KTID

No, it turns into us *jokingly* saying that King was a bad guy. Only bigots like the guy (Kevin Alfred Strom) that wrote the original article, and the sheep (The Czech Republic) on here defending him, woud actualy make such a ridiculous claim.

No, its never been serious apart from Czech actually defending the vile right-wing slandering of the original post. Everyone else has been turning it into a joke.

Ripper, believe me I am treating this ridiculous thread with the utter contempt and ridicule that it deserves.

That is truly some incredibly biased nonsense. You can't really believe a word of that can you?

Thats pretty much my point. Too many pointless threads (this was just an example) that a few months ago would have been dealt with by mods.

Come on, it's obvious. That no good troublemaker with his propaganda based speeches and large public gatherings.

In comparison, no.

Come on guys, comparing Martin Luther King and Adolf Hitler is just silly. I mean how can you slander the good name of one of the most important men of the 20th century by comparing him to that no good trouble maker?

Didn't we used to have moderators around here to close/move pointless threads?

This is quite possibly the funniest and most obsurdly ridiculous thing i've ever read on this board.

But thats exactly my point. He's not just stating his opinion. He doesn't know the meaning of the word "opinion". Or the word "discussion". And thats the whole point of this board is for people with opinions to have discussions.

I am. And I really would like an answer too. Why was the (unquestionably correct) decision made to ban him, only for him to be un-banned and be allowed to continue doing *exactly* what he got banned for.

Edited for truth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think most people have already reached this conclusion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is he still allowed to post here? Serious question. What has changed since the last time he was banned? Are you mods really "not allowed" to ban him?

nevermind.

What the hell is with the constant use of the phrase "phoney balogne" in this thread? Please tell me this isn't a commonly used phrase these days.

Its not the same thing though. I'm not really sure what the Iron Maiden/Ozzy situation was about, but from what I can gather Iron Maiden were thrown off of/quit the ozzfest tour under bizarre circumstances, following a problem-ridden gig, and allegations from both sides ensued. This was a specific incident to be discussed by fans of the band/tour and those at the gig. The MTV thing, on the other hand, was just two rappers currently involved in a "rap fued" making veiled remarks to further that fued during an MTV ceremony. Nobody really buys into these fueds, and even less people sit and discuss the remarks rappers make about each other during awards ceremonies. How such an a complete non-incident can be called the "highlight of the night" is beyond me.

Well, i've no idea what that particular drama was about, and I don't really care. But if it got pages of discussion then people obviously wanted to discuss it. This is different, in that as I already pointed out, nobody cares.

Highlight of the night? What the actual fuck? Not that I watched it or anything but if those two clips were the highlight then MTV really has hit a new low.

^^ Seriously, who cares?

A point about this Hall of Fame... Firstly, a story. A few years ago, the football (soccer) team i support failed to qualify for any European competitions. Our league position at the end of the season wasn't good enough to qualify. Our team as a whole simply weren't good enough that year. A problem many of you can presumably relate to. Fast forward a couple of weeks, and we learn that we have been entered into the EUFA cup due to being the recipients of UEFA's "Fair Play Award". I was genuinely appalled to learn that such a back-door into the competition existed. The WON Hall of Fame criteria allows a similar back-door entrance for those who aren't qualified. A (hypothetical) wrestler can train for years, turn pro at 19, wrestle all over the world, be a world-class worker, be considered one of the best of all time even, having a career spanning 14-years. A (similarly hypothetical) individual can have no interest in wrestling whatsoever, receive no training, have no ability, and wrestle one single individual wrestling match, likely of negligible quality, at the age of 36. When voting commences for that years WON Hall of Fame, only one of those hypothetical people are eligible for entry. As you'll surely agree, that is very wrong, and exposes a flaw in the voting system. It is this particular flaw which allows Kurt Angle and HHH to be in the Hall of Fame, and which has us all debating for 3 pages whether or not the latter deserves such an honour. Now, in answer to the question of whether or not HHH should be in the Hall of Fame, no he shouldn't. If the second part of the voting criteria didn't exist then it wouldn't be an issue now. If, in a few years time when HHH (and later Kurt Angle) meet the first part of the criteria, they are still considered HOF worthy, then they should be voted in at that time. Not sure if this made any sense, so please hit me with the feedback.

^ What has one got to do with the other?

JR'S ASS!!

The only reason Michaels was allowed to get away with his backstage antics in the mid-90s was because the company was doing shit business-wise, and McMahon thought that losing him would be a fatal blow and gave in to him on every little thing. Once business picked up, with the popularity of Steve Austin and the "Attitude"-era, the company was no longer dependent on any individuals. (He had the same attitude about the prospect of Bret leaving, which is why he gave him an unsustainable 20-year contract to keep him and later changed his mind and let him go.) There is no way that, during the peak-years of the late 90s, Vince would have allowed Michaels to continue to manipulate him. Michaels would then have either done as he was told, or throw a tantrum and be sent packing. Either way, he would not be impeding other guys progress or ruining storylines.

Why would that be interesting? The only reason Shawn got to do as he pleased all the time was that McMahon was scared of losing him. If Hogan was back, Shawn would have been right back in his place.

From experience, i find that those who hate Oasis are the snoby sensitive indie types for whom Oasis remind them of the type of kids that bully/bullied them at school.