SuperJerk

pwn3d

OH MY GAWD~!!!

Is this what gay porn looks like?

I think the technical term is "honkyfication".

No, you're not.

Oh, thank God its not Brock. I'm glad to be wrong.

Shut up and bring out Brock already. Better yet, wait till tomorrow and bring him out on Smackdown.

Remember back in 2003 when he was a face on Raw, but a heel on Smackdown?

Anybody remember the Final Fantasy X-2 commerical that came on every break and that stupid song Dames would bitch about his brother dancing to?

Awww...poor baby...

But you'll miss the Diva Search!

I still remember the time Kermit the Frog guest-hosted Larry King Live and had Hogan on to promote "Thunder in Paradise".

aka the Special Olympic Slam

No! I said he looks like Rikishi in a headdress, damn it!

Good lord, did he ever get fat... He looks like Rikishi in a headdress.

Christy dressed as a cheerleader? This image will come in handy later...

I'd like to see Big Show have a program with Triple H. So long as its not for a championship, it'd be cool.

RAW just tonight surpassed Gunsmoke for the most original episodes for a weekly fictional program. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is bullshit because there have been other wrestling shows (also fictional) with more episodes than Raw.

RAW has now done more episodes than Gunsmoke, which had 600+ episodes. Vince wants to claim its the longest running entertainment program in TV history, except, that there have been other wrestling shows which had more episodes than Raw.

I wish they quit calling Masters an athlete. Bodybuilding is not a sport.

Anyone else notice that every show for the last months has had one match that was already on the previous week's show? This week its Carlito vs. Cena. Before that it was Kane vs. Edge, and a few weeks before that it was Benjamin vs. Carlito, and we also had Tajiri vs. Masters a few weeks before that. edit: Angle vs. Stryker was also doen for a couple of weeks.

Wow...there's someone who've I've actually been watching longer than.

Do you think Raw writers actually watch Smackdown?

200,000 will be considered a successful buy rate.

The problem with that website is that it takes the slightest hint of circumstantial information or conjecture and twists in into definitive proof. For example, the fact that a flight attendant only saw 4 hijackers instead of 5 can easily be explained by pointing out that maybe she just didn't see one of them. The author of the website also cleverly mixes in a real news report that says nothing to support his conclusion with a link to a website (http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html) that makes a claim of events using poorly worded statements of conjecture, rather than actual quotes from the FBI that say what he's saying the FBI said. From example: Conjecture does not equal fact. Saying its "in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything" is not the same as saying "those 19 men were not actually plotting anything". Another link (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT) cited as a source critical of the 9/11 investigation uses conjecture by unnamed sources as evidence and was published barely 3 weeks after the attacks, before the investigation was even close to being complete. So, upon carefully reviewing the evidence, I can only conclude that the entire article (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html) is nothing but fabricated stupidity.