In Defense of…04.26.06: In Defense of…(Part 1 of 1)
Posted by JP Prag on 04.26.2006
It’s the one year anniversary special where I face all the criticism you have sent me! Good times!
In Defense of…
By JP Prag
Issue #52
In Defense of… (Part 1 of 1)
Intro
Hello everyone who has read me for 52 weeks straight, and welcome back to In Defense Of…!
In Defense of… is normally this:
Certain people, events, organizations, and storylines in wrestling history have gotten a bum wrap. Some writers have presented overtly critical comments and outright lies as fact, and others have followed suit. Well no more! "In Defense of…" has one reason: to bring the truth to the wrestling fan!
And that's what I usually do. But not today!
Me? I'm the One and Only JP, and I have won twenty three cases in a row!
Eric Bischoff (found Not Guilty by default)
The Elimination Chamber (found Not Guilty with 94% of the vote)
Kevin Nash (found Not Guilty with 89.7% of the vote)
The Fingerpoke of Doom (found Not Guilty with 64% of the vote)
Dusty Rhodes: Head Booker (found Not Guilty with 81.5% of the vote)
Earl Hebner Screwing Bret Hart (found Not Guilty with 59.8% of the vote)
Vince Not Buying Out WCW's Contracts (found Not Guilty with 62 and 2/3% of the vote)
Goldberg (found Not Guilty with 81.1% of the vote)
The Brand Extension (found Not Guilty with 90.5% of the vote)
WCW Thunder (found Not Guilty with 89.4% of the vote)
Lex Luger (found Not Guilty with 88.1% of the vote)
The Undertaker (found Not Guilty with 89.1% of the vote)
Sid Vicious (found Not Guilty with 78.1% of the vote)
Mike Awesome Leaving ECW (found Not Guilty with 86.2% of the vote)
The McMahon-Helmsley Era (found Not Guilty with 73.2% of the vote)
New Jack (found Not Guilty with 66.7% of the vote)
Scott Hall (found Not Guilty with 76.5% of the vote)
Larry Zbyszko (found Not Guilty with 86.1% of the vote)
Vince McMahon in the Death of Owen Hart (found Not Guilty with 84.9% of the vote)
The Ultimate Warrior (found Not Guilty with 66.3% of the vote)
Scott Steiner (found Not Guilty with 87.9% of the vote)
The World Heavyweight Championship (found Not Guilty with 77.1% of the vote)
And what about our ultimate case? What about Hulk Hogan (Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4)? Glad you asked.
With 76.3% of the vote, Hulk Hogan has been found:
NOT GUILTY!
I'll use next week to gloat that number over Cook. I expect some massive groveling in the news report tomorrow. I mean massive. Like Sforcina to Larry level, that huge. It'll be awesome.
Anyway, like I said, In Defense of… is normally about spreading truth to the wrestling fans. It's also about enjoying everything in wrestling, or at least understanding why other people do. Things don't just suck because you say so, and people's lives are not screwed up because you think so. There is too much out there that is pure speculation yet has become the diehard fact.
So over the year I've taken on a number of controversial subjects. As you can imagine, that sparks some rather… heated responses. People question my conclusions, my facts, my methodologies, the voting results, pretty much everything. So today I meet the critics, explain why I do and do not do certain things, and let you delve a little deeper into what this article means to me.
These types of words made people who are fans of the IWC hated think they were alone in the world. They would think that they were crazy for wanted to see Hogan hulk up, see Randy Orton deliver the RKO, see Lex Luger put someone in the rack, or actually enjoy the McMahon-Helmsley Era. What I have found is that these small pocket put together actually overwhelm the louder IWC voice. Just because someone can yell the loudest does not mean he is saying the truth.
Because I was so frustrated with the IWC's portrayal of certain wrestlers and events in history (and the compression of history, which gets to me to no end), I felt the need to be the defender against all of those people spreading the falsities. It was me against the entire IWC, and I was ready to do it.
Yet because I want to be a defender of wrestling's "most hated", I get labeled as one sided. People say I need the prosecution to be the balance. ***I*** need a balance. Little me against the hundreds of other negative liars out there—I'm the one who needs to have a counter.
Take this letter from Brendan for example:
I do find your arguments have a certain bizarre logic to them. First and foremost, though is that you're defending things against well... what, I'm not sure. It's a prosecution without a voice, it instead incorporates ideas, hearsay, and generalities from so very many different sources. This prosecution ghost has no voice in your column, except from you. The person who wants to prove the defendant guilty. It's like some reverse 1930s soviet show-trial.
Or this one from Frank Adetoye:
I wanted to suggest that how about having a prosecution side of stories, ie have a guest writer in the prosecution of....... and then putting it to the public vote maybe it will be a fair reflection of things. It will be really interesting to see how it works.
Or this one from Lev.:
You only present the defense.
What about the prosecution?
Now I know you explain what the accusations against the wrestler are, and then you dissect and counter them, but the problem is there is no one to counter your counter-points. You're swaying the readers by trying to disprove the accusations, as the defense does, yet there is no prosecution trying to prove the accusations. Does that make sense?
And let me tell you, there are a lot more similar. Unfortunately, not many of them are as clear and reasonable as these three, so I included them. Also, they were among the first few I found when I did a quick search through my e-mail.
All right, let me answer the accusations.
I don't need a prosecution for two major reasons:
(1) The prosecution already exists. As I state in the rules every week, each one of my clients has already been found guilty in the court of IWC opinions without ever hearing the other side. My job is to be the countermeasure to that and show what the IWC haters do not want you to know or, more likely, what they never knew. Most of these negative opinions are based on a lack of facts, not a vendetta. Brendan is right in his accusation that he is not sure who I am defending against because the prosecution seems to be a mix of different voices. That's because it is. For every source I quote in my article, you can guarantee that are at least ten more that I have read, listened to, or watched in my quest for answers.
Sometimes, I don't find the answers I'm looking for and my argument changes. I do not pick an objective and stick with it. The final accusations come out of what I find as I research. Sometimes I find hatreds I never knew existed. I've also taken on clients that I do not like and felt were terrible before I started. Yet through my own research I convinced myself of my client's innocence. After all, I am my harshest critic.
The point is, the prosecution, if you will, has hundred of different forums (pun intended) to get their message of hatred out. I have one article a week to make a counter measure. And once the case is done, it is done forever. My single article, with a splattering of others who care deeply for my client, are the only small voices against the overwhelming, pre-existing prosecution.
And (2) the other thing is this article is called In DEFENSE of…! Now, I wouldn't be much of a writer if I did not show what people opposite me felt and then write a refutation. That's all this article is, a refutation. Now why should I use my limited amount of space to provide those who already have unlimited space more time to show their arguments. I don't care about their arguments beyond my refutation. This is not a debate, this is just trying to see the other side.
Which of course brings us to our next point: Why isn't this a debate?
This should be a debate
You want the honest answer?
I can't.
There is no way I can make this article into a debate.
First off, who would I debate against? Look at it like this:
It takes JT and me on average about 36 hours to write an issue of Hidden Highlights. The only thing Hidden Highlights requires is that we watch the shows and take notes. Yet because of the logistics involved in just trying to get the two of us to get our parts done and send the draft back and forth, Hidden Highlights takes some considerable time. And we have a template we use!
Now look at In Defense of…. A one-issue case usually takes me about eight to ten hours of research and another four to seven hours of writing. Now double that for a second person. Plus add in the logistics of getting it back and forth. Now add in the fact that In Defense of… does not have a template and will require a fresh copy every week. I'd say a single issue of Hidden Highlights would take three weeks, minimum.
As another example, the Great Positivity Debate took three weeks to complete. That involved four people, so the logistics were insane, but that is nuts. A single issue of Fact or Fiction takes about three days, but that's only because Ashish controls the topics, participants, and lengths. The level of detail in Fact of Fiction of the Great Positivity Debate is nothing in comparison to the level of detail I put into a single issue of In Defense Of….
And who would I ask? Another writer on the site? No offense, but other writers have different styles that do not mesh well with mine, and others just plain don't have time. Do you think my schedule could work with someone like Sforcina? The guy lives in Australia!
That's the other thing. My schedule is horrible. Anyone who reads me regularly knows that I can be on the road for any length of time. I might be working on this article a week or two ahead of time, or I might be going until the midnight deadline. No one can depend on me to get them a draft or schedule a time for an AIM chat. You will never know where I am, what time zone I'm in, and when I'm free. Plus it will change every week.
No, the logistics of a debate are virtually impossible from my end.
Now might I suggest that if you still have issue with, or want to spread the message in my article more, go on to a message board on any site (preferably a competitors), put a link to my article, and debate it. Sadly, beyond the initial article and my e-mail responses (and sometimes additions in Hidden Highlights), I don't have the time nor ability to do it myself.
Besides, I put myself over enough. That'd be really weak linking to myself on other sites.
More counter-evidence
All right, now that we understand that this is just a defense and why this is a defense, you do have to realize I get challenged after the fact. I do try to respond to everyone, and I appreciate people with logical arguments. I don't appreciate, "He just sucks" without any reasons. You will often get a response from me just saying, "Why? Could you clarify your reasoning for me?" IF (and that's a big IF) I get a response, it will most likely be, "I don't have any reasons, I just don't like him."
Sigh.
That's not what I'm about and those aren't the people I'm writing to. This article does ask you to at least come in open minded, and if you have something to use against me after the fact, then sure, I'll hear it and respond.
That said, I do not accept challenges. You can rant and rave all you want, even if you are the most logical person in the world with an argument that trounces mine, I will never return to a subject within the confines of my column.
And no, it's not because I'm scared or that I don't want the "truth" to be known. It is, once again, that I just don't have the time. I have my entire caseload planned out months in advance. So when I finish a case, I'm done with it.
Listen, right now I'm averaging seven weeks to respond to an e-mail. Seven weeks! So by the time I re-read (I always read the majority of them when they first come in, except the really long ones) and respond to your e-mail, we've already moved two or three topics ahead.
It would be counter-productive for me to go back to a subject I've already completely, and extremely redundant. Due to time and space constraints, I cannot hit on every single subject. I always try to hit the biggest issues with a key few small ones that make the impact I am looking to have. So yes, I will "forget" or "skip" or "gloss over" something that was extremely important to you. It happens, and I'm sorry! But I'm just human and there is a limit to my time, space, and ability to research and write.
If there is something that particularly bothers you, please tell me when I first announce the case. Nine times out of ten I'm already planning on covering it, but it might make my case better if I hear from you before I start. Telling me everything you hate after the case does not help me at all.
"But JP," you'll say, "You just did this in the Hulk Hogan case. You met the prosecution, so how come you can't always do that?!"
Because that was a special case. I made it four parts and designed it so that it would end at a certain point that would allow feedback. And it's not like I haven't changed my cases due to feedback before. Goldberg gained a whole other part (and Lex Luger became one less) due to reader feedback. It just needs to be appropriately timed to be included.
So yes, I can include the counter-points, but not after the fact. There is nothing I can do then but respond to you directly.
Manipulating the last word
But the biggest complaint I get after the fact is how I word the final accusation. Take for instance Feroz Nazir who says:
You really have to watch your semantics
AK lays it out in plain English:
You win all your cases by a land slide. The reason being is how you word your accusations. It's easy to defend one angle of an argument, especially when every article the accusation is worded in ways that don't reflect what the Inet is really accusing people of.
That is where I have to disagree.
As some of my examples from above show, most people in the IWC DO NOT know why they truly dislike something. They just have a disdain for certain people, events, storylines, etc… without knowing why. A lot of it has to do with the flippant remarks by other columnists that get writer over and over. If I read a thousand times that Triple H is evil, I'm very likely to believe it. I can also read a thousand times that CM Punk is a wrestling god, and I'd be likely to believe it. Now people in the IWC swoon over almost every single Chris Benoit match out there, but let me clue you in: they are not all that great.
As a matter of fact, many of them are slow and repetitive.
Remember when Peter Kent was doing the number of moves that Triple H was doing per minute and it came out to something like one move every two minutes? Chris Benoit is not that far off. A chop is not a move. Throwing people in the ropes, not a move. Stalling, not a move. Staring people down, not a move. Laying on the mat for a minute, not a move. In the restraint of the WWE style, Chris Benoit does almost as few moves as Triple H. It's true.
Yet people in the IWC will watch his matches and say it was great! If he and Triple H both wrestled Viscera on the same night and did the exact same sequence of moves, Triple H will have had a boring match where he dominated while Chris Benoit would have carried a broomstick to a passable match and sold like a champ. Think about it.
I honestly believe there is a large amount of passive aggressiveness (and passive passion) that people in the IWC have because of what they read, not what they believe.
The accusations at the end of my article put EXACTLY what I have read through my research into concise words. Do you want to know why you get upset? Because you have to face your beliefs in real words. People get angry when they are faced with the complete truth. That's what makes this article effective. It's also what makes an effective heel. When Ric Flair calls someone in the front row fat and lazy, and they are fat and lazy, what does that person do? Boo and yell and flip Ric Flair off. When Daivari tells the audience that they are racist and they boo his client because he is of Arab decent, and the audience starts booing and chanting "U-S-A!", is he not telling the truth?
The truth hurts. It really does. To face your own fears in clear, defined packages makes it hard to admit your true intentions. When you are allowed to hate without qualification, it is very easy. I can say any day of the week, "I hate Steve Austin." Yet someone would come up to me and say, "How can you hate him? He kicks ass, has cool catch phrases, beats up the boss, and drinks bear!"
Now, I could just slink away and say I hate him and let the hate just seethe in me under the surface without any reason. Or I could face myself and define my hatred. I can say, "I don't like wrestlers who brawl, I happened to agree with Vince McMahon during their feud, I agree with Eric Bischoff's reasoning for firing him from WCW, and being a huge WCW mark I don't like how he contributed to the WWE's rise to dominance." Now I have reasons. Are they good reasons? They are to me. But at the end of the day, I can still say, "I hate Steve Austin, but I get why you like him."
And that's what I'm talking about.
I want you to face the REAL accusation that are out there and not just have some undefined hate. If you hate someone/thing, that's fine! You can tell me you still hate it. But you better have reasons. Still, you should be able to look beyond yourself and see why other people would find a defendant not guilty. If, even with all my evidence, you believe I am completely wrong and that the guilty peoples are right, and you have the true proof and reasoning to go with it, then vote guilty. If you are basing it off a "feeling" that I just cannot respond to, what can I possibly do to convince you?
I was at a client a few weeks back and we had a chart on the screen generated from a database of data. One of the people in the room said, "That doesn't look right." I asked him what didn't look right, if he could clarify for me. He couldn't. He had no answer. Yet he questioned my data on the screen for no reason other than the visual was not meeting his expectations. Well, going back the data was 100% right and he was 100% wrong, but the damage was done by his "feeling". Other people in the room took his doubts as their own, even though those doubts were based on nothing.
To say I was frustrated would be an understatement. I thought about this article at that moment, and how people vote guilty based on a feeling. I wonder if they even read the cases, or if they just wait until the last part and vote. I put in a lot of work, and nothing makes me feel worse than someone voting guilty based on nothing at all.
The "rules" are unfair
When it come to the vote, people sometimes say the rules I put at the end of my case for voting are unfair. Unfair?
Well, I practically copied them from a combination of American and British laws, amendments, declarations. So I guess the judicial branches of most of the western world are designed wrong!
(By the way, I am in no way saying the judicial systems in the western world are without flaws, and are in need of an overhaul. But the base laws they are made from were not designed for the level of corruption that we see. They can be added to, though, to make up for it. But I digress.)
The other thing is that they are not "rules", they are "guidelines". Hell, they aren't even really "guidelines", they are just reminders. The "rules" are just a way for me to remind the readers to stick to the topic at hand, to read everything I've written, and to take the accusations seriously. They came about because in the case of Vince McMahon Not Buying Out WCW's Contracts, people found Vince guilty based on the cRaZiEsT fantasy booking you would have ever seen. People like Triple H weren't injured, Norman Smiley became World Champion, and SpikeTV was willing to give the WWE fifteen hours of TV a week. It was ridiculous. Because of this, I felt the need to focus people and remember what we were talking about and what they had just read.
And besides, the rules actually came about as a suggestion from a reader. Much like the voting, the major changes to the style of the column and have come about from reader feedback. The rules were just in response to a need.
You don't follow the "rules"
But because I wrote the rules, I often get accused of not following them. For instance, John Carruthers said:
You may wish to remove the list of rules at the end, however, if you're unwilling to adhere to all of these same rules.
To which I asked how I broke them and never got a response, but why not. Let's take the rules one at a time and see how I follow them and how other may think I break them.
(1) All parties, events, circumstances, etc… are innocent until proven guilty. In this court, the defendants have already been found guilty without trial, and so therefore this is an appeals court. Finding a defendant guilty means you disagree with the evidence presented.
Ummm… I'm not even sure how I could break this rule. I assume my clients are innocent and face the charges. Ok…
(2) The jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That means that if there is doubt in your mind that the defendant is guilty, then you cannot find the appellant guilty. Reasonable doubt means that the average person, looking at the facts presented, could not find the defendant guilty on all counts despite personal feelings.
Yeah, I'm not really sure how I could break this rule either. I'm not the jury, I'm the defender, and I try to make sure you have at least a little doubt.
(3) This is a court of fact, not fiction. Fantasies of what could have been or should have been do not fly here; especially fantasies of the impossible (such as a wrestler not getting injured at an untimely moment). All we have is what did actually occur and the intentions of those being accused.
I guess this is one people may try to find me guilty of, but I have not fantasy booked. I have never said, "Imagine if this happened…" or "If so-and-so hadn't done that, then things would be different." That's not how I work. I may pose the question from time-to-time about a definite plan that was out there that did not come to fruition, or I might present the actual plan that would happen. For instance, in the Brand Extension case I posed the question of what would happen if the brands came back together. Using historical data, I showed that there would be an initial jump in ratings, but then brought it back to the bigger question of what is wrong with the WWE's booking. Being separate brands is not what is causing poor writing and feud development, they are totally separate issues. So the WWE would have problems beyond that point and the Brand Extension coming to an end would not fix those bigger issues.
Sometimes, I do ask to allow things to develop. For instance, when I was defending Scott Steiner, I said give it time to see what he can do in TNA. I didn't fantasy book and say he was going to bring TNA to the mainstream and beat the WWE. I said just keep an open mind and wait and see what happens. That is not making something up, that is just asking a request and not judging his run in TNA to be crap before he even made his premier. That seems reasonable to me.
(4) A defendant cannot be judged by events outside the case at hand. For example, if we were trying a particular contract signing by a wrestling promoter, you cannot use that ten years later that wrestler died from a heart attack relating to the drug use that the wrestler started when he signed with the promoter. One has nothing to do with the other in terms of the case at hand.
This is the one I probably get the most crap on. Take for instance in the Owen Hart case. Some people felt like I was being vindictive against Martha Hart and it was irrelevant to the case at hand. While I may not have been clear in why I included Martha Hart, it was not irrelevant. I was trying to make the point that she is one of the people pushing the idea that Vince is guilty because she has a direct benefit from it. Remember, the case was about Vince McMahon, not Owen Hart, and anyone who was dragging Vince down had to be talked against.
Another example would be where I talked about Eric Bischoff having a hot wife or Larry Zbyszko being good at golf. People say these are irrelevant to the case at hand. I disagree. When we are talking about a whole person and their career, I like to remind everyone that these people are PEOPLE! It's very easy, especially behind this keyboard, to just think of these people as objects that are there to be critiqued. I want everyone to remember that when talking about a person that they have a life and interests outside of wrestling. It's also about setting the character. In real court cases, lawyers often call character witnesses in order to prove their clients being. I am doing the same. I want you to understand the whole person, although it may be irrelevant to their wrestling career.
Look at Warrior Warrior. Nothing did it more for me when he said he had to take his daughter to the ballet, being one of the self-destructive things he does. Many people just want to call him insane, and then use that insanity as a reason to hate his wrestling career. Yet lines like that go a long way to prove he has a normal life and didn't blow up the way the WWE and IWC would like to have us believe. The character witness was important to disproving the wrestling connection.
(5) You do not have to like the accused before or after the case at hand, and a vote of not guilty does not change your personal preferences. You can make it clear that you feel the accused is the worst thing you have ever seen, but if the facts compel you to see that the accused cannot be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then voting guilty would be unconscionable.
This is where people get the most confused. They say that I write subjectively and that I break the rule by putting my feelings into my arguments.
Do you know what that is called?
Passion.
I argue with passion, and it has feeling behind it, but the words are still the facts. The only time I ask for feelings is when I ask if the facts even matter. Like does it matter Hogan had bad movies? Does that have anything to do with wrestling? But I'm not asking a feeling, I'm asking for relevance.
Also, I guarantee you will never figure out which clients I believe or do/did not believe in. I argue with the same passion for any one of my clients. Yes, I use passion as a tool in my arguments, but the arguments could stand on their own if they were just a list.
Of course, this would be a really bad article if it were just a list. How enjoyable would that be to read? You need to feel something to get from point to point. Sometimes I joke, sometimes I'm serious, sometimes I say something ridiculous. I'm still trying to make this an entertaining read, so of course I want you to have an emotional response. But the emotions are just a backdrop to the facts, nothing more.
The vote is skewed
Of course, when it comes to voting, there are two much larger complaints. The first one is that its not easy enough to vote through e-mail. Bill says:
You should get one of those polls that Larry's got.
I thought long and hard about this one, but decided the risk was not worth it. With that external poll, people can vote multiple times, set up bugs, and hack them. It actually happened to Larry, and that's why he no longer uses the polls. The polls on the outside are not safe when it comes to voting.
So yes, the number of people voting would probably be ten times higher than what they are now. I do understand that. But I also believe I get a fair representation from e-mail. I also have complete control over voting.
If someone votes twice, I see that very quickly. And believe me, people try to vote multiple times. But even if someone has multiple e-mail addresses, how many could they possibly have? Five? After a while it's just not worth it.
Also, I find that doing an e-mail poll invites more reader feedback. If people just voted, then they may not want to take the effort to write in. But since they are already writing, many feel the need to write more. So in the end, it's a win-win for me.
The other problem is people do not like answering all the charges at once. cubfan75 over in the 411mania Forums said:
I wish you had split the charges.
Here's the thing with splitting the charges: it's probably a good idea. It'd be great to split everything up, but it's just not feasible. Some cases have two charges, some have twenty. That means that each charge needs to have a separate e-mail (I use e-mail subject lines to count the votes, so please make sure you use the correct subjects otherwise your vote will not be counted), and it would go on forever.
If we were using the system described above, it could work out better. But the drawbacks of using that system make this not a viable option as well.
Also, how would we judge my success rate? Really, either I win the case or I don't. I can't sort of win and sort of lose. Either I got my message across or I didn't. It's really an overall question about the wrestler/event. At the end of the day the question is really this, "Is this person/event as bad as the IWC has made them out to be?" That's all I really want to know.
Preaching to the choir
So through my accusations and arguments, I have been able to have a 23 case, 52 issue winning steak. But the complaint is that I'm just preaching to the choir, and that the lovers of such a person/event are flooding my inbox.
I will admit, I do get a fair share of people that say they'd have voted not guilty no matter what I said. But I also get a lot of these:
When I saw the header I thought, this is going to be an easy one, he's guilty.
You have changed my mind.
- Noah Madison on Mike Awesome Leaving ECW
[O]nce again you changed my mind. I have always looked back and felt that that era was the one that started the downfall that we are in today. But with your hard work and research I realize that it was fresh and new, but like all good things they get old with time. NOT GUILTY
- Nick from the Package Center on the McMahon-Helmsley Era
Thanks for writing such a fascinating article. I've been following your column since it started and I really do think this is your best work yet. Why do I think that? I do because I went into reading the article as a true Warrior-hater. Your article honestly changed my opinion of him and now I actually think the guy is pretty inspirational. Oh, and I am very liberal myself. So, your victory in winning me over is even more impressive.
- Matt Essary on the Ultimate Warrior
That very article changed my opinion about Triple H more than about the World Title. He was indeed at that time the only guy worthy of that title, and for that matter, as #1 contender and potentially or realistically (cough) next in line for a shot. Great article, and in my opinion, the best you've written as well as the most convincing. Nice Work.
- Matt Adamson on the World Heavyweight Championship
alright...i cannot believe it, but you convinced me...
- Weyoun on the Finger Poke of Doom
I don't know how you do it, but you convince me every time!
- ShiHigh2005 on Lex Luger
And Andrew Lee sums it up best:
I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your column and have just spent 3 hours reading your columns on dusty, bischoff, hebner, nash, goldberg and awesome. All these men I have hated in the past, yet I couldn't help but keep coming up with my own verdict of not guilty. You have really helped me see a new side to each controversial wrestler and allowed me to step away from the bias views of the IWC that were becoming my own…
Thanks for really helping me see new sides to things and keep up the good work.
And this was just a small sampling of everything I have received. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Why do I put up with it?
Throughout this article, I may have come across a little more angry than usual. Being the King of Positivity, you rarely do get to see me flip out a little bit. You must be saying, "If this is the stuff he gets every week, why does he put up with this crap?"
The answer: I really enjoy this.
For everyone who doesn't read the case and votes guilty are people like those listed in the above section who come in with an open mind. For every person who never reads my work and continues to spread the lies are the plethora of people sending my article to their friends and continuing to spread the good word of In Defense Of….
Also, I'm a wrestling fan, and I'm a history buff, and I'm a truth fanatic, so I found a way to combing all three. I do think that I am making a small impact out there, and that it is spreading every day. I also think its spreading in more subtle ways than many people realize.
Between Hidden Highlights and In Defense Of…, many other writers styles have changed to a positive message about pro-wrestling. Some posters on the board use similar argument styles to mine. There is change out there.
Plus I am touching people around the world. I have gotten messages from Austria, Bangladesh, Guiana, and some countries even I have never heard of.
I've also discovered a new feeling that is hard to describe. I find it very odd when people are talking or writing about me in the third person. I don't consider myself famous or even well known, but now I realize that complete strangers are reading and talking about my work. As a matter of fact, more than your average IWC kid is reading me…
Real world impact
I don't talk about this much (or at all), but I have heard from people involved in the cases. Not to name any names, but during the Goldberg case I did hear from a close acquaintance of his who thanked me for defending his friend. I've also heard from people who have met Scott Hall and Kevin Nash and said I captured their real life spirits. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Recently, I heard from someone HEAVILY involved in the Vince McMahon in the Death of Owen Hart case. I'm not going to mention who because I have not had a chance to respond to this person yet, but I guarantee you would be shocked. I was shocked! Oh, and it wasn't as nice a letter as the ones mentioned above. This person was not happy with how I argued my case. Quite interesting.
We always like to pretend that the bookers and personalities in the world are reading our stuff and stealing our ideas. I used to laugh at these very notions. But after seeing things I've said show up on TV and having heard from people involved in the industry, I'm not laughing as much anymore. We really do have an impact in the world, and it makes this job very intriguing.
My secret reason for doing this
There is a reason beyond all that, though, about why I write this article. And it involves a lie.
In Hidden Highlights before the Reader Write-in section, we say something like "We aren't just doing this for our health…". Well, that's not entirely true.
I do this article for my health.
In case you haven't been able to tell, I live a very turbulent life. In the past year, the only stability I have had is this article. I've lived in two different homes (and look to be going to my third, as I just found out on Sunday), I've traveled back and forth across the country, I've eaten at more nameless fast food restaurants then I care to count.
Sometimes, this article was my only sanity, my only stability.
I've also had a lot of personal trials, and writing this article has been the thing to cheer me up, or at least keep me focused on something else for another day.
This has not been the easiest year of my life. It hasn't been horrible, I haven't faced things that made me question life or anything like that. But then again, I'm a pretty optimistic guy.
But writing this article has been a joy. Even when I was dreading the deadline or writing until 4am (four hours past my deadline), it still felt worth it.
I've seen myself grow as a writer, grow as a person, and expand my own horizons based on just what I have done here.
This article has been an important and pivotal part of my life, and I'm glad that Larry, Randle, and Ashish gave me this opportunity.
I want to thank them, and all of you, for giving me a chance this year. I also want to thank you for reading this issue, even though it had next to nothing to do with wrestling.
It's been a great ride so far, and I promise good stuff coming up right down the road!
The defense continues!
Hung Jury
Whew, quite an article for not being about wrestling. I wonder if anyone finished reading this thing?
Well anyway, from now on, whenever anyone has a question about my methodology and why I do and do not do certain things, I can send them right here. No need to answer the same question a thousand times over; you now have a reference point. I know, I feel like Gavin Napier with so many rules about how to read me.
And don't get me wrong. I do take suggestions well. The whole voting concept came up as a suggestion! I only get better when you challenge me. But I need constructive criticism. Just to beat a dead horse, though: saying, "He still sucks" or "So obviously guilty" does not help me. I often write back to those people and ask why they think that way, and I've never gotten a good response. Never. If they even bothered to respond, that is.
That doesn't mean I haven't got well thought-out responses. Those I'm fine with. I just hate to be told I'm wrong with no proof. I was recently doing a lot of Steiner mail and it really got to me when people said, "Oh come on, he's so obvious juiced." No, he's not. The FACT is that he's never failed a drug test. "Oh, but Lance Storm said that he might do them when he's alone." Lance Storm is not a source on other people's behaviors, and I've found him rather hypocritical in the past. Lance Storm's "feeling" is just as valid as xFoRumGuYx's "feeling" about Scott Steiner. That being, both are completely invalid. If you are going to disagree with the facts presented, at least have the counter evidence ready. I work my ass for each and every issue, and I don't appreciate being told I'm wrong without one shred of credible evidence.
That's what is wrong with the IWC and why there is so little respect for us. We just shoot our mouths off without thinking. If we acted a little more responsible at the beginning, maybe we would have had the respect of the wrestling companies from the start. We squandered that opportunity and became petty and stupid. Now a lot of people are trying to counteract that image, myself included, and I expect that I have an impact on all my readers.
If you honestly get nothing out of me, if you just get angry and don't think I'm right about anything, then I beg you to stop reading now. I don't need the hits, believe me. You don't have to agree on everything I say or the results of every case, but I expect you to come in with an open mind. If you can't do that, then there is no hope for you or the IWC.
With that in mind, we have a whole ‘nother year of cases ahead of us! I should probably warn you we have cases booked out to Issue #100 (and a number of unbooked cases). Because of that, I felt it right to start the year off with… a… BANG! When we return it is: In Defense of… DDP (Part 1 of 3)!
In the meantime, be sure to check out Hidden Highlights—the most positive article in the IWC, as voted on by you, the readers! Don't forget to send JT and I your Hidden Highlights for RAW, SmackDown!, Heat, Velocity, Impact, or any other show you saw this week (that includes house shows and indy events, you know)!
Until then, the next time you read some throwaway line presented as fact, challenge it. The truth matters, and you have a right to know.
Know a particular person, event, organization, storyline, etc… in wrestling history that needs a defense? E-mail the One and Only JP at lookforme@mikefine.com, and I'll be glad to hear your case.
