No_Name_Needed said:
Last time I checked "If reports are to believed" means I am saying it may be a rumor or not true. I can bring it up in a discussion as long I don't claim it to be fact, which I never did. Or did I? I chose to use the words "If reports are to believed" for that reason. This isn't a court of law, I not committing perjury by bring it up in an online discussion about wrestling of all things. The act of continuing to counter book a show that is now a tribute show is vile and classless to ME. I can express that I don't like the act of airing a showing opposite a tribute show and that I feel it is vile and classless (even if no one was hurt) especially if there was a possibility of being able to move said show. It was a YouTube show, it very likely could have been moved. Again, it is my opinion. I don't think there was anything weird about that opinion, but if you feel otherwise so be it, that is your opinion. An opinion is not a statement of fact, yet you seem determined to prove me wrong on something when I have done nothing but state my opinions and mentioning something I read online (that I never said was true). |
I dunno what's up with the defensiveness. Nobody is stopping you from expressing your opinion. Feels like you just realized you don't have a good reason for your opinion, so you're playing the victim instead of trying to give a rational explanation.
I mean this with 100% sincerity and 0% malice. Is this conversation something you want to spend your free time on? If so, cool. If not, then do something you'd find more value in. Maybe watch some of Pac's best matchups or something. But, if you do choose to keep engaging don't complain about it. This isn't a hostage situation, you are free to leave at any time.
I assumed if you were bringing up a report, you felt it had some validity. Because if you didn't it would be completely pointless to bring it up to support your position. So, for the record, I stand corrected. You did not believe the report. You just brought up a report you do not believe has any truth to it for no discernable reason. My bad.
Your opinion is basically that something WWE did not hurt anyone yet it was morally despicable. Instead, they should have done something that would not have helped anyone. My opinion is that that is nonsensical and really weird. So, you can either explain why doing something that we agree causes no harm is so morally objectionable to you or you can not. Really up to you man.
Last edited by JWeinCom - 11 hours ago
