|
02-15-2017, 12:07 PM | #1 | |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Quote:
|
|
02-15-2017, 09:49 PM | #2 | |
Posts: 60,958
|
Quote:
Turns out people who think they are so much smarter than other people because they do "harder" degrees (and as I said in your rep, my sister did a Bachelor of Business and can't change her oil), aren't that smart at all. Isn't it funny how you're around a bunch of like-minded people in one scenario, but when it suits you suddenly you are around "smart" people when you are being agreed with? I've never met someone who describes themselves as a genius who wasn't an underwhelming bore. Real geniuses don't need to go around doing that. You're constantly outsmarted by people on these forums and they never describe themselves as geniuses. While I do think you are trolling, I actually do think you believe yourself to be smarter than most people. The thing is, you're not very good at debating. You constantly make huge leaps in logic. You're constantly projecting and generalizing (you constantly reference people reading Meltzer like it's a fetish, but I can honestly say I've never read anything other than an extract -- this makes you WRONG). The straw-men are abundant and you shift the goals so much they aren't even on the field anymore. I mention RAW's audience being worse than decimated since it's gone to three hours and you respond with an IRRELEVANT side to this not being notable because cable television is generally decreasing. How does this at all retort the possibility that a two hour show would be more digestible, as the third hour drop-off seems to imply? Which other cable television show even goes three hours to compare it to? It completely evades the question and addresses a different issue. A smarter response would have been to point out that correlation is not causation, but you have already proven in the Baron Corbin thread that you do not understand that argument. Some genius you are. #AlternativeFacts I used to buy the argument that you are a nice dude with some alternative viewpoints, but your inability to structure an argument, respond to what is being discussed, address criticisms of your arguments without resorting to personal dismissals and your displayed sense of superiority makes me think that you are probably the poster in here that I'd least like to catch up with over a beer. I bet you have a lot of opinions about things that you try to pass off as facts, and, perhaps even worse than that, I bet you're fucking boring. You're worse than a troll pretending to be a WWE mark -- you're a mark for yourself. And it's clear that: |
|
02-15-2017, 10:02 PM | #3 | |
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
I'll address the ratings piece, because the rest is a bore. My deal with ratings, and I've said this about a hundred times, is that WWE is a business. They are trying to make money. The state of the cable industry is RELEVANT because the WWE will generate a rights fee deal based on their numbers vs the competition and what USA or another network thinks that's worth. WWE was asked to add a third hour and they got paid big dollars for it. Unless WWE can drive ratings in two hours that would lead to a larger rights fee deal than the current three hour state, they would be stupid to do that. For USA, RAW doing the ratings they do still drives up their averages. That leads to more as money. The problem is I present these positions to guys like you, and then you claim I don't back anything up. You're just ignorant to the industry. And the guy who you think is spot on, doesn't even understand a year over year chart. As for me as a person, I have met people from F4W and was universally well liked. I don't really care if you think I'm a mean person. But if you met me, I guarantee you would like me. Frankly, everyone does. |
|