Chuck Woolery

Card seems a bit thin, gents (and ladies). Ragdoll needs a match... if you're game, and he's game, why not Ragdoll v. Peter Knight? Just a suggestion.

Cleveland Browns - 24 points New York Jets New England Patriots Carolina Panthers Denver Broncos Indianapolis Colts Detroit Lions Green Bay Packers San Diego Chargers Miami Dolphins St. Louis Rams Baltimore Ravens Atlanta Falcons San Francisco 49ers New Orleans Saints Tennessee Titans (LOCK) Tampa Bay Buccaneers

I wouldn't feel like a true heel champion if I didn't have a coronation ceremony on this show.

::polishes belt:: I guess now that I'm champ I should start commenting more often, so here we go. - Eskimo v. Jailbait was good. Nothing blowaway, and the finisher kickouts seemed a bit out of nowhere to me -- felt like it was just a regular move instead of the big finish, but I'm not one to criticize. I didn't see much of the angle, being hD talent, but I wish I had as I've always dug the "scorned face" angle. - Featured Attraction/Dream Machines was good, although trading the titles back and forth was never my favorite way of advancing a feud. I dug the match on a whole, although compared do Eskimo/Jailbait it seemed short. - Ragdoll v. Mad Matt is textbook good right up until Josie gets involved. Her turn is out of nowhere and makes no sense as of now (although I'm sure Rags will explain that), and ending a No DQ with a technical knockout seems a bit... iffy. Again, it's a very good match right up until the interference... but the interference almost kills it for me. - Does Jay always have two matches on PPV? Good, quick match with him and Reject. The ending with the throwing into the water is gold - Zack and I debated using that as our finish at one point but figured someone else would. I would've appreciated knowing what the Lethal Rejection, Instant Replay, etc. were, but that's forgivable. Overall a good match - you never should've left the JL, man! - Axel/Cappa is a spotfest, not much action but what's there moves at breakneck speed. I think the table spot should've been the finish, but I understand you wanting to add suspense. The style of the match didn't lend itself that well to the top-rope Axel Slam as a finish - to me, in a "can-you-top-this" style match the sickest bump should've been the finish, and I think the Awesome Bomb was bigger than the Axel Slam - but that's just my opinion. - PRL's ten minute challenge kinda drags. The four army guys all challenging him gets old after two. I think K-Ness should've come in earlier so you two could've built a better match - the rollup finish seemed rush, and I think you could've built something better had K-Ness been in the ring longer. - Shocker's wrestling twice, too? Jeesh. On a somewhat brighter side, though, he feels like a placeholder in this match - just a guy Bizarro was fighting before the swerve went down. Bizarro/Blurricane angle should be good, as you set it up rather nicely during this match. - What's with the spacing in the Caboose/Stephen Joseph match? My only problem with this match is the same one I had with the Axel/Cappa match, in that it feels like the big spots are in there for the sake of big spots. The beginning was very well done, but it degenerated into a battle of big moves towards the end. Also -- and this is just a personal note -- it would've been infinitely cooler if SJ had tapped instead of gotten pinned. But that's just a personal note - the Fusion onto a steel chair was a fitting end too. - I already gave Zack my comment on his match. Read the damn thing if you haven't, it's a beauty.

Oh, I'm on. jshwtm. I'm drafting as pastor2muppets

...shut up.

!!! Edwin, you fucking rule. I've toyed with that stip in my head so many times but never have I seen it used. Thank you.

"Suicidal" Jay Freeman v. J.T. Playa v. Jay Morrison -> None of them are alive. Thus everyone dies. Danny Conklin v. Dominic Korgath -> Interesting match, from my perspective. Two guys who should be having a hot feud over the European title as soon as Dragon takes the World from Monsieur Tarakanov. I'll go with heel Korgath here. Brian Kingsmen v. Craig McLennan -> Kingsmen, as long as he shows. English Dragon v. ??? -> Chris Trepanier, in his fifteenth return this month. Just messin', Kaine. Viktor Tarakanov v. Tryst -> Gotta go with Vik here, as I'm not sure how much Tryst will be feeling this match.

A stupid little monkey with low-grade toilet paper, no less.

That's a bathrobe?

I insist, to keep with tradition, that heldDown have a meeting that is five times more entertaining. Good idea, too.

Browns - 19 8/27 New England 8/28 Buffalo Philadelphia Arizona Cleveland Tampa Bay Kansas City Miami Baltimore Oakland Tennessee Washington 8/29 Indianapolis Pittsburgh Seattle San Diego

No, I know what bukkake is.

*sigh* Memories of my best work... I'd like to thank Annie for helping me to reach such heights. Thank you, every one.

The pessimist in me sees Jarrett winning the 13-man, and winning the title back. Please prove me wrong. Please.

No, good people, this thread is a disgrace. How dare any of you jump all over Stennick like that. You people think that he lies about his real life? Why should he? He's obviously got things going very well for him, and if he chooses to flaunt that on a message board, who are we to jump all over him? I understand if your lives aren't going as well as this successful young man's, but please, you should all try and keep your jealousy to yourselves. Thank you, and good day.

Michael Craven vs. ??? - Tom Flesher is the mystery man, and he pounds a hole in Craven. Cuz I said so, word. "The Sacred One" Andrew Blackwell vs. Xcalibur - Xcalibur trounced me easily on Storm... I don't think he'll do the same to Blackwell. Muzz gets the win. Nathaniel Kibagami vs. English Dragon - I must must must go with English Dragon for the upset here, probably my favorite new guy of all time. Jay Dawg vs. "The Sinner" John Duran - Duran. Crow vs. Apostle - Apostle seems hyped for this one, why not. Apostle. Quiz vs. Mak Francis - After the pile of shit I turned in for Storm I must bounce back... but it's Mak, dude. Danny Williams vs. Viktor Tarankov - Danno. Dante Crane vs. Stryke - Uh... this is the match Stryke traditionally turns in, so him. Dace Night vs. Ejiro Fasaki - Huh, I almost didn't notice Dace was booked. Even so, Ejiro is going a long way in this tourney. CIA vs. Spike - CIA. Show vs. Aecas - Gotta back my main man Show, this could be close though. Judge Mental vs. Annie Eclectic - Oooh, Judge pickin' up a main event slot. And losing, as Annie seems pumped.

MAK! It's time to get revenge for you holding me down in the JL, you asshole! Oh, uh, good luck, too.

In response to your photosynthesis point: "Where did the photosynthetic ability, with chlorophyll and chloroplasts, come from? ... They have existed as long as plants have existed, or at least three billion years, according to evolution. Moreover, evolutionists think that the "multi-cellular" forms of plants evolved from green algae (phylum Chlorophyta) about the time of the Cambrian period, 600 million years ago. This is pure speculation, because there is no fossil evidence to support this idea, nor can it be shown how it plausibly could have happened. Furthermore, regarding the origin of flowering plants, the late Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History said in 1993 that, "The origin of angiosperms, an `abominable mystery' to Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today." There is simply no clue as to how this exceedingly complex cellular mechanism for capturing light and using it to make oxygen and sugar evolved. As is always the case, macroevolution is assumed, but not proved." David Demick, M.D. Now, you say that feathers came about from fur. However, the early dinosaurs that the feathered dinosaur is said to have evolved from had scales, not fur. There's a very in-depth piece relating to the entire anatomy of the feathered dinosaur here. Mutations are not always detrimental, I've stated that before, as they allow a species to survive better under certain conditions. I agree with your statement on the current environment not supporting great changes to speciation as well. However, I must question what you mean when you say that new environmental niches are created. Do new species fill the niches, or does the current species evolve out of necessity to fill the niche by itself? In response to your report on fish/reptiles - there is no defined link between each animal there, merely several fish with crudely formed appendages. Thus I'd be more apt to classify them as early salamanders and newts than as transitions between fish and reptile. Obviously I can't show you a definite creator. Like I said before, I don't think there is one anymore, but I do find it much easier to believe that we were put here, every animal and plant and human, for some sort of reason. Or maybe it just makes me feel better about myself.

Yes, but the truth is could a single celled organism even be produced if there was no cellular life on earth to begin with? Again, the answer is yes, but the odds that out of nothing came amino acids, and there were enough amino acids to produce proteins, and that there were enough proteins to produce a single cell, and that this single cell had already perfected cellular respiration in its first generation and could reproduce, are so astronomical that scientists have said that it's out of the realm of theory. Do organisms mutate to produce new and different features? Yes. Do they produce better features? Again, yes. Has an organism ever been shown to reproduce so that their heart went from having two chambers to three? Not to my knowledge. Has a plant that could not perform photosynthesis evolved into a plant that could? Again, not to my knowledge. To sum up: Organisms can mutate new and different features, but these features are not so radically different as to produce significantly more advanced creatures - in fact, most mutations hurt the creatures they happen to. As for your comments on it being a long long time ago, my response is this: Why is it we've found the fossils of these ancient fish, and the fossils of these ancient amphibians, but we've never found a link between the two? The best answer is that there is none. It's possible, but it's one of those things that I'll believe when I see. It's much easier, to me, to believe that these creatures were put onto earth in these forms.

I'm sure I'll have a match. Wink, wink. Actually, Wink was the fuckin' man. Chuck was better though. And we can't forget Peter, Peter was cool...

I went through the entire walkthrough (save for the additions portions), and while the descriptions of the hearts are very helpful, nowhere in there does it provide a bridge that allows the fish's two-chambered heart to the amphibian's three-chambered heart, nor an explanation for how the fish's single-circuit circulatory system evolves into the amphibian's pulmonary circulatory system. Furthermore, if we are to go back to the very roots of the evolutionary theory, how did a single-celled organism become so advanced that it required blood, much less a muscle to pump it with? But your genetics get in the way of your own discovery. If a dinosaur has feathers, it has to have the gene for feathers, and where does that gene come from? I don't believe (and I could be mistaken) that one can suddenly grow feathers if they so desire, nor can a mutation in genes cause this. At least I have good morals, then. The only reason (I wouldn't even call it "compelling") I can give you for creationism is the design theory, which I'm sure you've heard many times before. Like I've stated earlier, the odds against amino acids developing from the primordial oceans, and then becoming proteins, which would then become cells, are astronomical (one to the two-hundred sixtieth power, according to Tornado in a Junkyard). Personally, I lean towards the belief that there was a God who created Earth, but for whatever reason (probably better things to do) left us on our own to evolve and grow, but he's never coming back to check on us. Can I give you compelling evidence for that? No, but according to the arguments I've heard against evolution and the current state of the world, I'd say it'd the most likely theory.

Indeed, but my question is how the double chambers come about in the first place, and in such a way so that the valves can selectively allow blood in or out. As for your later question, about God creating animals, my theory has been that he created them to see how humans would interact with lesser beings - some humans are kind to animals, some humans are cruel to them. I've heard from many people that the true mark of a man is not how they treat their equals but how they treat their inferiors, and I'd assume that the human interaction with animals is essentially God's way of putting us to that test.

He's saying, to me, that he shouldn't be a role model, but because of his status he is. He doesn't want it - he just is.

What known facts are these, exactly? I personally am creationist, and am interested in what facts there are that concretely support evolution. Evolution is very poorly understood, even by the experts. However, there is a lot of data present that backs up the theory. In addition to the aforementioned facts, there is the following two: * Evolution has frequently been observed over geological and historical time-scales. For example, palaeontologists are gradually finding more and more links between birds and dinosaurs, forst skeletal similarities, then Archaeopteryx, then recently feathered dinosaurs in China. * Genetic mutations or cross-breeding have been shown to create morphological change. This is the same theory as evolution, with genetic changes proving difference in morphology and following on from that speciation. Evolution on it's basic level can be described as morphological or genetic change over time. Leaving aside speciation, this has been seen over time. Evolution has been proved as much as it possibly can be. I don't know what proof you need, but there's enough out there to be getting on with. I would be interested to know why you're a Creationist. Every single creationist arguement I've encountered has been based on either the lack of concrete evidence or falsities as opposed to an actual reason for creationism. So, anyone got an answer? I'd tend to agree that some form of evolution must go on. However, I don't feel that it goes beyond what the peppered moth study showed. The human heart, for example, seems far too complex to have evolved over millions of years from a single cell. Also, many of the routines (I don't know the scientific term off the top of my head) that plants go through (photosynthesis) seem like they couldn't have evolved piece-by-piece - to me, they had to have been created to be able to do photosynthesis. Also, your genetic mutations theory seems to be far too far-fetched to me. I have yet to see a genetic mutation that helped a specie on the whole. I will admit, of course, that some creatures evolve minor things - the peppered moth is an example of that. However, I find that with the complexities of the human body - and for that matter, most animals - there had to have been a designer.