KTID

Choken, both of these points are entirely untrue. You should know better. Jeff Jarrett jumped ship from WWE to WCW when his contract expired in '99, and was pushed to main event status in WCW. When WWE bought WCW from AOL Time Warner, Jarrett remained employed by AOL Time Warner for several months after before accepting a buy-out. He was never fired by WWE because he wasn't employed by them. (What you are referring to is the angle WWE ran on RAW the night of the final episode of Nitro, in which Vince McMahon stroked his own ego by claiming that he was "firing" a number of WCW stars that he had previously had issues with) Rey Mysterio was not under contract with WWE until mid-2002. He was also contracted to AOL Time Warner for several months after the WWE purchase of WCW before also accepting a buy-out of his contract. He was out with an injury at the time, and after rehabing the injury, WWE then signed him to a contract.

To be a reject means to be "rejected", ie released, by your previous company because they have no use for you. Being a star, or at least reasonably featured, in one company and then choosing to jump ship to the competition does not make you a reject. Choken One is entirely correct, except that Jeff Jerrett was not a reject. Raven, D'Lo Brown, the Road Dogg and Ron Killings (K-Kwik) were all unwanted jobbers in WWE and were released, thus rejected. Jerrett, on the other hand was a main eventer in his previous company (WCW) and was therefore not a reject.

Robert DeNiro

What the hell has any of this got to do with WWE. The vague notion in the opening sentence that Hulk Hogan may wish to consider returning to the promotion at some point does not mean that news about his appearances on the talk show circuit, his daughters pop career, Ted Turner's interest in returning to wrestling and an entirely non-WWE affiliated autograph signing can be considered "WWE News".

That raises another point which is rarely made. Bret refusing to lose the title in Canada to Michaels is greeted with "he takes himself far too seriously" whereas any suggestion that he either forfeit or lose it the following month is greeted with "but the title is serious, that ruins its credibility". Its fairly hypocritical, to be honest.

How do you know he wasn't hurt? How would Bret know? Well, none of us really know for sure. However, i think its a not unreasonable assumption that he probably could have done the match if he wanted.

You're the second person to say this in the last week so this will be the second time I have to repeat myself: Don't insult Angle's skill by comparing him to Dynamite Kid. I fixed your post for you. That is quite possibly the funniest thing i've ever read on here. Oh, and i'm not avoiding discussing your point of view. It's just that some things are quite simply so wrong that there is no need for them to be disproved.

Why would his name be any indication of the fact that he would, unlike you, make a point, back it up and use examples like an intelligent poster?

Why was this thread started? There is already 13-page discussion on the Bret Hart/Ric Flair issue *including* Storm's commentary on the matter.

Eddie Guerrero vs. Rey Mysterio, Jr. (Halloween Havoc '97)

What the fuck?

Mike, go away. We're all happilly enjoying the demise of Tony Blair. No need for you're interupting self.

1) Morrissey - You Are The Quarry 2) The Cure - The Cure 3) John Squire - Marshall's House

Could I have me name changed to "Morrissey's Quiff" please. Thanks in advance.

Bowie pulling out of T In The Park was by far the biggest dissappointment of my life.

As if it's his fault that his opponents suck? And vs Mysterio on Smackdown was very good. Ray, you just proved his point. Diesel was a poor champion because business was crap during his reign and his matches were poor. However, Eddie Guerrero was not a poor champion because it's not his fault business is every bit as bad as it was then and his opponents make his matches suck. Hypocracy to say the least.

Because he doesn't know what he's taling about?

Sorry, which particular fiasco would that be?

Those of us with any sense already have.

I can't believe everybodys in such a hurry to get rid of these two. Smackdown! and Smackdown! only PPVs = best place for them.

Nah, give him a few more days.

Tom, you're exactly what I was taliing about. Now i'm not going to post in this thread again because it's pointless and you'll ban whomever you want with or without a good reason. However, all i'm saying is that Mike has broken every rule that you have set, rules that each and every other poster here has either complied with or been banned. If you don't ban Mike then you set a bad precedent of "oh well, i can do this because that other guy got away with it" when it should be "you break the rules, you get banned".

I'll just pretend that was a joke.

There's nothing really to add here. Mike has broken all of the rules of the board and deserves to be banned. That he isn't has been repeatedly justified by various mods as "erm, well, i agree with his political views so he can stay". That is rubbish, and if you want everyone else here to act mature and obey the rules that you, the mods, set for us, then you have to enforce them.

(4) Bret Hart vs Steve Austin, WrestleMania 13 (3) Rey Misterio Jr. vs Eddy Guerrero, Halloween Havoc 1997 Hate to agree with everyone else, but these two are the two best North American matches ever.