Thread: What's so great about Booker T?
View Single Post
Old 05-28-2004, 03:27 AM   #79
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hot Scott
Is it the Spin-a-roonie? His average charisma? His average mic skills? That's all he is. Average. Yeah, he was a 5 Time Champion in the WCW. Didn't David Arquette win the title there too? Didn't Scott Steiner? So what's the big deal? What's so great about Booker T?
The post that started it all.

Note he didn't say anything about him being the next Rock/Angle, he didn't complain about how he was stacked against the best, he just talked about how average Booker is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hot Scott
He has a catch-phrase, so people assume he's a master on the mic. But when it comes to mic skills, he couldn't hold his own with someone like The Rock, or Austin, or Chris Jericho, or even Triple H. He's out of his element in that field.
Next, he goes into how he's not the Rock or Austin.

Well, he still hasn't brought up how people are claiming that Booker is the next Rocky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hot Scott
No, I'm saying Booker T and The Rock (or Austin, Jericho, or Triple H) aren't even in the same league. I'm saying Booker T isn't as good as those guys, and never will be, and trying to figure out why people think he is.
22 posts.

It takes 22 posts for him to get even close to what he claims he's trying to say. Now, this is the first indication that people might think Booker's the next Rock. On the other hand, since he's made no solid indication that it's even been said by anyone before, it's really hard to draw his conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hot Scott
People are saying he's above average ("above par"). I'm saying he's not.
A statement he's evidently trying to distance himself from. You know, since every time people bring up this sort of thing, he goes back to his other statement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hot Scott
People have said he could be the man in the company. I'm saying he can't. And I've tried to explain my reasoning. No, he isn't The Rock. So he's not one of the greatest, but Booker's still not as good as people think he is. How is that hard to understand?
David Copperfield couldn't have pulled this argument out of thin air so seemlessly.

How hard is it to understand? The fact that it wasn't part of your argument until the 32nd post might be a part of that, retard.

Don't blame other people if you cannot successfully explain yourself in your first dozen tries. You're suddenly making a case that simply wasn't your case before, and getting pissed because people don't "get" a point you haven't explained until after the post you'r getting so moody over. I dunno. The moral of this story is that, no matter what my posts in this thread look like, I was arguing that Aliens exist and are operating from a secret base on the moon to control our minds...And if you didn't get thatfrom my statements about Booker T not needing to be the rock to be good, you're obviously a morn.

Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote