chaosrage

What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first. It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.

The point is there's nothing to make you think he existed.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not. Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings. You don't worship a guy because of his philosophy. You worship him because you think he's the son of God.

So what if we aren't sure? That doesn't mean he's automatically invalidated along with all his teachings. This is a real piss-poor argument to somehow invalidate what the man supposedly preached. Everything he says about God should kinda be invalidated because not only are we not sure if he told the truth or if he performed real miracles, but we're not sure if he ever WAS to begin with.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.

Well it's not supposed to convince you he didn't exist. Only that there's no proof of it. The myth of Mythra and Jesus are so similar that some scholars think the early christians just adapted the religion. (for example, Mythra was born of a virgin, was visited by Magi, was followed by twelve companions, shared a last supper with his disciples, was crucified to save mankind, rose from the dead like a zombie, etc.) But no one knows for sure. And if you can't be sure he even existed, how can anyone seriously take anything he might've said with more than a grain of salt?

It looks like we got some haterizers on this here board. Belie' that. Mark Henry be thuggin and buggin all over that white boy tonight.

It started when I said I wouldn't put it on the tape. Then you asked me why when it's "without question the greatest match in the US ever"? So I explained it. Unless you made the list, then ok, i'll take it back. I honestly don't care, it doesn't matter. I just don't see what the big deal is though since I wasn't saying it sucked.

better than the shining

A fair site. Did Jesus Exist? All Sides to the Question "Documents written during his lifetime which mention Jesus: There are none that date from the period 7 BCE to 33 CE." "Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate. Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative." 18 Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the passage as legitimate. 8 There exists no consensus on a second passage in Antiquities which refers to Jesus' brother James, having being tried and stoned to death. Some consider it legitimate; others assess it to be a forgery. Cornelius Tacitus: He was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE. McDowell and Stewart accept his writings as a strong indicator of Jesus' existence in the early 1st century CE. 8 However, the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century. Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE. He wrote to "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is often used to support the historicity of Jesus, assuming that Jesus' title was misspelled. But Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name. Other ancient Roman historians: There were about 40 historians who wrote during the first two centuries. 5 With the exception of the above, none stated that Jesus existed in the 1st century. '

Lou Thesz said it best, "You've seen one Flair match, you've seen them all"

That happened too. But business was starting to pick up so Vince went back to Bret and told him things had changed and he could afford his contract.

This comes up every two weeks and it always comes down to the fact that not only hasn't it been proven but there's nothing that could even really be considered evidence. Just look at some old threads. Or look at Historicity Of Jesus Did Jesus exist? "Indeed, Roman records show executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). " "Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever records such a human figure. "

you had a choice for which one to pick it wasn't supposed to be the series as a whole, just the best movie out of them all...

What was bad about it? 2 was just like the ending to 1. The worst in the series has to be either H20 or H6. I actually like all of the rest.

Not really. Doing a springboard requires everything. You aren't going to do one with a broken back and that's that. Only one of Bret's legs was hurt. Again, it doesn't take a lot of balance, so I could easily see someone with a hurt leg putting most of his weight on his good leg and being able to suplex someone off the top rope. Where? Before you answer that, I want you to tell me two things. Is it noticeable? Meaning does he do it for more than a split second? Could you tell if you weren't looking for it? Is it as bad as say, Rey being sent into the ropes and coming out of it in a springboard moonsault when his back is supposed to be screaming in pain? No, I don't. That's my point. This whole thing is silly. You're sitting here arguing with me over the distinction between great and better than great. I still wouldn't put it on a top 20 tape. Deal with it. For a 10 minute match, it had BETTER be pretty close to perfect. Or else, what's so special about it? What does it have that other cruiserweight matches, namely Malenko/Guerrero, doesn't? As it is, Bret/Owen is much longer and a lot closer to being perfect. Or maybe it's you that didn't understand it. I don't think it was the story it was going for, but if you don't think it was telling the story of Rey being in too much pain to mount a comeback, then the only other possible story is Rey is so great that he can magically shrug off Eddy's offense. I mean, c'mon, most of the match is all Eddy and it doesn't faze Rey one bit. How's about why is Rey selling his back so much if he isn't hurt? Maybe if Rey had been a little bit better at selling, it would appear as if Eddy was able to keep a step ahead of him because he was hurt. The huge focal point on his back gives the impression that he's targeting Rey's back. Probably because of the huge spill he took onto the concrete with his back. I'm sorry, I'm not buying that he didn't intend for it to limit his moves. Bwah, no matter how many times you go over it with me, it's just not true. A 5 second KO spot doesn't eliminate 3 minutes of work (regardless of what work it is) to the point where you can fly and hop around the ring as if you were 100%.

He changed his mind, heh. According to what Meltzer said on Hart's own site.

He co-produced 1, 2, and 3. But I think he might've only wrote 1 and 2.

no way, Freddy was too busy making jokes to be scary He really didn't make jokes in the first two.

Get your facts straight. Vince gave him a choice, but Bret didn't like the scenario he had planned for him. So he went to WCW to take the contract that "would have been insane not to be taken". He left. Vince didn't kick him out.

Yep, no other match has as much emotion or drama. You might've been bored out of your mind waiting for something to happen, but everyone else was only in awe of what they had seen and wondering if Mick was dead or not. A. Just because he needed to watch the match to remember what happened doesn't mean he wasn't conscious for it. B. That doesn't have anything to do with the storyline of the match either way. You clearly saw him not only get up but laugh as he was getting up. This is sorta what I said. I can see how you might not like the match if you give it a rating by counting how many moves it has or if you don't pay attention to unimportant things like story or emotion. Say if it has 5 suplexes, it might go up a half of a star on your scale or something. But next time try to be a fan and watch it, not a critic. Erm, a man that can barely stand still refusing to give up, while some lunatic that looks like he's trying to legit kill him is doing everything he can to put him out. That is the psychology genius. UT had a broken foot and Mankind had a dislocated shoulder (along with getting knocked out) and they still managed to put together one of the best matches ever. If you don't think that can happen, what do you think of Bret/Bulldog from SS92? Since it was pretty much carried all the way by Bret? Another thing is what Mick actually said in the book was UT carried him AT FIRST until Mick could get everything together. He likened it to a baby taking his first steps. Except it didn't have a story. It was just people beating each other up. It did have drama but it was unintentional drama. Yeah, fuck ups are kind of a bad thing. See, if the big bump had happened at the end of HITC, the match would've sucked. Because the match was built around those bumps. The bumps weren't THE match as you guys seem to think. I'm not dignifying that one with a response... sorry, heh.

I thought you were leaving? Okay, I haven't said anything about Bret/Owen. That was someone else. Still, it really doesn't take a lot of balance to climb up to the top turnbuckle, but it does however to SPRINGBOARD on the middle of the ROPE. Difference? I could climb up using the turnbuckle, but Bret at 200% wouldn't be able to leap up and balance himself on the rope and jump off. Why would he sell his leg after the suplex? He landed on his back. Bret hobbles around the ring the whole time, and he gets thrown into the turnbuckle by Owen. Bret never runs. He might take a few steps before he jumps with the bulldog but that's not something that's even noticeable. After the KO spot (and a good 3 minutes of back work), Rey runs into the rope and dropkicks Eddy making him fall to the outside. He then gets up, runs to one side, runs to the other side, and JUMPS on the turnbuckle and JUMPS again over the rope. Y'know, I'm not going to go and list everything, but you want a third example? The part close to the end where Eddy sends him into the ropes and he springboards into a moonsault. I haven't seen Bret/Owen in awhile, but I'm going to take a wild guess here and say Bret probably didn't do anything close to that. Let's see, what else? Oh, I NEVER SAID THE MATCH WAS BAD!! For the third fucking time, I'm saying it was great, but it wasn't anywhere near the best match on US soil. My arguments essentially amount to that even for a 10 minute match, it wasn't perfect. Perhaps that's why they seem thin to you. I'm NOT trying to rip it to pieces. I like it. *gasp* And yeah, whether you want to admit it or not, time is a factor. If it was longer, it would probably have more mistakes. Bret/Owen was about 10 minutes longer. You don't have to look at Bret/Owen or Steamboat/Flair though, look at what I said to look at, Rey's match with Matt. The story Eddy/Rey is trying to tell is pretty much the same story as Rey/Matt. Rey is the tiny underdog who keeps trying to mount a comeback and every time he gets knocked back down, though against all odds he finally pulls out the win and gets the title. The thing is with Rey/Eddy, I couldn't buy that Rey was really hurting. With Rey/Matt, I could. I don't think they were trying to tell the story of Rey being so awesome that nothing Eddy could do would affect him in the slightest, but maybe that's just me. Don't try to act like he wasn't attempting to limit Rey's offense. That's total bullshit. He attacks his back for the entire match from the start when he takes a huge back bump onto the concrete. Not his body, his back. Rey actually does sell it like it is killing him, but ONLY when Eddy is working on him. When he's on attack, he becomes SUPER MEGA INVINCIBLE FEELS NO PAIN Rey.

Bah, NOES should have won the tourney. Psycho (1960) The Exorcist Halloween (choice) And by Halloween I mean Halloween 3. HA. Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Eh, I like how as soon as it begins things are already happening. You don't have a clue what, but you know it's something big. I like how they don't waste time creating boring teenager subplots. I like the atmosphere, it's really eerie. The music helps. I think the robots are scarier than Michael. At least with Michael, he seems to feel pain and there's only one dude. They were going with something entirely different in this movie from the others. More mystery and suspense than straight up horror. People weren't expecting it and they went crazy, heh. But it's ABOUT Halloween. Originially Carpenter had wanted Halloween to be a bunch of different stories. 1 and 2 were the same night, two halfs of the same story. 3 was different but people bitched because Michael wasn't in it. Thanks to them, Halloween got made into another Friday the 13th series. Urgh. May rats eat their damn eyes.