SuperJerk

I distinctly remember not buying tickets to that event for that exact reason. Had I known it'd be the start of final World Championship for Hulk Hogan...I still wouldn't have gone.

I give it two years before Marvel scraps the idea and goes back to the original numbering.

The last straw for me was the loud booing that occurred when Lesnar eliminated Undertaker at the 2003 Rumble.

Two very valid points.

Call me lazy, but I'd almost rather spend the $35 to stay home, and not have to put up with the parking, finding a table, over-priced food (and at Hooters, the waitresses seem to think they're entitled to a 30% tip for dressing like sluts), cigarette smoking, and obnoxious marks you find watching at a Hooters or many other bars.

My only major problem with Byrnes current art is that the lines are too thick and the panels lack detail proportional to their size (the guys has some pretty big panels usually).

I enjoyed it more thn I thought I would. I felt bad for the guy trying to run Apex, since I know what its like to be in a room full of women and not be able to get a word in. Maybe I've been watching wrestling too long, but the chick running Mosaic (which IS a terrible name BTW) kind of turned me on. So far the only interesting character is Raj, but he'll probably not last since Donald's already making fun of him.

Thanks.

Holy shit, you boys got some spare time. Keep up the good work.

Back to the original topic... Anyone who's swayed by TV ads needs to have their head examined. Watch the news (more than one source), listen to the speeches, watch the debates...then make a decision. TV ads are worthless.

Touche. I seem to have accidentally stumbled into the world's smartest wrestling forum. I have a B.S. in History with a minor in Sociology. All my grad work's been in Education, though. I am also a Navy vet. I'm glad to see a forum where people can back up what they say. **Offers olive branch to keep from looking like even bigger jackass than he already does.**

I think Mike was referring to typewriters that were around at the time something like that would've been written. My mom's 51, so its entirely possible she had a type-writer in the early 70s.

*Waits quietly for Popick to assert his creditials. All of them.* Is that someone who's posted on this thread?

And my mom used to have a typewriter that had the "th" key on it. Nice try, Mike.

But you gotta admit, it makes more sense than Triple H getting an "Official Maven Sucks Thread."

I'm getting a good laugh from reading this thread. If any of you guys have any actual economic, historical, or military credentials, please let me know. Right now you all sound like a bunch of college kids talking shit.

Anyone else longing for the good-old days when presidential elections had predetermined outcomes? 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 were all marked by strong mid-summer leads by the eventual winner (usually by 5 or more percent). What happened?

This has no relationship to the teacher's personal level of achievement, and your view that teachers are somehow people who "can't" is ridicules. Teaching requires a seperate set of skills that most people don't have. Those skills include being able to accurately dissect others mistakes and describe the process of doing something in steps they can understand. This can be particularly challenging since different people learn in different ways. There are many people who were good in their professions that sucked as teachers because they lacked these skills. I think he might be referring to a British, government-sponsored advert for teachers which had the tagline "those who can, teach". It doesn't make his argument any more effective, but that's just a bit of context for you. The line "those who can't teach" has been around in the US for quite a while (I heard it when I was in junior high about 16 years ago).

This has no relationship to the teacher's personal level of achievement, and your view that teachers are somehow people who "can't" is ridicules. Teaching requires a seperate set of skills that most people don't have. Those skills include being able to accurately dissect others mistakes and describe the process of doing something in steps they can understand. This can be particularly challenging since different people learn in different ways. There are many people who were good in their professions that sucked as teachers because they lacked these skills.

Title lineage matters because it can help give a fued heat if the crowd is thinking about how many other men have wrestled and struggled to gain said belt. Having said that, the World Heavyweight Championship seems to be the most important, as the WWE seems to count certain people's victories with either belt as the same thing (i.e. the way they referred to Triple H's victories with either belt by adding the two total number of reigns together). As far as the lineage argument goes...I think the official position is that it is not the old WCW belt, unless you're talking about Flair's illustrious 16 title reigns (which include NWA/WCW/WWF world titles as part of the total number). They can't keep their own story straight, so why should we be looking for an offical explanation as to where the belt came from when there isn't one? The World heavyweight Title controversy is another example of the bad writing that's been a staple of WWE programming since the Invasion started.

I like the way the Observer completely no-sells Christy's attempts to get over and keeps the focus on Carmella.

Benoit/HHH/HBK was an excellent main event, and the show drew huge numbers. Benoit/Angle has been done 10,000 times, and Benoit/Guerrero was just done at the previous summer's Vengenance. Benoit vs. Lesnar MIGHT HAVE worked, but they decided to go with Goldberg/Lesnar, which WOULD HAVE worked as a draw if Goldberg wasn't kept off of TV for the month leading up to it, and both guys weren't leaving.

I know everyone obsessed with the girls calling each other cock-suckers, but Maria's exit was priceless.

I'm having a hard time picturing a stable consisting of Edge, Christain, Trish, and Tomko for some reason.

I would guess most wrestling fans in the US would be Republican because wrestling appeals to men, and men are more likely to vote Republican than women. I'd like to see some Neilsen evidence that shows that wrestling is more popular in the south. That sounds like a stereotype to me.