I just realized something after reading Paul Heyman's thoughts on Punk winning the title...

People's (Mainly BDC's) problem with Punk vs. Taker is that Punk's whole straight edge thing he's been using as a heel against Hardy doesn't really fit a Taker feud and there's nothing he can play off of.

The Punk-Hardy feud initially started with Punk cashing in against Hardy after a hard fought ladder match with Edge left Hardy unable to defend himself. Punk's original beef was that he was planning on cashing in anyway and the fans were so angry at him simply because the "good guy" won the match and ended up being the one he cashed in on as opposed to Edge.

Now, Punk beats Hardy fair and square, no cheating, he did nothing unfair. He did what he says he is all about... he took no shortcuts and proved himself as the better man. And what happens? He gets attacked by Taker for no reason other than Taker wanting the world title... EXACTLY the same thing that happened to Jeff Hardy that got Punk alienated by the fans. Yet unlike Punk when he did it, Taker gets cheered for it.

And there you have a very valid point that Punk can hang his hat on for the duration of the feud. At least I hope he does. It makes too much sense for him to ignore.

I don't even think CM Punk and Undertaker should be feuding. In fact, I think they have a lot in common:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_qiy5xFMsc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_qiy5xFMsc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I like it.

And by the way, don't you do this every time Noid says anything at all?