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'm not committing perjury by bringing 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. 

Sir, first I'm not being defensive nor am I playing the victim. I gave you my reason multiple times, I did not agree with countering booking a tribute show, I felt it was in bad taste. Simple as that.

Secondly, you are also no obligated to continue responding to me either. Don't you have something better to do as well. No one is forcing you to respond to me, other than you clearly wanting to have the last word. You can go practice being a lawyer in your local community if you wish, that might be a better use of your time.

Lastly, I already acknowledged that you have the right to your opinion that my opinion is weird (I don't agree, but it is your opinion and I respect it). I said that much in the last post. At this point you are the one that seems worked up about all this, certainly not me. If you ever see one of my comments and they work you up again, just ignore them. Or not, its up to you counselor.

Why are you calling me sir XD. I have never been knighted for the record. Why do people think being overly formal will make them seem right? Lol. 

I'm not worked up (actually on an edible and feeling pretty chill). If you think I am... ok? I guess? I'd ask you the reason you feel that way, but giving reasons is clearly not your forte. You're just going to have to take my word for it.

I know I'm not obgligated to respond to you. I am choosing to do so. Which is why I'm not complaining about it. You seem to not want to be involved... in which case... don't be. I feel like you took that as backhanded, but whether you believe it or not, I meant that in the nicest most constructive way possible. As this situation demonstrates, we have little time on this Earth and don't know when it will end. And in all sincerity, I hope you spend it doing things you enjoy. I do enjoy debating. Even strangers on the internet sometimes. 

Point is, I'm the one telling you not to respond yet repeatedly deciding to keep the conversation going. Im having fun. If you're not, again with all the sincerity I can muster, I suggest you do something you would find more rewarding. 

I don't know why you would respect my opinion if you don't think it has solid reasoning behind it. I certainly don't respect yours, because there does not seem any reason behind it. Frankly just seems like you were looking to be offended and therefore were offended by an activity that we agreed was harmless.

A reason is not what you believe a reason is why you believe it. For example, suppose someone said homosexuality is wrong. And when you asked them why they said, because I think two men having sex is in poor taste. That is not a reason, that is just restating the opinion in another way. Likewise saying "I think uploading worlds collide to youtube was vile because I think it was in poor taste" is not a reason, it's just rephrasing the opinion. 

My opinion is that uploading a show on youtube the same night as a tribute show is not in any way immoral or wrong. My reasoning is that something is only morally wrong if it causes harm either directly or because another available action would have benefited someone. Because uploading worlds collide to youtube did not do any harm, and delaying it would not have done any good, I do not think it was in any way wrong, let alone vile (which is a very strong word). 

So, if you want to continue, which again you do not have to, what is your criteria for deciding something is morally despicable? How does putting a show on youtube the same night as a tribute show meet that criteria?

The topics poll now has 2 dead wrestlers in it :(