Inspired by this thread which is worth a read (some HQ mixed with some LQ), where do you draw the line in "edginess"? Recently WWE has experimented with some rather shocking segments. Firstly there was the segment where CM Punk & Paul Heyman mocked Jerry Lawler's heart attack extremely, and I personally thought it was gold. It had mixed reviews, and not just by members on this forum. Plenty thought it was disrespectful, cringe-worthy and embarrassing. Where as many people enjoyed the edginess and thought it added to Punk's character. And last night we had CM Punk interrupt Undertaker's tribute to Paul Bearer and said "I'm sorry for your loss... at Wrestlemania". Again, I thought this was fine, and added a lot to Punk's character. Why do I think segments like this are fine? Because WWE have respect and ask the necessary and important people involved whether it would be okay. I have no doubts that WWE approached Lawler about the heart-attack and because he lives and breathes WWE, Lawler said that's fine. It was reported yesterday that WWE approached Paul Bearer's family (and his son specifically) about this idea and they too were fine with it because they understood the business and Paul would have been completely okay with it. My honest opinion on this is that why should we care if they're fine with it? Their families have the right to complain about this, and if WWE went through with it anyway without their consent then I too would be furious. If they're completely fine with it, why should we care? The only people it could offend are Paul Bearer and Lawler in this situation, and if everyone involved who should be involved with the decision making is fine then why shouldn't we? That's my two cents, I'm curious to see other peoples opinion too.