|
Post by Midnight-Metal-Master on Dec 1, 2018 12:39:01 GMT -5
Can my collection be considered legit without the man who was the face of the business in the era? Answered you own question with that statement basically. No it’s not a legit golden age collection without the face of the golden age era!!!
|
|
|
Post by Rock-Is-King on Dec 1, 2018 13:21:56 GMT -5
Well I would hope you like your collection (after all, you're the one who made the decision to purchase/collect the figures that you have) but the question wasn't about your pride. The question was about the 'legitimacy' or 'completion' of a Hulk Hogan-less pro-wrestling figure collection from the 80s. To me, it's a rhetorical question and needs no further discussion. I didn't think I had to go into more detail than that, but apparently I do. Obviously, anyone can collect anyone or anything they want, but the question posed was regarding the general perception of a wrestling figure collection - from the 80s and 90s no less - and whether or not it would be considered legit without the representation of Hulk Hogan. The ONLY answer is NO - without Hulk Hogan, it's not complete. You can collect Rocky figures and leave out Rocky Balboa, you can collect X-Men figures and leave out Wolverine. Hell, you can even collect Batman figures and choose to not collect Batman or Bruce Wayne. Maybe you want to collect US Presidents but are leaving out Clinton because you don't approve of his extra-marital affairs. Good for you, but your US President collection is not complete. You can do and collect whatever you want for whatever reasons you have, but a wrestling figure collection from the 80s is not going to be considered 'legit' or 'complete' without Hulk Hogan. That was the question and this is the only answer. EDIT: after re-reading my post, it comes off a bit aggressive towards SYE. I didn't mean for it to sound that way, but just further explaining my reasons against this matter of pride of personal choice that I'm sure others share. No offense intended. Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. Why no Demolition?? Just curious.
|
|
Sting
Main Eventer
The Wolfpac
Joined on: Mar 25, 2018 14:33:11 GMT -5
Posts: 2,324
|
Post by Sting on Dec 1, 2018 14:19:29 GMT -5
Well I would hope you like your collection (after all, you're the one who made the decision to purchase/collect the figures that you have) but the question wasn't about your pride. The question was about the 'legitimacy' or 'completion' of a Hulk Hogan-less pro-wrestling figure collection from the 80s. To me, it's a rhetorical question and needs no further discussion. I didn't think I had to go into more detail than that, but apparently I do. Obviously, anyone can collect anyone or anything they want, but the question posed was regarding the general perception of a wrestling figure collection - from the 80s and 90s no less - and whether or not it would be considered legit without the representation of Hulk Hogan. The ONLY answer is NO - without Hulk Hogan, it's not complete. You can collect Rocky figures and leave out Rocky Balboa, you can collect X-Men figures and leave out Wolverine. Hell, you can even collect Batman figures and choose to not collect Batman or Bruce Wayne. Maybe you want to collect US Presidents but are leaving out Clinton because you don't approve of his extra-marital affairs. Good for you, but your US President collection is not complete. You can do and collect whatever you want for whatever reasons you have, but a wrestling figure collection from the 80s is not going to be considered 'legit' or 'complete' without Hulk Hogan. That was the question and this is the only answer. EDIT: after re-reading my post, it comes off a bit aggressive towards SYE. I didn't mean for it to sound that way, but just further explaining my reasons against this matter of pride of personal choice that I'm sure others share. No offense intended. Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. OP asked if his Golden era collection could be considered legit. Yes, there is no international figure police but OP asked the question and we’re responding. I completely agree with MWFD. If you don’t have the one guy who was the very definition of the era then you cannot have an accurate representation of that era. I don’t get the Demolition example. Others have given examples like that too e.g. missing Benoit makes your Attitude era collection incomplete. I don’t think it does. They were big guys but they didn’t define the era. No one really will care if they are not in your collection. I see it like this, take out Hogan in the Golden era and do you get that era? No. Take out anyone else in that era and do you still get that era? Most likely yes. If someone is that important for an era then how can a Hogan-less collection be considered a Golden era collection. Anyone who sees it will ask the same question. Where’s Hogan? I guess it all comes down to your definition of the Golden era and it makes for a very interesting thread. I couldn’t call a car without an engine a car. I couldn’t call the Golden era without Hogan the Golden era. I guess we all have different definitions of a Golden era collection.
|
|
|
Post by Rock-Is-King on Dec 1, 2018 14:37:18 GMT -5
Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. OP asked if his Golden era collection could be considered legit. Yes, there is no international figure police but OP asked the question and we’re responding. I completely agree with MWFD. If you don’t have the one guy who was the very definition of the era then you cannot have an accurate representation of that era. I don’t get the Demolition example. Others have given examples like that too e.g. missing Benoit makes your Attitude era collection incomplete. I don’t think it does. They were big guys but they didn’t define the era. No one really will care if they are not in your collection. I see it like this, take out Hogan in the Golden era and do you get that era? No. Take out anyone else in that era and do you still get that era? Most likely yes. If someone is that important for an era then how can a Hogan-less collection be considered a Golden era collection. Anyone who sees it will ask the same question. Where’s Hogan? I guess it all comes down to your definition of the Golden era and it makes for a very interesting thread. I couldn’t call a car without an engine a car. I couldn’t call the Golden era without Hogan the Golden era. I guess we all have different definitions of a Golden era collection. This is so true....Take me for example, my definition of the “golden era” isn’t even the WWF/E....After growing up in the south, my personal definition of it is both the NWA & WCW....to me personally that’s the golden era.
|
|
Sting
Main Eventer
The Wolfpac
Joined on: Mar 25, 2018 14:33:11 GMT -5
Posts: 2,324
|
Post by Sting on Dec 1, 2018 14:40:49 GMT -5
OP asked if his Golden era collection could be considered legit. Yes, there is no international figure police but OP asked the question and we’re responding. I completely agree with MWFD. If you don’t have the one guy who was the very definition of the era then you cannot have an accurate representation of that era. I don’t get the Demolition example. Others have given examples like that too e.g. missing Benoit makes your Attitude era collection incomplete. I don’t think it does. They were big guys but they didn’t define the era. No one really will care if they are not in your collection. I see it like this, take out Hogan in the Golden era and do you get that era? No. Take out anyone else in that era and do you still get that era? Most likely yes. If someone is that important for an era then how can a Hogan-less collection be considered a Golden era collection. Anyone who sees it will ask the same question. Where’s Hogan? I guess it all comes down to your definition of the Golden era and it makes for a very interesting thread. I couldn’t call a car without an engine a car. I couldn’t call the Golden era without Hogan the Golden era. I guess we all have different definitions of a Golden era collection. This is so true....Take me for example, my definition of the “golden era” isn’t even the WWF/E....After growing up in the south, my personal definition of it is both the NWA & WCW....to me personally that’s the golden era. Same with the Attitude era for me. Most people define it as Austin and WWF guys but the nWo and Sting and the rest of WCW were also in the Attitude era.
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Dec 1, 2018 15:30:08 GMT -5
Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. Why no Demolition?? Just curious. I always thought they looked like two (eventually three) businessmen who got dressed up in S&M outfits for a wild and kinky Saturday night on the town with their favorite dominatrix, who happened to be an elderly Japanese man. Never bought into 'em as wrestlers or tag team champions. Leave it to Vince to turn his attempt to copy LoD into that!
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Dec 1, 2018 15:34:14 GMT -5
Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. OP asked if his Golden era collection could be considered legit. Yes, there is no international figure police but OP asked the question and we’re responding. I completely agree with MWFD. If you don’t have the one guy who was the very definition of the era then you cannot have an accurate representation of that era. I don’t get the Demolition example. Others have given examples like that too e.g. missing Benoit makes your Attitude era collection incomplete. I don’t think it does. They were big guys but they didn’t define the era. No one really will care if they are not in your collection. I see it like this, take out Hogan in the Golden era and do you get that era? No. Take out anyone else in that era and do you still get that era? Most likely yes. If someone is that important for an era then how can a Hogan-less collection be considered a Golden era collection. Anyone who sees it will ask the same question. Where’s Hogan? I guess it all comes down to your definition of the Golden era and it makes for a very interesting thread. I couldn’t call a car without an engine a car. I couldn’t call the Golden era without Hogan the Golden era. I guess we all have different definitions of a Golden era collection. I wasn't addressing you or anyone who presented their OPINION as an OPINION, only the guy who through choice of words and tone presented his OPINION as FACT. As you admit in your final sentence (with a tweak if you don't mind), we all have different OPINIONS of a Golden Era collection.
|
|
Sting
Main Eventer
The Wolfpac
Joined on: Mar 25, 2018 14:33:11 GMT -5
Posts: 2,324
|
Post by Sting on Dec 1, 2018 16:12:53 GMT -5
Why no Demolition?? Just curious. I always thought they looked like two (eventually three) businessmen who got dressed up in S&M outfits for a wild and kinky Saturday night on the town with their favorite dominatrix, who happened to be an elderly Japanese man. Never bought into 'em as wrestlers or tag team champions. Leave it to Vince to turn his attempt to copy LoD into that! That’s brilliant I thought you was going to say they didn’t sign an autograph for you or something. I hold a grudge against Fandango for that reason. **edit** Dammit! You’ve ruined Demolition for me now lol this is all I’m going to think about when I see them.
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Dec 1, 2018 16:15:29 GMT -5
I always thought they looked like two (eventually three) businessmen who got dressed up in S&M outfits for a wild and kinky Saturday night on the town with their favorite dominatrix, who happened to be an elderly Japanese man. Never bought into 'em as wrestlers or tag team champions. Leave it to Vince to turn his attempt to copy LoD into that! That’s brilliant I thought you was going to say they didn’t sign an autograph for you or something. I hold a grudge against Fandango for that reason. **edit** Dammit! You’ve ruined Demolition for me now lol this is all I’m going to think about when I see them. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Dec 1, 2018 17:19:29 GMT -5
I suppose having a Golden/Hulkamania Era collection without Hulk Hogan is weird, but then again, I have a PG Era collection and I dont have any figures of The Miz, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose and AJ Styles.
|
|
scotscollector
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 7, 2018 17:08:34 GMT -5
Posts: 99
|
Post by scotscollector on Dec 1, 2018 17:38:09 GMT -5
Just on Demolition there were always one of my favourite tag teams and eventually had to spend a pretty penny to get them.
I think I've decided I'll get a Hogan DM figure but only if I get it cheap on eBay lol
|
|
MWFD
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 19, 2012 11:48:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by MWFD on Dec 2, 2018 17:28:59 GMT -5
Well I would hope you like your collection (after all, you're the one who made the decision to purchase/collect the figures that you have) but the question wasn't about your pride. The question was about the 'legitimacy' or 'completion' of a Hulk Hogan-less pro-wrestling figure collection from the 80s. To me, it's a rhetorical question and needs no further discussion. I didn't think I had to go into more detail than that, but apparently I do. Obviously, anyone can collect anyone or anything they want, but the question posed was regarding the general perception of a wrestling figure collection - from the 80s and 90s no less - and whether or not it would be considered legit without the representation of Hulk Hogan. The ONLY answer is NO - without Hulk Hogan, it's not complete. You can collect Rocky figures and leave out Rocky Balboa, you can collect X-Men figures and leave out Wolverine. Hell, you can even collect Batman figures and choose to not collect Batman or Bruce Wayne. Maybe you want to collect US Presidents but are leaving out Clinton because you don't approve of his extra-marital affairs. Good for you, but your US President collection is not complete. You can do and collect whatever you want for whatever reasons you have, but a wrestling figure collection from the 80s is not going to be considered 'legit' or 'complete' without Hulk Hogan. That was the question and this is the only answer. EDIT: after re-reading my post, it comes off a bit aggressive towards SYE. I didn't mean for it to sound that way, but just further explaining my reasons against this matter of pride of personal choice that I'm sure others share. No offense intended. Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. No 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hogan. You can disagree with me all you want but you’d be wrong (not directed at anyone specifically). I know how that comes across and I’m not saying that ALL of my opinions are always correct but in this case, come on, it’s unarguable. I can have the opinion that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena. Again, it’d be wrong but I can have that opinion. If anyone doesn’t get that, I can’t help em.
|
|
|
Post by THEPERFECTFIGURECOLLECTION on Dec 2, 2018 17:45:54 GMT -5
I’m same as you with the collecting although I’m early 2000s n earlier. I never could stand Hogan as a kid but you just can’t have a collection of those eras without him
|
|
|
Post by Da Handsome 1 on Dec 2, 2018 19:34:54 GMT -5
Hogan was the WWF in the 80’s
|
|
aaron34
Superstar
Joined on: Sept 30, 2013 21:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 674
|
Post by aaron34 on Dec 3, 2018 5:12:07 GMT -5
It would be like collecting nba jerseys from the 90’s without having a bulls #23...
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Dec 3, 2018 9:27:26 GMT -5
Expect some strongly worded replies whenever you present your OPINION as any kind of FACT! There is no international figure collecting organization that has official standards for what is or is not a "legitimate" collection. The FACT remains: this is your OPINION and we can disagree without it being some "matter of pride". For the record, my classic collection does have Hogan but it does not and NEVER will have Demolition. And I'm perfectly okay with that, even if it means someone like you might come along and tell me how it's not a "legitimate" collection. No 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hogan. You can disagree with me all you want but you’d be wrong (not directed at anyone specifically). I know how that comes across and I’m not saying that ALL of my opinions are always correct but in this case, come on, it’s unarguable. I can have the opinion that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena. Again, it’d be wrong but I can have that opinion. If anyone doesn’t get that, I can’t help em. What a weird example. Star power, while a weird sort of measuring stick in its own right, is generally a definitive metric that can be gauged through the use of drawing power, sales, mainstream recognition, etc. Stating that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena would be hard to shield beneath the cover of opinion because it can, at least in the present, be proven factually inaccurate. Contrarily, there is no definitive metric for the "legitimacy" or even the completion of a personal collection because it's a subjective matter. You can be of the opinion that it's not complete without a representation of Hogan, but as much as you'd like to disagree, it is arguable as long as OP chooses to decide for himself that he doesn't want nor require a Hogan figure for him to be satisfied with the contents of his private, personal collection.
|
|
MWFD
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 19, 2012 11:48:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by MWFD on Dec 3, 2018 10:36:23 GMT -5
No 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hogan. You can disagree with me all you want but you’d be wrong (not directed at anyone specifically). I know how that comes across and I’m not saying that ALL of my opinions are always correct but in this case, come on, it’s unarguable. I can have the opinion that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena. Again, it’d be wrong but I can have that opinion. If anyone doesn’t get that, I can’t help em. What a weird example. Star power, while a weird sort of measuring stick in its own right, is generally a definitive metric that can be gauged through the use of drawing power, sales, mainstream recognition, etc. Stating that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena would be hard to shield beneath the cover of opinion because it can, at least in the present, be proven factually inaccurate. Contrarily, there is no definitive metric for the "legitimacy" or even the completion of a personal collection because it's a subjective matter. You can be of the opinion that it's not complete without a representation of Hogan, but as much as you'd like to disagree, it is arguable as long as OP chooses to decide for himself that he doesn't want nor require a Hogan figure for him to be satisfied with the contents of his private, personal collection. No dude - now I am directing this at SYE - you can't have it both ways. You also are putting words into my mouth. Two follow-up points then I'm done cause this topic just isn't worthy of 50 more explanations or clarifications. 1) You can't have it both ways. You can't disqualify my statement on a Hogan-less 80s collection not being complete because 'there's no definitive metric for legitimacy of wrestling figures', and then act like there is some sort of metric to determine all other opinions. I can provide countless of other examples if you don't like the one I chose, but you're missing the point. Some opinions are just flat out wrong. Ah what the heck, here's another example - you think human waste smells better than roses, or to quote Bobby Heenan, you can compare ice cream to horse manure. There's no 'definitive metric' there, but you'd still be wrong. Is everyone entitled to their opinion? Of course. But are all opinions correct? Or accurate? Or right? Of course not. And anyone who thinks that an 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hulk Hogan would be flat out wrong. 2) Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying collectors can't 'be satisfied', as you put it, with their Hogan-less collection. I'm not saying that any Hogan-less collection is bad, or that you have to approve of the life-choices of every wrestling talent's figure you collect. Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that any self-respecting, even semi-knowledgeable wrestling figure collector with an ounce of integrity cannot deny that having a 1980s or 1990s wrestling figure collection without Hulk Hogan is just not complete. Not legitimate. Not finished. Use whatever synonym you want. If you don't get that or want to continue to devolve into semantics then, quite frankly, your opinion just doesn't matter to me. Hogan must be included in any complete 80s or 90s WWF collection. Case closed, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Dec 3, 2018 11:24:40 GMT -5
What a weird example. Star power, while a weird sort of measuring stick in its own right, is generally a definitive metric that can be gauged through the use of drawing power, sales, mainstream recognition, etc. Stating that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena would be hard to shield beneath the cover of opinion because it can, at least in the present, be proven factually inaccurate. Contrarily, there is no definitive metric for the "legitimacy" or even the completion of a personal collection because it's a subjective matter. You can be of the opinion that it's not complete without a representation of Hogan, but as much as you'd like to disagree, it is arguable as long as OP chooses to decide for himself that he doesn't want nor require a Hogan figure for him to be satisfied with the contents of his private, personal collection. No dude - now I am directing this at SYE - you can't have it both ways. You also are putting words into my mouth. Two follow-up points then I'm done cause this topic just isn't worthy of 50 more explanations or clarifications. 1) You can't have it both ways. You can't disqualify my statement on a Hogan-less 80s collection not being complete because 'there's no definitive metric for legitimacy of wrestling figures', and then act like there is some sort of metric to determine all other opinions. I can provide countless of other examples if you don't like the one I chose, but you're missing the point. Some opinions are just flat out wrong. Ah what the heck, here's another example - you think human waste smells better than roses, or to quote Bobby Heenan, you can compare ice cream to horse manure. There's no 'definitive metric' there, but you'd still be wrong. Is everyone entitled to their opinion? Of course. But are all opinions correct? Or accurate? Or right? Of course not. And anyone who thinks that an 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hulk Hogan would be flat out wrong. 2) Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying collectors can't 'be satisfied', as you put it, with their Hogan-less collection. I'm not saying that any Hogan-less collection is bad, or that you have to approve of the life-choices of every wrestling talent's figure you collect. Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that any self-respecting, even semi-knowledgeable wrestling figure collector with an ounce of integrity cannot deny that having a 1980s or 1990s wrestling figure collection without Hulk Hogan is just not complete. Not legitimate. Not finished. Use whatever synonym you want. If you don't get that or want to continue to devolve into semantics then, quite frankly, your opinion just doesn't matter to me. Hogan must be included in any complete 80s or 90s WWF collection. Case closed, end of story. I don't know where you're getting "both ways". The example you gave of a patently false "opinion" was a factually inaccurate statement. Given the subjective nature of opinions, at least in this matter, yes - all opinions are correct, accurate, and right, just as much as all opinions are incorrect, inaccurate, and wrong. They're subjective. Even your extremist example comparing human waste to roses can't hold water, because popular opinion still isn't the standard bearer of proven fact. That would be as valid an example as citing the sales of a musician's output as a benchmark for their technical proficiency. It's not correlative. As an aside, drawing attention to the above bold-faced statement, can I revel for a moment in just how extreme these opinions have become? In three pages, we've gone from the already-too-high-a-benchmark of "legitimizing" the collections of others to now tying the personal standards of one's collection into their collection sense of self respect, industry knowledge, and personal integrity? That's serious business, folks.
|
|
|
Post by King Richius on Dec 3, 2018 12:20:57 GMT -5
What a weird example. Star power, while a weird sort of measuring stick in its own right, is generally a definitive metric that can be gauged through the use of drawing power, sales, mainstream recognition, etc. Stating that Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena would be hard to shield beneath the cover of opinion because it can, at least in the present, be proven factually inaccurate. Contrarily, there is no definitive metric for the "legitimacy" or even the completion of a personal collection because it's a subjective matter. You can be of the opinion that it's not complete without a representation of Hogan, but as much as you'd like to disagree, it is arguable as long as OP chooses to decide for himself that he doesn't want nor require a Hogan figure for him to be satisfied with the contents of his private, personal collection. No dude - now I am directing this at SYE - you can't have it both ways. You also are putting words into my mouth. Two follow-up points then I'm done cause this topic just isn't worthy of 50 more explanations or clarifications. 1) You can't have it both ways. You can't disqualify my statement on a Hogan-less 80s collection not being complete because 'there's no definitive metric for legitimacy of wrestling figures', and then act like there is some sort of metric to determine all other opinions. I can provide countless of other examples if you don't like the one I chose, but you're missing the point. Some opinions are just flat out wrong. Ah what the heck, here's another example - you think human waste smells better than roses, or to quote Bobby Heenan, you can compare ice cream to horse manure. There's no 'definitive metric' there, but you'd still be wrong. Is everyone entitled to their opinion? Of course. But are all opinions correct? Or accurate? Or right? Of course not. And anyone who thinks that an 80s wrestling figure collection is complete without Hulk Hogan would be flat out wrong. 2) Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying collectors can't 'be satisfied', as you put it, with their Hogan-less collection. I'm not saying that any Hogan-less collection is bad, or that you have to approve of the life-choices of every wrestling talent's figure you collect. Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that any self-respecting, even semi-knowledgeable wrestling figure collector with an ounce of integrity cannot deny that having a 1980s or 1990s wrestling figure collection without Hulk Hogan is just not complete. Not legitimate. Not finished. Use whatever synonym you want. If you don't get that or want to continue to devolve into semantics then, quite frankly, your opinion just doesn't matter to me. Hogan must be included in any complete 80s or 90s WWF collection. Case closed, end of story. You still don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. You certainly have a hard time getting the facts right. You seem to think that CM Poor said "there is some sort of metric to determine all other opinions" when all he did was shoot down a single example you made of something you called an opinion that was actually an erroneous fact. Opinions by their very nature cannot be right or wrong. Some can be a bit more outlandish than others but that doesn't make them wrong. To expand on your Bobby Heenan example, whose to say that a lactose intolerant person wouldn't legitimately say ice cream is the equivalent to horse manure. The lactose intolerant person doesn't want to eat a bowl of either so there you go. That's their opinion and it isn't wrong. It's subjective. Facts are by their nature either right or wrong. Saying Luke Harper is a bigger star than John Cena is not an opinion, it is erroneous fact that can be easily disproved by quantifiable statistics like merch sales. It's objective. Instead of being condescending to anyone who doesn't share your OPINION, next time just preface your opinion with "IMHO", a common internet abbreviation for "in my humble opinion" in case you didn't know, and it would be all good. Many others in this thread expressed the same opinion as you without drawing the reaction you did because they left out the attitude.
|
|