After seeing CM Punk rip on that douche...

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by captaincharismark I find it hilarious that WWE, not GLAAD, seems to be the ones with their panties in a bunch. In almost every instance WWE actually alerted GLAAD of the supposed "slurs". Kind of like they want some sort of controversy to spin into an angle. Quite pathetic.

But that would require pointing the finger at wrestling, and wrestling fans refuse to do that.

Kinda like when Vince was potentially defrauding shareholders and the smarks all spazzed out because "Congress is interfering with pro wrestling!"

Or when Vince attacked the company that ahd LET him use their trademark for over a decade and the smarks all spazzed out because "Pandas are ruing wrestling!"

Originally Posted by loopydate Yeah, 'cause that worked well last time.

Oh, I don't know. It gave Vince his jollies. I'd say that's the whole purpose of half the shit he does.

[captaincharismark]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight But that would require pointing the finger at wrestling, and wrestling fans refuse to do that.

Yeah, but it seems to me that GLAAD would find someone to point a finger at for being insensitive to their cause. Every joke or sarcastic jab is put under the microscope and scrutinized. It's one thing to be tolerant to the GLAAD organization, it's another thing to essentially be controlled by them. Do you think WWE in the Attitude era would've been GLAAD's little bitch? Hell no.

WWE is to blame partially here for even making something out of nothing, but IMO what CM Punk said isn't a big deal.

Kinda like when Vince was potentially defrauding shareholders and the smarks all spazzed out because "Congress is interfering with pro wrestling!"

If you're referring to the steroid issue, then Congress should single out more than just wrestling. All forms of sports or performance have that issue. That would be like getting upset at Congress for "interfering" with baseball or football. I do agree though that defrauding shareholders is wrong, but I'm sure with it being wrestling they were investing in, they knew the risks.

Or when Vince attacked the company that ahd LET him use their trademark for over a decade and the smarks all spazzed out because "Pandas are ruing wrestling!"

Ppl always complain about this, that or the other. Sounds to me like you are "spazzing out" b/c you don't agree with so called "smarks". What's the big deal about fans here voicing an opinion? Maybe some ppl preferred the WWF name over the WWE name. I guess by that logic, when the other WWF said WWF(E) could no longer use their trademark, they were "spazzing out". You like that phrase alot, but you sure have your share of dislikes and complaints. Double standards by so called "intelligent ppl" is always a ironic thing to watch.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by captaincharismark If you're referring to the steroid issue, then Congress should single out more than just wrestling. All forms of sports or performance have that issue. That would be like getting upset at Congress for "interfering" with baseball or football. I do agree though that defrauding shareholders is wrong, but I'm sure with it being wrestling they were investing in, they knew the risks.

Steroids were only part of the issue, and while it's nice to say "WWE shouldn't be singled out" they were singled out not for steroids, but for potential fraud where one of the elements was steroids.

If you phrase it dishonestly, you've got a point.

Speaking of dishonesty....

What's the big deal about fans here voicing an opinion?

Good job knocking down that thurr strawman, son. Nobody's saying voicing an opinion is wrong. Blaming World Wilfdlife Federation ( ) for not wanting to be associated with someone who was actively pissing on them, however, is just plain retarded. Especially when that someone is receiving the rights to use said mark predominantly through good will.

The "big deal" has nothing to do with people "voicing an opinion," but more power to you if you were just out to lie.

[captaincharismark]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Steroids were only part of the issue, and while it's nice to say "WWE shouldn't be singled out" they were singled out not for steroids, but for potential fraud where one of the elements was steroids. If you phrase it dishonestly, you've got a point.

I don't think I phrased anything dishonestly. I simply don't agree with your POV on this issue. And I said "WWE shouldn't be singled out" b/c the major arguement Congress had with WWE was, you guessed it STEROIDS. Anytime Congress targets WWE, they make a public spectacle of saying steroid and drug abuse is rampant. That would be a valid stance to take if every other sport was held to the same standard. You very seldom see Congress target other sports where steroid issues are just as relevant. I highly doubt "potential fraud" was even a major issue here, considering the overall reason given for Congress inquest into WWE was STEROIDS. How is WWE "defrauding" anyone, when public knowledge of wrestling and steroids have been avalible since the early 90's??? But then again, no one ever said they were gonna stop investing in WWE or stop watching it b/c steroids were a factor. That would be like saying someone was gonna stop watching football b/c they were "defrauding" potential investors and fans when their athletes use steroids.

I find it interesting you accuse me of dishonestly making points, when all you do is twist facts to fit whatever opinion you have. You talk as though you have some insider knowledge on the subject, when you are really speculating just like anyone else here.

Speaking of dishonesty....

Addressed above...

Good job knocking down that thurr strawman, son. Nobody's saying voicing an opinion is wrong. Blaming World Wilfdlife Federation ( ) for not wanting to be associated with someone who was actively pissing on them, however, is just plain retarded. Especially when that someone is receiving the rights to use said mark predominantly through good will. The "big deal" has nothing to do with people "voicing an opinion," but more power to you if you were just out to lie.

The last I checked, stating an opinion isn't knocking down anything. WWE pissing on WWF? Again, I have to disagree. At the time, WWF and WWF(E) were on good terms until the trademark issue came up. Telling WWE they must change a name they've used for years would tend to create animosity. I do agree WWE took shots at WWF, but it's not as though WWE had an agenda and purposely tried to put them out of business. I again question your so called "insider info" which you tend to imply with your responses. Nothing more than speculation, yet I'm out to lie? Seems to me that misinformation is another form of lying. Only I don't claim to know details about subjects I'm not directly involved with. You clearly don't work for World Wildlife Federation or WWE, so how would you know? Assuming you know something and stating it as fact is arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Always ironic to see some moron post misinformation and claim it as fact when there is no basis for it. As far as I can tell, you have shown no facts to support your claims and is speculative of situations you know nothing about...