Necrophilia.
 

In every argument there are two points of view, and I wanted to try and raise a few points that do not seem to be commonly shared on this site:

Necrophilia regarded as positive by at least One fan shock:

This point may have many people rolling their eyes, but I would like to suggest a couple of reasons as to why the angle could have been, and was, a success-

-As an instrument through which HHH was able to show his sense of humour, the shocking image of him straddling a corpse was one that wrestling fans never thought they would be able to see, much like Hogan Vs Rock: Perhaps in retrospect the WWE would have been better served by making Necrophilia a weekly bit, like Piper's pit, used in a farcical manner, i.e. HHH dressed up as Kane 'Necro-raping' a famous person who had died in the last 7 days. I believe this would have increased ratings, if only because people would be tuning in to see how far HHH would go- would he rape the pope for example, and so forth.

-HHH took one for the team- it was an angle that was unlikely to be very popular, and he was willing to involve himself for the good of the WWE- which if it had taken off, would probably have resulted in a surge of buyrates, and selling of t-shirts.

-People forget that this angle was Kane's main event rub, HHH used this angle to degrade himself, and to some extent the sport, to help Kane get over in his gimmick- a necrophiliac. This may be a controversial point, but I believe that Kane would still be in the midcard had it not been for the necrophilia moment that defines his career.

-Ratings WERE up in the week that Necrophilia was used, and the week after ratings dropped (Perhaps because there was no necrophilia)

-Vince McMahon found the angle to be hilarious, and believed it would get over. He may not always be respected as a man who always does the correct thing within the business, but he is shrewd, and it was right to make an effort to increase ratings by using controversial angles- who's to say what might have happened had they NOT used necrophilia when they did. Can anyone think of anything else that happened in the WWE in the period of 2002 when Necrophilia became so prominent?

That's my 2 cents, please consider with an open mind accepting that someone's truth isn't necessarily gospel.

WOW. To quote from one of my favorite movies, "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

that's gotta be a joke. Just the line "-Ratings WERE up in the week that Necrophilia was used, and the week after ratings dropped (Perhaps because there was no necrophilia)" indicates that.

it's a very funny quote.... but I would have preferred a counter-point, you do realise, that in debating rules you don't actually win a debate purely by branding an argument illogical... if you are able to use factual and theoretical evidence to discredit my point, then you have won the debate. Like I said before, one person's 'truth' is not gospel, it's important to challenge the accepted order from time to time.

Where can I read the "debating rules"?

They're posted in Dark Kane's Lair.

I can't, because there are no rules to debating. Just because you said there is, doesn't mean there are. As you say, you can't take one persons truth as "gospel".

Say you are having a debate. if you were to say you had sex with the persons mother and left her in a field, and they ran off to check, I would say you have won the debate.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had suddenly been drafted for the debate team.

Try this:

The necrophillia angle was not advertised, but instead, a big mystery was advertised. It was an angle that interested a lot of people until they saw what was actually the fruits of said angle.

In order for your statement to have any logical backing, the people who bumped the ratings by watching would have had to have known it was going to happen.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't take your post seriously. There's a oerfectly good reason though: I don't.

Okay- sorry if I seemed patronising, I just don't understand how the necrophilia angle was any different to a number of angles that have nowhere near the same infamous reputation, say the Booker T race WM 19 angle, and the Nation of Domination- clearly a race angle, I would judge those to be far more offensive than a clearly fictional storyline involving what was meant to be a character (Triple H) illustrating his juvenile humour, and the fact that he acts without moral boundaries.

The entire angle was made to look like comedy, even if it's quality is in question. Nobody who has replied yet have offered any decent reason as to why this angle was particularly bad- even near as bad, as the number of race angles. I find it difficult to swallow, that the same people who bitch about the status quo being maintained, HHH on top on Raw, and Angle, Lesnar and Big Show (until recently) always being on top on smackdown are the same people who bitch when the WWE tried something new, which tanked in the long run, but at least demonstrated an acceptance by the writing staff that something had to change. Did you all act with shock the first time Austin flipped the bird at the fans, was that offensive? You are fans of an industry that maintains it's position by pandering to an audience of right wing fans- those who cannot handle 3D characters any more challenging than stereotypical racially defined ones- such as Salvatore Sincere, Iron Sheikh, and homophobic characters- such as Gorgeous George and Billy and Chuck: always used as heel for the right wing audience to boo because they have a lifestyle that does not please the fans.

I suppose this post has been a long winded way of trying to challenge the belief that wrestling owes us a Liberal Perspective of life. I am suggesting that instead, the WWE exists purely in the form of what is fundamentally lowbrow entertainment (Hardly a shock) Therefore, necrophilia is not against the grain of the WWE/F's long term booking and writing strategy. Any person who expects the WWE to regret using necrophilia in an angle is sadly mistaken, they wouldn't, because they know that for every 9 necrophilia's, there will be one angle that takes off like the Steve Austin foul-mouthed gimmick, and the money is with controversy as it always has been.

I hope this explains my position a little easier, and stops people rating me negatively due to a slightly clumsy point-making style.

YOUR KIDDING US..... RIGHT?

Oh and this:

Doesn't really line up with this:

So which is it? Usually, when you "debate," you try and offer a consistant argument.

By the way, I'm maintaining the following points about OJ Simpson:

-He didn't kill his wife. He was in the air when it happened.

-He killed his wife in self defense.

:lol: jesus, I can never give you rep.

Actually, winning a debate comes more in having convinced the most people that your side is correct, and to hell with what is true. For instance, suppose the year is 1430 and I'm trying to convince a roomful of people that the Earth is round. To this end I have a debate with a guy who insists that it is flat. I can present all the factual evidence I want, and my opponent's argument could consist of "this guy is dumb," and if people walk out of there still beleiving the Earth is flat, ching-ching, I still lost.

Took one for the team? Yeah, he took seven minutes and forty-two seconds (by my count) of TV time that could have been used to give a midcarder a solid chance at a match, and for what? To prove that he's a childish bastard who'll waste everybody's time pretending to fu</>ck a corpse?
And T-Shirts, that's a good one, to think we missed out on "I Screwed Your Brains Out" merchandise. There's a reason the angle didn't take off, it was STUPID. Personally I never thought it was immoral or shouldn't have been allowed, just STUPID.

Vince McMahon also beleives that people like A-Train, Mark Henry, and the Big Show are worthy main eventers. Vince McMahon also beleived we wanted to see the whole Al Wilson saga, Vince vs Gowen, Stephanie vs Sable, Vince vs Stephanie, Vince vs Undertaker, Shane vs Kane, and apparetnly beleives we want to see HHH with the belt. In other words: Vince beleives a lot of things.

HELP WANTED

.... SOMEONE REP KANE KNIGHT FOR ME. I CAN"T DO IT CUZ MY COMPUTER IS GAY!:@

As usual, the majority of this forum excel at an inability to provide any point when their own views are challenged. I have been able to put forwards points, which with a couple of exceptions, have been ignored; should I take this to mean that my 2nd post is commonly accepted and that necrophilia was not in fact, the death of wrestling, or even close to being as bad as the internet fans like to claim?

Are you trying to take over where Dark Kane left off?

You put forward an inconsistent argument.

You actually set up points that argue against one another.

Don't go talking about the ability to provide a point until you can do so yourself.

The clarified argument in the 2nd post is perfectly consistent, I challenge you to provide one piece of evidence to support your claim that the second post, which is what I explicitally referred to, contains any two points that directly contradict eachother. If you can't, then please refrain from picking at points made in a poast which I have subsequently corrected.

Actually, this is one of the main reasons I'm NOT taking you seriously, and operated under the presumption that this was a joke.

Your argument seems poorly put together and poorly thought out. I presumed the kinder of two obvious options (That you were joking rather than assuming that you were a moron for thinking this was a good argument).

Perhaps I was wrong.

:|

"please refrain from trying to sound smart."

Oh yeah. Good debate skills there, chief.

Your name is shit. Therefore meaning you have no taste, taste comes with intelligence, meaning you're thick as sh</>it.

LOL

What movie is that?

Debate requires a sensical argument on both sides, I'm yet to hear one in response. The original post was meant as a minor point, embellished with humour. The 2nd post has set out everything which this post is about, and now, hours later, you have still showed yourself unable to back up a single point you have made.

Liberal Perspective of life.

Next, I expect to hear you complain about how PC everything is.

The idea of controversy is to make people tune in. If people tune out, you have acheived the opposite effect. People tuned in to see what this shocking revalation was...They didn't come back, and ratings SUNK.

That "liberal perspective" seems to be present in enough wrestling fans to make it a bad business decision and a dumb choice. Nobody here's saying the WWE should be shut down, and I doubt anyone organised a boycott over it. They just said "enough is enough, you've crossed the line," and they tuned out.

Blah blah blah.

Sorry, I'm just not impressed by your anal insistence that I should back up my points when you display no real interest in putting forth any effort on your side.

This is what happens when you read and take seriously, the Ultimate Warrior's columns.

You've approached this with incredible hostility, and probably have acheived only a waste of time and a couple of yuks.

I so wish I could rep you again right now.

:lol:

don't you have some altar boys to lure away with candy?

I genuinely appreciate the fact that you have taken a moment to comment on the point. In response, I would agree that the angle tanked, I said so previously in this thread. I just wouldn't accept that it was any worse than a lot of other angles seen every week in wrestling, and when you consider the race angles, necrophilia is not on the same level of offense. Incidentally, I am going to take issue with being labelled as someone who would complain about how 'PC everything is' - clearly I wouldn't. My original point itself said how necrophilia wasn't as bad as people said it was, but I also disagree with a lot of race related angles that the WWF haas used in the past. That shows judgement based upon the issues, not upon an opposition to Political Correctness.

Me too dammit.

WTF^^^ It's like a Dark Kane army in here. Take them all down KK

I'm starting to think this guy graduated from the Eric Cartman "Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home" school of debate.

No, he doesn't.

He actually does them right there.

I have photos. :shifty:

It seems more like he is one.