Explaining WWe's W-H-Y

The Tale Wagging the Dog
Originally Posted 7-3-03

Hello, my intended...

So, there I was, working on another house for my daily bread, when it occurred to me...

They want it both ways.

We all know that criticism can be a hard pill to swallow, so I don't especially fault them for getting up in arms about us IWC folks. What I -do- fault them for is their dogged insistance that anyone that doesn't mark out like a 9 year old over their product is somehow beneath their contempt. How do they do this? Like a lawyer. See, I'll explain, one of the oldest tricks a lawyer has up his sleeve is 'discredit the witness'. If you can plant enough doubt that the person on the stand might not be especially trustworthy, you can beat almost any testimony... Observe:

Lawyer: Now, you allege my client did indeed have intercourse with you without your consent, correct?

Victim: No. I don't allege. I'm saying so outright.

Lawyer: But isn't it also your testimony that you were at the bar when you met my client?

Victim: Yes.

Lawyer: Drinking?

Victim: I had a beer, and your client gave me a gin and tonic.

Lawyer: Is it safe to say that you were possibly intoxicated?

Victim: No, because I was not. The gin and tonic contained rohypnal, and that was what affected me.

Lawyer: It does indeed say in the medical report that rohypnal was in your system when you were examined after you lodged your complaint, but let me ask you... Did you SEE my client add that substance to your drink?

Victim: If I actually SAW him put Roofies in my drink, I wouldn't have drank it.

Lawyer: So you didn't see it?

Victim: No.

Lawyer: So, how do you know it was HIM that put it in? It could have been ANYONE between the two of you.

Victim: HE brought me the drink, which HE ordered. Nobody else touched it once the bartender gave it to him - except him, and me.

Lawyer: Is it possible that the BARTENDER put the substance in your drink?

Victim: No.

Lawyer: Well, you just said you didn't see my CLIENT add that substance... Did you see the BARTENDER add it?

Victim: No.

Lawyer: Then it IS possible, correct?

Victim: The BARTENDER did NOT RAPE ME! The bartender had nothing to gain!

Lawyer: I didn't ask if he had anything to gain, miss. I asked if it was possible. Please answer the question.

Victim: I... I suppose so.

Lawyer: So, you were with my client at the bar... Then what?

Victim: We talked for a little while I drank the drink... Then... The next thing I know he's on top of me...

Lawyer: My client states that the sex was indeed consentual, do you remember giving him this consent?

Victim: NO! Because I didn't!

Lawyer: So you remember telling him 'No'?

Victim: (crying) He raped me!

Lawyer: You remember telling him 'No'? Do note that you're under oath.

Victim: HE RAPED ME!

Lawyer: Wasn't it JUST your testimony that you remember nothing? Is it not possible you did INDEED consent to intercourse?


Lawyer: Do you remember telling him anything on the night in question? Do you remember telling him either yes or no?


Lawyer: But you have no recollection of the events in question, correct?


Lawyer: No further questions.

Now folks, I'm pretty sure that that little example gives one a pretty clear parallel to draw to the current skirmishing betwixt WWe and IWC. But since I'm not sure anyone else is quite as intelligent as myself, I'll explain.

Vince has always had a fairly low opinion of the press. Always. Need I remind anyone of the tirade and threats he levelled at Bob Costas? Or the whole 'work' that was the Billy and Chuck Wedding? Or even the more recent bit with the slapping of the paper on HBO? These are the actions of someone that holds an entire group of people in a fairly high degree of contempt. And why? Simple. Vince doesn't feel he needs to 'answer to' anyone. He's said so himself on Smackdown, people. 'I'm Vincent Kennedy McMahon, dammit. I don't answer to ANYONE. Not you. Not the courts. Not the government. NOBODY. I don't even answer to the Man Upstairs.'

So, since he doesn't really hold much weight to the works of the 'legitimate' press, I hardly find it surprising that he doesn't give much props to those of us in the 'virtual press'. He's very used to doing however he likes without being challenged about it, and is not going to tolerate anyone 'calling him on the carpet' for what he does, or allows to be done in his company in the foreseeable future. This is textbook sociopathic behavior, of course, but what else is new...? The stance from the Towers seems to be that they are above any sort of criticism, and pretty much put their thumbs in their ears and yell, "Na Na Na Na Na! I can't hear you!" whenever someone has anything 'bad' to say about them. It's apparently company policy, as the fusillade from them against the IWC glowingly attests.

Q: What do you think of the IWC?

A: They are irrelevant. A vocal minority. A confabulation of 12 year olds on their parent's computers who've never been in the ring, and don't know what they're talking about.

Q: What about members of that community that HAVE been in the ring? People like Tom Zenk, Wayne Ferris, and Jim Hellwig for example?

A: Bitter old hasbeens that are trying to splash mud on us because they're jealous that the industry went on without them.

Q: So what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you or shows dissatisfaction with the product doesn't matter?

A: That's correct. We prefer to cater our shows to the people that enjoy the things we present.

Q: Abusing handicapped people? Sexual harrassment? Racism? Sexual deviance? Does anyone like those things that ISN'T named 'McMahon'?

A: You want me to kick your ass, don't you?

Q; Why not? Might as well get a few million while you've still got some, right?

A: This interview is OVER.

So it's pretty clear that their intent is to plant enough 'doubt' about the critics in the minds of the 'fans' that they'll go with the program - and dismiss any statements contradictory to this program. If Sean Michaels can get a pop in Montreal, folks, the hard fact is that this particular tactic seems to work. If anyone is dissatisfied, they usually walk away - as the huge losses in ratings and attendance clearly show. If anyone tries to SPEAK about their dissatisfaction, however, they are quickly labelled as apostates which the faithful should steer clear of at all costs. It's not exactly a win-win type deal, since Vince isn't exactly winning...

But he IS losing on HIS terms, don't you think?

To borrow a catchphrase, the bottom line is that if they can make it look like we're irrelevant to the casual fan, whether we are or not, that is what they will believe. We're aware of the stereotype. Some acne-afflicted pud in the basement with Jolt Cola and Mountain Dew busily pecking away at the keys in the 'safety of anonymity'. Some loser that 'puts himself over' on the internet, while in real life he's a meek little squidge that couldn't get a girl to have sex with him without paying in advance - and sometimes not even THEN. Some useless little toerag that vents his rage over his miserable approximation of a 'life' at any target he can find. Some guy that digs the T & A about as much as Lawler, and has impossible fantasies about bagging a Diva.

For the record, I like about three 'divas'. Jazz, Molly, and Victoria. But not because they're attractive to me. In fact, I don't think I've EVER written anything remotely concerning my attraction to ANY Diva, or similar 'unattainable' female. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. I could care LESS about any of them 'shaking their groove thing', as that - bluntly speaking - is LCD pandering (Lowest Common Denominator) and doesn't work on me. I will not watch a shitty program just because they have chicks in skimpy clothes. If I wanted to see that, I'd check out BAYWATCH, or rent PORN. I simply don't want to see it.

No, I'm not a homosexual. I'll explain myself: Sure, they have nice looking girls on there. But nice looking girls are a dime a dozen. They're everywhere. As a guy, I'm expected to turn into a drooling imbecile at the sight of such a creature, but I don't. Just being pretty, or hot, or foxy, or whatever synonym you use, does not impress me. It is common, and it does not last. Thus, I find it fairly silly to get excited about it - and I find it fairly silly others do.

Which is another reason I hate Lawler, but I digress.

As a wrestling fan, I want to see wrestling! Which is the reason I 'like' the ladies I've mentioned above...

Because they're three of the best WRESTLERS on the WRESTLING SHOW.

So, since you guys at WWe are such experts on how pitiful folks are; tell me how fucking pitiful is THAT?

You're welcome. See you SOON.