You are not an ‘alliance’.
Something that’s bugged me for years is the logic (or lack thereof) of naming efeds. I had already wrote something about what I’ve dubbed “X feds”, which are basically cliched names that sound cool to the fed-head. There should be a link on the related posts thingy.
But what’s buggin me this time is there are STILL feds opening up that call themselves an “alliance”. Of course, this all has it’s roots in the National Wrestling Alliance. They however were not a “federation”, they were a governing body that sanctioned federations, hence the term “alliance”. They were in alliance with other companies.
As of this blog, there are 14 feds with the word alliance in the title in my database. To be fair, I didn’t study each one to find out if they really ARE an alliance, but let’s be realistic here, these are efeds, at least most of them are.
Your efed is a federation, a company, a league, but not an alliance and definitely not an association. 
One can make the argument that each wrestler enters into an agreement towards a common goal. Which is the definition of an alliance, but that’s not what it’s supposed to mean, it’s kind of justifying it using your own interpretation.
The base word of alliance would be “ally”, which can apply to two or more wrestlers in a federation but not the make up of the roster and staff as a whole.
I’m not picking on any individuals here and I’m sorry if your fed happens to be named this way but it bugs me and that’s the way I feel about it.
Just getting something off my chest, thank you. lol
Related Posts
No related posts.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
4 comments
Rancid on April 22, 2010 at 10:52 am
You read too much into things. The “Alliance” could be a group of wrestlers who are “Allianced” together and perform at “Alliance” sanctioned events. Isn’t that a possibility?
Southern Comfort on April 24, 2010 at 6:34 am
Was there a point to this? lol. Just saying here, this is an e-fed database where every tom dick and harry e-fed has some arbitrary acronym based off of pointless adjectives and a synonym for “group” attached to it. Yet the person who runs the ship dislikes the naming of E-feds, and more specifically, the putting of “Alliance” in the name of said E-fed. Should E-feds not be named? Or should people stop using the word “Alliance?”
There’s gotta be some form of thesis or purpose otherwise this column wouldn’t of came about in the first place. So I guess all I’m left wondering is do you have a solution to your “X-Fed” problem or was this just random venting for the sake of venting?
Kut on April 24, 2010 at 11:08 pm
No
Kut on April 26, 2010 at 2:34 am
@ SC
I think I made it fairly clear that I was just getting something that bothered me off my chest. So yeah, venting. That was the point in it’s entirety. So I don’t understand your comment.
If this was a blog about how much I hate when people put hats on their dogs, would I need to suggest other things they could do?