View Poll Results: Should Joe Burgett be prevented from doing any more "columns"??

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes!

    12 36.36%
  • No!

    4 12.12%
  • I have never read any

    7 21.21%
  • Hell yes!

    19 57.58%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 346
  1. #321
    Black Ninja! Tommy Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    25,667
    Blog Entries
    1
    This went on for a long time after I left I see. Amazing how insecure one man can be.
    Want to join EWN's original e-fed? Join EWNCW NOW!
    Want details? Just ask me!


  2. #322
    Black Ninja!! SilverGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    16,289
    Quote Originally Posted by NiallF96 View Post
    Lets all ask ourselves at this traumatic time...What is the meaning of life?

    I will leave you with that thought provoking question.
    To live your life to the fullest. Bearing children during adulthood so that the future can live theirs. To be a parent and witness that the future shines brightly.

     
    Thought provoking....not bad! I don't have a kid and I think this

    #REAL!

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Death View Post
    At least quote what you copy and paste, my God man have you no morals?

    According to the Merriam Dictionary:



    This does not mean make a blog by butchering the English language, (whether American or European style), nor does it mean to have a ton of grammatical errors, and if your using spellchecker then it's time to update your definitions and spelling of the words. 1960's and 1970's style writing is way out of date. Times change and so does interpretation of events, meanings of slang, and in order to be deemed a good writer one must captivate their audience and get them to think.

    All you've been able to accomplish so far since you've been here is make a lot of people want to leave the site, (including me), troll people, and tarnish what was once a very honed reputation of this site. I have no idea what Frank was thinking bringing you on like he did, maybe he was drunk, but for whatever reason he did it does not seem to be working out. If your "columns" were to be placed in the blog section where they belong nobody would be as critical of "your opinion" which is what a blog really is.
    The reason I am back for this comment alone is to point something out. Because of the fact that "New Journalism" was something invented for what was new in the 1960's, it's hard to find what the new journalism form is of today. We did not have the Internet in the 60's. So naturally, we cannot come close to saying that the way things were then are the same today.

    Now keep in mind that this style of journalism is present today, as defined by the definition of it. It was seen, even then, as controversial in it's style. It was mainly a new way to write in magazines, papers, even scripts at the time. Papers more often than not. This was mainly due to the fact that people wanted a change and interesting take, rather than the, "from the book" styles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism
    this focused on that version.

    Then you have online journalism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journalism


    The two differ, yet are somewhat the same. Both are controversial styles of writing and not the type you expect to see in a grammatical text book. This is mainly because the style of it all is much different than the book style which is the same for everyone and does not fully go into styles of writing used today. Most of the time, you have books like "writing for mass media" that will define what the styles are for today. Meanwhile, a grammar book focuses on your basic school paper stuff and what's seen in some literature. However, colloquial style has become more common in the 2000's due to it's user friendly guidelines, as I mentioned before. It is commonly under the "informal" style of writing. This style does not work for major news for example, as it has to be written more formal than anything else. Meanwhile, informal can work for opinion articles for example. It's simply a style of writing, while controversial, that can work.

    However, the hilarity in all of this, is that most of you mentioned it was not my writing that you hated. It was what I said in the articles. So really, I don't see why I have to explain this for you to get it. If you weren't heavily against the style and hated the opinion, I'm not really positive what the issue was. Just say you hate what I say and don't read the article. But do not comment without reading, as it kind of makes you look bad.

  4. #324
    Black Ninja! Cabers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    5,251
    Holy crap from 3 pages last night to 33 now!!

    This became popular quick!! (This thread not you Joe )

    This is for Joe...


  5. #325
    Black Ninja! BennyTheBall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    6,325
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeB View Post
    The reason I am back for this comment alone is to point something out. Because of the fact that "New Journalism" was something invented for what was new in the 1960's, it's hard to find what the new journalism form is of today. We did not have the Internet in the 60's. So naturally, we cannot come close to saying that the way things were then are the same today.

    Now keep in mind that this style of journalism is present today, as defined by the definition of it. It was seen, even then, as controversial in it's style. It was mainly a new way to write in magazines, papers, even scripts at the time. Papers more often than not. This was mainly due to the fact that people wanted a change and interesting take, rather than the, "from the book" styles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism
    this focused on that version.

    Then you have online journalism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journalism


    The two differ, yet are somewhat the same. Both are controversial styles of writing and not the type you expect to see in a grammatical text book. This is mainly because the style of it all is much different than the book style which is the same for everyone and does not fully go into styles of writing used today. Most of the time, you have books like "writing for mass media" that will define what the styles are for today. Meanwhile, a grammar book focuses on your basic school paper stuff and what's seen in some literature. However, colloquial style has become more common in the 2000's due to it's user friendly guidelines, as I mentioned before. It is commonly under the "informal" style of writing. This style does not work for major news for example, as it has to be written more formal than anything else. Meanwhile, informal can work for opinion articles for example. It's simply a style of writing, while controversial, that can work.

    However, the hilarity in all of this, is that most of you mentioned it was not my writing that you hated. It was what I said in the articles. So really, I don't see why I have to explain this for you to get it. If you weren't heavily against the style and hated the opinion, I'm not really positive what the issue was. Just say you hate what I say and don't read the article. But do not comment without reading, as it kind of makes you look bad.
    And yet here you are.

    I could join in and do a long post stating my thoughts and opinions, but I feel it may be more worth my while slamming my bollocks in a car door.

    Joe, if you are so perfect, then don't explain yourself to us. In fact, just piss off.


    Benny The Ball's Teddy is here to fuck you up...

    ...and then steal your girl!

    #BennysTeddy

     

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by NiallF96 View Post
    Lets all ask ourselves at this traumatic time...What is the meaning of life?

    I will leave you with that thought provoking question.
    To live a life you can be happy with. To wake up every day, knowing you're living the life that you want to live. Whether that's to become a father/mother, a CEO of a major business, or what have you. It is what you pick. So really, there is no answer to this question in the end. Because everyone's meaning of life will be different usually.

  7. #327
    The Trinity NiallF96's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,559
    Blog Entries
    1
    Beautiful answers gentlemen. And they say JoeB isn't an enthralling writer...




     
    Chris Diamond
    IWA Endurance Champion
    3/12/13-

    Antonio Rizzo
    Chaos Roster member

    Head of IWA Chaos

    Wade Barrett
    Former Member of the United Kingdom stable

    Daniel Bryan
    ????
    ????



     


  8. #328
    Black Ninja! Tommy Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    25,667
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeB View Post
    The reason I am back for this comment alone is to point something out. Because of the fact that "New Journalism" was something invented for what was new in the 1960's, it's hard to find what the new journalism form is of today. We did not have the Internet in the 60's. So naturally, we cannot come close to saying that the way things were then are the same today.

    Now keep in mind that this style of journalism is present today, as defined by the definition of it. It was seen, even then, as controversial in it's style. It was mainly a new way to write in magazines, papers, even scripts at the time. Papers more often than not. This was mainly due to the fact that people wanted a change and interesting take, rather than the, "from the book" styles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism
    this focused on that version.

    Then you have online journalism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journalism


    The two differ, yet.....
    Want to join EWN's original e-fed? Join EWNCW NOW!
    Want details? Just ask me!


  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by BennyTheBall View Post
    And yet here you are.

    I could join in and do a long post stating my thoughts and opinions, but I feel it may be more worth my while slamming my bollocks in a car door.

    Joe, if you are so perfect, then don't explain yourself to us. In fact, just piss off.

    Since when is confidence in ego? When I have proven things to you time and time again, not only with my own words, but links to what I say, you still find ways to tell me my ego is above all others? I get it, you guys would rather have the spot I have and want me gone because you feel you can do it better. I totally understand that. But I have given opportunities for some to prove this and yet they even claim that they cannot do anything better. Again, my biggest problem with the insults from you guys is simply that. It's not helpful at all. You want to be helpful, find me online and tell me one-on-one what you want to see me do. Until then, I will not take anything most of you say seriously.

    Think about it, if I walk in and insult my waiter from the moment he comes to the table, and then I keep on telling him he does a bad job over and over, yet he has done fine with other places, then I complain to a manager. Do you think the manager would care as much? Do you think my criticism would be helpful to use when I reality, I have done nothing but put a person down who has simply said "happy afternoon" instead of "good afternoon"? They may not have been a 5 star waiter, but they did their job just fine and did it with not only enough skill to keep their job, but to make good tips at times. Because I didn't like that they looked at me a certain way, talked weird, had a skin color I did not care for, or what have you, I was on them the entire night. Most waiters would want to spit in a person's food or make sure something was wrong with it. They would not be able to get better when you insult them the entire time. You have to pull them aside and or simply tell them, in a nice tone, what they can do to fix what you do not like. They cannot change who they are, they cannot change a way they talk. But they may be able to do a few things differently.

    I'd love to do things differently to make you guys a slight bit happier. But the issue is that none have you have given me anything to go off of. You simply insult me and go on your way. You never give me an example of what was bad. You don't even bother telling me what to correct really. It's mainly, "you suck, stop writing" or "why are you here". How does one take this as "helpful advice". Some of you claim you've given advice, when you really have not. You've just insulted me personally, then threw in a little something about me having to change my opinion or not comment back to people. None of which are proper help.

    So please, give me examples of what I am saying wrong (in articles), and then show me how you'd do it better. Show me what I am doing that is not correct to you. Now if I disagree, I will tell you why I do. But if you give me a great reason why something is, who am I to argue? I am not perfect, but I will have confidence in myself to know I am doing fine. But I am willing to listen if you have anything remotely constructive.

    So go ahead, fire away people. I'll be sure to see it and respond back.

  10. #330
    Moderator Asherdelampyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boktor, Drasnia
    Posts
    10,771
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeB View Post
    The reason I am back for this comment alone is to point something out. Because of the fact that "New Journalism" was something invented for what was new in the 1960's, it's hard to find what the new journalism form is of today. We did not have the Internet in the 60's. So naturally, we cannot come close to saying that the way things were then are the same today.

    Now keep in mind that this style of journalism is present today, as defined by the definition of it. It was seen, even then, as controversial in it's style. It was mainly a new way to write in magazines, papers, even scripts at the time. Papers more often than not. This was mainly due to the fact that people wanted a change and interesting take, rather than the, "from the book" styles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism
    this focused on that version.

    Then you have online journalism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journalism


    The two differ, yet are somewhat the same. Both are controversial styles of writing and not the type you expect to see in a grammatical text book. This is mainly because the style of it all is much different than the book style which is the same for everyone and does not fully go into styles of writing used today. Most of the time, you have books like "writing for mass media" that will define what the styles are for today. Meanwhile, a grammar book focuses on your basic school paper stuff and what's seen in some literature. However, colloquial style has become more common in the 2000's due to it's user friendly guidelines, as I mentioned before. It is commonly under the "informal" style of writing. This style does not work for major news for example, as it has to be written more formal than anything else. Meanwhile, informal can work for opinion articles for example. It's simply a style of writing, while controversial, that can work.

    However, the hilarity in all of this, is that most of you mentioned it was not my writing that you hated. It was what I said in the articles. So really, I don't see why I have to explain this for you to get it. If you weren't heavily against the style and hated the opinion, I'm not really positive what the issue was. Just say you hate what I say and don't read the article. But do not comment without reading, as it kind of makes you look bad.
    So when repeatedly called out that your "New Journalism" excuse has more holes in it than swiss cheese, we move on to the patented Burgett "Well that's not even what I meant anyway and I shouldn't have to explain myself to you"

    don't you ever get bored with your own fail?


    Say my name and his in the same breath, I dare you to say they taste they same.
     

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.