Jingus

Alliance? Victory? Over VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON? You gotta be joking.

And once again, a thread here proves that there is truly no such thing as subjectively "good" or "bad" art. You can say that you didn't like a movie, but to say that it's a bad movie is blindly dismissing the opinions of all the countless people who disagree with you. Oh, and put me down as another one who didn't get the appeal of Devil's Rejects, Gladiator, Napoleon Dynamite,, and anything Terry Gilliam ever directed.

I now expect iggy to be banned at any moment.

EFA. A few thousand years ago, there were no humans in the Americas. That's where I stopped reading. Anyone who resorts to insults and namecalling in the very first sentence probably doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. So, can we all agree on the following points: 1. The legal immigration process, which takes about a decade to process an application, desperately needs to be streamlined. 2. It's wrong for companies to pay an illegally low wage to immigrants, and they should be punished for it. 3. Mexico is hypocritical on the whole issue because they treat illegal aliens way, way worse than we do. Right?

Yeah, the Council of Nicea was the group that originally chose which books were canon, but they're the group that eventually grew to be the Catholic Church as we know them... and they never changed their minds on which books were good and which were bad.

I loved the first two minutes and the last two minutes, and when Cartman bitches out Bart, but as for the rest? Meh. I got really, really tired of hearing about how Family Guy's jokes were so random and interchangable, they drove that point into the ground, and it was obviously the only real criticism they could come up with about FG. And... manatees?! That's like Crab People without the cool song. Really weak. Honestly that joke was just as interchangable as anything on FG, it could've been anything instead of manatees, as long as they were doing the same job. I love both FG and SP, but man I'm getting tired of how Matt and Trey seem addicted to causing controversy and mocking everything because... well, just because. Guys, you're both multi-millionares, you have so much power in Hollywood that you can make a movie about puppets or show Jesus shitting on the American flag. What do you have to be pissed off about?

It's a joke, ya douche. And we employ the "no banning" method you praised so much in the other thread.

Seriously, anyone know what happened to Sass? He just kinda vanished.

Someone needs to come up with an accepted contraction or acronym to concisely express the phrase "in no particular order" while typing on the internet. I propose "norder". Here's my list, norder: Tom Cruise Ashton Kutcher Fred Durst Paris Hilton Mike Tyson (just so I could be the only guy to hit him and get away with it)

But when has there ever been an empire that ruled through peace? When has there ever been a situation where a technologically superior culture shares all its secrets with an inferior one? Sooner or later, imperial colonialism was going to happen, people are historically just too damn violent for someone to NOT try to take over the world.

Who? And does anyone else have some misgivings on how they'll use Haas, considering that he had a twin brother who died, and the WWE seems determined to go into heretical territory with their storylines as of late.

And he's right. Volcanic eruptions spew out more fluorocarbons and CO2 than mankind has ever produced. Short of a massive thermonuclear war, there's really not a hell of a lot that humans can do that would have a lasting effect on the earth as a whole. The drive to believe things is not always right. Of course people want you to believe global warming. They want their research to keep getting funded. That's a cheap shot on my part, but you should never assume that you know a person's true motivations for anything they do.

It makes a lot of sense, helps elevate people and buries nobody. Therefore, there's no way in hell the WWE will do that.

I'd ask who those scientists were, how credible they're seen as being within their specific fields, exactly what they said, what their affiliations are, and who they receive their funding from. I liked the book so much because, for the first time in my life, it made me really think about global warming. Prior to that, all my life I'd just assumed that the theory was completely true. Why wouldn't it be? All the media said it was true. Heck, everyone knew that manmade pollutions were thinning the ozone layer/creating a greenhouse effect/whatever the current theory is. I believed it blindly and never once even thought of questioning it. And then the book came along, I read it, and for the first time wondered about how much I really "knew" about the subject. That's the important part: one's desire to know more than one does right now. That's the bitch about ignorance: it's a disease that has no symptoms visible to those suffering from it. Whether or not the book is right, the fact that it got my wheels turning about all this stuff is what I prize most. (And it's not all about global warming, but about environmentalism in general: it's got a hilarious little bit where it debunks all those myths about "pristine virgin green forests" existing back before humans arrived in America.)

Too bad this ain't about TNA, or else I could let loose with an Uncanny X-Division joke.

A few dozen WWE security and wrestlers vs. a few thousand drunk wrestling fans? Yep, a close one indeed.

Because. They. Will. Not. Book. A. Babyface. Against. RVD. And regardless of how the crowd is reacting, they still see Cena as their top babyface. They won't do it. They just plain won't.

Look, it's not gonna happen, plain and simple. They want Cena to stay the top babyface. This is not going to change; the mere fact that he made HHH tap out shows just how committed the WWE is to keeping him on top and getting him over. If RVD does indeed challenge for the world title at ONS2, the bookers are gonna put him up against a heel. That only leaves HHH and Edge as viable choices. The ECW mutants hate both of 'em with a vengeance, plus it's RVD finally getting his due, so the audience will be absolutely rabid no matter which guy is his opponent. At least they respect the wrestling abilities of those two; Cena on the other hand would probably be met with chants like "Please get cancer!" and "Die John die!", the kind of heat that says "I don't want to watch you" instead of "I want to watch you get beat up".

But he's still booked as the top babyface in the company, with no sign of that changing. The crowd would be equally rabid for Edge or HHH. So you think HHH wouldn't job, but the guy HHH jobbed to would? And as for getting buried in promos, well, that's what happens in any feud. Misterio's another babyface, plus an ECW alumnus. As for "credibility", no matter who RVD beats for the title, he's gotta lose it sooner or later, probably sooner. But Cena wasn't a star in ECW at all. And HHH is a bigger star than he is in the WWE. Hell, even Edge might be, it's debatable.

But Cena is a BABYFACE. And according to everything I've read, they're determined to keep him that way. Look at all the WWE "invaders" at the first ONS. See any patterns? All heels. No babyfaces. Except for Austin, who did everything but suck Heyman's cock in the middle of the ring to put ECW over. Also, let's face it, Cena is just not a good wrestler. His only decent matches have been WWE style brawls with opponents who specialize in working that style. Put him in there with RVD, and that's the very definition of a styles clash. HHH or especially Edge would have a much better match with him.

The truth is, unless things have changed a lot in the past couple years, a lot of the time even the mods don't know why some stuff is done or who did it. During my mod tenure, I remember several times where someone had to ask "who banned so-and-so and why?" in the admin folder... and if I remember correctly, there wasn't always an answer. Requiring every mod to announce when and why they ban someone would solve that problem too.

Yes there are. There are some areas and venues where a heel has a better chance of being cheered than elsewhere. Chicago, obviously (booing Cena was expected, but booing Trish and Rey?!), it happens in Philadelphia all the time, and Madison Square Garden has seen its share of that sort of thing (recall their thunderous ovation for Sid beating HBK for the title at SurSer '96). Hell, even at the local indy shows around here, some buildings are more pro-heel than others. Also, some guys are over in certain areas, regardless of their face/heel status, for uncertain reasons: like how Hogan always gets cheered in Canada, for one.

I only did this once, and to quote a bad wrestler, it wasn't my fault. I was going out with a girl, and she said she'd foot the bill (I think it was a Chilis or something similar). Well, I wasn't paying too much attention, and we were in the car and driving away before she admitted that we just skipped out. Going back wasn't an option either, since neither of us had enough money to cover it, and as pissed as I was it's not like I was gonna get my date arrested. But other than that? If you wouldn't mug the waiter on the street and steal his wallet, don't ditch at a restaurant, cuz it's often the same thing.

The problem is that it's just not going to happen. The WWE wants Cena as a face, period, and is willing to ignore entire arenas booing him. They sure as hell aren't going to sacrifice that just to get RVD and ECW over for one night. And Cena's had hardcore matches, several of them. Not as many or as good as Edge or HHH, yeah, but he's been there done that.

Yeah, you'd still have people bitching and arguing over the bannings. But at least it would end all of the "why was so-and-so banned" questions and the slightly disquieting nonresponse of the mods in cases like this.