Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

Back in my day, troll posters on forums had a single gimmick and had to rely on the content of their posts to gain irritation. Views and jokes that didn't always work, but at least they tried and kept going. There was psychology and a narrative to the trolling.

Nowadays, if a troll poster's gimmick doesn't work, they just create a new gimmick and try something new. No psychology, no learning. Just the Internet equivalent of dives to the outside and flippy shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Back in my day, troll posters on forums had a single gimmick and had to rely on the content of their posts to gain irritation. Views and jokes that didn't always work, but at least they tried and kept

Bit of chat in other threads about this but it's worth a discussion. Daft old cunt The Undertaker has been opening his gob on Joe Rogan. Obviously had some comments about not watching WWE which are in

He's spent the better part of 25 years desperately trying to convince people that he's an MMA hard man and not a bloke in a shit drag queen's make-up pretending to be a zombie wizard. It's such an inf

Posted Images

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, Cannibal Man said:

he needed 9 people to curtain him off so he could go for a piss when I saw him, whereas the lad dressed up as Undertaker was letting you hold his collection of yellow and blue Intercontinental belts and fucking all sorts, even the lad dressed as Doink was better at fan interaction.

That U.K. Undertaker tribute lad might have to freshen his act up now though
Would a free photo of you, holding IC titles, stood with a tall lad in a hunting jacket, a Navy Seals bandana, who hates modern men and Road Rash still be of interest?

Edited by Kaz Hayashi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris B said:

Back in my day, troll posters on forums had a single gimmick and had to rely on the content of their posts to gain irritation. Views and jokes that didn't always work, but at least they tried and kept going. There was psychology and a narrative to the trolling.

Nowadays, if a troll poster's gimmick doesn't work, they just create a new gimmick and try something new. No psychology, no learning. Just the Internet equivalent of dives to the outside and flippy shit.

Making baseless assumptions without backing yourself up is the internet equivalent of a superkick. It doesn't mean anything anymore 'cos every shitarse is doing it to appeal to Dem Wans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Back in my day, troll posters on forums had a single gimmick and had to rely on the content of their posts to gain irritation. Views and jokes that didn't always work, but at least they tried and kept going. There was psychology and a narrative to the trolling.

Nowadays, if a troll poster's gimmick doesn't work, they just create a new gimmick and try something new. No psychology, no learning. Just the Internet equivalent of dives to the outside and flippy shit.

They quote tweet instead of replying on Twitter to wrestlers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, Perry said:

In a similar vein, most people used to shit on The Big Bang Theory because it ripped the piss out of nerds. In most cases you only had to click on the haters profiles on twitter and you'd see that they were gamers and geeks who were clearly offended. Most probably hadn't even watched an episode. At the end of the day the show ran for 12 seasons, they were obviously doing something right.

I think you’ll find people shat on it for it being shit, nothing more. I’ll admit, I’ve never managed a whole episode because I’ve just thought it wasn’t funny in the slightest. Something being popular by the masses doesn’t mean something is good. See Trump and Tory supporters as proof of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

The idea that Undertaker became a "special attraction" is always something I've found laughable, especially when people compare him to Andre. 

Agree with most of what you're saying, but I find it hard to agree that Taker wasnt an attraction.

Vince didn't dust him down for Mania after Mania and pay him bazillions to do the Middle Eastern shows for the hell of it, he did it because Big Mark moves the needle and draws tickets, buys and ratings. 

If Taker wasn't an attraction then who is?

Edited by IronSheik
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Liam O'Rourke said:

The idea that Undertaker became a "special attraction" is always something I've found laughable, especially when people compare him to Andre. 

Agree with most of what you're saying, but I find it hard to agree that Taker wasnt an attraction.

Vince didn't dust him down for Mania after Mania and pay him bazillions to do the Middle Eastern shows for the hell of it, he did it because Big Mark moves the needle and draws tickets, buys and ratings. 

If Taker wasn't an attraction then who is?

Edited by IronSheik
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I think you’ll find people shat on it for it being shit, nothing more. I’ll admit, I’ve never managed a whole episode because I’ve just thought it wasn’t funny in the slightest. Something being popular by the masses doesn’t mean something is good. See Trump and Tory supporters as proof of that.

Caught the episode where they were on a train with the actor from the Terminator series. 

Cringe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
26 minutes ago, IronSheik said:

Vince didn't dust him down for Mania after Mania and pay him bazillions to do the Middle Eastern shows for the hell of it, he did it because Big Mark moves the needle and draws tickets, buys and ratings.

That doesn’t mean anything. Being wanted by one family of money marks doesn’t make you a draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
4 hours ago, Perry said:

In a similar vein, most people used to shit on The Big Bang Theory because it ripped the piss out of nerds. In most cases you only had to click on the haters profiles on twitter and you'd see that they were gamers and geeks who were clearly offended. Most probably hadn't even watched an episode. At the end of the day the show ran for 12 seasons, they were obviously doing something right.

People to this day still shit on Big Bang Theory; not because it "ripped the piss out of nerds", but because it was lowest-common denominator and lazily-written shite. The only thing they did right was produce half-an-hours worth of dinner time TV every week for 12 seasons in order to sell commercials.

Anyway, back to 'Taker. Shite opinions, weird/sad relationship with his boss, partly responsible for a toxic backstage environment but does have a good resume of matches to his name. Swings and roundabouts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IronSheik said:

Agree with most of what you're saying, but I find it hard to agree that Taker wasnt an attraction.

Vince didn't dust him down for Mania after Mania and pay him bazillions to do the Middle Eastern shows for the hell of it, he did it because Big Mark moves the needle and draws tickets, buys and ratings. 

If Taker wasn't an attraction then who is?

This is the argument I want someone to make - and not for me to shit on it, but hear it out. Looking objectively, he drew well with Warrior in 91, did well at Summerslam 98 (a good opponent for a real star in Austin), did a couple of massive ratings (also with Austin) in 99, then really wasn't a big difference maker until he had success in the match with Shane at Mania 32 (which was honestly more about Shane and the cell). He wasn't a consistent house show draw above the norm for all those years by any stretch. He also has many bad numbers to his name as well as good ones in the headline position. But when you break down averages, while he had successes for sure, its situational like anybody else, not some Andre-like consistency that deserves this mythical special attraction title. 

Taker was great at being a number 2 or 3 guy you can cycle in to a top program on occasion, and depending on circumstance, it might draw well, or it might not. 

Again, what period can you say that if Taker wasn't there, the WWF/E would be noticably different in terms of success?

Edited by Liam O'Rourke
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

No matter how good Undertaker is or was, the fact is his career became all about The Streak and despite it being the only thing keeping him relevant for over 10 years the second his boss asked him to lose he did it without asking because he's a bitch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's mad that the HBK matches had to be the standard til he clearly just couldn't be fucked any more. The embarrassing cryarsing in all the HHH matches never did anything for me. CM Punk match was good and worth it just for that mad bit where they had Punk pur the ashes of Paul Bearer onto himself and rub it into his skin

Edited by Cannibal Man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...