NYU

I'm a mod. Just felt the need to point that out.

Sitting here. My bus leaving New York City for Binghamton today was cancelled, and so I'm now stranded here until tomorrow. Which means I miss the first day of the new semester's classes. Whee.

Why bother typing? Isn't it easier to just talk out loud to yourself?

It's going to bomb?

Ragdoll. LPYC. Alfdogg. CWM. I'm such a draw. My thread brings back all the retired legends. Oh, and Phenom. Can't forget him.

Oh no. This is going to turn into another X-Men discussion. I can feel it.

So are people then ever responsible for their own actions? At best, you're finding an indirect connection between white policies and the rising of African-American crime rate.

You don't think it's stretching it a little for Malcolm X to say that the high crime rate in African American communites can be attributed to blacks following the Westernized policies of white people?

Malcolm X promoted a violent reaction for blacks if whites were violent to them. This was in direct contrast to MLK saying that one should turn the other cheek when faced with such issues. That was what I was trying to say. Malcolm X still DID promote violence, even if it wasn't totally irrational. No, and I never said he did. Again, no disputing. Now, I have a problem with the way Paragon is trying to paint Malcolm X. You're forgetting the fact that the guy, overall, really was not a very good human being. Perhaps his entire philosophy changed in the last year of his life but, before then, his segregating personality was a hugely detrimental force in trying to patch up any relationship problems between blacks and whites at the time. Malcolm X didn't irrationally tell his followers that they should separate themselves from whites for the time being to try and improve their status. Rather, he blamed the recent plight of the black man on trying to follow the policies of whites. His teachings had several inflammatory points: The white man is evil, he is doomed by Allah to destruction, and that Western civilization has proven to be the downfall of African Americans in the United States. He told blacks to flat-out reject any ideas of integration and told them that the high crime rates in African American communites was a result of blacks trying to follow the morals of a Westernized, white society. Malcolm X was clearly for segregation for the majority of his life. Hell, he flat out blamed the plight of African Americans on the white man. Sometimes, his points made sense, but other times, they just reeked of trying to answer a question that wasn't so simple to solve. Paragon, you're painting Malcolm X as if he has been misunderstood the entire time. That he didn't blame whites for African American problems, that he didn't promote ideas of segregation, etc. That's just wrong. He didn't accept charities from whites and he didn't want to work with whites. He wanted to remain completely separated from them. This changed after he came back from Mecca, saying he now didn't believe all white men were evil, but it was a major philosophy of his for a large portion of his life. And change your sig too. It stretches out the page.

Because Malcolm X promoted violence against whites, whereas Martin Luther King did not? MLK was a safe symbol of racial equality, which is why he has been given his own day. Malcolm X was not.

I think I'm going to edit a few of the posts in this thread, adding certain sentences like "NYU is a modern-day hero" and "If I had a uterus, I would certainly want to have NYU's babies" Comments of that nature. My ego needs some stroking too, you know?

I wasn't BANNED from the WWE Folder. I was SUSPENDED!

Why did you put the word folder in apostrophes?

All those wasted words in the past 90 minutes.

If I could be COMPLETELY modest for a moment.... You owe me.

Surprisingly enough, besides Teke asking if it would be fine if someone had made such a comment during the Clinton inauguration, this entire matter stayed away from turning into a partisan debate.

The notion that someone could take his comment "One can hope" and completly misconstrue that into the idea of "FailedMascot is serious about wanting to see the President die" or "FailedMascot could very well be planning to kill George Bush" is plain nuts. Czech's comment about "rabbit ears" seems the most likely to me.

What are we arguing about here? The LAW says that you cannot make a direct threat against the President of the United States. Going by the document Highland presented, that's as clear as day. But then again -- Failed Mascot didn't do ANYTHING of the sort. He went from saying, in an indirect - almost sarcastic manner - that "one can hope" something happens. Following that, he changed his statement to "he wouldn't shed a tear." He never said he was threatening the President. He never even implied such a thing. Despite Highland attempting to convince people of a non-existent line, hoping that such a thing happens is NOT against the law. It's not smart. It's not nice. It's not any of those things. But it's not against the law. And if Mascot was banned on the basis of what he said being against the law, then the decision really should be reconsidered. Of course, if you're going to pull out the "banned for stupidity card", that opens another Pandora's Box of people who deserve the banning more than him. Either way you look at it, the decision here doesn't make much sense at all.

Honestly? No. I would think it's a stupid remark -- but certainly not anything banworthy.

Where the fuck in here does it even say hoping is a threat?

He didn't WISH death upon the President. He said he wouldn't be upset if Bush died. Nowhere in this thread did Mascot say he was going to pick up a gun and do such a thing. He just wouldn't cry a river if someone did. Intelligent? I don't think so. Banworthy? No.

Oh, come on. Isn't there a huge difference between saying you don't care if the President is shot and actually SAYING that you have plans to do such a thing? I'm not saying either statement is right, but there's a major difference between the two. Getting banned for saying something to the tune of "I wouldn't mind if so-and-so died" is a little ridiculous -- even if it may be the President of the United States.

Man, that's like two totally different meanings crammed into one. Good show. I'm impressed.

So the fans actually believed Meltzer when he said Damaramu was close to headlining Zero Hour?

Then again, I AM the champion. I'm sure we wouldn't have trouble drawing people to a non-important PPV.