I dunno about the 'if you have to win to be over, you're not over' mindset. I think it's contextual and dependent on who and what they're trying to do with a guy.
If you've got a new guy coming in who isn't really known to fans, you have to make them care about them in some way. EG, 123 Kid, Kane, Yokozuna, Cena, Angle all worked in different ways.
But then you can fall into Erik Watts, Greg Gagne, Tatanka, Rocky Maivia's original run, or Jeff Jarrett in TNA territory where winning is done as a shortcut to try and get a guy over. There needs to be a purpose/reason behind things.
Waltman beating Razor was interesting because it was a classic underdog story. Kane coming out as an unstoppable monster who destroyed guys like Mankind and the Undertaker put him on the same level as them. Etc. If Waltman didn't get his fluke victory, he'd just be seen as a geek when he got his eventual win (instead of eventually leading to an eventual end to that feud with the Crybaby Match.) If Kane was shelved like other guys, he'd be like Bray (or Giant Gonzalez or...well, you get the picture.)
WWE's parity booking has hurt more than it's helped, in my mind.
None of this made any sense.
Thanks.
I'll translate:
"If Punk, who was scammed by members of the ska-punk band Rancid, was giving my co-worker grief, I'd tell my co-worker to tell Punk, an "almost-was", to fuck off."
I'm skeptical of the story re: Rancid ripping off Punk on a real estate deal or whatever it was. Punk has declared jihad on people for smaller slights and they were chummy with each other up until about a year or so ago when they were popping up in each other's socials.