Jingus

Fuck that. Having 6th grade in my elementary school meant I only had two years of middle school and not three, so thank god for that. Yeah. Also, Czech's just saying that because he's a whippersnapper who came around right when they inexplicably changed the traditional K-6 model into whatever it is not. That must've been fun. I had my mother for a teacher once, in freaking Gifted special class of all things. She had us knitting quilt squares and other stupid shit. Mother was great at helping retards learn to read, but she had no idea what to do with the kids who were cloistered off into a separate classroom because they scored high on standardized tests. Only two elementary memories come instantly to mind in terms of being bad. One was in kindergarten, where a rather aggressive girl suddenly decided that she was going to conduct an exploratory comparison of male and female genitalia, with me as her semi-voluntary partner. In the middle of the cafeteria at lunchtime. Oh man I got in trouble for that one. The other one is still my favorite to reminisce about, though. I spent a couple years in Christian private school. In first grade, we had this hateful old battleaxe for a teacher. My memory of anything from that far back is usually nonexistant, but I have a startlingly clear recollection of her going off on an outraged rant in class about how we couldn't trust the Jews because they killed Christ.

I am very skeptical of this statement. Let me amend this and say that this is just flat out wrong. Except you're completely wrong and lying out your ass. Do you not remember this: Holy shit, look at that, according to the graph YOU POSTED, actual production of gasoline has remained steady over the past four years. Then there's this information here, also from the EIA. Scroll down a bit, and you'll find hard numbers saying that both the supply and the demand are now damn near identical to this time last year. And here's an article which casts some doubt on the alleged supply shortage. And here's another graph backing up my point: look at this year's demand line ending right on top of last year's demand line. The situation seems to have finally hit a wall now, with a small drop in gasoline purchases and energy analysts predicting that refineries will drop production by2.5 million barrells. Google "gasoline demand", and you'll find a bunch of articles illustrating how demand has actually decreased a tiny bit over the past few months... months in which the prices have still skyrocketed. In fact, over the past few years, a graph of gasoline demand will not resemble a graph of gasoline prices. One is almost a mild incline, the other a steep jagged hill that doesn't seem to have a summit anywhere in sight.

While I generally agree that temporarily knocking a whole 18 cents off the price of gas won't help, I gotta strongly disagree with the reasoning given here. Bullshit. A reduction like this would add almost zero new demand for gas. The price of gasoline has increased more than 18.4 cents over the past MONTH. Back when gas cost $0.18 less per gallon than it does now, we didn't hit this magical demand increase which caused our refineries to run out of oil. Why would that happen if we returned to those prices? Gasoline isn't like most other products, it's a necessity for modern society, and people will buy mostly the same amount of it regardless of the cost. This part is true, but not because of any retarded theories about supply/demand which don't even remotely mirror the reality of the situation. Gasoline purchases in terms of quantity are roughly the same as they were last year. Demand has stayed steady. Supply has stayed steady. Yet the prices have steadily gone up. Gee whiz, you'd almost think that the gas companies don't listen to the economists' models and are just raising prices for pure profit under the "well, the market can bear higher prices, so why shouldn't we charge higher despite our expenses remaining the same?" theory. It's as if the men in charge of billion dollar corporations think their own bank accounts and stock options are more important than society's general well being! I've never heard of such a thing in my life! But seriously, even if the government did drop the tax, the prices wouldn't drop much if any, the companies would just go "yoink!" and pocket the difference. And even if that didn't happen, it's eighteen cents. Big money! That's smaller than the differences in gas prices between some states. If you're not a truck driver or jet pilot, it doesn't make that big a deal.

I watched it for the first time and enjoyed it. From the massive hype campaign and all the internet nerdiness about viral videos and website clues and shit like that, I expected to really hate it. So going in with such low expectations, I found myself liking it. Of course, I was a big fan of The Blair Witch Project, so I certainly don't mind this kind of movie. I definitely was impressed by the how technically difficult it must've been to make this movie. It's incredibly hard to add computer generated special effects to shaky handheld footage, especially since they had a relatively low budget for a giant fx blockbuster.

That angered you? That would be far preferable to most experiences with incompetent fast-food employees. The Ebay comment rang a bell: I'm always annoyed when I'm searching for something on the internet, and come across hundreds of false hits strictly because some dumbasses loaded their pages up with keywords in order to increase traffic. This is most annoying over on Youtube, where you get shit like the cocksuckers who post ther video game wrestling matches on there... and then proceed to name every single wrestler on the game's roster in every single post. You search for Ric Flair or anybody else who was in the last SDvsRaw and you'll pull up literally hundreds of dumbasses who seriously believe that other people would enjoy watching them play video games. And that's not even the worst, I'm not even going near those bizarre kids who film matches involving their action figures.

We need more presidents like Polk. He said "I'm gonna do these four specific things, and I ain't gonna seek re-election". And he was actually telling the truth. Imagine if a nominee tried to run a campaign like that today.

No legal ground there whatsoever. The WWE wrestlers are all legally considered to be self-employed independent contractors. In fact, the company has consistently abused that definition by exerting more power and control over the wrestlers than it is technically allowed to by law. Another reason why I think it is this Ashley: the article said that the escort service was exclusively in the business of setting up meetings with famous women. Has anyone here even heard of Other Ashley before this?

I didn't even think about the option of having people I know. Hmmm. Going with a board theme, howsabout: Milky Marney Bruiser Brody Canadian Chick Leena We'd have a deal with Vegas bookmakers so everyone could put money on who they think would end up fighting and/or fucking. And a deal with at least two or three liquor companies to sponsor the open bar.

Why wouldn't it be her? The FBI is generally the most efficient and accurate law enforcement agency on the planet. While it's possible they could've made a mistake, if they said it's WWE Ashley, odds are it is indeed her. $250,000 sounds like a hell of a lot of money. But keep in mind that the WWE employees pretty much pay all their own expenses. Gotta pay for a hotel room every night. Gotta pay for a rental car every day. Gotta pay a LOT for your own medical insurance. Gotta be peer pressured into going out eating and drinking with your fellow employees after the show. Gotta get raped on income tax because you're in the highest bracket and officially listed as self-employed. Whatever a wrestler's paycheck is, consider their actual take-home money to be half that. Furthermore, some people are just greedy, and will always grab for an extra dollar. Why did the Enron folks lie and steal when they were already millionares?

That doesn't sound like a wrestling question. When you're wrestling, do you ever get a hard on? If so, do you have to hide it or do you let it all hang out? But seriously, read the thread.

In that scene in The Thing where you were tearing apart the radio room and screaming semi-incoherently: what exactly were you saying? I could never make that dialogue out. Did eating quaker oatmeal give you diabetesh?

You sort of did. the second and third possibilities are not improbable As to the "it's just a preacher!" debate: I grew up in a southern conservative church, Church of Christ to be exact, which is barely a smidgen to the left of Southern Baptist. It was an all-white church in a racially mixed neighborhood. I heard a bunch of questionable stuff from the preachers there. But once I was old enough to decide for myself, I stopped going. By sitting there and voluntarily listening to Wright's rhetoric for twenty years, Obama quite clearly demonstrated that he didn't find the reverend's more outrageous statements to be offensive.

There you run into complications. Oxy is a very powerful and often quite addictive painkiller. I've known at least one person who's died from overdosing on it via recreational use. So I can't agree with it being legal for anyone who wants to take it for whatever reason. On the other hand, it's also an effective medication for treating patients suffering truly agonizing pain. So I wouldnt' agree with it being completely outlawed. Thus, middle ground must be found. I think part of the medical marijuana problem is a states' rights issue. Places like California have decided that they want this, have legally voted it in, but the feds have decided that the states aren't allowed to decide this. Which seems a bit unfair. Also, for some reason, I got into my head the mental image of Marney being really high, and it was funny.

= ...oookay.

Gloating over the thousand injuries of fortune. For the love of God, Montressor! sorry, just wanted to see if anyone in this folder would get that

Kate Winslet, brainwashed to love me Four clones of the same This one would be acceptable too. Except replace Phil Jackson with Liz Vicious.

If it comes to actually hiring them for a private party, unfortunately I have no idea how that works. Aside from that, like I said, all the clubs are downtown where you gotta inevitably dodge some bums on the way into the building and hope they don't decide to break into your car.

Some wrestling moves can sometimes work in a real fight. It helps if the person you're fighting is drunk, stupid, smaller than you, a bad fighter, or all of the above. Even if someone's head is in perfect DDT position, you're still taking a risk trying to do the move. Just knee 'em in the face. You fence, Eric? That's something that I flirted with doing back in college, but I only discovered we had a swordfighting club right around the time I dropped out. Probably would've been horrible at it, but still, swords 'r cool.

I see a logical fallacy in the first post. Dude complains that Bradshaw was the reason that the match sucked. Then complains that the match sucked because there weren't enough moves. Then notes that Bradshaw did all the moves while Hall did none. This does not compute.

Depends. Do you have a set location that you know of, which side of town you're on, or whatever? Is this a full on coke-n-whores bachelor party, or something more restrained and polite? There's always the standard option of going to a strip club, but all the ones in Nashville are downtown and surrounded by hobos and crackheads.

If by "everyone" you mean "most of the bookers at the indy shows Jingus used to work", then you are completely correct sir. If there were two black guys in the company, it was almost guaranteed that they'd either be stuck in a team or feuding.

Twice you've been brought back to the WWE in their developmental leagues (in OVW as Gangrel in 2005, in Deep South under your real name in 2006) but both times you were released without ever having appeared back on mainstream WWE television. Do you think you were given a fair chance there? What was their logic in hiring and then firing the same guy twice in a row? ESPNC has given a new generation of fans the chance to see the goofiness that was Herb Abrahms' UWF. What was it like working for that, ahem, unique organization?

::sigh:: I still maintain that it's more frightening to have a gun pointed at you than a can of mace. Beyond that, I wasn't trying to say anything else. Maybe a gun would cause more problems. I dunno, I've never had the disposable cash to buy one. But I don't see exactly how, since I'm serious about not willing to pull the thing out unless I was really in a situation where I needed to shoot someone. I wouldn't be one of those redneck assholes who causes trouble by constantly showing off his gun at the drop of a hat. Practically for nothing. Pure luck. He caught one in the stomach and one in the back, and somehow neither shot hit anything important. Worse, he got three bullets in the head. Pure luck that none of the bullets penetrated into his brain. According to simple biology and ballistic probability, he should've died.

No, my dad just finally got to his shotgun and the guy ran away. After he shot my dad five times. And the guy came to the house specifically planning to handcuff, torture, and murder my father, stepmother, and younger brother. (And the only reason I wasn't on the list is because my mom and stepdad had primary custody of me and I lived with her.) The attacker had written his plans down on paper and everything. After an something like that, do you blame me for wanting to go armed? Plan A is to not be in the dark alley in the first place. Plan B is to run away. And if forced into any Plan C, I'd way rather have a gun than a wimpier weapon. A gun isn't for scaring people. It's for shooting them. That's my point. You keep going back to the "intimidation" or "scare 'em off" factor, which isn't even something I'm talking about here. If I happen to be in an unlikely situation where I could frighten away a possible attacker with a gun, well then yippee, I got out of it without having to try to kill someone. But that's not what weapons are primarily for. Yes, I know that the odds that I'll ever be in a situation where a gun is useful are pretty damn low. But it's the old "rather have it and not need it" point that I'm making here. No, the comment I made to Kristianna was a facetious joke. The truth is, the idea of other people having guns makes me terribly nervous. I don't like the idea of being unarmed when other people aren't. I'm not even trying to say that everyone should carry a gun, or that they're a magical happy cure-all for street crime, or any of that shit. My point is that, if it came to the point where I needed a weapon to defend my life, I'd way rather have a gun than something less effective.