What could they do to prove to you that they aren't just government butt kissing clowns?|||They would have to stop claiming GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..
This copenhagen crap is ridiculous. According the heritage house foundation it is going to cost 1.9 million jobs lost and 58 percent HIGHER TAXES!
The libs are costing us..with health care...climate change that does not EXIST....cap and trade, debt etc...EACH AMERICAN IS GOING TO PAY 8 to 11 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR MORE IN TAXES!
That is not credible to me. THat is RIDICULOUS!
Copenhagen is a disaster. OTher countries will not promise crap but bozo is going to promise millions and millions to underdeveloped countries to go green. They cant' provide food for themselves but we are going to FORCE THEM TO GO GREEN!
GIVE them jobs...etc...while we go down the tubes.
SCIENTISTS ADMIT TO FRAUD and TOSSING DATA AWAY ON CLIMATE CHANGE TODAY!
80 percent of the cost for this carbon cuting is going to fall on AMERICA!!!!!!!! WHat is the WORLD DOING? WHAT IS BOZO DOING? HE IS RUINING AMERICA! WE NEED TO STOP THIS IDIOT before we are all in a depression!
They expect a 26 percent job loss by the end of next year! CAN YOU AFFORD THIS?|||A liberal position will never be credible given the definition below, but neither will a conservative position have any credibility. In today's American media, a radical position is often closest to the truth.
Liberals represent an establishment position that represents the left most extreme position that will be exposed in mass media by executives. Conservatives represent another establishment position that represents the right most extreme position that will be exposed in mass media by executives. Sure, our networks allow a range of opinions, but these options range between well defined range: left and right positions.
The truth usually is outside this acceptable range of opinions. Mass media is afraid to confront many truths that conflict with the interests of their wealthy sponsors. Media executives want to hold on to their over-compensated precious jobs which means that they do not want to be sued and they do not want to lose advertising revenue.
A perfect example was when Oprah declared she would never again eat a hamburger. She and her guest and her production company was sued over a period of six years for this simple opinion by a meat association based in Texas. Eventually, she won the law suit with prejudice, but only after hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a big emotional roller coaster ride.
The meat association withdrew over 600,000,000.00 in advertising dollars after Oprah's statement on network TV.
The mass media is gun shy. Although ample evidence shows meat and dairy are not healthy, no network executive will tackle these industries and expose the health risks of these so called foods.|||I know. You hate facts. We'll just sink to your level of stupidity. We'll lie, repeat, lie, repeat, lie and repeat some more until you believe it. Seems to work for the GOP/Fox "News"/Teabaggers.|||If they would simply contribute more than their allotted share of income taxes each year -- you know, to prove their dedication to "the cause" -- I might be more inclined to respect.|||What's your credibility? So far, all you proved that you don't know anything about anything.|||2 words come to mind when i read your question, They are: Mission Impossible
libs are never gonna get some credibility because all they do is whine like little kids until they think they can get their way|||They'd have to apologize for the demonizing of republicans for the last 30 years and making American politics a cesspool.|||We're not the ones with credibility issues.|||Movement to the center.|||Do your own homework, don't outsource it to some "news" company.|||Start speaking the truth for starters.|||speak with truth! Question with boldness!|||An education would be a great start|||You would have to give up your stupid liberal ideas.|||then MOVE TO COMI CHINA
with your GOP clown outsouring|||i cant think of anything...
i give up
Friday, December 2, 2011
How does Jesus's falilure to return during the lifetime of his contemporaries effect the credibility of the?
gospels, considering Mathew, Mark and Luke all claimed that he would?|||There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!
Pilot is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!!
At best he was an amalgam of those others!!|||You are reading the Jesus claim wrong. Jesus said that "generation would not pass away till all these things take place." (Mathew 24:34). Who was Jesus referring to when He talked about "this generation"? Those that witness the particular signs that He was talking about. The signs included: Many false christ, every life on earth threatened (see Mathew 24:22, that right there disqualifies Jesus from returning in the hearers life-time), the rise of the Antichrist, when Israel reformed and other signs. Christ never said He would return in the gospel writers lifetime. He said that He would return when all these signs came together. Jesus failed at nothing; the failure is in our understanding.|||According to Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), an Assyrian clay tablet dating to approximately 2800 BC was unearthed bearing the words "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common." This is one of the earliest examples of the perception of moral decay in society being interpreted as a sign of the imminent end.
http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm|||he hasnt failed. how do you know he hasnt came back. he may just of came to some people and thats why they die cause he took their souls back with him to heaven so they can be with him have you ever thought of that. alsoafter he has took our souls back how do you know that he wont come back and do what he said he would do??huhu how????|||Jesus' failure to return did not AFFECT anything- the EFFECTS of people misquoting, misunderstanding and taking scripture out of context because of a lack of study are a general turning away from the truth and a lack of faith based on misinformation.|||That's not exactly true. However, Jesus made it clear in Mathew 24:35-36 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Jesus Christ.|||" F A L I L U R E ? ? ? "
It's my understanding that Jesus did in fact return. And He's still here, for those who call on Him.
That's what they tell me, and a lot of folks have experienced his real presence -- or so they say. Who am I to say they're wrong??????|||on the real.
An arab looking man, long haired, bearded wearing sandals, would end up in jail within the hour. if not gitmo.
the last guy that claimed to be jesus returned found out what texas BBQ really was.
The guy aint comming back, would YOU come back to THIS mess?|||its doesn't affect it at all...it was their expectations...Jesus never said when He would return...your false premise of calling Jesus not returning in their lifetime as a "failure" clearly points to the ignorance you have about Christianity...|||They never said he would return in their lifetime. I would have paused at that point had I read it, but no pausation effect occurred. Care to hit me with a book, chapter, and verse, or is that too Christianny?|||Jesus did return.|||Our next door neighbor says that was a misquote. All three times it was a misquote.
Peter was reported to have said "But the end of all things is at hand." Another damn misquote.
.|||Credibility matters little to credulous people.|||hate to break it to ya but his "contemporaries" are still being born and are very much alive so yes he is keeping his word............|||Retards say it's a misquote but of course nothing else in the Bible is misquoted only the parts they can't explain.|||he never promised to return during the lifetime of this contemporaries.|||Apparently not at all.|||John the Beloved was translated, and so he's still alive. Don't you just hate loopholes?|||Nowhere does the gospels give a day or hour of His coming.|||Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe they interpret those books to mean "God hates fags"?
Lol!|||Paul claimed it too.|||every generation thought they were the last one, but that is not what was meant.|||Why would it?
generation = race of people|||Jesus never gave a date for His return, He only gave us signs to look for.
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!
Pilot is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!!
At best he was an amalgam of those others!!|||You are reading the Jesus claim wrong. Jesus said that "generation would not pass away till all these things take place." (Mathew 24:34). Who was Jesus referring to when He talked about "this generation"? Those that witness the particular signs that He was talking about. The signs included: Many false christ, every life on earth threatened (see Mathew 24:22, that right there disqualifies Jesus from returning in the hearers life-time), the rise of the Antichrist, when Israel reformed and other signs. Christ never said He would return in the gospel writers lifetime. He said that He would return when all these signs came together. Jesus failed at nothing; the failure is in our understanding.|||According to Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts (1979), an Assyrian clay tablet dating to approximately 2800 BC was unearthed bearing the words "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common." This is one of the earliest examples of the perception of moral decay in society being interpreted as a sign of the imminent end.
http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm|||he hasnt failed. how do you know he hasnt came back. he may just of came to some people and thats why they die cause he took their souls back with him to heaven so they can be with him have you ever thought of that. alsoafter he has took our souls back how do you know that he wont come back and do what he said he would do??huhu how????|||Jesus' failure to return did not AFFECT anything- the EFFECTS of people misquoting, misunderstanding and taking scripture out of context because of a lack of study are a general turning away from the truth and a lack of faith based on misinformation.|||That's not exactly true. However, Jesus made it clear in Mathew 24:35-36 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Jesus Christ.|||" F A L I L U R E ? ? ? "
It's my understanding that Jesus did in fact return. And He's still here, for those who call on Him.
That's what they tell me, and a lot of folks have experienced his real presence -- or so they say. Who am I to say they're wrong??????|||on the real.
An arab looking man, long haired, bearded wearing sandals, would end up in jail within the hour. if not gitmo.
the last guy that claimed to be jesus returned found out what texas BBQ really was.
The guy aint comming back, would YOU come back to THIS mess?|||its doesn't affect it at all...it was their expectations...Jesus never said when He would return...your false premise of calling Jesus not returning in their lifetime as a "failure" clearly points to the ignorance you have about Christianity...|||They never said he would return in their lifetime. I would have paused at that point had I read it, but no pausation effect occurred. Care to hit me with a book, chapter, and verse, or is that too Christianny?|||Jesus did return.|||Our next door neighbor says that was a misquote. All three times it was a misquote.
Peter was reported to have said "But the end of all things is at hand." Another damn misquote.
.|||Credibility matters little to credulous people.|||hate to break it to ya but his "contemporaries" are still being born and are very much alive so yes he is keeping his word............|||Retards say it's a misquote but of course nothing else in the Bible is misquoted only the parts they can't explain.|||he never promised to return during the lifetime of this contemporaries.|||Apparently not at all.|||John the Beloved was translated, and so he's still alive. Don't you just hate loopholes?|||Nowhere does the gospels give a day or hour of His coming.|||Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe they interpret those books to mean "God hates fags"?
Lol!|||Paul claimed it too.|||every generation thought they were the last one, but that is not what was meant.|||Why would it?
generation = race of people|||Jesus never gave a date for His return, He only gave us signs to look for.
Why does a famous person saying something lend it credibility?
I've seen a lot of quotes over the years misattributed to Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. Why does something suddenly become wise or insightful because a famous person says it? Shouldn't a statement stand on its own two legs?|||Because most people are part of a herd. Celebrity status implies that you're a "made-man (or woman)," you got life figured out and you know how to be successful. Think about it this way: if you were poor and wanted to learn how to be rich, whose advice would you value more, a bum on the street or a billionaire entrepreneur? The latter would have more credibility right? And usually celebrity status also implies that a person has wealth. It's sad that wealth misleads people, makes people believe they are smarter. Some wealthy people are rich because of inheritance and not because they were self-made. Sometimes it's just one big front. Don't believe the hype. Do not worship images. Follow no one but yourself.|||It depends on the person saying it. Yogi Berra, the former baseball player, was famous for making very strange and wonderful sayings like "it aint't over til it's over" but thats not a credibility thing unless you question his education. He never expected to be taken seriously as an academic, only as a ball player. Its when people like Sarah Palin who can "see Russia from her house" that tends to cause people to be concerned about intelligence. Most people who are famous for one thing or another cannot really handle fame at all. Just log on to the net or read a newspaper and you'll see what I mean. Preachers, politicians, actors and sports heros are all striving to be taken seriously about things outside their field of endeavor when they should just keep their collective mouths shut and leave the poignant quotes to the experts.
Oh, I went on a tangent for a bit, famous people do not always lend credibility to any subject, it is often the fans or followers of these people who attempt to lift up the cerebrial abilities of these famous individuals in an effort to save the idiots from themselves. Also, yes, a statement should be able to stand on its own without the mind numbing rebuttal of a celebrity.|||If the statement is true it should be able to stand on its own two legs, but in this country (USA), the mentality of people as a whole never ceases to amaze me and at my age I shouldn't be this way.
In general, a rap singer can say this or that is the best thing to do or buy and the whole country will do it. Me, I won't even wear clothes that have a company name on it - I'm not being paid to advertise for a company, yet, everywhere one looks, there are walking advertisements in the form of humans.|||The answer is in your question. their fame and money. there is a proverb in Tamil which says poor peoples voice will not be heard. If a famous and rich person pointing out a swine and say it is an elephant the mad crowd will say yes. but not a wise and clever man.You know the Indian culture. Now certain cine stars who do not have a healthy family back ground says living together is better than marriageand there ae some fools who support them. that is the world.|||Quite often, it is the statements that the famous person makes that makes them famous. Most of the things they say aren't famous because they are famous, but the other way around.|||Truth is one. People speak differently about it. They interpret. In order to get fully convinced they try to see them from their own philosophical angles. Every time they read, they may get fresh ideas.|||it reaches more people and therefore gets more popularity when someone who already has popularity, share it with the world.|||water follow fish follow|||It doesn't and anyone who thinks it does is sad. At least any adult.
Oh, I went on a tangent for a bit, famous people do not always lend credibility to any subject, it is often the fans or followers of these people who attempt to lift up the cerebrial abilities of these famous individuals in an effort to save the idiots from themselves. Also, yes, a statement should be able to stand on its own without the mind numbing rebuttal of a celebrity.|||If the statement is true it should be able to stand on its own two legs, but in this country (USA), the mentality of people as a whole never ceases to amaze me and at my age I shouldn't be this way.
In general, a rap singer can say this or that is the best thing to do or buy and the whole country will do it. Me, I won't even wear clothes that have a company name on it - I'm not being paid to advertise for a company, yet, everywhere one looks, there are walking advertisements in the form of humans.|||The answer is in your question. their fame and money. there is a proverb in Tamil which says poor peoples voice will not be heard. If a famous and rich person pointing out a swine and say it is an elephant the mad crowd will say yes. but not a wise and clever man.You know the Indian culture. Now certain cine stars who do not have a healthy family back ground says living together is better than marriageand there ae some fools who support them. that is the world.|||Quite often, it is the statements that the famous person makes that makes them famous. Most of the things they say aren't famous because they are famous, but the other way around.|||Truth is one. People speak differently about it. They interpret. In order to get fully convinced they try to see them from their own philosophical angles. Every time they read, they may get fresh ideas.|||it reaches more people and therefore gets more popularity when someone who already has popularity, share it with the world.|||water follow fish follow|||It doesn't and anyone who thinks it does is sad. At least any adult.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Are for profit universities a threat to a degrees credibility?
Recently I was researching graduate schools online and was bombarded with calls from schools I never thought about attending. Since getting into these school seemed way too easy (especially for graduate school) I did some research. All I found was rip off reports, unsatisfied students, and employers saying not only would they not reimburse these schools but they wouldn't hire anyone from them either. Do you think these schools are making employers more critical causing them to not hire people from Universities they are unfamiliar with?|||In many cases yes, employers are giving preference to those who graduate from traditional universities (even if the degrees were given online) over those from the for-profit schools. Some don't care, but to others it is clearly important.|||There are various studies of the institutes and its ranking. you should go according to that there are many institute who give degree in exchange for money which has no value in industry so you should go as per the reputation of the institute from all parameter particularly the placement record
Can you have any credibility in waging war on moral grounds but only when you choose to?
Having a moral duty is either that or it isnt. It is not a matter of convenience or selective policy. Either you defend those oppressed or you do not.
How can the President defend his actions based on moral grounds of preventing possible massacres when there are massacres we sponsor, Yemen and Bahrain for example, going on at the same time, let alone the ones all over the world that we ignore.|||im going to have to find out how you can morally kill people so i can finally get rid of that nosy *** neighbor of mine.|||Right on, and we of the United States stand by and let the Jews massacre the Palestinians, also the destruction of Beirut by Israel, and do nothing but send them more money to kill more civilians.
Anyone that claims we have the moral high ground is nuts.|||do not believe of what they Tell you, all this excuses are to cover their self and nothing ells. the Priscilla is something ell, the oil, oil......
How can the President defend his actions based on moral grounds of preventing possible massacres when there are massacres we sponsor, Yemen and Bahrain for example, going on at the same time, let alone the ones all over the world that we ignore.|||im going to have to find out how you can morally kill people so i can finally get rid of that nosy *** neighbor of mine.|||Right on, and we of the United States stand by and let the Jews massacre the Palestinians, also the destruction of Beirut by Israel, and do nothing but send them more money to kill more civilians.
Anyone that claims we have the moral high ground is nuts.|||do not believe of what they Tell you, all this excuses are to cover their self and nothing ells. the Priscilla is something ell, the oil, oil......
Why does a famous person saying something lend it credibility?
I've seen a lot of quotes over the years misattributed to Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. Why does something suddenly become wise or insightful because a famous person says it? Shouldn't a statement stand on its own two legs?|||It's because the person who is quoted has achieved greatness and/or are known for their wisdom and for their expertise in the said field. Also by quoting someone, we have the advantage of not being questioned by someone, since those words were from someone great/popular.
If quoting someone is used as a counter-argument, it *could* be what people call a logical fallacy, particularly the "appeal to authority" variety of it.
Description of Appeal to Authority --
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.|||einstien was a genius so why not listen to him
If quoting someone is used as a counter-argument, it *could* be what people call a logical fallacy, particularly the "appeal to authority" variety of it.
Description of Appeal to Authority --
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.|||einstien was a genius so why not listen to him
How do gimmick matches effect a wrestler's credibility?
BQ: Do you consider any of the WS users, your friends? If so, who?|||I think gimmick matches mostly have a negative effect on a wrestlers credibility, being good at a gimmick match gets you more noticed by the fans but takes away from your actual wrestling skills. It doesn't matter who you are if the thing you are known for most is a gimmick match your wrestling skills are overshadowed by that.
Obviously being good at a wide range of gimmick matches is to a wrestlers advantages, like Triple H or not the fact he works most gimmick matches IS to his advantage because it gives his feuds a much needed variety that others don't quite have. Being good at the big "blow off" gimmick match at the end of a feud is really good if you want to stay at the top long term you need to be able to end feuds in more than one way. Compare Triple H's gimmick match variety to Jeff Hardy's, it doesn't matter how you spin it Jeff Hardy feuds will ALWAYS end with a ladder match or TLC match or if we are really lucky, some kind of hardcore match. It might be that Jeff hasn't had the chance to do all the different gimmick matches but its still not in his favour everyone wants to see him in a ladder match.
It can also lead to a wrestler getting a "spot monkey" label, sorry to use him again but Jeff Hardy's good wrestling matches are completely forgotten compared to him jumping off ladders and as such the wrestling he can do is completely overlooked. There is no doubt gimmick matches are needed but being known for one type is reputation damaging, being good at all types of gimmick matches can make a long term main eventer.
BQ: I Hate Everyone... EVERYONE!!!!
Nah i do consider some WS users friends... pretty sure they know who they are and i'm not boosting there ego's by naming them... don't like them that much.|||Well I guess some gimmick matches could be a positive to the wrestler's credibility.
I mean if the gimmick match become their speciality it could really be a positive especially when ending a feud.
An example is The Undertaker vs Edge in SummerSlam 2008.
We all know that's gonna be huge because of this being Taker's speciality match so it added more credibility no only to Taker but also for this match and apperantly also the whole event.
Edge vs Cena Vengeance 2007/6(I think)
This also got Cena credibility knowing Edge is an expert in TLC matches.
So when he won he got mor credibility without even hurting Edge's image if it's regarding the TLC match.
And as usual it also carried the tension that Edge might win(we all knew back then that Cena would win)
It added that little excitement that also made the PPV exciting.
But then if the wrestler is in too many gimmick matches it's just gonna hurt the credibility.
It's becase of how people would expect the same thing from you everytime and if it's not done then it wouldn't be labeled a good match.
Look at CZW I mean they had shown people getting thrown off to a balcony to a table or lightbulbs getting used as a weapons the fans just gets numb to it like-"Oh he gets hit by a lightbulb he'll live"
BQ:
Well those f煤ckerz in the chat|||Well in some ways I think it can help and hurt a career at the same time. It can make you famous, but at the same time leave people wondering if you can do it without the toys and then doubt you're wrestling skills.
The person I'm going to use to prove this is the "Extreme Enigma" Jeff Hardy. His whole career has been overshadowed by Extreme Rules, Steel Cage, Tables, and his two specialtys, TLC and Ladder matches. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't for those matches Jeff probably would be jobbing. He has above average wrestling skills at best.
But heres the thing, even if you don't like Jeff, which I do, you can not say without lieing that the guy can't perform when he has tools to play with. He has COUNTLESS great ladder and TLC matches.
TLC 1 2 and 3
RVD vs Jeff Hardy Ladder Match
Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy Ladder match
Edge and Christian vs. Hardy Boyz
Triangle Ladder Match Dudleyz vs. Hardyz vs. E %26amp; C
Jeff Hardy vs. Edge
All AMAZING matches. Theres a few I left out but I think I got my point across. He can perform in ladder matches.
There is another way these matches helped his career. Do you think Jeff would have most of his fans if he didn't jump off ladders? I don't think so. There are some true Jeff Hardy marks but most just like him because they think liking him makes them cool cuz hes extreme.
Overall, I think it helped Jeffs career. Without ladders, he would just be another Joey Mercury. He would not have won world titles, or probably any titles if he didn't put his life on the line. Although it gained him a lot of haters, Overall Ladders were good for Jeffs career.
BQ: Yes I do, most people in YWSE. Everyone except UY and Jesh, who I havent got to know yet. So far hes an aquatince.|||well it depends there are many examples of being a gimmick style wrestler that makes it better for them. Then there are some where its worse for them.
One big example is undertaker for it being good. If you really look through his career in the 90s his best matches were gimmick matches which got him very very over with the fans and as popular as he is today really. Even though he is a good wrestler in non gimmick matches if he didnt shine so well in gimmick matches i dont think he would be as popular as he is today with it and would be considered by the fans to be less then what he is. Because alot of wwe only fans are gimmick match crazy. So him being in alot helped him get over more imo.
Edge i another example of it being good. He has been in many great gimmick matches he is like taker. Awesome in gimmicks and can wrestle in non gimmick matches good also. And him being in those tlc matches got him over big time. The thing is he was able to back it up with great wrestling in 2002 - 2006. It has gotten a little worse the past few years in regular matches. But he can still do gimmick matches great, example his feud with taker the tlc match and the hell in a cell great matches.
Bad examples that negatively affect a wrestler one example jeff hardy. He puts on good gimmick matches but hes to much into it. His in ring work when not in gimmick matches is lets just say a little below average. So he used getting over in gimmick matches to much for the iwc where he went to being hated on(myself included). IMO he just relys on putting on great gimmick matches to much while he is letting his regular wrestling fall to the way side over the past 3 years.
Another bad example is really some of the ecw originals that were the hardcore specialists only, they became garbage wrestlers because that was all they could do is beat someone with a chair. Not everyone in ecw was like that but there were quite a few who were. Also czw is like that but 10 times worse. Its all about death matches and beating the crap out of another wrestler with a flourescent lightbulb really, so any wrestler associated with that now usually just gets discredited when there are some good wrestlers that are there its just to gimmick focused and its to much garbage wrestling
BQ: yes i do and its alot, alot of people in efeds i have met|||I think it can actually help a wrestler's credibility, it shows they can be tough. I don't think Edge would be as popular as he is today if it wasn't for TLC, same with The Hardy's and Christian.
BQ: I've never actually met any of the users on here, I would really have to meet them in person before I could consider one a friend.|||I believe it might. In a wrestler麓s gimmick match, he is almost destined to win, but this is not always the case. For example, Abyss does not win most of his Destruction Ball matches, Undertaker does win a lot of his Casket matches.
BQ: I consider some WS user my friends, I guess I would have to say Jesh and Kurt Angle.|||yeah i consider few of the users but can't disclose. few are my contacts in yahoo answers.
well about the gimmick the attitude era used to give good gimmicks but these 3rd generation superstars mm........ not so good . take taker, kane unmasked ,dx , austin and many more but now. take funaki, festus, priceless, cryme time etc. wwe has realy gone down just because of this pg era. few people think it's because of cena. do you agree?|||Depending on how well they perform in the match it gives them more name recognition. For instance, when people think of ladder matches they think of guys like Jeff Hardy and Shawn Michaels. When they think of Hell in a Cell matches they think of guys like The Undertaker.
BQ: I don't consider anyone here my friend since I don't know anybody.|||Well for some yes, but for other's, without them they'd be no where. Examples of that are Edge and Jeff Hardy. I'm not saying Edge couldn't wrestle but those TLC matches is really what put him in the main spotlight in WWE. Jeff's extreme style also shot him into stardom with the WWE and the fans.
BQ: Sandy, Shawn (BCC), Luke, Brendan (WBHF), Emily (Mrs. Paparazzi), Justin (rkolegacy), Melvin (Da D3aDmAn), Jason (Lionhart Chris Jericho), Matt (Matt Swagger), Dana (Lita B!tchez), Sabrina (Fizzllama), Jen (Out of control Diva) and a few others I can't think of right now.|||it depends if a wrestler has made a his success in match eg. jeff hardy ladder.than yes because if he has a bad ladder match everybody says he can't wrestle in the ladder match anymore.|||I dunno
BQ:A Few, my friends make occasional apprences in this section.|||stereotypes them? mick foley- i jus never took him too seriously after a while.|||well to me it dont really it dont|||idk
bq: ummmm i dunno really, ya i gess the nice ones|||name a gimmick match and ill tell u
BQ nope|||It all depends how it goes down the road, If the fans like it, WWE will build on it.
Festus has a bad gimmick. An example of a good gimmick would be Undertaker and Kane
Obviously being good at a wide range of gimmick matches is to a wrestlers advantages, like Triple H or not the fact he works most gimmick matches IS to his advantage because it gives his feuds a much needed variety that others don't quite have. Being good at the big "blow off" gimmick match at the end of a feud is really good if you want to stay at the top long term you need to be able to end feuds in more than one way. Compare Triple H's gimmick match variety to Jeff Hardy's, it doesn't matter how you spin it Jeff Hardy feuds will ALWAYS end with a ladder match or TLC match or if we are really lucky, some kind of hardcore match. It might be that Jeff hasn't had the chance to do all the different gimmick matches but its still not in his favour everyone wants to see him in a ladder match.
It can also lead to a wrestler getting a "spot monkey" label, sorry to use him again but Jeff Hardy's good wrestling matches are completely forgotten compared to him jumping off ladders and as such the wrestling he can do is completely overlooked. There is no doubt gimmick matches are needed but being known for one type is reputation damaging, being good at all types of gimmick matches can make a long term main eventer.
BQ: I Hate Everyone... EVERYONE!!!!
Nah i do consider some WS users friends... pretty sure they know who they are and i'm not boosting there ego's by naming them... don't like them that much.|||Well I guess some gimmick matches could be a positive to the wrestler's credibility.
I mean if the gimmick match become their speciality it could really be a positive especially when ending a feud.
An example is The Undertaker vs Edge in SummerSlam 2008.
We all know that's gonna be huge because of this being Taker's speciality match so it added more credibility no only to Taker but also for this match and apperantly also the whole event.
Edge vs Cena Vengeance 2007/6(I think)
This also got Cena credibility knowing Edge is an expert in TLC matches.
So when he won he got mor credibility without even hurting Edge's image if it's regarding the TLC match.
And as usual it also carried the tension that Edge might win(we all knew back then that Cena would win)
It added that little excitement that also made the PPV exciting.
But then if the wrestler is in too many gimmick matches it's just gonna hurt the credibility.
It's becase of how people would expect the same thing from you everytime and if it's not done then it wouldn't be labeled a good match.
Look at CZW I mean they had shown people getting thrown off to a balcony to a table or lightbulbs getting used as a weapons the fans just gets numb to it like-"Oh he gets hit by a lightbulb he'll live"
BQ:
Well those f煤ckerz in the chat|||Well in some ways I think it can help and hurt a career at the same time. It can make you famous, but at the same time leave people wondering if you can do it without the toys and then doubt you're wrestling skills.
The person I'm going to use to prove this is the "Extreme Enigma" Jeff Hardy. His whole career has been overshadowed by Extreme Rules, Steel Cage, Tables, and his two specialtys, TLC and Ladder matches. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't for those matches Jeff probably would be jobbing. He has above average wrestling skills at best.
But heres the thing, even if you don't like Jeff, which I do, you can not say without lieing that the guy can't perform when he has tools to play with. He has COUNTLESS great ladder and TLC matches.
TLC 1 2 and 3
RVD vs Jeff Hardy Ladder Match
Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy Ladder match
Edge and Christian vs. Hardy Boyz
Triangle Ladder Match Dudleyz vs. Hardyz vs. E %26amp; C
Jeff Hardy vs. Edge
All AMAZING matches. Theres a few I left out but I think I got my point across. He can perform in ladder matches.
There is another way these matches helped his career. Do you think Jeff would have most of his fans if he didn't jump off ladders? I don't think so. There are some true Jeff Hardy marks but most just like him because they think liking him makes them cool cuz hes extreme.
Overall, I think it helped Jeffs career. Without ladders, he would just be another Joey Mercury. He would not have won world titles, or probably any titles if he didn't put his life on the line. Although it gained him a lot of haters, Overall Ladders were good for Jeffs career.
BQ: Yes I do, most people in YWSE. Everyone except UY and Jesh, who I havent got to know yet. So far hes an aquatince.|||well it depends there are many examples of being a gimmick style wrestler that makes it better for them. Then there are some where its worse for them.
One big example is undertaker for it being good. If you really look through his career in the 90s his best matches were gimmick matches which got him very very over with the fans and as popular as he is today really. Even though he is a good wrestler in non gimmick matches if he didnt shine so well in gimmick matches i dont think he would be as popular as he is today with it and would be considered by the fans to be less then what he is. Because alot of wwe only fans are gimmick match crazy. So him being in alot helped him get over more imo.
Edge i another example of it being good. He has been in many great gimmick matches he is like taker. Awesome in gimmicks and can wrestle in non gimmick matches good also. And him being in those tlc matches got him over big time. The thing is he was able to back it up with great wrestling in 2002 - 2006. It has gotten a little worse the past few years in regular matches. But he can still do gimmick matches great, example his feud with taker the tlc match and the hell in a cell great matches.
Bad examples that negatively affect a wrestler one example jeff hardy. He puts on good gimmick matches but hes to much into it. His in ring work when not in gimmick matches is lets just say a little below average. So he used getting over in gimmick matches to much for the iwc where he went to being hated on(myself included). IMO he just relys on putting on great gimmick matches to much while he is letting his regular wrestling fall to the way side over the past 3 years.
Another bad example is really some of the ecw originals that were the hardcore specialists only, they became garbage wrestlers because that was all they could do is beat someone with a chair. Not everyone in ecw was like that but there were quite a few who were. Also czw is like that but 10 times worse. Its all about death matches and beating the crap out of another wrestler with a flourescent lightbulb really, so any wrestler associated with that now usually just gets discredited when there are some good wrestlers that are there its just to gimmick focused and its to much garbage wrestling
BQ: yes i do and its alot, alot of people in efeds i have met|||I think it can actually help a wrestler's credibility, it shows they can be tough. I don't think Edge would be as popular as he is today if it wasn't for TLC, same with The Hardy's and Christian.
BQ: I've never actually met any of the users on here, I would really have to meet them in person before I could consider one a friend.|||I believe it might. In a wrestler麓s gimmick match, he is almost destined to win, but this is not always the case. For example, Abyss does not win most of his Destruction Ball matches, Undertaker does win a lot of his Casket matches.
BQ: I consider some WS user my friends, I guess I would have to say Jesh and Kurt Angle.|||yeah i consider few of the users but can't disclose. few are my contacts in yahoo answers.
well about the gimmick the attitude era used to give good gimmicks but these 3rd generation superstars mm........ not so good . take taker, kane unmasked ,dx , austin and many more but now. take funaki, festus, priceless, cryme time etc. wwe has realy gone down just because of this pg era. few people think it's because of cena. do you agree?|||Depending on how well they perform in the match it gives them more name recognition. For instance, when people think of ladder matches they think of guys like Jeff Hardy and Shawn Michaels. When they think of Hell in a Cell matches they think of guys like The Undertaker.
BQ: I don't consider anyone here my friend since I don't know anybody.|||Well for some yes, but for other's, without them they'd be no where. Examples of that are Edge and Jeff Hardy. I'm not saying Edge couldn't wrestle but those TLC matches is really what put him in the main spotlight in WWE. Jeff's extreme style also shot him into stardom with the WWE and the fans.
BQ: Sandy, Shawn (BCC), Luke, Brendan (WBHF), Emily (Mrs. Paparazzi), Justin (rkolegacy), Melvin (Da D3aDmAn), Jason (Lionhart Chris Jericho), Matt (Matt Swagger), Dana (Lita B!tchez), Sabrina (Fizzllama), Jen (Out of control Diva) and a few others I can't think of right now.|||it depends if a wrestler has made a his success in match eg. jeff hardy ladder.than yes because if he has a bad ladder match everybody says he can't wrestle in the ladder match anymore.|||I dunno
BQ:A Few, my friends make occasional apprences in this section.|||stereotypes them? mick foley- i jus never took him too seriously after a while.|||well to me it dont really it dont|||idk
bq: ummmm i dunno really, ya i gess the nice ones|||name a gimmick match and ill tell u
BQ nope|||It all depends how it goes down the road, If the fans like it, WWE will build on it.
Festus has a bad gimmick. An example of a good gimmick would be Undertaker and Kane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)