I clearly understand what bias is do you?
Bias - is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms.
Key word there is partial.
Partial to WHAT exactly - and please. I'd love to know who else has given TNA more airtime.
Where am I bashing WV? Seriously.. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with favoring one side over the other so how am I being biased towards it? And what does the news section have anything to do with the majority of people on here in which we are talking about favoring WWE over TNA. You obv read only what you want to read in my post.
How does our web site favor someone over someone else? There's clearly no bias in how we report the news and there are as many columnists who are fine with TNA as aren't. So again, I'm not seeing it.
Um no because they based that on acutal facts and figures. What do you want them to say that they didn't play better then the Giants when the Giants beat them 4 games to 1?
Buyrates, revenue, live show attendence, TV ratings, merchandise sales, and the like are all accurate measures in which TNA is barely on the radar. All objective methods with which to measure success. Based on other site's far harsher opinions of the TNA product compared to ours, I'm not seeing some case for us hating TNA.
So what you are saying that WV in generel is in no way shape or form pratial to the WWE in anyway and they call it straight down the middle with both wrestling org with their annalist. Oh come on. You even got some annalist on this site that has said that this website when analyzing the WWE how there is partial biased towards the product. I'm not avoding anything it's true the majority of fans on here are partial to the WWE the majority of annalist on here are partial to the WWE. I never said there was anything wrong with that, just stating the obv.
You keep throwing this word 'partial'. How, exactly are we 'partial' and to what are we 'partial' to? Furthermore, what would be the benefit of us being 'partial'? I'm still trying to wrap my hands around that. I don't know why it'd even be in our interest to be partial or why there'd be motivation to favor one TV show or another blindly to the point where whatever came up against it would be trash.
Plenty of our columnists praise and give a lot of airtime to promotions in Japan, Mexico and ROH and the like, so this idea that you've got stuck in your head that we hate everything that's not the WWE is just flat out ignorant, uninformed, or delusional. I'm sorry people don't like to rot their brains alongside you. I'm also sorry that Dontrelle Willis is a crappy pitcher, Bob Dole wasn't elected President and that the Nintendo Power Glove didn't work. They all suck for various reasons, too, but I suppose having an opinion about anything - educated or not - makes everyone (but you, of course) biased.
And he was still over the age of 50 when he was wrestling in the WWE, If wrestlers over the age of 50 are wrestling in TNA regardless of how good they are shape wise, you'd be hearing a lot of negative remarks about it. Two way street.
Most WWE wrestlers working in or around their late 40s-early 50s are in decent ring shape, are given as much as half the year off and have any and all surgeries paid for. Those that work in TNA tend to be physically dihibilitated and/or drug addicts working full time schedules. Big difference.
thing ish how can you base an observation based on personal feelings and say that's unbiased If you claim that TNA sucks and you never give any credit to them for anything that's obv being biased. As much as i don't care for what a lot of things TNA does i'll at least give them some positives in certain areas of the product. You can't just continuosly slam a product and say well I'm not being biased in anyway.
Ok, ok. I'll use your logic then.
Just so I'm not biased against Nazism, I'd like to point out the good things Adolf Hitler did. Because you know - I want to be fair. I mean he totally DID turn the German economy around and he at least stood up when that black dude won medals at his Olympics. He also let some jews stand up before he gassed them and let his countrymen dress in cool uniforms and shoot cool guns before he let a whole generation get killed on a battlefield. Just being fair.
Also, I'd like to point out that the LA Clippers - despite their record, have a cool logo. There. Now i'm not biased against them, either.
Also, I'd like to point out that while the remake of the movie 'Blob' was incomprehensibly bad in almost every way imaginable, it came in a pink box with a guy making a funny face. There. not biased.
How on god's green earth am I supposed to take your logic seriously?
If i were biased I would still shit all over TNA if TNA were to miraculously put out a product that is critically acclaimed.
You don't have to shit on something to be biased against it.
OK I'm just done with this argument. Over and done. Tail chasing. Again, keep running for the hills. I hope you find what you're looking for, but it's clear you're avoiding a discussion (yet again I might add) about what makes TNA decent, average, good, excellent or whatever. Every conversation just comes back to 'WV is biased against my wuppies' and 'duh, the wwe does it, too'.
Even if you were right - which you're clearly not - that people were biased (and I'm assuming hypocritical in your view), their hypocracy does nothing to help you in the case of trying to make TNA somewhat watchable. You're completely, blatantly trying to run from the topic at hand, so it's just not worth it at this point.