Heyman holds twitter speech about his WWE deal and more

Discussion in 'RAW' started by Stopspot, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. source
  2. Considering buying summerslam now :hmm: :notsure:
  3. Broken Kayfabe, if that was anyone else they would be fired.
  4. To be fair I think Heyman is way beyond caring. He did enough in one promo to get him banned for life easily and yet he's still here, so that's hardly surprising, he's beyond being fired lol.
  5. Punk breaks kayfabe on twitter too.

    Either way, I'm thinking Brock might win now.
  6. Paul Heyman Rule #23

    Fuck Kayfabe
  7. Learn2section.
  8. Was about his WWE deal, Brock's deal, Summerslam. Punk. Touched on multiple subjects not all related to RAW alone. Thus general WWE was the most logical.
  9. Nope. Made by a RAW tv-talent. This section.
  10. Paul Heyman is not listed as a RAW talent on the official WWE roster. Your point is invalid.
  11. Re: RE: Heyman holds twitter speech about his WWE deal and more

  12. Where does Heyman appear? SmackDown? RAW? NXT? Saturday morning show? Scooby doo?

  13. He is not listed on any part of the roster. Thus he is classified as general WWE talent.
  14. You didn't answer my question.
  15. Where he appears is in this case irrelevant.

    The general school of organisation states that if a person posts a thread/holds a speech or otherwise addresses a situation this is to be archived in the relevant section, not the section under which he appears, possibly it should instead be archived under his own name. Primo is listed as a RAW talent, so should a post or interview he does only on his time on NXT be archived under RAW or the relevant section?

    Heyman twitter rant touched upon multiple subjects relevant in WWE today of which only him and CM Punk working together and the Tripl H/Brock feud are relevant to RAW. The rest of the subjects are relevant to PPV and his and Brock's general WWE deals. Thus it was illogical to post the rant in the RAW section since only 50% of the content is relevant to RAW.
  16. Didn't answer my question.
  17. I did. By stating that it is irrelevant.

    Thanks for ignoring my point in this debate.


    Had a majority of the points Heyman touched upon been RAW points I would have posted it here. They were not
  18. You still haven't answered it. It's not a debate lol. He appears on RAW, it's a RAW thread. The main point of it was the Brock/HHH feud (A RAW feud) and him and CM Punk possibly pairing (on RAW).

    Anyway, more on topic, this has made me more curious about Brock's contractual agreement. All we've been reading is Meltzer's bullshit which according to Heyman is completely wrong (shocker).
  19. Lmao at this debate.

    Edit- Sorry Crayo, difference of opinion.