Board logo

My take on Filas
Eli - 7-26-2002 at 02:03 AM

I'm going to say this only once.
When a writer posts something, particularly an opinion, he or she needs to be prepared to hear the opinion of others. When a writer assumes the responsibility of thinking people are going to read that which they write, he or she must also be prepared for the criticism they receives for placing himself in that position in the first place. It's a ballsy move to write down opinions and assume that people are going to want to read them. It's asinine to expect your readers to offer no criticism in return.
I'm truly sorry Filas quit. But to pin that all on me is a farce I'm thinking many of us aren't buying into. Let's be honest, Filas was a sporadic recapper at best. I believe he quit once before and then came back. He also found reasons not to write his column a number of times. Even in his farewell column he mentioned that he had to get up at 6:30 a.m. to complete SCJ. That's a tough gig, especially if you are doing it just for fun. I'm thinking that the work and commitment involved in creating SCJ was probably more of a reason for Filas hanging it up than little old me.
I'm sure that the thought of guys like me waiting to comment on Filas' articles was not a very motivating factor for him to get out of bed in the morning but, I really have to say that the things I said to him were not really THAT bad. I do recall us even being civil to each other in a couple messageboard posts. My first response to his column was a bit over the top but everything I said after he “quit” over Bischoff was tame by comparison. I simply responded with apathy to a writer who seemed to quit for a stupid reason, as did a couple other readers.
However, I stand now where I stood before, with the opinion that the Internet does not need another guy pretending to be an asshole doing recaps and polishing his own ego rather than writing for his readers. The Internet wrestling community needs more insightful commentary and less banal and caustic writers in my own humble opinion.
I'm sorry I made Filas’ recapping experience so horrible. But, as a professional writer, he more than anyone else should have expected strong reactions to what he wrote, especially from guys like me.
To the people who enjoyed SCJ and are sorry to see it go: You could certainly blame me for its exit. But I think it's fairly obvious that it was Filas' final decision and not my critiques that hastened the column’s demise.

Eli

P.S: I’d also like to add that Filas did indeed post this response to one of my messageboard posts back in Feb.
“First off - Eli - always feel free to express you opinions and I will never say that you are arguing with me just for the sake of arguing. Believe me, I never take anything in this business to a point where it pisses me off, so always feel free add your impressions to anything I write.”

I guess his thoughts have changed since then.


RatherbeinChyna - 7-26-2002 at 02:28 PM

NO Eli its all your fault!!!


OOLee - 7-26-2002 at 02:31 PM

The question that remains for me is whether or not I should take the time to even answer you. See, I've said all I had to say about asses like yourself out here and I have pretty much washed my hands with you and this place (meaning the message boards.)

However, here's the issue that has always bothered me about you and why you were so singled out in my latest rant.

Eli...you didn't like me for one reason and one reason alone. Because I was a reporter. Period. You said so yourself in numerous messages posted out here. "I dont like him because of that first issue he wrote where he pumped himself up so big."

Well, a little insight for you buddy. I was told by Rick to give a little history on myself and why I felt I should be writing a wrestling column. I was told to mention that I was a reporter, that I went to school to be a screenwriter and how long I have been a wrestling fan.

I did that - and for some reason, it struck a chord with you. Maybe your issue was that you feel all reporters are assholes, which is fine. Most of us are. Or, maybe, it's more personable. Maybe it's because you - yourself - are not being paid to write for a living.

But, whatever the case, it's bullshit and you know it. And, since my announcement of what I do for a living, you have dogged my ass every chance you got. If I even walk out here and say anything, you jump on my shit quicker than Show pining Spike.

Now, I will say a few things to make you feel better, because I know for a fact that your conscience must have gotten to you otherwise you wouldn't have posted this here. You would have left it at "All I did was harrass him a little" with one of those stupid smiley faces.

First - it's not just you. You were singled out because you deserved to be singled out, but I can tell you that 10 other guys - who are JUST like you - are filling my e-mail box with shit and it's just getting rediculous. (That's misspelled and I know it. But, I hate that word and I'm not looking for a dictionary.)

See, I could write the sky is blue and these fuckers would threaten to kick my ass because I said so. It's stupid at this point. They are assholes looking for trouble - period - and I'm sick and tired of dealing with their shit - as well as yours.

Secondly, you are correct in saying that there are other reasons involved in my walking away. Believe me when I tell you that it sucks waking up at 6:30 on a Tuesday morning, working four hours to get an SCJ up on the net, then heading off to work and writing for another 8 hours. Work is getting crazy (I pulled two double shifts this week and expect to work asnother one Saturday - anyone want a job?) and the wedding plans are starting to take shape and consuming more of my life every day.

My free time is starting to dwindle, and I was starting look at different ways of cutting back on SCJ - cutting down the hours it takes to do this - when you and a host of others had to open their mouths.

You guys were the straw theat broke the camels back...not just you but the other assholes included that respond to things with the one word "pussy"...and the lot of you pushed me out the door.

As for my disappearances, well, the big dissappearance was because I moved into a new home during election season at the newspaper. It goes without saying that elections are a pain in the ass in the business, and I'm stuck in the heart of the crap tunnel during that time. Add to it that I was packing up 10 years of my life and moving in with my fiance - well, she was my girlfriend then - and even you can understand the stress that I was under. But, I talked with Rick about it and decided to take two months off and then return - which I did.

As for the other weeks, well, shit happens. I lost power one week, got the flu another one and missed one because of a meeting I had to be at at 8 a.m. on a Tuesday. SCJ is something that I do for fun - but sometimes work and life issues have to take precedence.

And, as for the comment you sucked out of the annals of this board, let me tell you something...your right. I did say that and I do try to stick by those words. However, its like comparing apples to oranges. See, when I wrote that, I was used to being criticized for the work that I did. I still am used to it...and feel free to criticize the work that I do. Tell me I make spelling mistakes, tell me that I didn't use a power sentence. Hell, tell me my opinions are wrong on a show and I wont care.

However, when a guy - such as yourself - doesn't even take the time to READ MY WORK but criticizes me for - well - for being me and working in a place that you either dont like or cant stand, then its not criticizing what I wrote, but rather what I am.

See, Eli, you can say whatever you want about what I write, but you've said yourself that you have never had a beef about that. The only thing that you bitch about is because of one article I wrote one year ago where I explained why I am here.

And, honesly, that's crap.


Eli - 7-26-2002 at 04:37 PM

I understand you had some critics. But you had many people who genuinly liked your column as well. Rather than focusing on them in your final address, you chose to accentuate those who made your expereinces less-than-pleasurable.
Your assumptions about my motivations for commenting on your work are reminscent of that age-old statement many authority figures in my life have said to me. "You know what you do when you assume, dont you? You make an A-S-S of U and ME"
T his one, (Or, maybe, it's more personable. Maybe it's because you - yourself - are not being paid to write for a living,) is presumptious and once again indicative of your holier-than-thou professional writer status and this one, (In Eli, you have a guy who is probably in his late 30’s or early 40’s – who still lives in the basement of his mother’s house) is not only off-the-subject mudslinging but it also bring down your entire stance as being a victim of juvenile and insulting messageboard posters.


OOLee - 7-26-2002 at 04:55 PM

So, basically, what you are saying is that I am right, because, what you just wrote was a non-denial denial.

Next time, just come out and say it.


Eli - 7-26-2002 at 05:33 PM

Huh?


OOLee - 7-26-2002 at 05:53 PM

A non-denial denial is what Clinton used to do...

It's when you deny something, but only by denying that you are denying anything.

You said I assumed something to be true, but then you never stated whether my assumption was wrong.

Clinton did that all the time, and did it because he used to try to turn away from the true issue...

From what I've read from you about me assuming anything - which I never assumed as I pointed out earlier - you said assuming was wrong, but you never said that I was wrong.

That's called a non-denial denial....and it usually means that I am correct.

However, I can cut through this entire thing real simple but only if you will be honest about the entire thing.

Did you harrass me on an almost weekly basis...and if the answer is yes, then why did you do it - because it was obvious that you DID NOT read my work unless someone out here mentioned it. (and, even then, you wouldn't read it but would just quip that you hated me because of the first SCJ I ever did.)


OOMike - 7-26-2002 at 07:01 PM

I read the column and I loved its unique point of view that more often than not, was my point of view. You could tell that Lee was a fan writing about something he enjoyed, he never (at least not that I can remember) tried to read between the lines, just gave you the impressions of someone that does not have the history of all the tag team title holders in the past 15 years, but someone who was watching to be entertained.

Thank you Lee and Good Luck.

Mike


OOLee - 7-26-2002 at 11:56 PM

You know what - it was stupid for me to get involved in this conversation - and it's stupid to make it continue.

So, it's over. Dont bother responding because I'm done talking about this.

Sorry to everyone for doing this here.


bigfatgoalie - 7-27-2002 at 12:05 AM

"When a writer posts something, particularly an opinion, he or she needs to be prepared to hear the opinion of others. When a writer assumes the responsibility of thinking people are going to read that which they write, he or she must also be prepared for the criticism they receives for placing himself in that position in the first place. "

"Why should someone "be prepared to attempt to fit in"? Since when did that become a requirement? And who is the one decreeing all of this? You?"

post by our friend Eli......

Eli did you take debate??? You've managed to use the rules of debate to arguee fitting in and accpeting publically accepted guildlines both for and against on these messageboards. You have some points about the "rules" for reporters, but they are general and typical rules of life. And since you've in the past discounted these rules as effective evidence in support of an opnion, you just look like a complete fool for using them yourself now. Because either you are trying to look smart and kewl, make people believe your thoughts are original...or you are contradicting yourself very badly.

So yes a writer has to be prepaired for things...but he also doesn't have to take uninformed abuse. Or take abuse for the sake of abuse. You are either uninformed or are a contradicting little bitch. Whichever the case may be, you deserved to be mentioned as being a jerk.


Denethor - 7-28-2002 at 11:54 AM

not to play devil's advocate, but aren't you guys going off the deep end, here? i mean, we're gettin pretty far from the realm of wrestling here.


Denethor - 7-28-2002 at 11:57 AM

oh and by the way lee, this is actually the perfect place to do this. at least eli is on equal footing here. keep in mind that nobody knows what eli said to you. he doesn't have an internet column for folks to read.

actually he posted it in another thread, and honestly, i didn't think it was that bad.