Thread: "100,001" Replies (Wrestling Forum)
View Single Post
Old 10-16-2017, 06:26 AM   #37239
screech
Shelly Martinez = Ratings
 
screech's Avatar
 
Posts: 23,606
screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)screech makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid View Post
Because that is what we were talking about. It's the whole conversation.

Your question is not pertinent. I have very purposefully avoided engaging with it.

I actually didn't enjoy the segment. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I can accept that people generally enjoyed it though. I'm not a big fan of Jericho's latest run. I just appreciate him as a talent. But I could do without the list stuff entirely. It's been well-received though, so whatever. My point is just that I believe he deserves all the credit for that, because the things he was given to do were, in my opinion, terrible. You can disagree with me on that, and that's fine. But your question about how it ended up isn't relevant to my line of thinking, because how it was exists outside star and performance is entirely my concern.

And before you go and ask the same question again, that is because that is what I am talking about. I don't care if something is shit when it is written and then turns out to be great, except when I am talking specifically about how it is shit when it's written. Within that context, yes, that is everything to do with the point I am making. Why were we talking about that? Because I asked what Jimmy Jacobs did and someone said "He's been given credit for this," and I said "Eh, I don't think he deserves credit for that." That is what we were talking about. Who takes credit is the subject matter. Not whether or not that ultimately matters.
My question is absolutely pertinent. You said the segment was great on TV but looked average on paper, which is a ridiculous statement. I asked why that matters, but for whatever reason you continue to deflect with essays.

I was not asking about Jimmy Jacobs. I don't care if you like him or not. I was, and still am, asking why a segment that you enjoyed can't be seen as good because it "looked average on paper." It is completely relevant as it was a direct response to one of your posts.

I realize that I'm not talking about what everyone else is, but I asked you a direct question. It's really not a hard question by any means. Though you've proven lately that you're a moron (or just an asshole), so I guess it is for you.
screech is offline   Reply With Quote