Remember the PTC?

[Kane Knight]

Thanks to the thread in Discussion forum, I was looking around on their site for a laugh or two. Found this:

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/familyguide/weekly.asp

Friday Night Smackdown! Is listed as "Not yet rated by the PTC."

Ignoring the fact that Numb3rs, which deals with very violent crimes sometimes, is rated the same way as America's Funniest Home Videos, the fact that the guys who were campaigning to get rid of WWF/E's programming (and inevitably leading to the Right to Censor) don't have ANYTHING to say about the show makes me chuckle a little.

[Mr. Aristocrat]

When SmackDown was getting huge ratings it was the worse thing on television, and now that the viewing audience has moved on it's amazing how suddenly it just doesn't seem that bad anymore...

Actually that's not entirly fair, WWE has nerf'd itself and lost the edgy characters and angles in many ways...though I would imagine it wouldn't take but a few minutes of a JBL promo before they could find something to get mad at.

[Nervous Ferret]

How does one Nerf themselves :shifty:

[Kalyx triaD]

They hate Tuesday nights.

[loopydate]

Betcha they'll have an opinion on ECW.

[Corkscrewed]

ECW won't be on network TV

[loopydate]

That's right. I forgot they only did the networks.

[Kane Knight]

That's right. I forgot they only did the networks.

Yeah, though people are now pushing for them to do Cable as well, but I doubt it'll happen. Do you have any idea how many channels they'd have to cover? They can barely cover 6 networks.

[Kane Knight]

How does one Nerf themselves :shifty:

Did you see the Boogeyman wrestling with all those balls stuck to him?

It's NerF or nothing.

[Disturbed316]

Are you sure you don't mean the lame stable with Steven Richards and the Goodfather?

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

Are you sure you don't mean the lame stable with Steven Richards and the Goodfather?

Um, yeah, that was the RTC...directly based on the PTC...

[Kane Knight]

Are you sure you don't mean the lame stable with Steven Richards and the Goodfather?
Thanks to the thread in Discussion forum, I was looking around on their site for a laugh or two. Found this:

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/familyguide/weekly.asp

Friday Night Smackdown! Is listed as "Not yet rated by the PTC."

Ignoring the fact that Numb3rs, which deals with very violent crimes sometimes, is rated the same way as America's Funniest Home Videos, the fact that the guys who were campaigning to get rid of WWF/E's programming (and inevitably leading to the Right to Censor) don't have ANYTHING to say about the show makes me chuckle a little.

[¡Coñaso!]

Are you sure you don't mean the lame stable with Steven Richards and the Goodfather?

:-\ That stable and the whole idea of the RTC in general had SOOO much potential. It makes me sad it didn't get pushed as hard as it did.
Although that music was just... BAD!

[Kane Knight]

:-\ That stable and the whole idea of the RTC in general had SOOO much potential. It makes me sad it didn't get pushed as hard as it did.
Although that music was just... BAD!

It's a shame they didn't get pushed as much as they were? :wtf:

[¡Coñaso!]

It's a shame they didn't get pushed as much as they were? :wtf:

I don't know what your mocking, me liking the RTC or if your trying to make fun of my grammer skills.
Although it does sound kinda retarded, if your trying to make fun of the grammer then yeah, it makes sense.
It's a shame they weren't pushed more. Could be another way to say it.

And if it doesn't make sense them umm... :shifty: fuck you!

[Kane Knight]

I don't know what your mocking, me liking the RTC or if your trying to make fun of my grammer skills.
Although it does sound kinda retarded, if your trying to make fun of the grammer then yeah, it makes sense.
It's a shame they weren't pushed more. Could be another way to say it.

And if it doesn't make sense them umm... :shifty: fuck you!

Sorry, but saying they weren't as popular as they were contradicts itself immediately. If you had said "harder than they did," instead of "as much as" it would have worked.

[Batsu]

They're like the WWFund. Opportunists at the best. WWE is mostly a shadow of its former self now, not drawing in the kind of money and ratings it used to... so the PTC is like, "uh, does this show exist?"

This isn't 100% surprising, but it is funny.

[Kane Knight]

LOL. I love how people use every opportunity to attack the WWF. Please kids, don't eat paint chips.

[Disturbed316]

THE WWF LOVE PANDA'S AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG KIND OF LOVE!

[Corkscrewed]

HPA!! HPA!!! HPA!!!

[Batsu]

LOL. I love how people use every opportunity to attack the WWF. Please kids, don't eat paint chips.

I don't see where the paint chip-eating "charge" comes from. WWFund, who could have taken action earlier, used the gay "scratch logo" as a basis for another suit after the agreement ran out (which really, the "scratch logo" didn't really violate)...as an excuse to take advantage of WWE's supposed "market confusion" (which even most non-wrestling fans would agree, that confusing the two would be like confusing the BBC (UK TV network) with a non-sequitur Bobby's Barbeque Company (abbreviated to BBC)). They also sued after winning the injunction, to recover supposed "damages" from said confusion, but tried to get a multi-million dollar settlement; this from a non-profit org with good intentions? Opportunism at its finest. It's largely reminiscent of WWE Legal's ..... crap. That's what makes it funny.

As for the PTC, it's largely the same shit. Though there were no suits between PTC and WWE, PTC only seemed to find an excuse to levy their idiocy on WWE when WWE was the "hot shit" on TV. Now that WWE has moved further away from that status, PTC couldn't care very much. If WWE ever gets back to its 1998-2001 "run" on TV, yanking all this advertising money for whatever station it's on, maybe the PTC will find the time to "rate" them again.

[Kane Knight]

I don't see where the paint chip-eating "charge" comes from. WWFund, who could have taken action earlier, used the gay "scratch logo" as a basis for another suit after the agreement ran out (which really, the "scratch logo" didn't really violate)...as an excuse to take advantage of WWE's supposed "market confusion" (which even most non-wrestling fans would agree, that confusing the two would be like confusing the BBC (UK TV network) with a non-sequitur Bobby's Barbeque Company (abbreviated to BBC)). They also sued after winning the injunction, to recover supposed "damages" from said confusion, but tried to get a multi-million dollar settlement; this from a non-profit org with good intentions? Opportunism at its finest. It's largely reminiscent of WWE Legal's ..... crap. That's what makes it funny.

As for the PTC, it's largely the same shit. Though there were no suits between PTC and WWE, PTC only seemed to find an excuse to levy their idiocy on WWE when WWE was the "hot shit" on TV. Now that WWE has moved further away from that status, PTC couldn't care very much. If WWE ever gets back to its 1998-2001 "run" on TV, yanking all this advertising money for whatever station it's on, maybe the PTC will find the time to "rate" them again.

The World Wildlife Fund had a potential suit in the 80s in which they came up with a good-faith agreement between them and then-World Wrestling Federation.

Paint Chip Point #1: They had an established agreement.

The WWF could have sued at any time, yes, but had no reason to.

Of course, come to the Attitude Era, and WWE was becoming more shocking, and The WWF felt that their good-faith agreement was being shat upon. Before suing, WWF tried to work it out with them.

Paint Chip Point #2: There was a bona fide attempt at resolution.

Further, Vince McMahon offered them money to change their name. They declined.

Paint Chip Point #3: It wasn't about the money.

WWE was only hit for "damages"after refusal to comply, fuckwit. Every step of the way, this was because of Vince's ego and drive to drop an F-U on the other guy. This wasn't opportunism, it's not comparable, and you are posting totally misinformed on the nature of this, like so many of the fucktards who just go ZOMG THE PANDAS ARE GREEDY! And went with what they had heard from some other paint-eating knuckle-scraper.

Hell, let's apply Occam's Razor. If this was about money, why did WWF not sue during the Hulkamania Era? Why enter into a good faith agreement instead?

Oh, wait, they wouldn't. That makes no sense at all, especially when they could have made money off some sort of real financial arrangement.

They would be comparable if:


Vince hadn't violated good faith
Vince hadn't refused to try and deal until after the suits were in progress
Vince hadn't refused to comply initially (And then continued not to comply in other countries)
Buuuuut, sadly, there was no opportunism here. Retribution, perhaps, but your argument requires a total abscence of the real matters of the case.

[.44 Magdalene]

Pandas are greedy. I have no bamboo left.

[Kane Knight]

Pandas are greedy. I have no bamboo left.

Feel lucky. The bastard got me in the leg with his Desert Eagle at dinner. When the cops asked for an explaination, he pointed to the "diet" portion of the Encyclopedia. "Eats Shoots and Leaves."