Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:Ramm Junge, on 25 Jun 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:
Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:Warrior Fan, on 24 Jun 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:
I understand that Vince is a crazy guy that has almost no limits but what I'm getting at is the fact that these things have all been done in on-air story lines. Violating the wellness policy has no correlation with what is actually happening on the main product; that's what you're failing to understand. You don't seem to understand that Roman not being on TV is bad for them. When Cena is injured, they try to rush him back as soon as possible because of how important he is for them. Every week he's not on TV is another week they dread; it's no different for Reigns. They want Reigns on TV and pretending he violated the wellness policy and having him off of TV in hopes fans would like him makes no sense because that has never been the case in the past; ever. You think Vince would suspend everyone else no matter how big they are but not suspend Reigns? Thirty days away from the company in the midst of a story line concerning Ambrose and Rollins? Does that really make sense to you?
You're taking something that's a major part of their public image and applying it to story lines and I don't understand why you don't see the issue in that. When WWE addresses the public, their wellness policy is one of those things they want people to know is a major part of who they are and that's it's a serious matter to them. How can you acknowledge that top wrestlers like Randy Orton and Jeff Hardy were suspended despite being major stars at the time but refuse to believe that Reigns was suspended? This isn't a conspiracy.
Can you provide links to these intentional shots to the head because I have yet to see one. I don't mean accidental where the person taken the shot didn't move in time but measured and calculated shots to the head like back in the Attitude Era and original ECW days in which there's no question that was their intention. A chair shot to the back that may happen to hit a person on the head isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not not going to get into rumors because it wouldn't get anywhere. The facts are that top stars in the past have been suspended in the past for violating the wellness policy, why do you think this is any different? Why do you think they would mock the very thing that's a major part of their corporate image in which they have shareholders to answer to? Why do you think they would choose a ridiculous story that has no history of being successful and not being able to have their golden child on TV for thirty days (not to mention him being right in the middle of a main event story line leading into the next PPV as well as missing scheduled live events)? I'm sincerely curious to know the answers to these questions.
A video posted by WWE where shows clearly that Dean shots Seth to the head:
Bruh, you didn't saw Money in the Bank 2016? There were at least 2 more moments where wrestlers got shots to the head. Of course, they had their hands up for protection, but still...
Why would you think I will answer to your questions about my own opinion? I answered so far to many of them and all you did was to still not agree with me. I have my own opinion, such as you have your own. I didn't tried to change your opinion, while YOUR ISSUES seams to be about me not changing my own opinion. Just because my opinion is so different than yours, I do not have a reason to explain everything to you. And if you like the questions-game, I'll play it too:
Where's the logic of taking Natalya off from the TV so much time, and then make to her a great return only to job to Charlotte?
Where's the logic of firing Damien Sandow?
Where's the logic of taking CM Punk off of TV, and then fire him on his wedding day?(yeah, old, so what?)
Where's the logic of making Lana getting in love with Dolph Ziggler while she was Rusev's REAL LIFE girlfriend?
Where's the logic of making Rusev, Alberto Del Rio, Sheamus and Wade Barrett looking so weak, while The League Of Nations could have been an extremely powerful force in WWE period?
Where's the logic of not letting Cody Rhodes to turn as Cody Rhodes again on TV?
Where's the logic of depushing Paige so much as she looks so weak on screen?
Where's the logic of kipping Kane inside a wrestling ring with a staph infection?(again, old news, but so what?)
Where's the logic of not wanting China as a HOF until she died?(here Triple H may have been involved too, I can't disagree)
And those are some of the recent ones I remember, with the exception of 2 of them, which were actually important.
You mean Dean Ambrose pushing the MIB suitcase into Rollins elbow? That's not what we're talking about and that can hardly be considered contact. We can clearly see Ambrose hitting Rollins elbow and if you watch the moment in real time, it's more like Ambrose barely shoves the suitcase into Rollins elbow which is a spot that has always been around. You might have to watch it again. When I say chair shots to the head, I mean this (and no, it doesn't have to be this hard but there has to be no protection and it has to be calculated and intentional): https://www.youtube....h?v=UfbFgyfZTUI
No, I didn't see certain matches like Titus and Rusev and didn't watch all of the main event so unless these happened in those matches, I've never seen what you're claiming and you're claiming there were at least 2.
So I'm not allowed to try to question and understand your opinion because it's your opinion? We're not talking about a scenario in which you say "John Cena is the best wrestler of all time", that's totally different than "The Montreal Screwjob was a work" or in this case, "Roman Reigns is off of TV because they want the fans to like him". It's not based on personal taste and it's something that we can evaluate. I assumed this was a forum in which people could respond to others take on things and question them regardless of it being their opinion. If you say "in my opinion, dinosaurs never roamed the earth and fossils were placed there to trick us", I'm not allowed to respond to that or is there just a limit on how many questions I can ask?
Actually not really, you'll respond to my question and then when I follow up on your response you'll just ignore it such as when I said that no wrestler has gained anything from violating the wellness policy and you said Adam Rose and I refuted this claim, you never responded to it. Other times you'll acknowledge that a point I made is valid and that's the end of that such as with Randy Orton. If Randy Orton being suspended on more than one occasion is valid then why does that point just evaporate as if it was never made? Other times you don't respond to valid points such as having Reigns off of TV for 30 days despite being their golden boy in the midst of a main event angle and the resulting loss in profit as well as missed lived events that he is (or was) scheduled for. You don't respond to these things.
The funny thing about your questions are that I have very interesting theories behind the majority of them but I'm sure those questions weren't asked with the intention of me actually answering them although I can share my theories if you want me to. The questions you've asked also aren't questions that you've given your own take on either; they're simply "why did this happen, huh?" as opposed to "I think Sandow was fired because the WWE hates his beard, what do you think?". You see the difference? I'm not playing a "game" but if you're going to get upset and/or offended because we're having a discussion concerning why I think you're wrong then I'll just leave this alone.