|
fatherdog posted:"mutual consent of all involved" is not the same as "consensus", which means "general agreement" of a group. In this case the distinction is meaningful because "mutual consent of all involved" would be unanimous agreement, whereas "consensus" just means general agreement. Which means that there can be a consensus #1 heavyweight when there isn't a consensual #1 heavyweight. Yes, because it is an uncommon usage, it does not exist. Consensus in the fashion used in combat sports is a shorthand. It says "most people agree", but this a hyperbolic use of the term, much as when a headline says "everyone loves gaga". Of course not everyone loves lady gaga, but the phrase gives the sense of how widespread her popularity is. I'm sorry that you dont't understand hyperbole or the distinction between proper and common usage. It must be a jersey thing.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
mobn i have never had a problem with you as a poster but is way past time for you to drop this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
mobn posted:Yes, because it is an uncommon usage, it does not exist. Consensus in the fashion used in combat sports is a shorthand. It says "most people agree", but this a hyperbolic use of the term, much as when a headline says "everyone loves gaga". Of course not everyone loves lady gaga, but the phrase gives the sense of how widespread her popularity is. I'm sorry that you dont't understand hyperbole or the distinction between proper and common usage. It must be a jersey thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:mobn i have never had a problem with you as a poster but is way past time for you to drop this. I would if I were wrong. As it stands, I have an actual degree in writing and the english language, and if there's one thing I've ever posted that I'm not wrong about, it's this. mobn fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
mobn posted:I would if I were wrong. As it stands, I have an actual degree in writing and the english language, and id there's one thing I've ever posted that I'm not wrong about, it's this. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Never change, never surrender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Welp. freudian slip
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Welp. I was posting from my phone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
mobn posted:I was posting from my phone. Well besides looking like a pretty epic idiot in general here you probably should have checked your grammar bragpost for grammar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
mobn posted:Yes, because it is an uncommon usage, it does not exist. Consensus in the fashion used in combat sports is a shorthand. It says "most people agree", but this a hyperbolic use of the term, much as when a headline says "everyone loves gaga". It's not a hyperbolic use of the term; it's used when there is, in fact, a consensus. There is often a consensus. There is pretty much never a unanimous agreement, which is why "consensus" is correct and "consensual" is not. mobn posted:id there's one thing I've ever posted that I'm not wrong about, it's this. mobn in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Here's a question: when did Dan's overhead right become called the BRH around here? I know it stands for Big Right Hand; is that from a Goldberg line or something else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
paulo filho is the #1 nonconsensual LHW
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
CVagts posted:Here's a question: when did Dan's overhead right become called the BRH around here? I know it stands for Big Right Hand; is that from a Goldberg line or something else? I don't know about "around here" but I think the Oyama fight was the BRH's debut  edit: I'm totally wrong on this. the BRH was the turning point in the Carlos Newton fight so it's at least that old. Elmo Oxygen fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
CVagts posted:Here's a question: when did Dan's overhead right become called the BRH around here? I know it stands for Big Right Hand; is that from a Goldberg line or something else? its way older. it used to be his only really dangerous tool standing, but it took out enough guys to where if you were running down his strengths you basically had to say he throws big rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:its way older. it used to be his only really dangerous tool standing, but it took out enough guys to where if you were running down his strengths you basically had to say he throws big rights. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bas and Quadros made it a talking point originally
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bas and Quadros made it a talking point originally IIRC "watch out for Dan's big right hand" was basically their version of "Chuck's got that look in his eyes."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
Except Dan's BRH was actually a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
mobn posted:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensual thanks for clearing that up mobn. helpful as always.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
mobn just allows all contrary posts to pass underneath him, causing them to lose their momentum
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
My degree in philosophy says that mobn appealing to his degree in English to win an argument about semantics on the internet is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Haraksha posted:My degree in philosophy says that mobn appealing to his degree in English to win an argument about semantics on the internet is bullshit. do these posts even exist at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
mobn posted:do these posts even exist at all mobn posted:I would if I were wrong. As it stands, I have an actual degree in writing and the english language, and if there's one thing I've ever posted that I'm not wrong about, it's this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
I met someone recently who saw Mark Coleman's penis personally. Let's talk about that instead of this dumb conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Mark Coleman is a dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Malachamavet posted:I met someone recently who saw Mark Coleman's penis personally. like a doctor or a prostitute
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
Kevin Randleman
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Apparently he had a friend who was on the undercard at one of the bodog fight events and got backstage passes through said friend. Long story short, they go into the lockerooms to greet their friend, before the show starts, and low and behold Coleman is stark naked talking on his cell phone in the middle of the locker room. Coleman wasn't even on the card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
That doesn't seem like something a normal person would do at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
that sounds awfully like a mma dream to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
henkman posted:Mark Coleman is a dick. You shut your mouth. No way p4p #1 Greatest dad could be a dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
henkman posted:That doesn't seem like something a normal person would do at all Malachamavet posted:Coleman I'm more interested in what sort of a conversation he was having. Did it sound important? Like the kind of importance that you need every one of your senses uninhibited and therefore must logically be naked during it? Like mortgage negotiations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'm more interested in what sort of a conversation he was having. Did it sound important? Like the kind of importance that you need every one of your senses uninhibited and therefore must logically be naked during it? Like mortgage negotiations? Hopefully not his daughters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
I've always been curious about the evolution of wrestling. How did wrestling transition from sideshow catch wrestling to having storylines and the huge production it is today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
Malachamavet posted:I met someone recently who saw Mark Coleman's penis personally. Let's talk about that instead of this dumb conversation. Is it tiny from all the steroids?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 06:52
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I've always been curious about the evolution of wrestling. How did wrestling transition from sideshow catch wrestling to having storylines and the huge production it is today? Well, it didn't really. Mainstream pro wrestling started off as Greco, and dating back to the late 1800s there were a significant amount of worked fights. Greco became less popular in the early 1900s as catch wrestling was a lot more interesting to watch, but by that point it was a pretty big sport already. Supposedly at this point title matches were still shoots, but a significant amount of the matches were works. By the time catch wrestling took over it wasn't really a side show! In the 20s and 30s it evolved to be basically a 100% work with only a few notable shoots after that. This is also where you start seeing the first real storylines, although the whole giant production is relatively modern. Wrestling was traditionally cheap programming for stations that would in turn promote the live events. There were big shows including stadium shows, but nothing like what you see today until the 1970s with the closed circuit Ali/Inoki event (which was connected to events in California and New York for a WWWF Shea Stadium show) and not on a regular basis until the first JCP Starrcade and Vince McMahon's national expansion and then the first Wrestlemania.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 07:07
|
|
|
ForbiddenWonder posted:paulo filho is the #1 nonconsensual LHW henkman posted:Except Dan's BRH was actually a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:wrestle-chat Uh, a lot, and I mean a whole lot of what Pro-Wrestling does as a form of entertainment it learned from Lucha Libre. Heels and Babyfaces and such, thats all stuff Pro-Wrestling learned from Lucha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 11:41
|
|
|
Here's a question I've had for a while - is there any good reason that fighters shouldn't be allowed to wear rashguards in American male MMA? I mean I assume that the unified rules include apparel and I know the unified rules are extremely tough to modify, but would it actually cause any problems? Would they end up getting pulled over people's faces or something? It seems like if there's not a problem with people using rashguards as a ligature in sub grappling competition there shouldn't be one in MMA. Personally I think the whole thing would look a lot less gay if there was less bare, sweaty skin getting rubbed all over everything. Instead we could have scuba commando fights! Plus distinctive tops would make it less necessary for fighters to have retarded tattoos and hair just so you can tell them apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
At one point Brian Cimins tried to get his brand of antibacterial rashguards approved for fight apparel; the NSAC told him that they barred any upper-body apparel because it could be abrasive and therefore used to worsen cuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
fatherdog posted:At one point Brian Cimins tried to get his brand of antibacterial rashguards approved for fight apparel; the NSAC told him that they barred any upper-body apparel because it could be abrasive and therefore used to worsen cuts. If this is their reasoning, how do they justify exempting it for women's fights beyond "boobs are taboo"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 19:05
|
|