Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane Knight
Don't be stupid.
I'm not sure why people mistake pragmatism for opposition, but I've already explained that if it happens, cool.
Saying that it's probable, or "highly likely" in your case flies in the face of what's going on.
It's "highly likely" that WWE would advertise such a drastic change, especially on their website. It's "Highly likely" that WWE would go the more efficent route (from their perspective). It's "highly likely" WWE would choose to impact one show instead of potentially two.
There is almost no reason for them to do otherwise, except for "I want it to happen" or "I'm too thick to understand contractual agreements, so WWE legal must be as well!"
This in no way means I'm "against" the idea. This also in no way means I think it can't happen, won't happen, or is in any other practical way impossible. If probability favoring one result over another was conclusive, there would be no such thing as gambling and Bah Gawd, I was born and baptised into the Boston sports scene. If rooting for the Sox against 80 years of loss doesn't prove I'll hope against the odds, nothing will.
Or, as Noid (and evidently you) would put it, "Kane Knight hates the idea and guarantees it will never ever happen."
|
This is something you can't really advertise because it is a special case, however, I see your point and I just saw on wwe.com they are advertising it now as Smackdown invading Raw this week. So, it is being advertised.
Maybe the reason I came to the conclusion about your opinion was because you are a Sox fan and I am a Yankees fan, so we can't get along lol. Just kidding.