really, man, you seem to be trying *awfully* hard to deny the homosexual
>overtones that are clearly present in wrestling. Maybe you need to take a
No I am not. I am just denying that Raven is filling his group with gay
wrestlers. I see him more as a Waco Texas guy.
>look at *why*. John's a reliable guy, from what I've know of him -- he's
He is on Japan without doubt.
>not going to come on here screaming RAVEN'S QUEER, whether it's true or not,
>and he quite likely would not even approach the subject if he wasn't sure of
>what he was talking about. What would be in it for him to make these
>claims?
From all he has written, it is something that he and that guy Lee see in
Raven's flock. He has not proved anything else to me.
Why does it matter if I doubt what he says? Does him being a sheetwriter make
him someone I can't question? I have asked questions in a nice way. I would
love to hear what he has to say but he has not answered.
>Think about it.
That is a two way street.
Hayabu2354
From: "John D. Williams"
>John henry, net.bastard wrote:
>
>> Hayabu2354 wrote...
>> >From: "John D. Williams"
>> >>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>> b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about
>> this subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't
>> tried hard enough. No one knows everything.
>
>I agree with you... and I should be stunned by his comeback. But
>knowing my friend 'Busa... I wasn't.
Your friend? How are we friends? I don't know you at all. I don't mean to be
rude here, but we are not friends.
>> How do you know?
>>
>> Really, man, you seem to be trying *awfully* hard to deny the
>> homosexual overtones that are clearly present in wrestling. Maybe
>> you need to take a look at *why*. John's a reliable guy, from what
>> I've know of him -- he's not going to come on here screaming RAVEN'S
>> QUEER, whether it's true or not, and he quite likely would not even
>> approach the subject if he wasn't sure of what he was talking about.
>> What would be in it for him to make these claims?
>
>FWIW - I'm not saying Scott Levy is gay. I am saying he created a
>"homoerotic" storyline... and for 'Busa's sake - those aren't my words
>for the storyline. Nor Mitchell's. But those of the one person who
>would know.
Who is this person? Wade Keller, your boss?
>> Think about it.
>
>You gotta understand, John... 'Busa doesn't like to think. And no - I'm
Who are you to talk about me this way?
>not being hard on the guy. It's his track record. And this thread is
>his MO. *shrug*
John, the Kinks did a song about paranoia and how it may destroy ya. This is
the third cryptic reference I have seen where you pretend you know who I am.
Get YOUR head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck. You don't know me. I
can see why you think the Raven story is real now. Facts don't seem to matter
to you.
If you don't want to answer the questions I have asked, fine, don't. But there
is no need to be Oliver Stone. Just say, "You are right, I was presenting
opinion as fact" and we will all have a nice day.
Pete KOF
Actually, I never thought it was about homosexuality, the whole Raven
angle. Maybe if you spin the story enough you could find a few elements
of underlying homoeroticism, but if you ask me, Raven's either is a kind
of Manson family, or a bunch of heroin addicts.
John henry, net.bastard
John D. Williams wrote in message <6a411b$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>John Henry, net.bastard wrote:
(Jeff A. asked about Bruce Mitchell--first quoted is JDW, next is moi)
>> >Here's his e-mail, Jeff... ask *him*.
>> >> I'm not *sure*, Jeff, but I have an idea that Mitchell is Wade
>> >> Keller's 'Bad Cop.' Seems like when all that BS was going down
>> >Yep, John. He was the one who sent the Mass Transit tape to Request
>> >TV... wait... that's right, he didn't really do that. Someone... or
>> >a number of folks... just reported that he did. ;)
>> Now, that's not nice...
>You're right. Sorry. :(
De nada - I believe we're on the same wavelength here. For the sake of
clarity to others, as you mentioned, let me point out here that I didn't
intend at all to rank Bruce in with the likes of Jerry Springer and Ricki
Lake, just to say that he generally covers the more - sensitive - topics, to
the best of my knowledge, which I have admitted is limited. I tend to
respect your opinions, JDW (<vkm>appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding</vkm> ;-)), and if you say Mitchell's okay, I'm inclined to
agree, given what I know about him.
>> I know the post you're talking about...I had seen another that quote
>> Mitchell as saying that Wrestlemania would be Hogan vs. Tyson.
>That was another wrong post. He never said Hogan would be at Mania
>opposite Tyson.
Typical. Sorry.
>It's funny... people pay good money to listen to the hotlines... but
>they can't quote them well. I guess people hear what they want to hear.
>;)
Yep, and all those girls that get $10 to pretend to like you for 3 minutes
in those 'gentlemen's clubs' (ever notice how few 'gentlemen' actually go
into those places?) really want to go home with the fat guy in the grease
covered flannel with the sleeves ripped off, too.
I dated dancers/waitresses for damn near 10 years, and it just never ceased
to amuse me the money a man will pay to see a breast.
>> Of course, there's about a 60% chance that whoever worte it was full
>> of it, and another 20% that I misread the damned thing. Seems to be
>> a bad week for me.
>Nah... you read it well. Guy was spinning, which if you take a look
>around is the thing that's going on. It's kinda predictable. You can
>go back in Deja and see something like this happened in the winter of
>95/96... and the winter of 96/97. The vets know what it's about by this
>point. *shrug* You just stumbled into it, John.
For 2 years running, it seems ;-)
I gotta quit that stuff...gives me headaches.
>It takes more space than this post to explain... and it old news on the
>group going back more than two years... so I'll pass on explaining it
>here, or even in e-mail. But "bug up their ass" is very accurate, John.
Dejanews is cool. And I'll take your word for it, until.
>> >I'd say it make you well qualified to speak on him, John. :)
>> Hardly, just trying to offer whatever I could.
>I know. A joke.
I don't know which I'm more amazed with at this point...the fact that there
is a completely civil discussion going on here, or that I'm involved in it
;-)
>Remembering how you handled it the is why I suggested you, or no one
>else, leap here. Sit back, read and learn a bit... because initial
>reads might not be full.
>I know you know that, John. I don't know if other do... and was taking
>the opportunity to toss it out.
And I'll leave it in, maybe it will get through to people...
>> I'm not trying to say anything good or bad about the guy, John, I'm
>> just passing on my observations (to make a small, bad pun).
>I actually *like* the *pun*. ;)
You need help....
>> I conceded in the first 3 words of my post that I wasn't an
>> authority on the subject.
>I know.
I'm still waiting for Godwin....
>My analogy would be someone coming into rps-w and stumbling on one of
>periods of "heat".
<beavis> Yeah..heheh...I'm in HEAT!...hehehe...HEAT!...HEAT!
...HEAT!... </beavis>
Sorry, I'm a mark for my own posts...;-)
>And they think, "This Henry guy is a ____"...
>filling in any number of things. My take would be to point the guy to
>DejaNews and tell him to read up a bit more on this Henry guy before you
>write him off as a ____.
>Same thing on Mitchell.
Damned good of you, JDW. I'm sure Bruce does/will appreciate it, as do I.
Now what was that you said about my mom?
;-)
John henry, net.bastard
Hayabu2354 wrote in message
>From "John henry, net.bastard"
>>Hayabu2354 wrote in message
>>>>Hayabu2354 wrote:
is
>>just
>>>your opinion, not a fact. I did learn about you though.
>>Hayabu, I don't want to get deep into this thread, but there a couple of
>>things that you're forgetting:
>I will tell you if I am.
>>a) John's a sheetwriter. He may be saying all he feels he can without
>>endangering his livelihood.
>He already responded to this today, but even if he did get paid, does not
>matter. There is a saying that you should believe half of what you see and
>none of what you read. I don't believe that totally, but there is truth
there.
> I don't mean offense to John here but I don't blindly believe everything
he
>said. What he "knows" could be relative. It could be Wade Keller told
him,
>and believed it, but whoever told Wade was wrong, so John was then wrong,
>even though he thought he was right.
I could accept that possibility, if we were talking about some other users
on the newsgroup. Perhaps what needs to be said is that John D. Williams
has a good reputation for being reliable. I've been reading his posts for
over a year now, and it is *my* *opinion* that if John did not have first-
or ironclad second-hand information, he wouldn't even be coy about about it.
Try to understand that perhaps JDW doesn't want to say this himself, because
it would sound pretty arrogant, if read wrong, coming from him. John's not
a guy to blow his own horn. He thinks he's Japanese, it would be
dishonorable ;-)
>>b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about this
>>subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't tried hard
>>enough. No one knows everything.
>I don't remember how I said that, or in what I said it in response too. I
>think I said it in response to John saying my head was in the sand, and I
was
>wrong, without him explaining why. If that was it, I meant there was
nothing
>to learn because he taught me nothing.
Perhaps he was giving you more credit than you deserved for having
sufficient background information, not only about gays and the homosexual
'lifestyle', (whatever the hell *that's* supposed to be...like if you're
gay, suddenly it's all about 'Burgundy! I see burgundy! And we'll take out
thith wall, and put in some windows let in the light, it'll be FAAAABULOUS'
Sorry, I didn't mean that about you. You're one of those rare creatures
that is at least smart enough to realize what you don't know. I respect
that. But people can still jump to amazing conclusions when you say 'gay,'
or even vocally condone homosexuality, but I digress...), as I was saying,
perhaps John was giving you more credit fot knowing not only about gays, but
about John D. Williams. He enjoys what I consider a well deserved good
reputation for not being wrong, and not opening his mouth if theres any
considerable chance that he *might* be.
>>>>No... what you have written here is exactly what I would expect a fair
>>>>number of people to write. Denial is predictable in various circles. I
>>>Denial? Are you serious? You are going way overboard. This is a matter
>>of
>>>opinion not fact.
>>How do you know?
>Because he has done nothing to prove why I was in denial. He just says I
am
>wrong. When he talks about Japan, he backs it up with facts and I learn.
>Here, he is not doing that.
See above. He knows you're wrong, or he wouldn't have said anything.
Perhaps that was implicit, when it should have been explicit.
>>Really, man, you seem to be trying *awfully* hard to deny the homosexual
>>overtones that are clearly present in wrestling. Maybe you need to take a
>No I am not. I am just denying that Raven is filling his group with gay
>wrestlers. I see him more as a Waco Texas guy.
I don't think anyone has said that the wrestler's themselves are gay, I
think what's being said is that the *storyline* has overtones of a bad rough
trade flick, and John believes that he has reliable information that those
overtones are intentional. Additionally, I agree with your perception,
also - the cult leader schtick is obvious.
Your original question was whether anyone else had the same perception as
Mitchell of the Raven angle. The answer, from not just JDW and Lee, but
also from Bob Barnett, myself, and the Taskmistress, was a pretty emphatic
yes, and for very good reason... because that perception is an accurate one.
I add that I also see this, and given what I know about John, Scott Levy and
his angles (I do *not* know whether Levy is actually gay. It wouldn't
surprise me either way, and I wouldn't care -- I'm not going to sleep with
him) over the last several years, and the wrestling business in general, I'd
say that it's perfectly plausible that Levy booked the homoerotic overtones
into the angle intentionally, and until I have a good reason to believe
otherwise, I trust John enough to take his word for it. If John D Williams
says it's a *fact*, you can make a boatload of cash off a sucker that'll bet
against him. Perhaps you don't know that, and again, it's all really just
my opinion, but I think you'll find that most people that know John will
agree, regardless of appearances ;-)
>>look at *why*. John's a reliable guy, from what I've know of him -- he's
>He is on Japan without doubt.
What reason to think that he would exercise any less care when speaking
about anything else, as an informed source?
>>not going to come on here screaming RAVEN'S QUEER, whether it's true or
>>not,
>>and he quite likely would not even approach the subject if he wasn't sure
of
>>what he was talking about. What would be in it for him to make these
>>claims?
>From all he has written, it is something that he and that guy Lee see in
>Raven's flock. He has not proved anything else to me.
Frankly, I think it would take Scott Levy coming to your house and
discussing it with you for a couple of hours to prove it to you.
You can be *too* empirical.
And you didn't answer the question - why would he lie?
>Why does it matter if I doubt what he says?
You are asking for some sort of support for JDW's, and Bruce Mitchell's
opinion on this, and I thought I, as the equivalent of another guy in the
bar walking by and overhearing friends conversing, stopped in to add my
opinion. Why? I thought it might help you see that John is generally
considered a reliable source of information, largely due to a rare ability
to shut up if he doesn't know the facts.
>Does him being a sheetwriter make him someone I can't question?
No, him being John D. Williams makes him someone that generally doesn't
*need* to be questioned. If he wasn't sure, he wouldn't have said anything.
>I have asked questions in a nice way. I would
>love to hear what he has to say but he has not answered.
I hope this helps you perceive why he would choose not to get into defending
his own integrity over something minor like this; I'm sure he feels that it
defends itself quite nicely, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
And please don't think I'm trying to brownnose John, I genuinely respect the
guy *because* I've vehemently disagreed with him in the past, and usually
fallen flat on my ass. Recent trends notwithstanding, that doesn't happen
with great relative frequency; it just looks that way because I choose to
take more chances than most.
John henry, net.bastard
Hayabu2354 wrote in message
<19980121200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>From: "John D. Williams"
>>John henry, net.bastard wrote:
>>> Hayabu2354 wrote...
>>> >>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>>> b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn about
>>> this subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that you haven't
>>> tried hard enough. No one knows everything.
>>I agree with you... and I should be stunned by his comeback. But
>>knowing my friend 'Busa... I wasn't.
>Your friend? How are we friends? I don't know you at all. I don't mean
to be
>rude here, but we are not friends.
It's called being polite. Perhaps you've heard of it?
>>FWIW - I'm not saying Scott Levy is gay. I am saying he created a
>>"homoerotic" storyline... and for 'Busa's sake - those aren't my words
>>for the storyline. Nor Mitchell's. But those of the one person who
>>would know.
>Who is this person? Wade Keller, your boss?
Come on, Busa, are you being intentionally blockheaded? Take a freaking
hint already.
>>> Think about it.
>>You gotta understand, John... 'Busa doesn't like to think. And no - I'm
>Who are you to talk about me this way?
Obviously, someone who's observed enough of your previous postings to feel
that you have established a certain way of making posts. Stop being so
indignant; John has done everything *but* come right out and say what he's
saying, probably due to legal restrictions, or because of a promise to keep
things 'off the record,' while you are treating John in a very *on* the
record manner.
>>not being hard on the guy. It's his track record. And this thread is
>>his MO. *shrug*
>John, the Kinks did a song about paranoia and how it may destroy ya. >This
is
>the third cryptic reference
I understood it. Don't take this as an insult or anything, but is english
not your first language?
>I have seen where you pretend you know who I am.
'Busa, I wonder, do you think that your post about Mitchell is the first
John's ever seen? Or for that matter, do you not think that even your
statements on this thread haven't given you a recognizable personality?
>Get YOUR head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck. You don't know >me.
I
>can see why you think the Raven story is real now. Facts don't seem to
>matter
>to you.
>If you don't want to answer the questions I have asked, fine, don't. But
>there
>is no need to be Oliver Stone. Just say, "You are right, I was presenting
>opinion as fact" and we will all have a nice day.
Jeez, that was pretty uncalled for.
John D. Williams
John henry, net.bastard wrote:
> Hayabu2354 wrote ...
> >From: "John D. Williams"
> >>John henry, net.bastard wrote:
> >>> Hayabu2354 wrote...
> >>> >From: "John D. Williams"
> >>> >>Hayabu2354 wrote:
>
> >>> b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn
> >>> about this subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that
> >>> you haven't tried hard enough. No one knows everything.
> >>
> >>I agree with you... and I should be stunned by his comeback. But
> >>knowing my friend 'Busa... I wasn't.
> >
> >Your friend? How are we friends? I don't know you at all. I don't
> >mean to be rude here, but we are not friends.
>
> It's called being polite. Perhaps you've heard of it?
I wasn't being polite. And Busa's right - he and I aren't friends.
> >>FWIW - I'm not saying Scott Levy is gay. I am saying he created a
> >>"homoerotic" storyline... and for 'Busa's sake - those aren't my
> >>words for the storyline. Nor Mitchell's. But those of the one
> >>person who would know.
>
> >Who is this person? Wade Keller, your boss?
>
> Come on, Busa, are you being intentionally blockheaded? Take a
> freaking hint already.
He is trying to be a blockhead. It's a gimmick.
> >>> Think about it.
>
> >>You gotta understand, John... 'Busa doesn't like to think. And no
> >>- I'm
> >
> >Who are you to talk about me this way?
Busa, my friend, my name is right up there in the from line of this
post. That's "who".
> Obviously, someone who's observed enough of your previous postings
> to feel that you have established a certain way of making posts.
> Stop being so indignant; John has done everything *but* come right
> out and say what he's saying, probably due to legal restrictions,
> or because of a promise to keep things 'off the record,' while you
> are treating John in a very *on* the record manner.
Nah. No promise, nor legal restrictions. I don't know what he wants me
to say? He copped to the gimmick? I could swear I said that already.
> >>not being hard on the guy. It's his track record. And this thread
> >>is his MO. *shrug*
>
> >John, the Kinks did a song about paranoia and how it may destroy ya.
> >This is the third cryptic reference
Kinks reference. Cool. 60/70 English Bands for $500, Alex.
Persoanlly, I prefer "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
> I understood it. Don't take this as an insult or anything, but is
> english not your first language?
It is, and he can be very good at it. But not this thread.
> >I have seen where you pretend you know who I am.
>
> 'Busa, I wonder, do you think that your post about Mitchell is the
> first John's ever seen? Or for that matter, do you not think that
> even your statements on this thread haven't given you a recognizable
> personality?
Kayfabe, John. This is the Black Scorpibusa of Starcade 1990. We're
not suppose to know it's Ole doing the voice, and Natch doing the work.
> >Get YOUR head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck. You don't
> >know me. I can see why you think the Raven story is real now.
> >Facts don't seem to matter to you.
What facts? That your "first" post to rsp-w aout of this "account" was
the starter of this thread? That you chose this topic as your "first"
post? That you have no AOL profile? That you'd chose to post it to
here on rsp-w, and not your home base of AOL in the Grandstand? That
you chose to post it to rsp-w rather than, as a "subscriber of the
Torch", send it in to Keller and get it printed like Chris Bernes did?
Or the paterns of who you follow up, most noticably the obvious one?
Nah... you're harder to read than the Raven angle.
> >If you don't want to answer the questions I have asked, fine, don't.
> >But there is no need to be Oliver Stone. Just say, "You are right,
> >I was presenting opinion as fact" and we will all have a nice day.
I really wasn't presenting anything, Busa. Mitchell did, in the column
you cited. I agree with what he wrote.
As far as answering the question, I have. No about a half dozen times.
You need a video tape of it too? Or are you as dense as the OJ jury in
the criminal trial? Or are you just playing dense?
> Jeez, that was pretty uncalled for.
Sorry. Guess I was mean in that last paragraph. ;)
--
jdw
"Your condescending attitude has to go."
John henry, net.bastard
John D. Williams wrote in message <6a728i$k...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>John henry, net.bastard wrote:
>> Hayabu2354 wrote ...
>> >From: "John D. Williams"
(first quoted is JH)
>> >>> b) ANY time you find yourself saying 'there's nothing to learn
>> >>> about this subject,' that should be an automatic red flag that
>> >>> you haven't tried hard enough. No one knows everything.
>> >>I agree with you... and I should be stunned by his comeback. But
>> >>knowing my friend 'Busa... I wasn't.
>> >Your friend? How are we friends? I don't know you at all. I don't
>> >mean to be rude here, but we are not friends.
>> It's called being polite. Perhaps you've heard of it?
>I wasn't being polite.
;-) Would you believe, civil?
>And Busa's right - he and I aren't friends.
I gathered. With his attitude, it isn't hard to see why.
Sorry if, in your defense, I looked like I was starting an JDW lovefest,
hope the morons don't flack you about it...
>> >>FWIW - I'm not saying Scott Levy is gay. I am saying he created a
>> >>"homoerotic" storyline... and for 'Busa's sake - those aren't my
>> >>words for the storyline. Nor Mitchell's. But those of the one
>> >>person who would know.
>> >Who is this person? Wade Keller, your boss?
>> Come on, Busa, are you being intentionally blockheaded? Take a
>> freaking hint already.
>He is trying to be a blockhead. It's a gimmick.
>> >>> Think about it.
>> >>You gotta understand, John... 'Busa doesn't like to think. And no
>> >>- I'm
>> >Who are you to talk about me this way?
>Busa, my friend, my name is right up there in the from line of this
>post. That's "who".
And apparently, Busa's one of one person that that isn't enough for ;-)
>> Obviously, someone who's observed enough of your previous postings
>> to feel that you have established a certain way of making posts.
>> Stop being so indignant; John has done everything *but* come right
>> out and say what he's saying, probably due to legal restrictions,
>> or because of a promise to keep things 'off the record,' while you
>> are treating John in a very *on* the record manner.
>Nah. No promise, nor legal restrictions. I don't know what he wants me
>to say? He copped to the gimmick? I could swear I said that already.
Right, and I'm not even going to point out the omission; we all know what it
is, and we all know *who* it is, including our little puroresu-monikered
buddy here.
>> >>not being hard on the guy. It's his track record. And this thread
>> >>is his MO. *shrug*
>> >John, the Kinks did a song about paranoia and how it may destroy ya.
>> >This is the third cryptic reference
>Kinks reference. Cool. 60/70 English Bands for $500, Alex.
The question: they 'finished with my woman, cuz she couldn't help me with my
mind.'
>Persoanlly, I prefer "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I was thinking 'Here I come again now, baby, like a dog in heat...' Just to
keep this *kinda* on-topic ;-) plus it covers the feeling I'm starting to
get from haya posts...
>> I understood it. Don't take this as an insult or anything, but is
>> english not your first language?
>It is, and he can be very good at it. But not this thread.
>> >I have seen where you pretend you know who I am.
>> 'Busa, I wonder, do you think that your post about Mitchell is the
>> first John's ever seen? Or for that matter, do you not think that
>> even your statements on this thread haven't given you a recognizable
>> personality?
>Kayfabe, John. This is the Black Scorpibusa of Starcade 1990. We're
>not suppose to know it's Ole doing the voice, and Natch doing the work.
Oh, Sorry.
<tonyschiavone> Folks, we've been taking about Busa, who is indeed a riddle
surrounded by a mystery wrapped up in an enigma. He hasn't understood a
clearly written english sentence since Havoc '96, and people are wondering
jsut where he stands OH MY GOD IT'S BUSA!!! IT'S BUSA!!! BUSA COMING DOWN
FROM THE RAFTERS AND THE JDWCROW IS LOOKING VERY WORRIED!!! bUSA APPROACHING
JDW WITH THE BAT AND FOLKS, WE ARE OUT OF TIME!!!!!!
</tonyschiavone>
;-)
>> >Get YOUR head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck. You don't
>> >know me. I can see why you think the Raven story is real now.
>> >Facts don't seem to matter to you.
>What facts? That your "first" post to rsp-w aout of this "account" was
>the starter of this thread? That you chose this topic as your "first"
>post? That you have no AOL profile? That you'd chose to post it to
>here on rsp-w, and not your home base of AOL in the Grandstand? That
>you chose to post it to rsp-w rather than, as a "subscriber of the
>Torch", send it in to Keller and get it printed like Chris Bernes did?
>Or the paterns of who you follow up, most noticably the obvious one?
>Nah... you're harder to read than the Raven angle.
And still slightly easier than 'Dick and Jane.' I give too many people too
much benefit of the doubt in public, you know?
>> >If you don't want to answer the questions I have asked, fine, don't.
>> >But there is no need to be Oliver Stone. Just say, "You are right,
>> >I was presenting opinion as fact" and we will all have a nice day.
>I really wasn't presenting anything, Busa. Mitchell did, in the column
>you cited. I agree with what he wrote.
>As far as answering the question, I have. No about a half dozen times.
>You need a video tape of it too? Or are you as dense as the OJ jury in
>the criminal trial? Or are you just playing dense?
>> Jeez, that was pretty uncalled for.
>Sorry. Guess I was mean in that last paragraph. ;)
Now *that* was called for. Either this guy is trying to start trouble, or
he's a complete buffoon, or more likely, both. I've got about one more
reply for him, and then I'm gonna stop wasting time and space on it.
John Henry
net.bastard
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/4308/
All original content copyright (c) 1998 John Henry. Unauthorized
reproduction without including prominent credit to the author is a violation
of applicable laws.
Scott Keith
Oh my god, hayab...@aol.com (Hayabu2354) killed Kenny! You bastard!
[A whole pile of attributions between jdw, John Henry and Hayabu snipped]
Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
few days and there's no other way to put it.
John (and John), the guy is just asking if it was Raven who told you about
this. This entire thread has degenerated into "faith in John Williams" and
myriad questions about Hayabu and word games which I'm really not getting
either.
To be fair, John, the original question still hasn't been answered: Was it
Raven who told you about this or not? I'm really not sure why you two are
stringing this poor guy up over this issue.
And trim the damn attributions. It's getting annoying.
later.
Scott Keith, deFAQto FAQ-keeper and Big Brother to all.
"Screw all of you. I draw the line at talking poo." - Cartman
Official RSPW FAQ URL: http://www.planet.eon.net/~skeith/faq.html
Be sure to visit Scott-Land!(tm) while you're there.
Shawn Carew
ske...@mindless.com (Scott Keith) wrote:
>[A whole pile of attributions between jdw, John Henry and Hayabu snipped]
>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>few days and there's no other way to put it.
I just wanted to jump in here as well and say that I agree with Scott.
(Put this post in the Smithsonian - this doesn't happen very often!)
Williams and Henry are really giving this guy a hard time and I don't see
why. I think both have said things which could have caused a lot of
posters in Hayabu's position to come back flaming, but he has kept his
cool. It seems to me he's making a point that he just doesn't see what
some other people do in regards to Raven's flock, so *maybe* the angle is
not entirely what they see. That seems innocent enough to me. In fact, I
agree with him.
I didn't see the whole "gay army" angle at all until I read Mitchell's
column, and even then I'm not totally convinced. It could be, I don't
know. I just would never have thought of it myself. Which brings me to my
point - if it is what Mitchell says it is, then why? A gimmick disguised
within another gimmick symbolically that only a handful of people seem to
get (I don't hear any "faggot" chants when one of Raven's flock wrestles,
so I guess the majority of fans don't see it either), and of that handful,
most seem not to give a damn about it anyway? What's the point of that?
Who is the angle appealing to? How many tickets will it sell? How many
PPVs will people buy? Is it helping get Raven's flock over? There really
seems no point to have an angle that the fans don't see, the announcers
won't recognize, and doesn't contribute to the product in any meaningful
way.
And if Raven's DDT is a phallic symbol, I'd hate to think about the NWA
angle in the WWF with Jim Cornette whacking Windham with a tennis racket
and Windham realizing his "true nature" and... Family entertainment
indeed. :)
-Shawn
Jeremy Billones
In article <34c85a68...@news.planet.eon.net>,
Scott Keith <ske...@mindless.com> wrote:
>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>few days and there's no other way to put it.
You sure? It seems to me like the two Johns are tag teaming a guy who's
trying to work the group.
ObWrestling: I didn't get the subtext of the Raven angle until this
thread started. I knew there was *something* there...
--
Jeremy Billones 3-8 4.21 0.839 http://www.primenet.com/~billones
"...but when it comes to a hotly debated issue, how do you [tell] exactly
what the general consensus is?" - cernovog
"Generally, someone gets fed up with the discussion and just goes out and
does it and we see if they get shot." - Russ Allbery
John henry, net.bastard
Jeremy Billones wrote in message <6aacq8$q...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>In article <34c85a68...@news.planet.eon.net>,
>Scott Keith <ske...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>>few days and there's no other way to put it.
>You sure? It seems to me like the two Johns are tag teaming a guy who's
>trying to work the group.
That's how I see it, as well. Busa just insists a little *too* much in
having everything stated directly to him to be genuinely interested in an
answer -- just a little *too* interested in getting some kind of direct
quote out of JDW. Sure JDW comes off condescending, sometimes, and I have,
too...of course, if you've earned a deserved reputation for veracity, it
tends to cheese you off to have it challenged for no other apparent reason
than that someone wants to challenge your veracity.
JDW and I have *not* always seen eye-to-eye, DeJaNews will show that.
However, I respect the guy; he's never jacked me off, that I know of, or
tried to put some load of made-up crap over as news, that I'm aware of.
when Busa asked the first series of questions (and the second, and third), I
was really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, his
persistence in refusing to take JDW's word for it, without challenging the
hundreds of other equally (or more) dubious statements to be found here, led
me to believe it was actually either personal, or 'Busas trying to get
attention by arguing with JDW. Either way, I think it's rather asinine.
And, as with most other things I think are asinine, I say so. Sorry that
that bugs so many people; perhaps y'all should read a little closer. Busa's
working this group; subtly, but it's still a work.
I wondered if anyone else would pick up on it or not...
>ObWrestling: I didn't get the subtext of the Raven angle until this
>thread started. I knew there was *something* there...
I actually hadn't thought about it until Barnett said something a couple of
weeks ago, then I thought about the angle, and Scott levy's previous angles
over the last 3 years, and I had to kind of slap myself for not seeing it
sooner; it's painfully obvious, once your attention's on it...like the
'hidden indian' pictures you used to have when you were young -- once you
see those suckers, it's hard to figure out how you *didn't* see them before,
and you can't *un*-see them.
Just MODO
Lee Morey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- From bill...@primenet.com Fri Jan 23 15:13:15 PST 1998
In article <34c85a68...@news.planet.eon.net>,
Scott Keith <ske...@mindless.com> wrote:
>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>few days and there's no other way to put it.
You sure? It seems to me like the two Johns are tag teaming a guy who's
trying to work the group.
Considering that "Hayabus2345's" supposedly second/duplicate post had
a posting time which was hours PRIOR to his supposedly first post...
Considering that "Hayabus2345" seems intent on nailing Torch writers
in general and John Williams in particular...
Considering that "Hayabus2345" doesn't like people saying "bad" things
about Scott Levy, or at least Scott Levy's angle...
Considering that rsp-w has had a recurring history of people hiding
behind an AOL alias, or aliases, to attack specific posters or other
persons while remaining "hidden" in turn (Liebers, Paulley73, etc.)...
*shrug* I've already said what I had to say in response to it. As to
Shawn Carew's question about "why would he _do_ that kind of thing, if
only a few, or no, people, would get it?" Ok, why not? It's called an
INJOKE, and it's not like wrestling isn't full of those already. From
naming jobbers after people one doesn't like (Mikey Whipwreck, Keith
Schera, The Beverly Brothers) all the way to 1.5 million reasons Hulk
Hogan is in a good mood these days, it's fun to "put one across" on
multiple levels. Various literary figures have done the same thing,
from Robert Anton Wilson in the Illuminatus! trilogy, to the works of
Vladimir Nabokov (who made art of pedophilia and incest in _Lolita_
and _Ada_ respectively). As fans get smarter, some people have realized
that the angles have to get smarter-- or at least subtler-- as well. I
think it's obvious that a lot of ECW's angles deliberately tap into the
underground of sexuality, either in a real (porn stars as guest stars?
valets renowned for exotic dancing or making sadomasochistic films?) or
imagined (lesbian/sadomasochistic/damn near transsexual angles) sense.
Why is anyone surprised that one of ECW's main angles has "disturbing
homoerotic undertones," or for that matter, that it might really bother
some people to have that pointed out? *shrug*
I think Scott Levy has studied the sexual underworld quite accurately,
and is enjoying putting one over on the "straight" world. No, I don't
"know" that for certain, I have never spoken to him in person. But it
_is_ a fairly accurate portrayal of several kinky gay male stereotypes,
and I can't imagine that he got them all right JUST by accident. *grin*
Obviously, _my_ masculinity is not in the slightest bit threatened. ;)
ObWrestling: I didn't get the subtext of the Raven angle until this
thread started. I knew there was *something* there...
That's because you've lived such a sheltered life, Hombre. *grin*
ObWrestling: I also thought Thunder was a damn good show, with a few
mid-card angles I didn't want to see but could easily ignore (Steiners,
Goldberg, the stillborn so-called "martial-arts" division-- what next,
"Shootfighting" Jim Duggan?) but a lot of damn good wrestling at its
center. I don't mind run-ins that happen _after_ the match NEARLY as
much, and I really appreciate Marty Jannetty putting over Benoit and
Malenko back to back. He must be looking at Martel and asking himself
where he went wrong... and I better not finish that sentence just to
be on the safe side (or I'll have Lawl...@aol.com looking for me...).
Lee Morey, The Dark Cheetah
=========================================================================
"Well, she ain't no singer / And she ain't no star / But she sure talk
good / And she move so fast / But the gal in danger / Yeah, de gal in
chains / But she keep on pushin' / Would ya take her place? / She
countin' up de minutes / She countin' up de days" -- from "Black Angel"
=========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNMT0ErNT+fE7BL25AQEpbwP/fIhYrVi8buRsBHlx7QiOmiCLbotrPqUh
fGck6kDeGnAR7K1Vf2Ulh/niJWQhMMAwfzmG41k7xOflc2PZavDrOjtOqqVqgjLd
+hjkGU5VcX8qk6FIQO4K6ZH176FM9JqlWorEWrhgeI/WyPZpg+uSOS1QKCC4WGMt
8jECotDTZRE=
=XBmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John D. Williams
Scott Keith wrote:
> [A whole pile of attributions between jdw, John Henry and Hayabu
> snipped]
>
> Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd
> thread, I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming
> off as a couple of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the
> runaround to a guy who seems to be asking a fairly simple question.
> I've been reading it for a few days and there's no other way to put
> it.
>
> John (and John), the guy is just asking if it was Raven who told you
> about this. This entire thread has degenerated into "faith in John
> Williams" and myriad questions about Hayabu and word games which I'm
> really not getting either.
>
> To be fair, John, the original question still hasn't been answered:
> Was it Raven who told you about this or not? I'm really not sure why
> you two are stringing this poor guy up over this issue.
He's a troll, Scott. I'm stunned the Net Cop, who's been around here
far longer than I have been, didn't see it.
Poor guy. Damn... that's a good one, Scott.
Hayabu2354
I was going to just drop this whole thing but some of you people are just so
insane I can't believe it.
I just asked williams a simple question. I did not get out of line or break
any TOS of any kind. A few of you guys are just crazy. I said it before that
if he doesn't want to answer he does not have to, but all you guys ganging up
on me makes he wonder what he has to hide.
Some people said yesterday that you were ganging up on me and it was amazing I
did not jump back on you. I don't want to do that, and am not going to.
I think anyone who reads this board can see that you guys are the ones who are
being crazy.
>From: gsa...@primenet.com (Lee Morey)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>- From bill...@primenet.com Fri Jan 23 15:13:15 PST 1998
>
>In article <34c85a68...@news.planet.eon.net>,
>Scott Keith <ske...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>>few days and there's no other way to put it.
>
>You sure? It seems to me like the two Johns are tag teaming a guy who's
>trying to work the group.
>
> Considering that "Hayabus2345's" supposedly second/duplicate post had
> a posting time which was hours PRIOR to his supposedly first post...
Supposedly? If you look, it was a different post. I have seen the people who
asked for a moderated group say they want to have a good discussion. I posted
an interesting topic to do that and how did you guys act? Like jerks.
> Considering that "Hayabus2345" seems intent on nailing Torch writers
> in general and John Williams in particular...
You are wrong. I did not "nail" anyone. I asked questions and gave my
opinion. john williams is intent on nailing me, just because I disagreed with
him. Is his opinion of himself that weak that he can't just answer a question
I asked?
> Considering that "Hayabus2345" doesn't like people saying "bad" things
> about Scott Levy, or at least Scott Levy's angle...
I don't care what you say about him. The one thing williams said I agree with
is that Raven is boring. I don't care what you say about him. scott levy is
boring to me.
> Considering that rsp-w has had a recurring history of people hiding
> behind an AOL alias, or aliases, to attack specific posters or other
> persons while remaining "hidden" in turn (Liebers, Paulley73, etc.)...
How am I hidden? I am not hidden at all! You just think you are sherlocke
holmes. Well, there is no mystery to solve here. I think that anyone can see
that you guys don't like me challenging williams.
> *shrug* I've already said what I had to say in response to it. As to
> Shawn Carew's question about "why would he _do_ that kind of thing, if
> only a few, or no, people, would get it?" Ok, why not? It's called an
> INJOKE, and it's not like wrestling isn't full of those already. From
You know what is funny about this? In a funny way, it proves why I did not
believe williams in the first place. A few of you guys see this as something
it is not. I don't know why you do. It pissed me off a little at first, but
now it's funny. The injoke is that there is no injoke, so the joke is on you I
guess. It proves that williams may be wrong about Raven too, since if he is
saying my posts are a joke based on no fact, he may be doing the same thing
with Raven. That proves what I was saying right there, that he may be wrong.
> naming jobbers after people one doesn't like (Mikey Whipwreck, Keith
> Schera, The Beverly Brothers) all the way to 1.5 million reasons Hulk
> Hogan is in a good mood these days, it's fun to "put one across" on
> multiple levels. Various literary figures have done the same thing,
> from Robert Anton Wilson in the Illuminatus! trilogy, to the works of
> Vladimir Nabokov (who made art of pedophilia and incest in _Lolita_
> and _Ada_ respectively). As fans get smarter, some people have realized
> that the angles have to get smarter-- or at least subtler-- as well. I
> think it's obvious that a lot of ECW's angles deliberately tap into the
> underground of sexuality, either in a real (porn stars as guest stars?
> valets renowned for exotic dancing or making sadomasochistic films?) or
> imagined (lesbian/sadomasochistic/damn near transsexual angles) sense.
> Why is anyone surprised that one of ECW's main angles has "disturbing
> homoerotic undertones," or for that matter, that it might really bother
> some people to have that pointed out? *shrug*
I never said it did not have those tone. I said that it being based on all of
the guys vying for Raven's love was wrong, in my opinion. Williams said I was
wrong. He would never come right out and say why I was wrong. He just
expected all of us to take his word as the truth. Henry did this. I won't.
> I think Scott Levy has studied the sexual underworld quite accurately,
> and is enjoying putting one over on the "straight" world. No, I don't
> "know" that for certain, I have never spoken to him in person. But it
> _is_ a fairly accurate portrayal of several kinky gay male stereotypes,
> and I can't imagine that he got them all right JUST by accident. *grin*
And I disagree with you but since you said it was just your opinion, I won't
argue with you. I just think he is david koresh.
> Obviously, _my_ masculinity is not in the slightest bit threatened. ;)
>
>ObWrestling: I didn't get the subtext of the Raven angle until this
>thread started. I knew there was *something* there...
>
> That's because you've lived such a sheltered life, Hombre. *grin*
>
> ObWrestling: I also thought Thunder was a damn good show, with a few
> mid-card angles I didn't want to see but could easily ignore (Steiners,
> Goldberg, the stillborn so-called "martial-arts" division-- what next,
> "Shootfighting" Jim Duggan?) but a lot of damn good wrestling at its
> center. I don't mind run-ins that happen _after_ the match NEARLY as
> much, and I really appreciate Marty Jannetty putting over Benoit and
> Malenko back to back. He must be looking at Martel and asking himself
> where he went wrong... and I better not finish that sentence just to
> be on the safe side (or I'll have Lawl...@aol.com looking for me...).
I liked Thunder too. It was a good show. It's a shame that talking wrestling
is not what some of you guys do here. It would be more fun if you did.
Lee Morey
-----BEING PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not even a token ObWrestling, since this is very off-topic now. Anybody
other than "Hayabus2345" who wants to follow up, please take it to email.
Thanks.
*****
From hayab...@aol.com Sun Jan 25 02:03:33 PST 1998
I was going to just drop this whole thing but some of you people are just so
insane I can't believe it.
So, instead you post another article (or 2) trying to bait people into
responding? Nah, you're having too much fun playing "why is everybody
always picking on me?" for that. "He's a clown, that Charlie Brown..."
I just asked williams a simple question. I did not get out of line or break
any TOS of any kind. A few of you guys are just crazy. I said it before that
if he doesn't want to answer he does not have to, but all you guys ganging up
on me makes he wonder what he has to hide.
Yeah, hiding it right out in the open, he is. What part of "I know it
for a fact" don't you understand, "Hayabus2345?"
Some people said yesterday that you were ganging up on me and it was amazing I
did not jump back on you. I don't want to do that, and am not going to.
Let me guess: you're getting a "lot of support in email", right? So if
we're ganging up on you, why are you continuing to post here, then? Or
are you going to bring your friends from AOL along for support?
I think anyone who reads this board can see that you guys are the ones who
are being crazy.
Well, it's always nice to know who you're dealing with, isn't it? ;)
>From: gsa...@primenet.com (Lee Morey)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>- From bill...@primenet.com Fri Jan 23 15:13:15 PST 1998
>
>In article <34c85a68...@news.planet.eon.net>,
>Scott Keith <ske...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>Just to jump in here as in impartial observer of this rather odd thread,
>>I'd like to point out that the two Johns are really coming off as a couple
>>of sanctimonious assholes here who are giving the runaround to a guy who
>>seems to be asking a fairly simple question. I've been reading it for a
>>few days and there's no other way to put it.
>
>You sure? It seems to me like the two Johns are tag teaming a guy who's
>trying to work the group.
>
> Considering that "Hayabus2345's" supposedly second/duplicate post had
> a posting time which was hours PRIOR to his supposedly first post...
Supposedly? If you look, it was a different post. I have seen the people
who asked for a moderated group say they want to have a good discussion.
I posted an interesting topic to do that and how did you guys act? Like
jerks.
The "second" post was a different post than the "first" becase it had
an apology for posting it twice attached to the front of it. The word
"supposedly" was referring to the fact that it claimed to be a "second"
post when, at least according to the header information, it was first.
By the way, you repeated part of that pattern in posting a copy of your
response to me on its own-- that is to say, completely out of context--
to try and start a new thread. Looking for more of that groundswell of
support, no doubt? Also BTW, I notice you brought up "people who asked
for a moderated group" in this response. Well, I've seen quite a few
people ask for a moderated newsgroup in the last few months (and yes,
also a few who are adamantly against it) and frankly, very few of them
have been involved in this thread, So, are all the others all on trial
now too?
And if you've been following the moderation discusion _that_ closely,
"Hayabus2345," you must have been reading this newsgroup for a while.
So... you really should have known who you might be dealing with before
you started this discussion, shouldn't you?
> Considering that "Hayabus2345" seems intent on nailing Torch writers
> in general and John Williams in particular...
You are wrong. I did not "nail" anyone. I asked questions and gave my
opinion. john williams is intent on nailing me, just because I disagreed with
him. Is his opinion of himself that weak that he can't just answer a question
I asked?
Ok, would you prefer I used the word "corner" instead? And he answered
your question. If you refuse to believe what he said... that's up to
you, "Hayabus2345." If you refuse to believe what Bruce Mitchell says
he sees in the Raven angle... that's up to you, "Hayabus2345." If you
refuse to believe what several other people have told you that they see
in the Raven angle... that's up to you, "Hayabus2345." If the only way
you'll believe that the Raven angle has kinky gay erotic subtext is to
hear it directly from Raven's mouth to your ear, "Hayabus2345..."then
heck, it's rather pointless of you to ask us what _we_ think, isn't it?
The person you should be asking is Scott Levy. So, go ask him already.
> Considering that rsp-w has had a recurring history of people hiding
> behind an AOL alias, or aliases, to attack specific posters or other
> persons while remaining "hidden" in turn (Liebers, Paulley73, etc.)...
How am I hidden? I am not hidden at all! You just think you are sherlocke
holmes. Well, there is no mystery to solve here. I think that anyone can see
that you guys don't like me challenging williams.
As a long-time poster to this newsgroup, John Williams has contributed
to the discussion of professional wrestling here with both opinions and
facts, Many of those (opinions and facts both) have been independently
confirmed by words and/or actions of people within the wrestling world.
I'd say that's a fairly good track record. Whereas your "track record"
on rsp-w... but then, you don't have one, do you, "Hayabus2345?" Other
than these posts, I mean. *shrug*
> *shrug* I've already said what I had to say in response to it. As to
> Shawn Carew's question about "why would he _do_ that kind of thing, if
> only a few, or no, people, would get it?" Ok, why not? It's called an
> INJOKE, and it's not like wrestling isn't full of those already. From
You know what is funny about this? In a funny way, it proves why I did
not believe williams in the first place. A few of you guys see this as
something it is not. I don't know why you do. It pissed me off a little
at first, but now it's funny. The injoke is that there is no injoke, so
the joke is on you I guess. It proves that williams may be wrong about
Raven too, since if he is saying my posts are a joke based on no fact, he
may be doing the same thing with Raven. That proves what I was saying
right there, that he may be wrong.
No one is 100% right all the time. But some people _are_ more "right"
than others, while some people are more "wrong." Like some people back
their opinions up with facts, and others do not. And on the contrary,
I don't think your posts are a joke at all, "Hayabus2345." And from
what I KNOW-- yes, "know"-- of John D. Williams, he doesn't think that
either, But if the joke's on us, then so be it. It won't be the first
time... and it probably won't be the last either. *shrug*
> naming jobbers after people one doesn't like (Mikey Whipwreck, Keith
> Schera, The Beverly Brothers) all the way to 1.5 million reasons Hulk
> Hogan is in a good mood these days, it's fun to "put one across" on
> multiple levels. Various literary figures have done the same thing,
> from Robert Anton Wilson in the Illuminatus! trilogy, to the works of
> Vladimir Nabokov (who made art of pedophilia and incest in _Lolita_
> and _Ada_ respectively). As fans get smarter, some people have realized
> that the angles have to get smarter-- or at least subtler-- as well. I
> think it's obvious that a lot of ECW's angles deliberately tap into the
> underground of sexuality, either in a real (porn stars as guest stars?
> valets renowned for exotic dancing or making sadomasochistic films?) or
> imagined (lesbian/sadomasochistic/damn near transsexual angles) sense.
> Why is anyone surprised that one of ECW's main angles has "disturbing
> homoerotic undertones," or for that matter, that it might really bother
> some people to have that pointed out? *shrug*
I never said it did not have those tone. I said that it being based on
all of the guys vying for Raven's love was wrong, in my opinion. Williams
said I was wrong. He would never come right out and say why I was wrong.
He just expected all of us to take his word as the truth. Henry did this.
I won't.
So then, why would you believe him even if he gave his word that he had
heard Scott Levy make exactly that statement? *shrug*
> I think Scott Levy has studied the sexual underworld quite accurately,
> and is enjoying putting one over on the "straight" world. No, I don't
> "know" that for certain, I have never spoken to him in person. But it
> _is_ a fairly accurate portrayal of several kinky gay male stereotypes,
> and I can't imagine that he got them all right JUST by accident. *grin*
And I disagree with you but since you said it was just your opinion, I won't
argue with you. I just think he is david koresh.
*shakes head* No, the WWF's Jackal is a "David Koresh type". Raven is
something different. Subtle, on a number of levels... but unmistakably
a bit different. But as my father once said, "You are entitled to your
opinion. Even if it's wrong."
> Obviously, _my_ masculinity is not in the slightest bit threatened. ;)
>
>ObWrestling: I didn't get the subtext of the Raven angle until this
>thread started. I knew there was *something* there...
>
> That's because you've lived such a sheltered life, Hombre. *grin*
>
> ObWrestling: I also thought Thunder was a damn good show, with a few
> mid-card angles I didn't want to see but could easily ignore (Steiners,
> Goldberg, the stillborn so-called "martial-arts" division-- what next,
> "Shootfighting" Jim Duggan?) but a lot of damn good wrestling at its
> center. I don't mind run-ins that happen _after_ the match NEARLY as
> much, and I really appreciate Marty Jannetty putting over Benoit and
> Malenko back to back. He must be looking at Martel and asking himself
> where he went wrong... and I better not finish that sentence just to
> be on the safe side (or I'll have Lawl...@aol.com looking for me...).
I liked Thunder too. It was a good show. It's a shame that talking wrestling
is not what some of you guys do here. It would be more fun if you did.
Funny, I don't have a problem talking about wrestling with other people
on this newsgroup. I do have a problem with personal attacks on people
by anonymous posters from AOL. If I've misjudged you, "Hayabus2345..."
then I will apologize when the time comes. But I don't think I have,
But if you want to discuss professional wrestling, this is your spot.
Shoot your best shot, I'm sure you'll find someone else to do it with.
In the meantime, like a true gentleman, I always leave others the last
word. Good day, sir.
Lee Morey, The Dark Cheetah, exiting stage left in a flash of... you know.
===========================================================================
from Mae West's "Goin' to Town", Mae as Cleo:
Cleo: What do you know about me?
Carrington: Just what I see, and that's quite sufficient.
Cleo: Hmm, you're easily satisfied.
===========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNLYsCbNT+fE7BL25AQEGGAQAh00Jqq5mKzfwBOiGOcUCqj6vw2VRM4Bl
1FzZ+ENlvVps7pfwNBj4VfrAoHbFNChyaEHgXcwZ29YDCxtGCHKBA+II3XoacetR
P9OC3XsJBUA/Pf/ECVw5wD6qM/3+jI//bBqWIVZAr+EgOmnkbEeyas2nZtOARwhT
V6F2CnTb2IA=
=qYvu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----