From: bh929@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Palij)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Subject: Re: This Group Should Be Killed & John Arezzi
Date: 3 Jan 1993 22:48:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bh929@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike Palij)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Steve_Hooper@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Hooper) says:
> [stuff deleted]
>
>All his "hard work" in exposing Vince did NOTHING.  WHy bother?  The shit
>that goes on behind the curtains is no one else's business.  If one of the
>boys had a legit complaint, let him deal with it in his own way.  But for
>Arezzi to be the so-called ringleader and stick his nose in where it does not
>belong just shows his ignorance.  He should get a real job so he CAN pay his
>bills instead of whimpering and whining about Titan hoping for a settlement
>to keep his mouth shut.

I must have missed something here.  It seems that you're saying 
two things:

(a) John Arezzi (someone whom I don't follow or even know very much
about) has been incompetent in bringing down Vince or whomever
because of their participation in the sex and/or steroid scandals, and

(b) Vince and Co or whomever have or should have carte blanche in 
handling their affairs, no matter who is hurt or exploited or, 
as is alleged in the case of Jimmy Snuka, further victimizing the 
victim of a murder.

The first point above doesn't matter much to me, this really is the
domain of a district attorney or the FBI.  The second point is
problematic.  Are you saying that as long as Vince doesn't get
caught at anything then that makes things all right? 

>And as for his supposed book that will expose the business, well, if it goes
>to print you can expect to find him dead somewhere.  NONE of the boys will
>put up with that.

This is enigmatic.  Are you saying that Vince or whomever is
going to kill Arezzi?  

>Speaking of exposing the business, I have to make this comment.  You people
>that write to this newsgroup think you are all "insiders" to the business.

I have never claimed to be an insider (indeed, I've identified myself
as being a mark at a couple of times) and I believe that there are few
people who write to this newsgroup who think that they're insiders or
are privy to inside information (and this is because they know some
one in the business and talk to them).  Does that make them insiders?
I think you've cast your net to broadly.

>You ain't Jack SHIT!  

What an ingenious persuasive technique!  Can I borrow it?

>Just because you know a few keywords and such does not
>make you an insider.  If you guys had ANY respect for this business which you
>all say you love, this entire newsgroup would be in a mailing-list format,

You know, I've never claimed to love pro-wrestling and I don't *ever*
remember reading anyone in this newsgroup saying that he/she loved
pro-wrestling.  I think you have to be an idiot to love pro-wrestling.
Really, given how shitty most of pro-wrestling is in North America
you'd have to be brain damaged to love it.  And few people get a
chance to see the interesting and exciting stuff in Japan and Mexico.
I tolerate pro-wrestling.

>NOT a public group.  I cannot count the times that a mark has "discovered"
>this group, posted a simple mark question, and been flamed for being
>ignorant.  That person then just sits in the back and reads for a month or
>so, realizes what wrestling is all about, and boom...there is one less mark

I'm sorry but what did you do when this happened?  Did you inform the
person who made the mark post?  Did you tell the flamers that they
were being inappropriate?  When a number of markish questions had come
up that could be ansered by the FAQ I reposted the FAQ.  What did you
do?  And if you didn't do anything then what is the point of your
comments?

>that will come out to the house shows and help pay the paycheque of the boys.
>There are too many people making a living off of this business to have it
>ruined by Expose' groups like this.

Huh?  Some points:  

(a) you imply that a person reading this newsgroup would tend not to
go to a house show.  I don't think this is correct.  If anything, going
to a house show gives a person the opportunity to report some (more or less)
interesting info.  It also gives people who read this newsgroup an
opportunity to meet each other by going to house shows (which has
happened several times that I'm aware of).

(b) what is an Expose' group?  You mean that because we talk about
wrestling as being a work this somehow exposes it to be fake?
God, anybody with two good eyes can see that wrestling is fake
(all to often the wrestlers simply don't do their job and it becomes
difficult to suspend belief).  Also, because somebody once in a while
has a piece of info about the shows or whatever, that turn out to be
correct then this is some kind of expose?  Give me a break.

(c)  Your second sentence above has the implication that The Guys
In Charge (tm) won't stand for our discussions on the net.  What
are they going to do, pull my Usenet source?  Besides, they've
been doing a pretty good job ruining themselves, our contribution
is minor.

>Now, realize that since New York got TV, all the independents have had a
>rough time.  Yes, New York really ruined a lot of things for the indie's, but

I have no idea about what you mean by the above.  You mean since
WOR became a superstation about a decade ago that that made it
rough on the indies?  How so?

>it is groups such as this that have ruined the believability of pro
>wrestling.  It is so sad to see an industry go down the shit chute.

Oh man, you're kidding right?  This is a joke, right!?  WoW! Just
think, *I* have the power to make pro-wrestling *unbelievable*!
And here I thought it was because Vince ruined wrestling by making
it a cartoon and Watts was ruining it by making it run on a shoestring
and showing poor judgment in the wrestlers he kept or let go.
I think its time you did a reality check.

>One other thing...be advised that what you write here DOES go all over the
>place.  As an example, everything written about Portland, good or bad, is
>read by Sandy and the boys.  The match reports are considered good input.
>All the Whiff stuff (the interesting stuff, not the stupid bullshit gossip)
>is read by the boys in the locker room, along with middle management (Garea,
>Strongbow etc).

WOW!  What did they think of STROMER!

>So on that note, I would really like to put it to the people "in charge" so
>to speak, to turn this group into a MARK group, and any of you that think you
>are insiders, keep it to an E-mail mailing list.    I don't know much about
>the computer end of this request, but just to see this Expose' disappear
>would be great.

A few points:

(a) no one here is in charge.

(b) this *is* a mark group, really. See how seriously we treated your post!

(c) this group can't disappear -- where else would Phil Stromer post!?

>Ya know, I passed on a bunch of interesting posts to someone that has been in
>the business for many years, and that person said to me, "Marks can get this
>shit anytime?"  That's my feeling too.  It's not right.  Change it.  For the
>good of this business that you people all say you love, change it.

I know what, let's say we dropped it but not really, okay?  Deal.

>(BTW, if someone wants to discuss this furher, be advised that I will be
>changing addresses tomorrow (Monday), so if your mail bounces, give me a day,
>and I'll post a new address.)

For the most part I will make my responses public.  And hope that
I won't take up too much bandwidth doing so.

-- 
Just this person's view of netlife.

======> mike palij ::  bh929@cleveland.freenet.edu