Fed apologizes for Stryker remark
For those that don't know on ECW on Tuesday, Matt Stryker made a comment about the death of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with Ric's take or not, but for my thoughts:
So I guess my point is that it was an unnecessary comment and if they were just going to bend over and apologize in the end anyway then they may as well have not bothered to approve it. Only approve things you intend to stand by otherwise you look as Ric put it like a "bunch of pussies".
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with Ric's take or not, but for my thoughts:
- I don't think that this is a comment that should've been made.
The reason I don't think it should have been made is chiefly that it is the cheapest form of Heat. If you need to make a comment like that about the death of a popular figure to generate heel heat its time to find a new line of work. - Before approving the comment someone should've said: "Are we willing to stand behind this if there is a backlash?" If the answer was going to be no, then it should've been struck down. Either be willing to stand by a comment or don't let it go on the air in the first place. It was a planned remark, and if they were going to change coarse then they shouldn't have let it on the air in the first place. If they are so stupid as to be actually surprised that the remark offended people than you have to wonder how they can possibly walk straight. I could've told them before the comment made the air that people weren't going to like it that much.
- This is where I disagree with Ric I think. The way Steve Irwin died was not doing some stupid stunt or even knowingly putting his life in danger. As some of you may know it is actually quite common for people to get in and actually swim with sting rays. An over whelming majority of people stung are stung in the foot and while it is very painful it is not fatal. Steve Irwin's death was the first recorded Sting Ray fatality in Australia in over 50 years. What happened was that he swam over the top of 1 which he in all likelyhood did not know was there, and was unfortunate enough to frighten it and get stung directly in the heart.
The filming he was doing had actually nothing to do with Sting Rays and other animal experts peg the odds of what happened to Steve as being a 1 in a billion chance. So to say he was risking his life for some rediculous stunt is not even remotely true. In perhaps the most ironic thing of all, Steve Irwin died in a relatively low-risk situation especially as compared to some of the other things he did while he was alive. That has nothing to do with the WWE comment but its not like he was looking for a rush and tangled with the wrong creature, this was a freak thing that you probably won't see again for another 50 years. - Lastly, nobody wanted that comment. Popular figure, freak accident death, 2 children and a wife left behind, there was no point to making it. It didn't further an angle it isn't going to sell a PPV buy, it was an extra comment tossed in for stupidities sake. But then this is the same company that allowed Stephanie McMahon to compare 9/11 to her father's steroid trial so its not like the WWE isn't known for giving people what they don't want.
So I guess my point is that it was an unnecessary comment and if they were just going to bend over and apologize in the end anyway then they may as well have not bothered to approve it. Only approve things you intend to stand by otherwise you look as Ric put it like a "bunch of pussies".
posted by Casey Trowbridge at 9/07/2006 02:30:00 PM
3 Comments:
Wow, someone has been busy! Your stance (or part of it) on Steve Irwin's death is an interesting one, but there's no denying he was taking an unnecessary risk by swimming with stingrays, and just because people rarely die from doing such things, didn't make it any less dangerous for Irwin. Want proof of that? Where's Irwin today?
OK, but lets look at it another way.
Steve Irwin wasn't filming Sting Ray's and I haven't even heard concretely that he knew there were Sting Rays in the water near him until one came up upon him.
If we say that the risk was unnecessary because he ended up dying than the fact is that swimming is an unnecessary risk because people drown. Driving would by your definition be an unnecessary risk because people die in auto crashes. If the Sting Ray had not killed him then you wouldn't call it an unnecessary risk because you wouldn't have even known that he had done it unless you saw the documentary.
Now you may say, but come on now, just plain swimming or driving are routine things and aren't unnecessary risks because of our familiarity with those activities even if they could lead to death. To which I would counter that to Steve Irwin interacting with dangerous animals was routine, and in fact a Sting Ray isn't really that dangerous of an animal as people swim with them freely all of the time. So really the fact that it was an experienced naturalist that was killed by a sting ray is even more astronomical than one in a billion.
Now you may also suggest that the risk was unnecessary because we don't really need these animal documentaries in the first place. But there again, by that idea, swimming is an unnecessary risk because people die while doing it and we really don't need swimming...hell, I can't swim it affects me in no possible ways.
You call it an unnecessary risk, I call it a freak accident. Steve Irwin was experienced enough to know that swimming over top of a Sting Ray would be a bad idea because it may feel threatened. I guess we won't know because Steve is not alive, but I'll bet you he had no idea that the Ray was even there until he was stung, from all accounts I've seen the thing was hidden in the first place. So he was essentially killed by something he didn't see coming...and that kind of risk can't be avoided even if you decide to never leave your house again.
Now if you are thinking of a counter argument, realize a couple of things.
1. I was an all-state debater my senior year, one of only 4 people a year to get that honor.
2. I don't give up easily.
3. I love arguments and see this merely as a difference of opinion with someone I will not have any less respect for after it is over.
4. Hardly ever admit to being wrong.
5. Win many arguments just by outlasting the opposition.
So now that you have that knowledge it is up to you to decide if you want to pursue this one further.
LOL, I luv you, Casey, but in a non-Paris Hilton kind of way. I hope you're okay with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home