fed up of this campaign

http://nodq.com/wwe/349663156.shtml

To better reflect our current family-friendly brand of entertainment, WWE is removing some dated and edgier footage from digital platforms," Some of this footage has been misused in political environments without any context or explanation as to when it was produced. This damages the corporate reputation of our company. WWE is well within its rights to protect its intellectual property for fair use."

so because 1 of linda's opponents in a political race used some edgy wwe footage on an advert against her they feel they have to remove all edgy footage they have on their website.......ermmm what about things that are already on youtube? e.g katie vick. alot of effort to try and remove this footage from their website that im sure could be found on youtube anyway. i cant wait til linda is no longer in a political race so wwe can go back to being abit more edgy.....but for now we have to put up with "edgy" stuff like this

Spoiler:

WWE are actually making their position worse, because by removing all this material they are admitting that they're doing something wrong.

What they should do instead is accept that some of their storylines were inappropriate in the past, but the programming was not PG in that time, and they have matured as a company and no offer homely, family goodness. By removing it all, they are only bringing more attention to and making worse the things they did in the past, and as you said, it's not difficult for any member of the public to find footage of these events, as well as the fact that millions of people remember it.

I also think you'll be disappointed if you think Linda McMahon no longer running for Senate will lead to a return to more edgier programming. 1. She may very well win the seat in the Senate, putting under the same level of scrutiny for a much longer period of time. 2. The WWE not having an edgy program has a lot more to do with the sponsors such as Mattel and many others, who would not want to be associated with an edgy program.

It reeks of pushing the panic button. Especially with WWE 13 round the corner, which is heavy influenced on the Attitude Era.

The Attitude Era WAS PG.

What is even more daft is that whilst the tv shows are deemed PG, the WWE13 game is for age 16 and above officially.

The most ridiculous thing is the fact that the WWE thinks it can have any legitimate position in defending a form of entertainment that essentially promotes fighting to solve problems.

I find it hard to believe that there is are many people who has ever watched WWE who hasn't then tried to do those moves at home.

but i like the Kane and Bryan stuff,it doesnt have to be edgy as long as it smart and well thought, they have long been dragging out ill thought, lazy storylines and when it gets slammed they claim they are handicapped because they have to play safe

Crimey wrote:The most ridiculous thing is the fact that the WWE thinks it can have any legitimate position in defending a form of entertainment that essentially promotes fighting to solve problems.

I find it hard to believe that there is are many people who has ever watched WWE who hasn't then tried to do those moves at home.

But that was back in the good old days when people didn't worry about kids trying to imitate stuff they saw on TV. Back before they started banning conkers in school playgrounds and other idiotic stuff.

And also before people jumped on the lawsuit bandwagon at the merest sniff of a claim.

Life used to be a lot more fun...

I think that conkers story was actually an urban myth, it stemmed from a headteacher joking about 'elf and safety. Unless a school has banned them since then, I'm pretty sure it's still allowed.

Crimey wrote:I think that conkers story was actually an urban myth, it stemmed from a headteacher joking about 'elf and safety. Unless a school has banned them since then, I'm pretty sure it's still allowed.

sadly my 606v2 friend it isn't http://www.standard.co.uk/news/now-health-and-safety-bans-conkers-from-playgrounds-6393736.html banned on the grounds it might break a bone or the child playing conkers might have an allergy to it

http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/mythbusters/4951/conkers.html

we should play conkers sometime crimey

When in the history of mankind has anyone been allergic to conkers? Or even ate conkers for that matter?

Damn I miss the good old days of just chucking conkers at people, those spiked ones were particularly nasty.

The Awesome Giz wrote:When in the history of mankind has anyone been allergic to conkers? Or even ate conkers for that matter?

Arent conkers horse-chestnuts?

Yes, but horse chestnuts aren't edible and are in fact poisonous. Sweet chestnuts are the edible ones.

Ah. Fair enough. Carry on then.