Talk:Bubba the Love Sponge/Archive 1

message: There is a debate on the existance of Ned.  No matter how you feel about this issue, the reference should not be removed.
:This may be the case, but unless you can verify that Ned is actually Manson, the reference really should only be "rumored". There's only a few people that can shoot on that issue, everything else is a work. The references that were here before stated that Manson was Ned, or Manson's dad was Ned.  In addition, they were placed by truly anon users using IP addresses only, hence their removal.  By the way, please add four tildes after your name so we can see who's saying what.  KC9CQJ 00:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To that end, unless you're in with Bubba and can prove that Ned's a work or a shoot, the reference to Ned's rumored existence should stay here.  I know of a few people that could prove things either way (Brent, Bubba, Manson, Lou, 25, Coco, blah blah blah), but until they open up and say it (and provide the verifiable aspect to it), the rumor should stay. KC9CQJ 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the section, it does need to be altered to remove some of the unsourced rumors, such as Hogan confiding in a fan, and the planned "outing" of Ned in December 2006, but the controversy still warrants mention in the article.--Ihateatmfees 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the gray area here is that Wikipedia information needs to be drawn from verifiable fact.  This is why the Howard 100 news interview is used to bring up the subject.  This section is in desperate need of some further sourcing so we can remove any ambiguity as to the facts surrounding the character Ned.--Ihateatmfees 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ned 

message: The animal cruelty charges against Bubba were pretty much trumped up.  If you eat meat, you have to face the fact that animals die so that the meat can be harvested.  Those pretty steaks and chops at the grocery don't just appear.  They represent dead animals.
Personally, I'm willing to kill my own chicken. But some people want the process to be hidden away - to be as behind closed doors as sex is supposed to be. They don't want to be reminded that pork==dead pig. The reality is that Bubba was not arrested for animal cruelty, he was arreated for making the process public.
Of course, that was explained to the jury.  A jury member later interviewed said that the only reason that they took 52 minutyes to find everyone innocent is because they got a free lunch by delaying that long.  Had they simply voted immediately and returned, they would have been dismissed without a meal.
One of the most aggregous behaviors that a public official can indulge in is to prosecute an unpopular public personage simply as a means of curbing their legal behavior.  That is exactly what happened here.  The prosecutor was offended.  With no real evidence, they brought the accused to trial - and tried to get them to plead to a lesser offense.
Luckily, the hunters and officials were able to pay for a vigorous defense and did not cop a plea.
IMHO, not mentioning this is violates neutrality.  I would edit the article myself, but I keep on coming up with prejudicial terms, like "trumped up".  Questionable charges at best?  Someone care to help with a rewording?
--Simicich 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that you can not present your opinion without maintaining  neutrality. If you can find  verifiable sources detailing what you claim, you  cite what you present in your view, and then   write for the opposing view. Then you  let the facts speak for themselves(Optigan13 08:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality must be second to accuracy 

message: I hope people like it. I tried to make it closer to chronological order and added some headings. Foday 07:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I reorganized the page

message: I put a link to see also professional wrestling slang, which is highly informative to regular listeners of Bubba and it was removed. I put it back and included a sentence about his language in the article. Foday 07:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reason that others might have removed it is that it is tenously associated with the article. Why does Todd Clem use wrestling slang? Why does he expect his listeners to be familiar with it? Was he a pro wrestler? A wanna-be? Related to the indsutry in some other way? I think that cementing the connection would help the article substantially. -- Mikeblas 16:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's annoying when people inexplicably remove content

message: Does any one believe that since the shitoff is planned to be annual, that details about the first (rules, medication given, results, etc) are worth mentioning on the page? --71.124.133.2 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual Shitoff - Mention worthy?