The Rock the biggest draw of 1999

[RDK]

Unless you can prove this source to Not be reputable, and refute it with actual numbers and concrete figures, you have zero credibility:


If you claim what they reported as false and not credible, you need to prove it, otherwise too fucking bad.

No amount of crying, trolling, whining or screaming “iT’s NoT cREdiBlE!!!!!” changes that.

Do you know what reportedly means?



Reportedly - according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true).

What they are reporting isn't credible because they have used a source that is not referenced, just like you're doing right now. Your claims have absolutely no validity and neither does a Magazine that is using 'reportedly' to preface their claims.

 

[Necro]

Exactly, while I’m posting sourced material from Ebony magazine, from a first hand interview, we got folks crying, “iT’s NOt CrEDIblE!!!” With no proof.

I don’t have tolerance for stupidity or willing denial to the facts I provided.

That sentence is hilarious. Where did they source the fact from? If they could get the fact from someone, I'm sure you can find a second hand source on that figure.

 

[RLStern]

The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove how this is more credible than WWE and Forbes. Spoiler, it's not.

Ok let’s play you game, since your going through gymnastics and denying factual numbers.

#1, Link me the Forbes article and WWE claims

#2, Prove Ebony magazine is not a credible source

#3, Prove ARCHIVED WWFShopzone listings are false.

You’re making the claims, so prove it, you haven’t provided even a scred of proof.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

That sentence is hilarious. Where did they source the fact from? If they could get the fact from someone, I'm sure you can find a second hand source on that figure.

They supposedly just asked the Rock...

 

[RLStern]

Do you know what reportedly means?



Reportedly - according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true).

What they are reporting isn't credible because they have used a source that is not referenced, just like you're doing right now. Your claims have absolutely no validity and neither does a Magazine that is using 'reportedly' to preface their claims.

The reference is The Rock, not Meltzer, not Keller, not unverified sources... but the Rock. First hand source.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

I don't think he understand how burden of proof works.

Why would he? He's just like the Pope, never wrong, nobody should ever question him, and he's totally infallible.

 

[Necro]

"Signing him, incidentally, for a reported $5.5 million, among the highest salaries any untested actor has ever earned for a starring role."

That is from EW.com on what The Rock made for The Mummy Returns which came out in 2001. He might have made 15 million a year, but doesn't mean it's from WWE.

 

[RLStern]

They supposedly just asked the Rock...

They did in fact interview The Rock... now you’re entering Alex Jones Conspiracy territory.

Rock was actually interviewed by Ebony magazine.

He is a source, unlike Meltzer, Keller and other 3 hand unverified claims
I’ve asked for proof multiple times by now and all I get is troll responses and I keep having to post the Credible Ebony Source, you keep crying that it’s not a source yet your proving such, especially in fact that he was interviewed. Meltzer, Keller, even Forbes are not more credible on Rock’s revenue than Rock himself.

2nd hand, 3 hand sources don’t work kids.

"Signing him, incidentally, for a reported $5.5 million, among the highest salaries any untested actor has ever earned for a starring role."

That is from EW.com on what The Rock made for The Mummy Returns which came out in 2001. He might have made 15 million a year, but doesn't mean it's from WWE.

15 Million A year, meaning multiple by this point

Source: Basic Read Comprehension.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

"Signing him, incidentally, for a reported $5.5 million, among the highest salaries any untested actor has ever earned for a starring role."

That is from EW.com on what The Rock made for The Mummy Returns which came out in 2001. He might have made 15 million a year, but doesn't mean it's from WWE.

That sounds about right, because I remember it being reported he made about $10 million a year.

 

[Necro]

They did in fact interview The Rock... now you’re entering Alex Jones Conspiracy territory.

Rock was actually interviewed by Ebony magazine.

He is a source, unlike Meltzer, Keller and other 3 hand unverified claims
I’ve asked for proof multiple times by now and all I get is troll responses and I keep having to post the Credible Ebony Source, you keep crying that it’s not a source yet your proving such, especially in fact that he was interviewed. Meltzer, Keller, even Forbes are not more credible on Rock’s revenue than Rock himself.

2nd hand, 3 hand sources don’t work kids.



15 Million A year, meaning multiple by this point

Source: Basic Read Comprehension.

You weren't referring to what the Rock was making in WWE at that point? Why were you mentioning Austin's merch sales then?

 

[Kross Rhodes]

They did in fact interview The Rock... now you’re entering Alex Jones Conspiracy territory.

Rock was actually interviewed by Ebony magazine.

He is a source, unlike Meltzer, Keller and other 3 hand unverified claims
I’ve asked for proof multiple times by now and all I get is troll responses and I keep having to post the Credible Ebony Source, you keep crying that it’s not a source yet your proving such, especially in fact that he was interviewed. Meltzer, Keller, even Forbes are not more credible on Rock’s revenue than Rock himself.

2nd hand, 3 hand sources don’t work kids.

I believe they talked to him. You missed why that was sarcasm, clearly.

You obviously don't understand burden of proof. YOU and you ALONE have to proof why we'd take Ebony asking Rock about what he made is a more credible source than WWE itself reporting its own financials that year and stating then and every year since that Austin sold more merch.

 

[RLStern]

We got @Necro who didn’t have the reading comprehension to see it said a year.

@Grimus Augustus Who uses claims with zero sources

@Exalted Who uses zero sources then denies a source and claims it’s not credible despite Directly interviewing the very person who made the revenue.

Their arguments
become comedy at this point.

That sounds about right, because I remember it being reported he made about $10 million a year.

Use reading comprehension, you’re smarter than that.

“$15 Million a year” meaning multiple years., not “$15 million this year”

Kindergarten level stuff, don’t think I’ve dealt with this low level of debate skill ever.

 

[Necro]

We got @Necro who didn’t have the reading comprehension to see it said a year.

@Grimus Augustus Who uses claims with zero sources

@Exalted Who uses zero sources then denies a source and claims it’s not credible despite Directly interviewing the very person who made the revenue.

Their arguments
become comedy at this point.

Use reading comprehension, you’re smarter than that.

“$15 Million a year” meaning multiple years., not “$15 million this year”

Kindergarten level stuff, don’t think I’ve dealt with this low level of debate skill ever.

15 million dollars a year doesn't mean he has made 15 million dollars a year for multiple years.

If I get a job and it pays 50,000 a year I would say I make 50,000 a year, even if that was my first year making 50,000 a year.

Also, you are making a thread about The Rock in 1999, then post an article about him in 2001. And the whole point of your thread was who was the biggest draw in WWE in 1999. Not outside of wrestling.

 

[RLStern]

You obviously don't understand burden of proof. YOU and you ALONE have to proof why we'd take Ebony asking Rock about what he made is a more credible source than WWE itself reporting its own financials that year and stating then and every year since that Austin sold more merch.

Again for the millionth time, What financials? Which Forbes article? what are the credibility of who’s being interviewed.

I provide a source that interviewed Rock first hand, the facts are from him the very person who had the revenue and made the revenue and you said it wasn’t credible, you lose any shred of credibility in this debate.

No sources, no proof, nothing.

You are the one who not only don’t understand the burden of proof, you don’t even comprehend the very concept of proof.

 

[Necro]

And what is the point anyway? The Rock is one of the biggest stars in the world at this point. Steve Austin was proven not to have the ability to crossover to movies in a big way. I think that is fairly obvious. Your argument is very convoluted.