HarleyQuinn

I was looking through the results and was surprised at some of the tripe that Kreski had written during that period. Everybody loves him for the Triple H/Kurt Angle/Stephanie love triangle but rarely seem to point out anything else. The Negatives - Continued the Chyna/Chris Jericho as co-IC Champions and developed it into a feud - Basically relegated the Women's Title to gimmick matches like gravy bowl, pudding, etc. Generally treated the women like crap - Featured Fabulous Moolah/Mae Young a ton. Including the Mark Henry/Mae Young angle - Test disappeared from the main event scene and was settled into the Hardcore/European Title ranks - The Kane/X-Pac feud with Tori in the middle. Also Kane & Undertaker feuding/teaming - Tazz comes in and beats Angle at Royal Rumble, then virtually disappears as 2000 continues. Ends up feuding with Jerry Lawler while teaming with Raven. - WrestleMania 2000 (Foley's retirement/return) - DX "surviving" under X-Pac & Road Dogg - Right To Censor stable - Naked Mideon The Positives - The Triple H/Kurt Angle/Stephanie love triangle - The Triple H/Cactus Jack Feud. Triple H in general during the year. - The Tag Team Scene with NAO, Hardy Boys, Dudley Boys, Too Cool, Acolytes, and Edge/Christian - The evolution of Kurt Angle. The Angle/Benoit/Jericho feud - The introduction/integration of The Radicals - Crash Holly as Hardcore Champion (Some could argue this belongs in the other category) - Getting Steve Blackman over while pairing him with Al Snow - Eddie Guerrero and Chyna I had forgotten he was the mind behind Naked Mideon and Mark Henry/Mae Young. For the good he did, he had a lot of crap.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/a...lls_gain_in_ne/ As a Massachusetts resident (and resident of New Hampshire as a student for the past 4 years), I hope this gets pushed through. It seems that advocates have a goal of 2012 in terms of gay marriage in New England.

I'm not sure either. Looking at the ratings, most shows actually rose in the ratings and there seemed to generally be more viewership overall last night but Dollhouse noticeably dropped (yet Sarah Connor noticeably improved too). The only thing I can surmise is more watched the NCAA Basketball game. Although some shows improved in the 18-49 rating too. *Shrugs Shoulders* Last Week: 08.36 and 2.9 This Week: 10.31 and 3.6 By comparison... Sarah Connor Last Week: 3.65 and 1.3 This Week: 3.83 and 1.3 and Dollhouse... Last Week: 4.13 and 1.5 This Week: 3.87 and 1.3

I think several factors have hurt it... 1: The friday time slot, which hasn't helped the show at all. The Osbournes Reloaded is getting a tuesday slot... kinda says it all in terms of Fox's priorities. There also hasn't been much in the way of advertising to promote the show outside of the general "double" ads featuring Sarah Connor and Dollhouse. 2: Most of the people watching it are Joss diehards and sporadic general population seeing what the big deal is supposed to be. It doesn't help that the first 5 episodes were mediocre at best and Fox apparently waited until episode 6 to take a more hands off approach. 3: There's a general negative attitude of, "Why watch when it'll just be canceled anyway?" that could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When (if?) it gets canceled, people will just say, "See!" rather than watching in the first place and helping ratings.

Because that's the most similar struggle that has occurred in the United States that we (LGBT) can compare our struggles to. Who else can we compare to? One could say the Irish or Chinese I guess but then they'd take offense. It's not like we've been absent in situations where blacks were discriminated against (Germany under the Nazis, 1960's and 1970's movement) so why should we pretend that our struggle is any less meaningful than theirs? Just to satisfy them and give them the honor of going through a bigger struggle and arguably overcoming it? Are we supposed to say, "Well... our struggles have been going on for over a century but our rights can partly be overlooked just because we didn't have to go through what ___ minority went through"?

Disappointed mostly with the episode, despite some of the backstory revealed. I will say that DeWitt was priceless, "Say hi for me!" *bounce bounce* and I also was hoping that Caroline had done... more than just that. I did like the character of Sam and thought he was a solid part of the episode. I hope Rossum Corporation is big though. It was kind of unclear but I think Caroline saw (the mind stuff) that Rossum was doing Dollhouse style experiments? Feel free to correct me.

Gays did march during the late 1960's and 1970's during the latter part of the civil rights movement as a point of fact. It's where the gay pride marches first developed. Of course, their struggle is still continuing almost 40 years later but it's shifted from just equal rights to now also include marriage.

SP Bob Caruthers Went 218-99 over 9 years (6 in AA) and was done by age 28. Had a career 123 ERA+ and 2.83 ERA (league was 3.48 for his career).

Fair enough but I'd still argue that some of the content in his run was awful. Same as the high end stuff largely holding up in 96/97/98 for Russo. Russo had to build Austin from "The Ringmaster" first. He had to build Foley from a gimmick. When Russo started, he basically had the following as legit stars: Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and Undertaker. IIRC, he came on after Diesel & Razor left. In terms of Stephanie, it seems she too gets a lot of blame when it sounds like some of the stuff comes from Brian Gerwitz in particular. Just a random note. It's largely ironic that Russo almost built every star and Stephanie is very underrated in this area (Cena, Edge?, Orton, Batista). Austin originally came in as "The Ringmaster" but still became a mega star... the end result is all that matters. Fair enough, but I will lay blame at his feet for the proliferation and IMO, overuse of gimmick matches in the tag ranks. Constantly used table matches, ladders, and had one TLC match under his run. In fairness, probably. But in Russo's defense, Mankind came in with a bizarre gimmick and feuded with Undertaker (and got the best of him). He helped slide Austin into a round table feud involving Hart, Undertaker, Michaels, and Vader all at once. Now Kreski helped feud Triple H with Foley but Triple H had been an established IC Champion talent for roughly a year and a half by that point. Angle is the true genius and it's looking from other posts like that may've been Brian Gerwitz instead. Fair enough. Although some of his WCW run was underrated despite the overall crap. And at times, it was getting ratings regardless of what the hardcores wanted.

This is an interesting post. Is there any proof that Kreski came up with most (all?) of the Love Triangle? Keep in mind that Triple H was already starting to get his say and Stephanie was involved too, eventually becoming head booker herself. Are there any quotes from that time period that give Kreski the credit or is it an assumption because it was a good angle that used continuity and he was the head booker? Also as Cabbageboy said, Kreski had a boatload of talent and didn't really develop anybody new outside of Kurt Angle. He had the following at his disposal: Triple H, Undertaker, Mick Foley, Rock, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Kurt Angle along with other upper midcard fixtures like Kane and Big Show. Even Austin returned during the end of his writing period. Who did he build up? He made Kurt Angle into a superstar (despite the botched angle). He had a chance with Test but that never materialized. He got guys like Crash Holly and Steve Blackman over to low midcard levels at best. He had the chance to make Rikishi into a main event talent ala Angle early in 2000 but that never happened. The tag teams never really went further than the mid card level and largely resorted to gimmick matches (Tables, TLC) to keep the division hot. For the most part, he ran with proven stars and had a "fresh" batch of guys who had already proven themselves at times in WCW. Keep in mind that when the Radicals jumped over, Benoit had just won the WCW World Title. Russo's gift was his ability to take a proven guy like Mankind and throw him into a feud with an established WWF star like an Undertaker. Take a Steve Austin and slowly build him before throwing him against Bret Hart. Team Triple H up with Shawn Michaels and let him get a rub from Shawn and Bret, by virtue of the Hart Foundation. He tried to do this in WCW at times as well: Kidman and Hogan, Bam Bam Bigelow and Goldberg, Booker T and Scott Steiner but all of his other lame gimmicks and ideas killed any chance of those helping turn WCW around.

I agree; they really did seem to want to push Tazz before they came in. Wasn't he even put in a match with the Rock in his first or second appearance on Raw? His first 5 matches 1: Royal Rumble - Tazz beat Kurt Angle 2: Tazz beat Rodney/Pete Gas on Smackdown 3: Rock b. Kurt Angle but Tazz ran in and clotheslined Rock by accident 4: Tazz was in a triple threat match with Rock and Kurt Angle (I think this is what you're thinking of Papacita) The interesting thing is during this period, Tazz was semi-feuding with both Kurt Angle and Big Bossman/Albert. Unfortunately, what originally looked like a Tazz vs. Angle feud was transitioned into Angle feuding with Jericho (which later included Benoit).

If one of the big deals is around the idea of a church "forcing" to marry a gay couple or be sued... I'm not sure I can buy that. There are plenty of churches around that welcome religious gays and work gay weddings. Just like a heterosexual couple would find another church if theirs refused to marry (related to inter-religious marriages sometimes), gay couples could do exactly the same thing. Not all Christian churches refuse to marry gay couples. Gay couples aren't dumb enough to not find a church that will marry them on their own and instead just sue the church that won't marry them. A gay couple suing a church would make the couple idiotic morons in general if they can marry elsewhere. The big thing is... they can't marry except in 2 states.

Ignoring the "talking snake" part... this is my big issue with the Bible in a nutshell. I understand the church fear aspect but what I don't get is something like the above comment. People use the "man shall not lie with man" line and take that literally in terms of opposition but then say to not take the stoning the daughter literally or certain acts literally. As Snuffbox has said... it's either the word of your God or not. You can't say what to take literally or not because if you don't take something literally, then why should we believe you when you take something else written literally?

Well, it was Angle's first loss on TV. A fairly big thing in it's own right given the relatively few "streaks" that occur for a wrestler making their debut in the WWE. Angle actually got taken out on a stretcher too... it's clear that they were trying to make Tazz debut with something of an impact. Also Russo's 1998 was really strong. I'd argue it had more high end stuff than Kreski's run, while Kreski arguably had better in the mid-card and upper mid-card. - You had Austin winning the WWF Title and rolling into Austin vs. McMahon at its peak - Mankind reverting to Dude Love and managing to get that character over within the Austin/McMahon feud - On the side, you had a strong DX vs. NOD feud with Triple H vs. The Rock and D'Lo vs. X-Pac being particular highlights. Rock gets built up to the point where he can turn heel at Survivor Series and starts a memorable feud with Mankind. - You had Kane being built up for months and finally had Undertaker vs. Kane at WM14

DH Jim Thome - 110+ BB and 40-45 HR a season at his peak. Really underrated in the modern game as a power hitter.

Seriously?... Myself and many I've spoken to have known since we were kids that we liked the same sex (in my case that I liked both sexes). I've known since I was 8 and probably had a sense even earlier. Do some people experiment? Sure. Some are attracted to a person, have sex, and sometimes that person finds out they like the person but not to the point of utilizing sex as part of it. If it was a choice, reformed homosexuals wouldn't be forced to succumb to psychology/therapists to "change" back. Not to mention, if it was an easy choice, who would choose to be persecuted against, ridiculed, or possibly even killed just because of who they have sex with?

In reading the article, it sounds like 4 bishops were the obstacle in place... Score another one for overly religious people. The shame is that the Charities was doing a great thing but were going to be overruled by people of the same faith.

Eh... it seems a little "easy" to say that he had no control over it when he was the head writer under McMahon. If you're gonna give him credit for the good, he needs to take some credit for the bad as well. The "blame" on Russo is laughable when look at the time line of events. Also keep in mind that Kreski learned from Russo and wrote for MTV... so some of the "Russo" ideas were really his. October 5th, 1999: Vince Russo signs and leaves for WCW. That's 2 months before... December 13th, 1999: The Mae Young/Mark Henry stuff really kicked off. Again, well after Russo was long gone and at WCW. This was all Kreski, regardless if McMahon had the final say or not. Kreski could've changed the image of the Women's Title regardless of Vince. As bad as Stephanie is touted, she made the Women's Title matter starting in 2001. Fair enough on Test and Tazz but Kreski still could've developed Tazz into something. Heck, they had a brief run of Tazz vs. Austin later so it's hard to say that McMahon is the sole reason he never would've done anything. Kreski was pushing Benoit & Jericho just fine during that period. Tazz is listed at 5'9" while Benoit was 5'11" so there wasn't a huge difference, height wise (looks obviously were different though). As for the Right To Censor, it came from McMahon but Kreski still had to put it into action. Head writer and all. Naked Mideon first appeared on September 12th, 2000 well during Kreski's run during a Heat taping. Naked Mideon wrestled on October 22nd, 2000 and was starting to make appearances prior to that. So it wasn't all Stephanie McMahon.

And it lives on... "We may have [our Wildcat quarterback] in Stanback, but I want to be careful about taking away time from Stanback on his potential development as a receiver," Jerry Jones said.

I guess I'm confused. Why is teaching (or telling) a child that a "princess could marry a princess" so crazy and needs to ask for your consent? Why is that any different from a student learning about certain science subjects (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) or certain history subjects (i.e. Nazis) that a parent might disapprove of? Is it because it involves sexuality and the idea that somebody else told them about homosexuality instead of you? It seems like most people who have this dislike of teaching homosexuality in schools either won't tell their children about it anyway or "want to wait for the right time" rather than realizing that a kid seeing two guys kissing in public is gonna bring up the question whether they're 4 or 10.

Correct, Flik. The "Tom Brady" rule now has it that the downed defender has to essentially stand up and try to tackle the guy in the thighs/mid-section I guess.

3B Matt Williams - Won 4 GG and could slug 30-35 HR a year

I wouldn't completely blame that on Bettman as the NHLPA under Bob Goodenow was arguably more dickish about the whole scenario. On February 14, the union offered to accept a $52 million salary cap under the condition that it was not linked to league revenues. The league proposed a counteroffer with a $40 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, which the players association refused. The next day, Bettman sent Goodenow a letter with a final proposal of a $42.5 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, setting a deadline of 11 AM the next day to accept or refuse the offer. The NHLPA presented a counter-offer involving a $49 million cap, which the league rejected. They ended up settling on a $39 Million cap after it was all said and done anyway for the first year of the CBA.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that but it's hard for somebody who's pro gay and doesn't share the faith, to suddenly go, "Oh, God says it's wrong? Well that's a perfectly justifiable reason." People have utilized God's name for a bevy of acts (some good, some bad). Do we look back at people who used God's name to support slavery as good? After all, it was supposedly God's word that supported the idea of slavery. If people use the "man shall not lie with man as he does with woman" quote, then at least point to the law that stipulates marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what you're essentially saying anyway. Don't point to the Bible as God's Word and say homosexuality/gay marriage wrong by quoting one line of the text. It's convenience. It's using the Bible and God as a crutch for arguing against an issue, rather than formulating an opinion on a logical reason. The Bible is either the Word of God, as translated, and everything is absolute within it... or it's not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Society has said certain passages don't hold true anymore, so why does that one line or passage still hold true?

I think part of the issue isn't that it's so much a person's "personal opinion" so much as often times, religious views become involved and are used as logical reasoning behind why something like gay marriage (or interracial marriage or slavery in the past) shouldn't or should occur. I'm fine with a person saying that gay sex is gross, disgusting, etc. That's a personal opinion. If they want to use that as their basis to deny gay marriage, I won't be happy but I'll accept it. I can even accept the ridiculous idea of "saving marriage" if they go that far. Where I get offended is when somebody says, "You can't marry because the Bible said so. It is God's word (i.e. LAW or something) and you're an abomination and going to hell for wanting to marry/engaging in homosexual activities." They depend on a book, written words, to be utilized as reasons. A book written hundreds of years ago in a situation that doesn't even closely resemble the modern world. The irony is that they ignore parts where it mentions punishing children to death for stealing, death for adultery, etc. but it's "relevant" that there's no mention of gays being together as okay. Selective reading at its peak.