titles changing hands

[dstebbins]

2) that was after the fact that they already told Rhino he could keep it. they found out about the angle and tried to stop it. so yeah after the fact they threatened legal action but again as you should realize by Team 3D coming out with WWE, WCW & ECW Replica Belts as well as the WWE womens title being dumped in the garbage on Nitro years ago, it was really against the law to show the belts on TV, the WWE was more concerned with a repeat performance of Nitro. Even though they don't technically own the belt that Rhino owns, it still represents a company they do. And they could win an unfair buisness tactics suit against TNA if they had shown the belt actually thrown in the garbage. Think about it this way. If WWE actually ligit owned the ECW Belt, and were worried about the angle why sue if it appears? Why not sue Rhino for possesion of stolen merchandise? This would have caused authroities to cease the belt until it was settled in court. The reason, cause they didn't own the actual belt.

If WWE didn't own the belt, then how could they forbid the showing of it in the first place? If Rhino owned the belt and couldn't show it, that's like Kurt Angle being forbidden to show his gold medal. How can WWE even have the legal right to forbid it? If they don't own the belt, then they couldn't stop Rhino from burning it even if they wanted to.

 

[This Guy]

your right they can't you aren't reading what I'm saying very well or perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough. The ECW Title belt represents WWE. The WWE owns ECW and therefore anything with its logo or name represents them. Now yes legally TNA can say whatever the hell they want do whatever the hell they want, but when it was clear that the intent was to desicrate the ECW Title on TV the WWE could sue for unfair compition. Which they did back in 1995/96 (whatever year it was) to WCW when the Outsiders debuted. Because the Outsiders gimmick originally was portrayed to be WWE employees invading WCW. The WWE threatened the same legal action on WCW they did on WWE. Not because WCW couldn't say WWE, not because they couldn't even aknowlage the fact that Nash & Hall had just left the WWE. But because the WWE believed the intent was to have Nash & Hall eventually look like the losers and thus implying that the WWE had lost an invasion war on WCW. The courts ruled that it was unfair compition then and thats why on the next PPV the Great American Bash they had Eric Bischoff interview them and ask them straight out of they worked for the WWE and they said no. That was the ruling that they had to clairfy that there was no ties to the WWE. Its the same thing with the ECW belt. Rhino could wear it to the ring every week if he wanted to but if the WWE feels that the purpose is to make TNA look supiror over them, then the WWE is going to sue. However keep in mind the ECW Title does have the ECW logo on it that the WWE owns the trademark too. So they may not own the belt but they own an image on the belt and could also sue for that reason.

Your arguement is that the WWE owns the belt. But your missing one simple fact that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't. If the WWE owned it, they would just sue and get it back. End of story dude, stop arguing with me. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Fatal 55]

Rey Mysterio & Billy Kidman have the old Cruiserweight Tag Team Titles in their posession i read somewhere...

 

[This Guy]

its possible. When WWE bought WCW they told the wrestlers just to hold onto the belts until they were ready to relaunch WCW. Because Rey never came over when WCW was bought, they probably decided against doing anything with the Cruiserweight Tag belts since they had all the other champions under contract. By the time they got Rey the Alliance and WCW was dead so they probably just didn't care or worry about it after that.

 

[dstebbins]

Your arguement is that the WWE owns the belt. But your missing one simple fact that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't. If the WWE owned it, they would just sue and get it back. End of story dude, stop arguing with me. I know what I'm talking about.

First off, I never "argue," unless you consider an intelligent conversation of pointing out each others' confusions as an "arguement." I make sure I completely understand what someone is saying before I agree or disagree with them, and that's what I'm doing now, so take that comment about me stopping argueing with you and shove it up your clitoris.

Second, I never, NEVER once said outside of your little wet dreams that Vince owned the belt. Quite the contrary, I was presenting a paradox and asking you to clear it up, because I knew exactly what you said: Vince couldn't own the belt because he could always sue and get it back. Instead, you decided to treat me with aggression, implying that I'm some kind of fucking mindless child. You haven't even seen me on other forums, have you? If you did, you'd know I yeild if I understand someone's statement and ask questions if I have blank spots. Of course, you're too busy sticking your head further up your own ass to realise that that's what I was doing here.

Tell me, can we actually have a legitimate conversation, complete with questions, answers, comments, mutual respect, and the loser yeilding with no hard feelings, or are you just going to say things like "I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it?" Let me know the answer and we'll cross whichever bridge we come to.

 

[This Guy]

First off, I never "argue," unless you consider an intelligent conversation of pointing out each others' confusions as an "arguement." I make sure I completely understand what someone is saying before I agree or disagree with them, and that's what I'm doing now, so take that comment about me stopping argueing with you and shove it up your clitoris.

1) An arguement is not nessisarly a bad thing. Debating, arguing, discussing, difference of opinion call it what you want, its all the same thing. What you are doing here now is fighting or in this case flaming which is a major no no outside of HIAT. Telling me to shove things up body parts (ones I don't have btw, I'm a guy I don't have a clitoris) is flaming. At what point did I flame you? All I said was I know I'm right. I never did not treat you with a lack of respect that you seem to think I did. You want to see me show lack or respect go check out what I say to guys like Lethal & HC in HIAT. Thats lack of respect.

Second, I never, NEVER once said outside of your little wet dreams that Vince owned the belt. Quite the contrary, I was presenting a paradox and asking you to clear it up, because I knew exactly what you said: Vince couldn't own the belt because he could always sue and get it back. Instead, you decided to treat me with aggression, implying that I'm some kind of fucking mindless child. You haven't even seen me on other forums, have you? If you did, you'd know I yeild if I understand someone's statement and ask questions if I have blank spots. Of course, you're too busy sticking your head further up your own ass to realise that that's what I was doing here.

2) As your own quote of my post says "Your arguement is..." Which means I didn't say that you believed that vince owned the belt either. As you said you were presenting an opossing view, I was explaining why that oposing view is not possible with the simpelist of reasons. I'm sure I could have come up with more complicated proof but I beleive in Keeping it simple whenever possible.

3) No I have never seen you on other forums cause this is the only one I'm on. I don't care about your posting or posting abilities anywhere else.

Tell me, can we actually have a legitimate conversation, complete with questions, answers, comments, mutual respect, and the loser yeilding with no hard feelings, or are you just going to say things like "I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it?" Let me know the answer and we'll cross whichever bridge we come to.

4) I was having a legitimate conversation complete with questions, answers & comments....though the mutual respect was yet to be earned as I don't really know you, but that doesn't mean I was showing you a lack of respect either despite what you may think. Your the one that turned this into a flame war. I never told you to get over it. I just told you that I know I'm right.

My final thought in not so many words you basically accused me of acting more or less childish in this discussion yet at no point did I resort to comments like the ones you just used here. Bottom line dude, think before you speak because in your arguement (yes its an arguement still and thats not a bad thing) in accusing me you acted like a child. So maybe if I did treat you like one as you accuse me of doing (which I didn't) perhaps you've just proven I was right to do so. I mean shove it up your clitoris, head up your ass & saying I have wet dreams???? thats not very mature for a intelegent conversation is it?

 

[dstebbins]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked you in the last one. It's a yes or no question. It requires a yes or no answer, nothing more.

 

[This Guy]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked you in the last one. It's a yes or no question. It requires a yes or no answer, nothing more.

You just don't listen (or in this case read) do you? I already answered your question, and that is I can't answer it. Your question was if we could have a mature conversation and as I said in point # 4.......

4) I was having a legitimate conversation complete with questions, answers & comments....though the mutual respect was yet to be earned as I don't really know you, but that doesn't mean I was showing you a lack of respect either despite what you may think. Your the one that turned this into a flame war. I never told you to get over it. I just told you that I know I'm right.

In other words your the one who obviously doesn't know how to have a mature conversation so you need to answer that question yourself, because I'm being quite mature about this. You're the one that started acting childish with this whole situation.

 

[dstebbins]

No, it's YOU who doesn't understand. I started acting "immature" when you accused me of arguing (and I still wasn't arguing, dumbass). You treat me with respect, I treat you with respect. You cross me, and I cross you. It's that simple. Now, if only you could realize this.

Besides, you haven't answered my question for one reason: I asked you a yes or no question, and I've yet to see a yes or no answer, just a bunch of bullshit about how you know more than me. A yes or no question requires a yes or no answer. I know that's a little too much for your simple little mind to comprehend, but it is there.

 

[★Chuck Zombie★]

argument
1. A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason:
2. A verbal dispute; a quarrel.
3. A process of reasoning.
4. (philosophy, logic) A series of statements organized so that the final statement is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding statements, which function as premises.

Yeah, argument is a pretty vague term. It includes what you meant, but it also includes what was actually happening. Also, I would think it's in your best interest if you return to topic and stop flaming him.

 

[This Guy]

No, it's YOU who doesn't understand. I started acting "immature" when you accused me of arguing (and I still wasn't arguing, dumbass). You treat me with respect, I treat you with respect. You cross me, and I cross you. It's that simple. Now, if only you could realize this.

Besides, you haven't answered my question for one reason: I asked you a yes or no question, and I've yet to see a yes or no answer, just a bunch of bullshit about how you know more than me. A yes or no question requires a yes or no answer. I know that's a little too much for your simple little mind to comprehend, but it is there.

Yeah, argument is a pretty vague term. It includes what you meant, but it also includes what was actually happening. Also, I would think it's in your best interest if you return to topic and stop flaming him.

Well dstebbins, I guess I do know more then you, because I never crossed your or acted immature, you started that all on your own as I pointed out, as I already explained why I can't give you a yes or no answer because as I just said again, you started the flaming and the immaturity, I've still been having a rational discussion, arguement, whatever you want to call it, and you threw a post out there using childish insults and foul language.

As Chuck has pointed out with his dictionary posting an arguement is the correct term for what we were having right from the start. You can keep demanding a yes or no answer from me all you want, but I've already explained why its in your court to keep this discussion/arguement thread on a mature level, which you at least did this time. But as Chuck said go back to topic if you want this thread to stay alive. I've already stated and posted fact to support my position and opinion in this discussion/arguement. If you have more to say I sudjest you drop this who if I disrespected you or not because I think its becoming painfully obvious to at least the administrators of this site that I did not. Otherwise I'll close this thread myself.