Bob Holly interview

[Pepsi Man]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Because your opinion condemns one and not the other. I see.

Okay, so you're saying "back then slavery was a good idea?"

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man Okay, so you're saying "back then slavery was a good idea?"

It was according to the paradigm that they lived by.

I am not condoning slavery.

However, the slave owners sure as Hell thought it was a good idea.

The wrestlers on top think it's a good idea.

[Pepsi Man]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight It was according to the paradigm that they lived by. I am not condoning slavery. However, the slave owners sure as Hell thought it was a good idea. The wrestlers on top think it's a good idea.

Alright, here's another angle to look into with that particular analogy though. The wrestlers on top now had to go through this same due-paying process that they're calling for to be placed upon the younger stars.

Slave owners, up until right near the very end of slavery, were never former slaves that had "worked their way up" into the slave owners.

[Head]

Yes, the big stars of the past did "pay their dues."

Mostly because EVERYBODY paying dues used to be somthing that every wrestler had to go through until the last couple of years.

You gave the example of Brock being a hothead after only a few years, and Mick Foley being a good guy.

How about Angle, a guy who really didn't pay his dues being a complete team player compared to guys like Triple H, Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash, Bob Holly, Undertaker, ect. who DID pay their dues?

Citing one asshole who did not pay their dues and one good guy who did and blaming the fact that the guy is an asshole on not paying his dues doesn't cut it.

It's pointless to try and say that wrestling is diffrent from slavery because people arn't forced into wrestling. So now anything that people arn't forced into shouldn't imrpove? People wern't nececarily forced into factory work in the 19th century, but saying that the working conditions there shouldn't have improved is ridiculous.

The fact that the WWE is a business with the main purpose of making a revenue for it's share holders (somthing any wrestler should understand) would make it very stupid of them to hold back a more talented wrestler so they can put in an older guy who has paid his dues. It's the way the world works. People advance in life based on their skill. Wrestling, whether some people want to think so or not, is a competitive business, and not somthing that anybody who puts the time into will automatically excel in.

[Pepsi Man]

Originally Posted by Head Yes, the big stars of the past did "pay their dues." Mostly because EVERYBODY paying dues used to be somthing that every wrestler had to go through until the last couple of years. You gave the example of Brock being a hothead after only a few years, and Mick Foley being a good guy. How about Angle, a guy who really didn't pay his dues being a complete team player compared to guys like Triple H, Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash, Bob Holly, Undertaker, ect. who DID pay their dues? Citing one asshole who did not pay their dues and one good guy who did and blaming the fact that the guy is an asshole on not paying his dues doesn't cut it. It's pointless to try and say that wrestling is diffrent from slavery because people arn't forced into wrestling. So now anything that people arn't forced into shouldn't imrpove? People wern't nececarily forced into factory work in the 19th century, but saying that the working conditions there shouldn't have improved is ridiculous. The fact that the WWE is a business with the main purpose of making a revenue for it's share holders (somthing any wrestler should understand) would make it very stupid of them to hold back a more talented wrestler so they can put in an older guy who has paid his dues. It's the way the world works. People advance in life based on their skill. Wrestling, whether some people want to think so or not, is a competitive business, and not somthing that anybody who puts the time into will automatically excel in.

I'm not saying that anything besides slavery shouldn't be improved...but there's basically no comparison for it. It's not a good analogy to use at all. It's like comparing apples to ancient Japanese parasitic bacteria.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man I'm not saying that anything besides slavery shouldn't be improved...but there's basically no comparison for it. It's not a good analogy to use at all. It's like comparing apples to ancient Japanese parasitic bacteria.

It's only different in your book because you support one and not the other.

There is a valid analogy, you would just rather say that since you, in this century, object to what used to be an accepted way of life (An invalid argument in and of itself), it's irrelevent. And then you go ahead and continue with your explanation that it's good because it's the way it's traditionally done. You're validating based on tradition and history...Hmmmm...

You only don't like the analogy because a paradigm you believe in is being compared to a paradigm you don't.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Pepsi Man Alright, here's another angle to look into with that particular analogy though. The wrestlers on top now had to go through this same due-paying process that they're calling for to be placed upon the younger stars. Slave owners, up until right near the very end of slavery, were never former slaves that had "worked their way up" into the slave owners.

And your point is?

You're trying to use minutia to disprove a comparison unrelated to said minutia.

And while we're being anal, identical twins are not identical because they don't have matching fingerprints.

The Atlantic and Pacific oceans have no grounds for comparison because they're on ENTIRELY different coasts...

And comparing the Klan and the Nazis as hate groups is invalid because they had different OUTFITS! OMGGGG!

[Pepsi Man]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight And your point is? You're trying to use minutia to disprove a comparison unrelated to said minutia. And while we're being anal, identical twins are not identical because they don't have matching fingerprints. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans have no grounds for comparison because they're on ENTIRELY different coasts... And comparing the Klan and the Nazis as hate groups is invalid because they had different OUTFITS! OMGGGG!

Wait, it was a valid analogy until I found a BIG difference between the two.