RavishingRickRudo

Prediction: The people who buy it will like it.

I've never had a restraining order against me, but dammit, I'll work damn hard to get one! 8 October 2004 Hi Roj I thought I'd write since some things have come into play in the last few weeks. First of all, I've landed a role in a great project called "Widow on the Hill". It's a Lifetime movie, which means it'll air on TV and then go to DVD, most likely, but the script is really wonderful. And my character is very dark and troubled, which is a nice change. It's a very dramatic, suspenseful story about a... well, I can't tell you. I can say this: James Brolin plays my beloved Daddy, and Natasha Henstridge is also starring. "Widow" is filming in Toronto, and for a month, so my husband has decided to join me here to keep me company. Thank God it's worked out so when I'm working, he's not, and vice versa. It's so nice to have a little bit of family with you when you're away from home so much, you know? And he's my best friend, so I can tell him anything and do anything. I can laugh till I'm crying or cry till I'm laughing, and he never judges me. So it looks like once we get home, we're off to Maryland for another convention, this one called Galaxy Con. I hear it's smaller than the "Biggies", like DragonCon, but the people involved seem real nice, and we have to spread the "Serenity" word, right? AS MUCH as possible. A little birdie just told me the film may be cut together already. I hear it looks AMAZING. I am very jealous that this little birdie got to see it before me, but those are the breaks when you're living far away. But it's still very exciting to know that Serenity is past yet another stage, and is now probably going through special effects stuff and what-not. I cannot WAIT to see this movie! And I know I've said that a million times already. This weekend is Thanksgiving weekend in Canada, but we're spending it doing wardrobe fittings, rehearsals, cast readthroughs, and a cast dinner... all the stuff we must do to "prep" before a movie starts actually filming. We go to camera on Tuesday (the 12th). Wish me luck, and I'll keep in touch. Off to be dramatic and troubled, Jewel

*head explodes* http://www.buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=6823 http://www.buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=6820 God Bless SOJS (Stalkers of Jewel Staite).

Yeah, but when I bring something substantive* to the conversation they tend to get ignored. Like this one. You said God is Personal. Well, guess what? People are different. Personal experiences are different. The Jain tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant illustrates the relativity of truth. In it, several men are asked to describe an elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant's body, and thus each describes the animal in a different way. To one man, the elephant is like a stone wall because he has touched the side; to another, the elephant is like a rope because he has touched the tail; and to another, the elephant is like a fan because he has touched the ear. Each man has truthfully described the animal; but because each had contacted it from a different point, the descriptions varied tremendously. Your view of God is probably different from the Popes view of God. Your view of God is different from IDRM's view of God. Your view of God is different from Paragons view of God. There is no standard view, because everyone is different. So if we're all different, and God is personal, then God is different. To extend that, what about an Athiests view of God? What about an Agnostics view of God? What if God hasn't been personal to them at all. Is it their fault? Is it their fault they read the bible and it did nothing for them? Is it their fault that they havent' felt the holy spirit? Is it their fault they never personally exprienced God? Maybe God just doesn't want them to feel it. And since you have said that man is flawed, the why wouldn't their personal experiences with God be flawed? Since it's personal, and the person is flawed. And I don't appreciate your attitude. (*"Free will and fate are independant of each other." Free Will is dictated to us by our present and our past, aka our circumstances. God created our circumstances. And for Prayer and Church, I'll throw out Mathew 6:5 for discussion)

And if it means anything I admit he said basically that as well, but why should he have to? I dunno. You obviously are one of the people who look at Bush saying that as a plus, rather than a negative. John Kerry sees it as a negative, and there are probably other people like him who say that as well. See, I answered this in my first post (on this subject). How is that a warped view of things? You saw this: as this I didn't even think you were responding to me with that comment since it was so far off the mark. Hell, I'm still questioning it now. This is a typical "thing" that is done on this board, where -for example- "some" is seen as "all". Where "less" is seen as "none". Where "There is more anti-American sentiment from around the world after the US invaded Iraq" is "So what you're saying is the anti-Americanism was COMPLETELY non-existent from these countries pre-Iraq too?". That is a warped view. You are turning something into an absolute in order to ignore the point. Yes, there was anti-American sentiment before the Iraq war. There is more of it now. Rather than acknowledging that point, you try to spin it. Warped View. I'm asking a _question_, which does not imply a warped view of things. So you _didn't_ comment on Bush 'answering the world' Nevertheless, I _am_ giving you points here, no matter how 'Global Test' or Bacon-inspired it seems................... Lemme further explain my "not getting that". "Question" - you asked more than one question. "Didn't" - I did, I said "I don't know". Somehow you've pinned me as someone who is against Bush on all fronts and who thinks he has better answers. That won't work, cause quite frankly I don't follow American politics and International Politics enough to know the questions let alone the answers. There are reasons I don't come into this folder very often, and there is a reason I am in it right now. I like Presidential Debates. I've said this before. So what I say tends to be based soley from this. _am_ - what points have you given? ... and Mike, if I had a nickel every time you've spun something I said into something that was (i)out of context, (ii)conveniently fit into something that you had a 'defense' for, and (iii)was completely different from what I actually said, then I'd have enough money to either be taxed by John Kerry or pandered to by GWB.

And much like MikeSC, I have to explain every single thing I say in extraordinary detail in order for you to completely ignore it. Bushes reply to the "how are you going to get the world to look at us better" was "sometimes we have to do unpopular things, that we think are right, and eventually the world will get over it once they find out it was right too" and left it at that. In other words "I don't care", because nowhere in that did he say he'd change his strategy and no where in there did he say he'd actively repair the damage to the perception of America that the Iraq war left (in case you didn't notice, MILLIONS of people around the world marched against that war). ((If it is at all important, I supported the Invasion of Iraq.)) Then I said that could be a good or bad thing, since many Americans hold that isolationist viewpoint of "fuck what the world thinks". I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that viewpoint. In all actuality, I don't know how to think about it. I can see both sides and haven't really gave it any serious thought. And I don't know HOW in the world you got "The US was never looked at badly pre-Iraq" from that comment... ok, I do... warped view of things... but aside from that, it wasn't at all there. Now, do me a favour, please explain why you bolded those things. I don't quite get that.

So what's supposed to be the new course of action now? Bush is supposed to go back to the U.N. (who has an IMPECCABLE record ofhandling world affairs lately) and beg forgiveness? Then hop on a plane and do the same with Chirac, then Schroeder, then Putin, then everyone else he's 'offended'? I call bullshit. I dunno. Am I supposed to know? Again, warped view on things. Take an implication (that wasn't really there in the first place), turn it into an absolute, and then ask questions as if to prove a point; none of which are really relevant to the original discussion. Did MikeSC write a book on how to post in CE? However, I'd say the "new course of action" in regards to 'International Popularity' from the Kerry-side would be to "Get Bush out of Office".

I think the/a major flaw in Spiders argument/position is this: "God is personal."

He might not have, but you get the impression from the 'BUSH MADE US HATED WORLDWIDE' crowd that everything was just fine and dandy before Iraq................... *You* get the impression, because -well- you have a warped view on things.

The Chain. Jesus Christ, how am I supposed to get over this nickname when you gum-it-up?! Dirty Dick. The Chain. Holla-atcha. ...G.O. was talkin to me?

And I loved how Bush said "The Internets" when he talked about the Draft.

Sure he did. In so many words... "Don't care." Which, depending on how you look at it, could be good or could be bad. I bet a lot of Americans don't care how they're looked at by the rest of the World.

I agree. His kicks suck. 99% of the WWE's roster can't throw a punch, but Cena has Lita-level kicks.

It was a close one. If I had to choose, I'd give it to Kerry. Bush did worlds better than last week and used a lot of the same points Cheney did - unfortunately he could not get them over as well and as forceful as The Chain did. I thought his reaction to the Lumber Company thing was fantastic. However, there were points when Kerry was talking and Bush had this twitch in his eye that looked odd. Bush did really well under this format, he moved around more freely than Kerry -which may be a good thing and may be a bad thing depending on how you look at it - and he did his "you know what I mean" gestures. I think a big missed opportunity is the "Name 3 things you felt were mistakes", because personally I look at admitting your faults and learning from them as a sign of maturity and responsibility and Bush just avoided it. I thought his Supreme Court response was particularly bad. Kerry, I felt, was actually warmer than Bush. I am actually starting to like Kerry after watching these 2 debates, after feeling sorta cold toward him before this. I like his style, as he's playing the Jason Seaver role of "dad". That's the feeling I get from him. Dick Cheney is the uncle you turn to to bail you out of jail or take to a knife fight with, but Kerry is the dad who tells you right from wrong. Whether he does or not is irrelevant because that's the feeling he elicits. I think his "even you Charlie" was great. I think he made some really good points defending his voting record, especially on the abortion issue. He stumbled on the Stem Cell issue, which was a pretty big blow against him, and he could have better explained the tort reform stuff and John Edwards. At the end, after the debate when they were all shaking the voters hands, Kerry looked to be a lot more personable - he must have practiced that handshake a million times. I liked the moderator as he actually said "hey, wait a second, clearify that..." rather than just backing away. The blonde chick who asked the abortion question was hot. Hot.

I didn't say "main event mix", I said "top star". HHH had to share the main event with Austin and Rock and Taker in those days. Now, even when HHH doesn't have the belt, he is still the focus of the show. And as long as that is happening, they're fucked. It's a serious issue, and it'll be dismissed as Typical HHHate by a lot of people, but the man needs to go. There is no alternative. He needs to be gone and gone for a very, very, very long time. Like Shawn Michaels long time. Like, "he's gone and never coming back so lets not make any plans regarding him and not worry about protecting him" long time.

So he sold for Benoit in one match. And? Do not understate his performance in that match. It was the best selling I've seen in the WWE since... I think I might have to go back to Randy Savage. The match started off with him relying on his left (I believe, but it doesn't mater) arm, he did several moves that required the use of his left arm (clotheslines, punches, shoulderblocks, hiptosses, presses) and when Benoit tripped him up and caused him to land on that arm, when Cena tried those moves again he failed. He tried reaching for the ropes with that arm and couldn't - he had to change it up. In that match he showed that he "got" what selling meant. That he was beyond the WWE style of selling. It was nuanced. It effected his performance both on offense AND defense. He knows how to sell, he just doesn't get the opportunity to go there. And yes, there are definitely some things he needs to spruce up, there is no doubt about that, but the guy is capable of doing some very good things in the ring. It's just the environment of the WWE - the style, his opponents and the attitude toward working - doesn't allow him to continue to develop and show his wrestling skills. Of course, fault has to be put on him for not forcing himself to improve in that environment, but it must be hard to do that when you won't be rewarded for it by anyone other than... well... us. So instead he puts the effort in pandering to the fans and keeping his pops up in hopes that the guys on top will either get injured or require a new opponent and management will turn to him for that job.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Right now, with HHH on top, they don't feel the need to create a top star. He's been the top star on television for as long as I can recall (2002?) and that has seriously hurt them. The WWE has a lot of problems that aren't HHH related, I completely agree, but with him off TV they would be FORCED to elevate talent to a level beyond "contender for HHH". The feel "safe" with HHH there, they worst thing for us -as fans- is them feeling safe at a time when their business is dropping dramatically. With HHH gone they get in danger-mode, their backs are against the wall, and they have nothing else do to but go take the guys they have and use them better.

I didn't like B4C, or Roger and Me, (infact, I hated R&M and couldn't even watch all of B4C) but I enjoyed F911 greatly.

Cena has been slacking, and I think that's more of the WWE fault than his. He showed above-par selling in his match against Benoit last year, and he was constantly evolving his character in his early days using textbook ways of getting over with the crowd. However, the WWE didn't really reward it and shot him up to Brock too early and after he lost that feud he lost to Taker as well. They could have done a lot better with him and instead he was fed to their top faces. So now he's in Jericho territory, AKA limbo. He sees other options availble (music, movies) and he knows he won't be moving up the card any time soon, so he really isn't interested in improving. To him it's just a numbers game. It is just a matter of time before they go back to him and put him in a main event feud. And CCC sucks. His promos are horrible and his wrestling is bland. And he isn't something new, he is something you'd see in the mid 90's.

No, Vince will hear that from Patterson. "Hmm, too much HHH..." *later* "Hey Steph, do you think there's too much HHH on the show?" "No Daddy" "Hmm..." *Later* "Pat says there is too much of you, Steph doesn't agree. What do you think Trip?" "Well, they both have their points..." "Uh huh" "I'd love to step down right now and let other guys be the star of the show Vince, I really do. But who is there? Benoit? Jericho? Those guys are what, 5'10 at best? Benoit can't cut promos and Jericho can't work the right style. Besides, both they both had the ball and took it nowhere. I'm the only guy who's credible with the belt, and it's alot of pressure Vince, a lot." "I know" "I mean, sometimes I just break down and cry because there's a lot of weight being put on my massive shoulders" "Yes. Yes. They are massive." "And it hurts me to hear Pat say something like that. He was never in my spot Vince. Rock was. Austin was. Hogan was. And they're all gone. I'm still here. But does Patterson say anything about that? If I leave like they did, Raw would be dead.." "No No, don't leave. Please." "I'm tryin hard Vince" "Listen... how about we'll keep the title on you until WM 22" "Vince..." "Oh right, the Flair thing... Ok, we'll keep it off and on you constantly until WM... 30" "*Sniff* Thanks Vince."

Patterson is an asset to the company. Moreso than Paul Heyman. Why hasn't he been on the RAW brand? Does he just work Smackdown?

Physically? No.

Badass, B. Just badass. Now I have to change things up a lil.

Dammit Triple B, why do you have to ruin it??!

The idea that they are all dead and are lost souls has entered my mind, but that is too conceptual for television. Odds are they're really on a reality show