The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
WTF is WWE?
Page:
All lost on me I'm afraid. I have no interest in wresting at all, I was just curious as to why the forum name had changed.
Webrhyno wrote:
> But also you don't know anything about me or wrestling so don't question
> my inteligence even though it may be flawed in the category of the
> history of the WWFN.
Oh, here we go - another fanatical rant.
I simply thought that you weren't that old because you didn't seem to realise that the World Wide Fund for Nature was and is known globally as the WWF.
I don't recall questioning your intelligence at all. Well, until reading this reply, anyway.
> But also you don't know anything about me or wrestling so don't question
> my inteligence even though it may be flawed in the category of the
> history of the WWFN.
Oh, here we go - another fanatical rant.
I simply thought that you weren't that old because you didn't seem to realise that the World Wide Fund for Nature was and is known globally as the WWF.
I don't recall questioning your intelligence at all. Well, until reading this reply, anyway.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
Obviously you're not very old!
Oh, and as for Vince and his organisation... I don't know for sure, and will happily be corrected - but I suspect he is just an actor, like the rest of them, and doesn't *actually* own anything. Except maybe some shares in the company!
Listen I don't really know much about the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWFN) and frankly I don't care either, But also you don't know anything about me or wrestling so don't question my inteligence even though it may be flawed in the category of the history of the WWFN.
As for Vince he does own the majority of the company which he father started over 50 years ago, he owned the whole company up until resently when he put a percentage on the US stock exchange. He is the largest single shareholder in the company & shareholders own the company.
Obviously you're not very old!
Oh, and as for Vince and his organisation... I don't know for sure, and will happily be corrected - but I suspect he is just an actor, like the rest of them, and doesn't *actually* own anything. Except maybe some shares in the company!
Listen I don't really know much about the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWFN) and frankly I don't care either, But also you don't know anything about me or wrestling so don't question my inteligence even though it may be flawed in the category of the history of the WWFN.
As for Vince he does own the majority of the company which he father started over 50 years ago, he owned the whole company up until resently when he put a percentage on the US stock exchange. He is the largest single shareholder in the company & shareholders own the company.
Webrhyno wrote:
> The change from WWF to WWE is totally stupid. The World Wildlif Fund
> for Nature's initials don't even make WWF they make WWFN, thereas that
> of the previous World Wrestling Federation does, so why should Vince
> have to change the name of his organisation when the company he is
> being sued by can't rightfully claim the initials themselves.
Obviously you're not very old!
The World Wild Fund for Nature has been around for decades - before the World Wrestling Federation ever even existed. They've only been known as the World Wide Fund for Nature relatively recently. Originally, they were the World Wildlife Fund, and WWF (with a picture of a Panda) has been their logo since the organisation was born.
They didn't change the logo when the name changed because it was (and still is) known universally as their logo. So yes, they do have the rights to it.
Oh, and as for Vince and his organisation... I don't know for sure, and will happily be corrected - but I suspect he is just an actor, like the rest of them, and doesn't *actually* own anything. Except maybe some shares in the company!
> The change from WWF to WWE is totally stupid. The World Wildlif Fund
> for Nature's initials don't even make WWF they make WWFN, thereas that
> of the previous World Wrestling Federation does, so why should Vince
> have to change the name of his organisation when the company he is
> being sued by can't rightfully claim the initials themselves.
Obviously you're not very old!
The World Wild Fund for Nature has been around for decades - before the World Wrestling Federation ever even existed. They've only been known as the World Wide Fund for Nature relatively recently. Originally, they were the World Wildlife Fund, and WWF (with a picture of a Panda) has been their logo since the organisation was born.
They didn't change the logo when the name changed because it was (and still is) known universally as their logo. So yes, they do have the rights to it.
Oh, and as for Vince and his organisation... I don't know for sure, and will happily be corrected - but I suspect he is just an actor, like the rest of them, and doesn't *actually* own anything. Except maybe some shares in the company!
The change from WWF to WWE is totally stupid. The World Wildlif Fund for Nature's initials don't even make WWF they make WWFN, thereas that of the previous World Wrestling Federation does, so why should Vince have to change the name of his organisation when the company he is being sued by can't rightfully claim the initials themselves.
Basically Vince tried wrestling a panda. and lost.
Th thing is, the lawsuit was only in the UK. If Vince had just kept the WWF slogan out, he could have kept the name WWF for America. But oh no, Vince McMahon had to win, and becuase of this the WWE sounds, well, quit frankly, pants.
The whole thing is stupid, people in the UK are smart :o) We know the difference between the two.
If the Fund were unhappy, personally I think they should have changed their name, it makes more sence, as they arn't as well known. A lot of people will still consider the Wrestling when you say WWF.
They even have the nerve to say people may be confused between the two organisations??? Obviously not true, people who care about animals know who the WWF are, people who don't won't suddenly start caring. A lot of Wrestling fans probably are anoyed at the Fund .... it's just a bad situation, and benifits nobody.
If the Fund were unhappy, personally I think they should have changed their name, it makes more sence, as they arn't as well known. A lot of people will still consider the Wrestling when you say WWF.
They even have the nerve to say people may be confused between the two organisations??? Obviously not true, people who care about animals know who the WWF are, people who don't won't suddenly start caring. A lot of Wrestling fans probably are anoyed at the Fund .... it's just a bad situation, and benifits nobody.
Page: