Kane

Daysha

Deleted User wrote: »

And Rovert, for the last time, go ahead, make a Kane thread in PW. bash him. discuss him. Look down on him. Do as you feel. Just don't mention me in the thread and i wont care.

That's a pretty fair comment. Plus it gives rovert a chance to prove that he is able to discuss Kane without baiting you after all.

ShawnRaven

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the podcast that time, I don't recall VR/Minto ever trying to be asses to me in it. They made a joke about the Kane attire, but they weren't aware it was me, and the only other mention i recall is when Minto was talking about WWE merchandise and mentioned that i buy a lot of it. I don't recall anything hurtful being said at all. They went a little rough on Kane in the podcast, but I didn't care because it wasn't in a "lets talk about Kane to annoy KKV" kinda way.

Exactly rovert, he got it! We deliberately bashed Kane on that podcast because it was topical to the forum at the time, and we also knew it would get him (and possibly Comic Book Guy and K-N-N) listening in as well. That, to my understanding is self promotion, giving people reasons to listen. We joked about the Kane outfit, but hell, even KKV has joked about it.

On that podcast, we slagged off many a wrestler, hell rovert, we've even used you as the butt of a joke on it (do you actually speak like Chris Eubank btw?), you didn't go up in arms about it, why should KKV?

rovert

deise59 wrote: »

Why the hell is this topic still open!?!?

Rovert, here's what you were looking for, proof of you baiting KKV over the Kane issue. It just so happens to be a topic you linked us to back in post 13.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055407543

Read that topic, take a deep breath, and then re-read it to be doubley sure.

Now, who is the FIRST poster to mention Kane in that topic? Remember, the original discussion had NOTHING to do with Kane in the first place. It was about the new TNA set. Have you figured out the answer yet? You can use ctrl+f and enter kane and see whose post comes up if you like

Yes, it's you. You were the one that brought up Kane in the first place, knowing too well that the person you were replying to was going to react strongly to your comment. You baited him. You have your proof. End of.

Now for the love of the interweb, close this travesty of a topic.

Again that was around the same time of all the Kane threads and everyone in that thread except KKV of thought it was a fair point. It was so much fair point on viewing my post KKV inital reaction was as he had no reply to it. His reaction later was to fly off the handle:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=57716606

Sorry but it was a ludicious comment for him to make he even realised this and so was KKV saying Kane had a great back story. See thread for details.

Also didnt I tell KKV not take that comment as a cheapshot? Guess what he did.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

Sorry but it was a ludicious comment for him to make he even realised this and so was KKV saying Kane had a great back story.

I think Kane does have a great backstory. I'm pretty sure the majority of fans will name him or undertaker for 'best backstory'.

I'm entitled to that opinion anyway. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that Kane sucks.


I'm not going to reply anymore, the only reason i was actually replying this time was because..

ShawnRaven wrote: »

KKV, can you please start using my new nick? Not everyone here knows i went under a previous nick and you're just making yourself sound very confusing.

Thanks.

I didn't even realise. I just write VR out of habit.

VR + ShawnRaven = Same person for anyone unaware. My bad.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Kane does have a great backstory. I'm pretty sure the majority of fans will name him or undertaker for 'best backstory'.

You are entitled to your opinion but others are entitled to respond to it as:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57717155&postcount=35

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm entitled to that opinion anyway. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that Kane sucks.

KKV that isnt my opinion about Kane as Ive already pointed out already in this thread. My opinion isnt that strong. This is my point in a nutshell just because I posted factual statements just like the one above about a Wrestling character. Doesnt mean I hate them, that Im anti them, a basher or any other thing you want ot call me. Ive treated him as fairly as any other Wrester we talk about in the PW forum.

The Prowrestling forum has hit a new low

gimmick

Its been at a low ebb for about 6 months at this stage. And it looks like it will plummet further before it gets better.

Doctor DooM

rovert wrote: »

Where was this proof exactly? An out of context joke which other people thanked me for.

Me posting example after example of what Im talking about goes beyond strawmen. It is the norm rather that the exception.



Once again pretentious ape was a troll who posted verbal abuse which got deleted he re-reged the next day and posted more verbal abuse. He got banned twice in less than 24 hours. Ask the mods if you dont believe me. Ive never posted verbal abuse here.



Not a SINGLE person has chimed in to say "yeah, you're right!"

People have been critical of KKV tho. This isnt a popularity contest even though some here want to turn this thread into one. Ive a legitmate point, Ive stated my case and have provided examples.[/QUOTE]



1) There are now three examples of you mentioning Kane for no reason, including one OUTSIDE of the PW forum. Not one, and they don't appear to most as jokes. Which means, if you did honestly mean them as a joke, you need to reasses why no one else found them funny, except people, who were also at the time, baiting kane marks.

2) You did not post verbal abuse. You engaged in baiting. No one is saying you abused anyone. If you admit you did, surely the PW forum can get beyond it all.

3) Why mention KKV at all so Rover? I mention in that post he is to blame too, so why reply like I am singling you out? Why distract from the point I am making, instead of dealing with it? A regular technique of yours, I notice.

Thats called a strawman, Rover. You started this thread. You have the issue. Only person who can work on this and make it better is guess who?

rovert

SDooM wrote: »

1) There are now three examples of you mentioning Kane for no reason, including one OUTSIDE of the PW forum. Not one, and they don't appear to most as jokes. Which means, if you did honestly mean them as a joke, you need to reasses why no one else found them funny, except people, who were also at the time, baiting kane marks.

2) You did not post verbal abuse. You engaged in baiting. No one is saying you abused anyone. If you admit you did, surely the PW forum can get beyond it all.

3) Why mention KKV at all so Rover? I mention in that post he is to blame too, so why reply like I am singling you out? Why distract from the point I am making, instead of dealing with it? A regular technique of yours, I notice.

Thats called a strawman, Rover. You started this thread. You have the issue. Only person who can work on this and make it better is guess who?

Sigh I would repy but Ill be saying the exact same things to the extact same person. Id put it to you that the three examples are in fact strawmen as they were either taken out of context whether it be in light of posts from an abusive troll poster or me making a joke others at the time didnt object to or making a fair comment others at the time agreed with me in making.

Doctor DooM

rovert wrote: »

Sigh I would repy but Ill be saying the exact same things to the extact same person. Id put it to you that the three examples are in fact strawmen as they were either taken out of context whether it be in light of posts from an abusive troll poster or me making a joke others at the time didnt object to or making a fair comment others at the time agreed with me in making.

Fine then rover, it is everone else who is wrong in the problem they see. Your humour is perfect, everyone else is incapable of seeing it.

It is ok to bait someone into becoming an abusive troll. Because they did become an abusive troll, it is ok to retroactively change baiting into an ok thing.

Beruthiel

When the Admins all retire on their big fat earnings and leave me in charge, I'll be closing down the Wrestling Forum on the grounds it is more hassle than it's worth.

seamus

It should be under the "Television" category anyway.

Gordon

Theatre & Performing Arts imo