Kid Kash Re Signs For TNA

[Carbomb]

How old are you? I thought you were a student, but if you started watching wrestling with WoS, you must be north of thirty. My first wrestling video rental was a WoS type thing from the seventies or eighties, about six months after I'd started watching WWF. in 1991 You can imagine my disappointment. Johnny McManus (or whoever) was no Hulk Hogan.

 

Nearly 32. I'm very much of the opinion that, like so many things, it's what you start with that colours your tastes; my favourite guy to watch when I started watching the WWF was Bret Hart, because he seemed so much like the guys I'd grown up on. I was impressed by Hogan's presence, but I never trusted him, and didn't particularly enjoy watching him - always seemed too flashy and plastic with a "Colgate" look; plus, with my school background, I never trusted the "sung heroes". Savage was OK because, even though he was flashy, he was clearly an absolute mental. I trusted the unsung guys like Bret, and, later on, Piper.

[Dirty Eddie]

Or, as is more likely, when you make a silly sweeping statement that Your King feels the need to there is no try mock. I do apologise if I ever mistakenly confuse you for, as you put it, "some stuck-in-2003 smark indy [sic] fan," Eddie, but you have to take some responsibility for that on account of you very frequently saying the same things as one.

 

Tosh, I say. Tosh.

 

If I recall our last petty squabble (because that's what they are ) was after you jumped in laughing at the 'fappers' for assuming WWE was telling the truth about a Sin Cara phone in mistake, "because it was their internet favourite, Sin Cara". That went on bloody ages before you changed the subject.

[King Pitcos]

Tosh, I say. Tosh.

 

If I recall our last petty squabble (because that's what they are ) was after you jumped in laughing at the 'fappers' for assuming WWE was telling the truth about a Sin Cara phone in mistake, "because it was their internet favourite, Sin Cara". That went on bloody ages before you changed the subject.

It was the combination of you doing that and, at the same time, making conspiracy theories about how WWE was putting out dishonest press releases about fining Undertaker and Triple H because they are your internet least-favourites, Undertaker and Triple H. "WWE is telling the truth if they are saying something I want them to say, but any other time, they're dirty liars" and all that. It wasn't as mental as Carbomb's recent Sin Cara/Triple H conspiracy theory, but it still needed mocking.

 

Nearly 32. I'm very much of the opinion that, like so many things, it's what you start with that colours your tastes; my favourite guy to watch when I started watching the WWF was Bret Hart, because he seemed so much like the guys I'd grown up on. I was impressed by Hogan's presence, but I never trusted him, and didn't particularly enjoy watching him - always seemed too flashy and plastic with a "Colgate" look; plus, with my school background, I never trusted the "sung heroes". Savage was OK because, even though he was flashy, he was clearly an absolute mental. I trusted the unsung guys like Bret, and, later on, Piper.

There's some truth in that. It's always been the characters that have drawn me in, really. But my tastes have changed. I used to love the thick-as-pigshit rubbish British muscleman they had in 1991, but I'm not a fan of Mason Ryan.

[Dirty Eddie]

 

 

It was the combination of you doing that and, at the same time, making conspiracy theories about how WWE was putting out dishonest press releases about fining Undertaker and Triple H because they are your internet least-favourites, Undertaker and Triple H. "WWE is telling the truth if they are saying something I want them to say, but any other time, they're dirty liars" and all that. It wasn't as mental as Carbomb's recent Sin Cara/Triple H conspiracy theory, but it still needed mocking.

 

 

I joked about the Triple H/Taker thing. I pointed this out in the thread at the time, you ignored it then too. You also assumed I'm a Triple H/Taker hater too, which is also wrong. You see a pattern here? Stop applying old "internet smark fan" cliches to me, they are not warranted.

[Carbomb]

It wasn't as mental as Carbomb's recent Sin Cara/Triple H conspiracy theory, but it still needed mocking.

 

It's not "mental", and doesn't need mocking. Maybe I don't know about the inner workings of a major corporation, but I'd hazard a guess you don't either. Given some of the stuff that's emerged about corporate politicking in the past, it's not unreasonable that such a thing might be possible. Politicking's pretty mental stuff anyway. I'm not saying that it's actually the case, by the way - as with so many things, rampant and fruitless speculation is fun.

 

There's some truth in that. It's always been the characters that have drawn me in, really. But my tastes have changed. I used to love the thick-as-pigshit rubbish British muscleman they had in 1991, but I'm not a fan of Mason Ryan.

 

I liked Bulldog, because he often pulled out WoS-style stuff every so often.

[King Pitcos]

I joked about the Triple H/Taker thing. I pointed this out in the thread at the time, you ignored it then too.

I don't recall that at all (I remember you using similar defences of it as Carbomb's just done), but alright then, my memory might be off.

 

Stop applying old "internet smark fan" cliches to me, they are not warranted.

I've just clicked on your recent posts to check whether I'm being unreasonable and there's one from yesterday about how they should do a storyline of indie darlings invading WWE.

[Carbomb]

What's wrong with my defence of what I was saying? I'm not lying that I was purely speculating, if that's what you're implying.

[King Pitcos]

The bit about how we don't know everything that goes on in WWE, so therefore we can't think a mad theory is mad.

[Dirty Eddie]

I don't recall that at all (I remember you using similar defences of it as Carbomb's just done), but alright then, my memory might be off.

 

 

I've just clicked on your recent posts to check whether I'm being unreasonable and there's one from yesterday about how they should do a storyline of indie darlings invading WWE.

 

The thread was about a "what if" scenario, everyone was getting into a bit of fantasy booking. If you actually read what I said, i clearly stated that an Indy Fed invasion (like RoH) would never work, and they'd have to present them as International talent. I also said how an 'invasion' would probably be a bad idea,but suggested a stable around Punk instead.

 

Carry on ignoring the context though.

[Carbomb]

The bit about how we don't know everything that goes on in WWE, so therefore we can't think a mad theory is mad.

 

Well, you can think it. Doesn't mean you're correct, as you're not the yardstick of rationality or reason. You're taking the position that "such-and-such is NOT possible, at all", and attempting to use your accepted knowledge, with no openness to the possibility that your grasp of the facts may not be complete, to reinforce that. I'm simply saying "it's a possibility - incredibly unlikely, and I really don't believe that's the case, but a possibility nevertheless, given that we've seen much more mental things actually happen in real life". It's just an exercise in creative thinking.

[King Pitcos]

The thread was about a "what if" scenario, everyone was getting into a bit of fantasy booking. If you actually read what I said, i clearly stated that an Indy Fed invasion (like RoH) would never work, and they'd have to present them as International talent. I also said how an 'invasion' would probably be a bad idea,but suggested a stable around Punk instead.

 

Carry on ignoring the context though.

That's not context, it's semantics.

 

Well, you can think it. Doesn't mean you're correct, as you're not the yardstick of rationality or reason.

I am.

 

You're taking the position that "such-and-such is NOT possible, at all", and attempting to use your accepted knowledge, with no openness to the possibility that your grasp of the facts may not be complete, to reinforce that. I'm simply saying "it's a possibility - incredibly unlikely, and I really don't believe that's the case, but a possibility nevertheless, given that we've seen much more mental things actually happen in real life". It's just an exercise in creative thinking.

I'm not saying it's 100% not possible. It's more possible than shit like the hologram planes and God. But it's mental. Anyway, talk about it in its own thread now, Carbomb, for fuck's sake. This is a thread about Kevin Nash going back to TNA.

[Carbomb]

I am.

 

 

I'm not saying it's 100% not possible. It's more possible than shit like the hologram planes and God. But it's mental. Anyway, talk about it in its own thread now, Carbomb, for fuck's sake. This is a thread about Kevin Nash going back to TNA.

 

Yeah, OK.

 

Anyway, that David Jericho - re-signed for TNA, eh?

[Dirty Eddie]

That's not context, it's semantics.

 

No, it's context.

 

You put forth the argument than I'm an Indy fapper type because I wrote about "how they should do a storyline of indie darlings invading WWE."

 

Ignoring the context that it was in a thread about 3 Indy wrestlers coming in and how they might be introduced. I wasn't trying to book RAW, just suggesting follow up to ideas other people had already mentioned. If I had started a thread titled "Jack Evan, Zigsaw and Davey Richards - the new nWo?" you might have a point, but I didn't and wouldn't.

[King Pitcos]

No, it's context.

 

You put forth the argument than I'm an Indy fapper type because I wrote about "how they should do a storyline of indie darlings invading WWE."

 

Ignoring the context that it was in a thread about 3 Indy wrestlers coming in and how they might be introduced. I wasn't trying to book RAW, just suggesting follow up to ideas other people had already mentioned.

I didn't ignore what thread it was in -- suggesting a storyline about indie darlings invading WWE in a thread about storylines about indie darlings invading WWE doesn't give it some grand new context that I've missed. It makes no odds that other people were suggesting indie darlings invade WWE in the same thread. If you get caught smoking as a lad, saying "other boys were smoking too" doesn't mean you weren't smoking, does it?

 

If I had started a thread titled "Jack Evan, Zigsaw and Davey Richards - the new nWo?" you might have a point, but I didn't and wouldn't.

I know you're trying to catch me out there -- Jack Evans and Zigsaw aren't real wrestler names.

[Dirty Eddie]

I didn't ignore what thread it was in -- suggesting a storyline about indie darlings invading WWE in a thread about storylines about indie darlings invading WWE doesn't give it some grand new context that I've missed. It makes no odds that other people were suggesting indie darlings invade WWE in the same thread. If you get caught smoking as a lad, saying "other boys were smoking too" doesn't mean you weren't smoking, does it?

 

There is a difference between discussing something in a "what if" situation, and preaching about or endorsing something.

 

You make out like I was all giddy about it, fantasy booking my fave indie darlings. I discussed something that other people had already brought up.

 

I post in all sorts of threads. Does responding to someone's idea with additions of your own mean you endorse everything being brought up in the discussion? I've often gotten into long discussions about women's wrestling, despite really not giving a shit about it.