I felt that it must be a straw man argument since otherwise your comment was completely nonsensical. If I say that I dislike squash matches it's completely illogical to say "you complain now when he squashes jobbers but you'd also complain if he squashes big stars". Of course, because it's the same thing (squash matches). You say that I complain that he's being pushed too hard when he squashes jobbers, which is completely wrong. I never said that makes him pushed too strongly, I said that it makes for boring matches.
And regardless if you made a straw man argument or a nonsensical point there you went on to use a straw man when it came to mic work. I said that he hadn't done any and you say it's overrated because he doesn't need to talk for 15 minutes. Just because I wanted to see mic work doesn't mean that I want everyone to talk in 15 minute segments. That's the definition of a straw man argument.
You go on by trying to project opinions onto me when you claim that I dislike Ryback because he's put up against Punk (and yes, I'm definitely a Punk mark, which I've said many times). That is again not true. I said that I found Ryback boring way before that, but seeing how I take responsibility for my own entertainment I often skipped past his segments when I saw that it would be the same old thing, which means I didn't feel much need to talk about him. When he's thrust into segments that I do watch he appears on the radar again and it makes me more inclined to voice my opinion about it. So I don't write bad stuff about him just because he happens to go against CM Punk. If I did, why wouldn't I always write bad things about Cena? He's the real protagonist that goes against Punk. I can certainly say that I'm no Cena fan (which goes many years back) but I do credit him for having chemistry with Punk and they've put on good matches and other kinds of segments. I didn't have bad things to say about Punk opponents when he was against Bryan or Jericho either, and so on.
The above isn't a straw man argument but instead the logical fallacy named Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Meaning that you see something that's happened after an event and therefor conclude that the event must have been the reason that this "something" happened.
Big explanation for something that would've taken a few sentences
Firstly, it wasn't a straw man argument because I didn't put any words in your mouth or assume anything that was not obvious. I said you would've bitched if he beat stars instead of jobbers like Tensai did, and you'd have bitched anyway. You then agreed, so it isn't a straw man. Nice try though, might've worked on someone else.
Secondly, thanks again for proving you're a hypocrite. You claim someone's forcing their opinions, yet it's you that's doing it repeatedly (mic comments, squash comments), insisting on what's the best way for someone to prove themselves and what isn't good. This of course, despite the fact that Ryback got over doing things that you don't like. You know, because there's more than one kind of wrestler. Because there's more than one kind of person people want to see when they turn on wrestling.
Not everyone shares your beliefs, yet you're pushing them hard and insisting ridiculous shit like that it's "impossible" to create a good character without excellent mic work. You insist that squash matches are boring. . .yet Ryback got the loudest pops of the night. And again, much to your chagrin, it wasn't against CM Punk. It was against two jobbers, in another squash. Yet you insist it's boring. . .but it wasn't to the crowd. It's boring to you, so you can say it's boring to you, but you can't label it as boring which you did.
Before you lie and claim you didn't say that:
Squash matches aren't the least bit interesting
And proof you're pushing your opinion off as a fact:
Sure, to have a squash or three when you're debuting works to show off some of your moves, but after that it gets boring.
And some ex post facto logic for icing on the cake:
if Ryback had actually gotten some real matches and done well I certainly wouldn't be complaining about that,
That was all in a row too. Bullshit after bullshit after bullshit, followed up by hypocrisy in your next post about pushing opinions on people.
And you wonder why I bashed your post so much.
I did little more than expose the fact that you were doing that repeatedly by making a statement of observation about your pretentious opinions. You're just trying to rationalize that by labeling that as "just an opinion" "The color of the sky is blue". "That's just your opinion!". That way you can argue anything.
Of course I'm not asking why he says it in terms of reaction. I'm asking because it makes no grammatical sense. "Finish it" means that you're telling someone else to finish something. In the context he uses it he appears to talk to himself, seeing how he does finish his opponent himself. It would have made more sense if he said "I'm finishing it" or any variant thereof. I brought it up because you brought his other phrases into the discussion.
In other words, yet another nitpick just to have something to bitch about. You brought it up to inflate your argument with nonsense.
Not replying to those stupid comments anymore. You're trying to derail the discussion to hide the fact that you're a Punk mark who's bashing Ryback because he's mad about him getting put over Punk.
You've bashed Ryback every week since he was put up against Punk. Did you bash Ryback before? Maybe. But has the volume of your Ryback bashing increased tenfold since being put against Punk? Yep. Pretty close to it if not moreso.
Cesaro doesn't just repeat himself five times in all promos anymore, which is why he's become more interesting. Last Raw he started devaluing Americans and their eating habits, something that continued on the post show thing on the web. Before I saw things like that I've only commented on his promos by saying that the gimmick is dumb, and that Swiss is not a language. It does work when he's just randomly talking in other languages now and then though.
Cesaro has barely spoken anything besides the five languages stuff. You're on this guy's jock after one tiny promo, yet you're on Ryback's ass because of 5 minute matches that clearly excite the crowd and got him over? Your extremely warped logic and incredible bias are astounding to behold.
I don't know what you're trying to say with the next paragraph. Possibly something related to what I already refuted above, that I dislike Ryback for being put against Punk.
Alrighty then. Be a bitch about it.
I looked up your post history btw. You absolutely have almost never spoken about Ryback until they put him against Punk, after which you have been vehemently bashing him. While in other threads you've been on Punk's jock. Barely any of your posts haven't been about those two wrestlers in the last 2 weeks. I can hardly find any that aren't.
So you can sit there and claim you aren't bashing Ryback because of Punk, but almost all your recent posts are about Punk (positive ones) or Ryback (negative ones), and the huge influx of negative Ryback posts started immediately after being put against Punk.
Exposed. Time stop acting like you're just randomly talking about stuff that's happening, and time to admit you're hating on Ryback so much now because WWE is putting him over Punk, and not because Ryback happens to be getting an emgergency replacement push.
Your motives are painfully clear broseph. People like you are why Punk marks are getting such a bad rep lately.