

SuperJerk
Members-
Content count
9706 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by SuperJerk
-
And I merely pointed out that both of you guys were 100% wrong for attacking ESPN. Can't stand being disproven? Too fucking bad. Good riddance.
-
I think I've flat out said "I know why people would think terrorism" enough times in this thread, so it's not like I'm completely oblivious to the idea or shutting it down. I just don't think it was enough for it to get this point, to warrant this result, and that in the end, Hassan is the one fucked over in the most. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well...I'll at least agree with you that Hassan's getting fucked over.
-
If any of those SINGLE things were used, you might have a case. Since they were all used at once, you don't. The idea that those people were mimicking real life terrorists was definitely there. You're just choosing not to see it.
-
Its a broadly accepted idea that editorials do not neccesarily represent the views of the company as a whole. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just because someone is wrong sometimes doesn't mean they're wrong all the time. Your argument is that ESPN is being hypocritical, but just because someone's a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.
-
Hassan could draw 1,000,000 PPV buys and I'd still be against how he's been used. Money shouldn't be used as an excuse to do whatever you want.
-
If you honestly didn't get my point, then I was being serious. If you've ever made a mistake in your life, you're never allowed to say anything about anyone ever? The internet would shut down tomorrow! Besides, since the guy who wrote the article isn't the one who runs ESPN, your complaint is invalid.
-
The use of the throat slashing gesture by Hassan. The use of masked men wearing psuedo-military clothing, some of whom took praying positions. The use of piano wire to signify strangulation. The references to Davari as a "sacrifice", similar to how suicide bombers are portrayed as martyrs. The further implication that Davari was a martyr by the way he was carried out. That's the way I see it, and I'm certain that's the way the "creative" team intended it to be interpreted.
-
I think my point was obvious. Since the guy who wrote the article isn't the one who runs ESPN, your complaint is invalid. Sorry you have trouble comprehending my posts. Here are a few suggestions that might help you in the future: -Try reading my post slowly next time. -Sound out words you don't recognize. -And have a dictionary handy to look up the big words.
-
Except we both know when the 20th century really ended (12-31-2000). In the future, please refrain from correcting me when you know I'm right. It'd save both of us a lot of time. As far as the rest of your post goes...agree to disagree. We're not changing each other's minds, and all we're doing is saying the same stuff over and over.
-
You're attacking the people who wrote the article, rather than addressing a single point they made. That's hardly a convincing argument that they're wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> did I say once that I disagree with what he said? no I did not...did I say they were wrong? no I did not...how did you gleem all of that from my statement anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you were just critizing ESPN for attacking WWE then FOR THE FUN OF IT? ESPN didn't write the article, by the way. A guy named Mark Dursin did for a column on their website. I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the ESPN, but I'm going to venture a guess and say that Mark Dursin isn't the guy who runs the network.
-
Pretty much everything else apart from the Diva search really, although for totally different reasons, these are the only 2 things in the entire time that I've watched wrestling in any form that I've switched channels as soon as the segment/character comes on..... it's not just the Hassan character although this is a MAJOR part of it, but the guy is totally useless in the ring compared to the push he is getting and only gets heat at all due to the current events that are occuring whilst he is on tv..... When I watch wrestling I watch it for the actual wrestling, a good storyline/character can enhance the actual wrestling match and add to the entertainment value, but a bad storyline/character normally dosn't affect my enjoyment of a match once it gets going but this character and the push it has recieved, using real life death and disharmony as a conduit for money for VKM - I may be wrong but has the Hassan character ever had a noticable boost on ratingsas far as I can tell, he has never been involved in a good match and all the segments Hassan has appeared in have just used cheap heat tactics to gain boos from the crowd- so what is the point of pissing off and alienating large parts of your audience to gain.... what exactly?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
-
The first day of the 21st century was 1-1-2001, Brainiac. I stand by everything else I said, as well. I find you remarkable, in that you represent every 'virtue' of liberals that has led to them becoming the minority party. Congrats. As for Roberts, I'm going to laugh really hard when he gets a relatively easy confirmation. You think the Dems will filibuster? Not going to happen. The precious little 'Gang of 14' has already said, if the Dems even think about it, they're going to lose. Republicans are going to support Roberts, and more than a few Democrats will as well. This was as smart of a choice as Bush could have made. Not only did he choose someone who will likely get an easy confirmation, but the Dems will look REALLY bad if they try and paint Roberts as a 'right-wing extremist'. First of all, I'm sorry you lack the comprehension skills to realize liberals and Democrats aren't neccesarily one and the same. I'm not a Democrat, although on occasion their interests and mine intersect. Second, your comment really makes no sense purely from the standpoint that it has NOTHING to do with what I said. It was just another one of those irrelevant attacks you're so good at.* If you're not going to address what I actually said, then please don't quote me. *My use of "good at" was sarcasm, in case you missed it.
-
You don't honestly expect that to work, do you? Threaten people who don't fear death with death? I'm not sure if you've thought that through.
-
Also... That's an AWESOMELY good point. The first time I saw Muhhamad Hussan was during a dark match at the 9/27 Raw broadcast. My fellow wrestling fans booed the shit out of him, before he'd ever been on TV doing his "give me title shot because I'm a victim" routine, simply for praying to Allah before the match. I exclaimed very loudly, although no one paid any attention to me, "Why are we booing this?!"
-
You're attacking the people who wrote the article, rather than addressing a single point they made. That's hardly a convincing argument that they're wrong.
-
I'll agree with you insomuch as that UPN should've never aired the segment in the first place. Over the past few years, many innocent people have been kidnapped by terrorists and murdered. Some of those murders were recorded and broadcast on the internet. This segment with Hassan and his faction is a reenactment of portions of those recordings. Vince McMahon is using real life murders to get a wrestling angle over. Anyone who doesn't find that offensive probably doesn't find ANYTHING offensive, and thus is not a reliable source for what should or should not be allowed by UPN to air on their own network.
-
Using real-life murders to get a wrestling angle over is pathetic. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but having the Undertaker attracked by a terrorist cells would've been tasteless whether London had been attacked that day or not. I was against this angle even before I the attacks in London, when I read about on this spoiler thread and saw the picture S_D posted. The whole terrorists attack by Hassan was also stupid from a storyline standpoint, since the guy's whole gimmick is that he's an Arab-AMERICAN who thinks people are discriminating against him because he shares the religion/ethnicity of actual terrorists. By becoming a terrorist, he's not giving himself a leg to stand on complaint-wise.
-
Dear Pam, Your taste in men is really terrible. Surely there must be some guys out there with the same STDs as you who aren't rockstar assholes. Sincerely, The 5 guys you haven't slept with yet
-
The Situation with Tucker Carlson
SuperJerk replied to Hogan Made Wrestling's topic in Current Events
Oberman, Dennis Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes... Fire them all, says I. -
There have been bigger election debacles in American history. All the case did was end a recount. According to the state election officials, the outcome had already been determined. Constitutional crisis? In order for it to be a Constitutional crisis, different branches of the government would've had to have been in conflict. WATERGATE was a Constitutional crisis. Bush v. Gore was a hiccup by comparison. Not to call you a liar or anything, but here's what you ACTUALLY said: AND So calling it the "biggest case in the century or so" and "one of the biggest decisions ever" isn't weighing in where you stand on its importance? Excuse me, Mr. Justice, but I do believe your pants are on fire. Now who's putting words in people's mouths? I never said my examples were every single case that was more important than Bush v. Gore. Did I? DID I? Also...if "M v. M" is supposed to mean Marbury v. Madison or McCulloch v. Maryland, I'll remind you that was not a decision which took place "in the century or so", as you so awkwardly put it.
-
The OAO Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Thread
SuperJerk replied to SuperJerk's topic in Television & Film
Tim Burton strikes again, taking another beloved story and turning it into "his vision" while improving on nothing whatsoever. The 1971 film was far more faithful to the book than this movie was. Burton's become a hack, and this film was mediocre at best. The changes he made from the original story added nothing to it, and he completely destroyed the Wonka character by turning him into an asexual freak, who's just as comfortable talking about hair care as he is candy. No, Wonka isn't Michael Jackson in the movie, Wonka's been turned into Pee Wee Herman. However, instead of crossing the country looking for his bike, this madcap prince of goofy is looking to resolve his childhood issues. This is especially apparent during the many exchanges between Wonka and Mike TeeVee. Wasn't the movie called CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory? Charlie's just a means to get us inside the factory, and is forgotten about for the middle third of the movie. At the end, his only purpose is to utter a few lines reminding Wonka of the importance of family. Despite the use of the book's title, this is definitely Wonka's movie. The original message of the story was completely buried by the tacked-on need to make it about putting family first. Not only that, but the rest of the movie was rushed just so this unnecessary crap could be shoe-horned in by Burton. In addition, the Oompa Loompa sequences were painfully bad. Using 60s, 70s, and 80s templates for the songs is a musical decision which falls flat. The choice to have Mike TeeVee meet his reward by being zapped into an 80s hair band music video was another choice that does not work. I'll admit I briefly enjoyed the 2001: A Space Oddyssey reference, but I quickly found myself longing to be watching THAT movie instead of this one. I have no doubt, children of the future will be watching the Gene Wilder classic, and this version will be a forgotten embarrassment. -
Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle. That just raises the question: why would someone who is up for an appointment to the judiciary working for Bush's legal team? Wording it THAT WAY makes it actually sound like a BIGGER conflict of interests. So now its gone from being one of the most important cases of the last century to being one of the most important cases ever? First of all, you're basically admitting that it was the Supreme Cpurt's stopping of the recount that gave Bush the White House. Last time I checked, that wasn't how the good conservatives of America was spinning it. Second, the impact of the decision, and the full effects of the Bush Presidency, won't be known for a while yet. To claim this case is more important than the overturning of segregation, the elimination of school sponsored prayer, the Court's support for the New Deal, or the legalization of abortion, is an exaggeration of vast proportions.
-
I'm still betting most people reaction will be the same "OMG this is so dumb! They're in space with no aliens and warp drive and phasers, but shoot with bullets and their clothes look like regular clothes..." response "Firefly" intially got from the brainless uber-nerd sci-fi community (and that the "Battlestar Galatica" remake still gets).
-
Warlord? Seven Soldiers of Victory? What are they just randomly thumbing through the DC Encyclopedia for ideas? Sheesh.
-
**Plays "Amazing Grace" on bagpipes.**