Jobber of the Week

Yes he could. He did in the episode where they made a football team of Putties. I have no idea why I know this, but I somehow remember it from hanging around with a bunch of my Mom's friend's younger kids 10 years or so years ago. And now, I go back to discussing less embarassing TV options: Like pro wrestling.

Netscape had a boxed version with goodies, but also freely had a downloadable version available for private, non-commercial use. For private, non-commercial use. For private, non-commercial use it really wasn't any different. And Microsoft at that time also released a boxed, pay version of IE with goodies as well. Not until IE3. In version 2 and prior, it was just sort of "there" while they advertised MSN instead. They did. They didn't. When both browsers entered version 4, it became very obvious who was more in touch with mainstream consumers wanted. 4.0 was the critical moment in the browser war. Microsoft released a speedier upgrade with an installer that did all the work for you and mostly hit all the right notes except for the stupid Active Desktop (although "push" technology was huge at the time.) Netscape released what appeared to be a slower, bloated Navigator with Composer and an ugly e-mail application shoehorned in. I prefered Navigator 3 with Eudora shareware more than Communicator. They were a big investor in it, actually, since they thought delivering news was going to be a big facet of the internet in 1994 or whenever it was. That was why the original, old MSN actually had it's own news desk with writers and photographers and everything, while AOL and CompuServe were just taking stuff from the AP wires.

I'll accept as long as you keep it on DTV and kill off all the G4 stuff but Icons and maybe Cinematech. I think that Portal is probably the most intelligence-damaging television that I've ever seen, and I watched the HHH Katie Vick video. And Rant, you seem to be the only guy I met of former and present Comcast workers who actually seems to like the company and it's products.

This made me laugh until I tried to imagine Hollywood giving the Bond role to Eminem and then I started to cry. But hey, if you're going to have a Bond of non-British or even caucasian descent, why not The Rock? Looks good in a tux, can believably take out several tough guys at a time, charming smile.

Yeah, but still... My experience with Comcast-owned TV is not that awesome. Take G4 the gaming channel, for example. TechTV does better in 30 minutes than almost everything G4 does except the occasional episode of "Icons." And it's still damn difficult to get if your service isn't Comcast. Plus, I just generally have to be against Comcast because I'm a Satellite Fanboy. Cable means west coast feeds, and that means delayed sports, events, and Not Live RAW. Yuck. It's bad enough the Olympics aren't available live when it's some foreign country in a way off time zone. It's even worse when I have to wait 3 more hours than the New York folks and the result of the events are being displayed on the local news teasers before the event is over. It doesn't hurt that comparing them to DTV and Dish in consumer ratings groups tends to make them look bad.

?? It seems that Michaels and Flair aren't planning to retire at WM after all, and if that's the case then either one of those guys would provide something we haven't seen before. I think we all know Shawn isn't going to turn heel (even in light of Monday's events) so HBK/Angle could be at least a good match, although it'll probably have a crappy HHH-infested buildup. And, if for some God forsaken reason Bret Hart chooses to do a last match at Summerslam against Angle, it provides a good segue from one opponent to another.

?????? Both guys are booked pretty strongly is what they mean. But you guys also have to remember that dream matches aren't what they were. That's because the show, the matches, and booking all moves so fast anymore that two months of today's time is equivelant to about a year of the Hogan/Warrior days.

Yeah, sure. Like they really book that far ahead?

Well, sort of. Obviously you're putting your own negative spin on it, but I think you still understand anyway. But basically you're there. A lot of the more jarring conservative stances are done because they believe the world isn't the place the liberals think it is. Conservative leadership's tendency to look out for itself such a majority of the time winds up proving who your strongest friends are, although our efforts to make sure the country's soil is never the site for another terrorist attack has really stretched beyond previous ones leaving us with fewer allies than almost ever before. But, since I don't want to talk about Iraq for the umpteenth thread, I'll say that I believe Republicans are, because of these beliefs, typically more political than Democrats are. I'm not saying Democrats aren't political of course, but I'm not talking about the Kennedys and the Hillarys here, or even the MoveOn crowd, I'm talking about the John and Jane Doe living at 123 Any Street. Basically, I don't think the conservative claim that all media and news except for a few sources are in the pocket of the DNC is actually true. I think that a large amount of people, media people included, believe more in the social principles of the liberals than the conservatives because it more closely mirrors the kind of sharing and etiquette that gets you respect in the public world. By comparison, conservative values seem more like tough love. Tough love has it's time and can make the world a better place in desperate situations, but not a lot of people depend on tough love all the time. This relation between social etiquette and political platforms basically spells out why I think average Democrats are less political than average Republicans. Some conservative positions require going on the defensive, as you're sometimes you're suggesting moving in a drection that seems in the 180 of positive in a "do unto others" world. I think I'm done getting psychological here, and I'm just postulating so there's plenty of room for disagreement or interpretation (or misinterpretation) but anyway, I think that explains why I think most of the media, the country, and the world holds a more generally liberal view when it comes to social issues.

It won't work. Stockholders will see issue under company leadership, but will feel Comcast's offer is low and will still think the company will operate better independantly. It HAS been making money recently, but that Pixar thing was Eisner's hot potato and it got handled pretty badly ("Don't worry, we still plan to make direct to video sequels of your favorite Pixar characters!") As a Disney fan and a Comcast haterizer, it's kind of frustrating that Roy's good-intentions have left him really unable to say that this is a bad thing. I'd rather see Roy's pick of CEO run Disney than Comcast run Disney.

Kevin Nash as Poochie The Main Eventer was, in my mind, not outstanding. Chris Benoit jobbing to Fit Finlay for the US title, while a good match, was not awesome. Even you admitted that only one young guy managed to get a push.

How cute, you can't actually respond to something so you post something like that. Don't be an idiot. Edwards won't take the VP slot because his political career is so young that it would be foolish to risk getting wrapped up in an administration that would, most likely, receive as much hostility in DC as the Bush administration has. If he just goes back to his Senator seat, he has good chances for 2008.

WWE has released some high profile names in the past few weeks including Brian Kendrick, Zach Gowen, and Chris Kanyon. AHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAA

I don't understand the people who want to go back to these days. Yes, Vince was kept on his toes, but it was a terrible time to be a wrestler. The managements were more concerned with each other and certain politicians (Nash, for one) really got a hell of a lot of power as a result of the lack of oversight. People who were friends of guys like Hogan and Nash got tremendous pushes while guys like Benoit and Guerrero were treated like crap (I can still remember the "Free Chris Benoit!" sigs in the newsgroups back then.) I mean, it was fun to be a viewer, and at least guys had another boss to work for if they pissed someone off at their old place, but the new boss was same as the old boss so it didn't really matter. The whole war period was a really unhappy time on both sides.

The next guy to be let go.

Part of what makes socially liberal positions so easy to defend is that aside from some (abortion, for one) a lot of them are generally expanded versions of the utopian society you see the world in during your younger years. Unless you grew up in some seriously deprived environment, anyway. The old lesson, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Political correctness. The story of Robin Hood, a children's folklore hero for taking from the excessively and needlessly rich and spreading it to those less priveleged? I don't have to explain that one too much, I hope. I could name off a couple more examples, but I think the point is made. If this post makes me sound like I'm acting high and mighty about my political position, I'm not trying to. I've thought this kind of thing over long and hard before though I have difficulty putting it into words like this. Basically, there's an arguement to be made that the media is socially liberal. But it's bias is about as equal the bias of those who watch it. While someone who's good at math could successfully explained how giving more money in the hands of the rich will eventually reach the lower classes and empower them (and undoubtedly, someone also very good at math will refute it and pull up a bunch of numbers to say it doesn't work), the short-term effects simply fail to satisfy the want to see everyone with their equal share. I don't know. I'm kind of rambling at this point. But you get what I mean. I hope. And I hope I don't have the air of a jackass here. In fact, I don't know why I'm talking so much about financial policy, when the media leans to the right on those issues (probably because their jobs pay well and never get shipped off.)

I agree with this except for one point, one that I saw time and time again back in the mid nineties when companies were still coming up with new things to do innovate stuff with computers instead of just smash spyware onto your machine. A company comes out with something unique and innovative. Microsoft announces they're making a similar product that will do the same thing but will be by Microsoft. Nobody buys the first product, knowing that being in a competition with Microsoft is never healthy so they might as well go with the company that will "win." The first company goes bust, unable to gain any consumer trust because everyone's holding on for the Microsoft product. Microsoft decides they don't need to release their product, and doesn't. This happened way way Way Way WAY too many times than it should have about seven or eight years ago.

So, like, now that everyone but the most delusional is getting it into their heads that there's no WMD, O'Reilly thinks so too? I can see the front page now: MEDIA WHORE TAKES POPULIST POSITION BLAMES CLINTON APPOINTEE FOR GLOBAL FIASCO

Cool! And will he stop approving of every bill Congress sends his way that doesn't deal with restricting patriot act powers or gay marriage bans? Even more awesome! I don't vote Democrat in this race because I like to vote for Democrats. I vote Democrat in this race because government so gridlocked that it can get little done (in the beauracracy, not talking military here) would be better than what we've got going right now. If Dems had more control of the legislative branch than they do, I'd be more afraid of these Howie Deans and their health care reform, etc, but I don't think that has a very good chance of happening at all. No new judicial nominees? Great. A divided country? Wonderful. Partisan politics restricting spending and expansion (or, in Medicare's case, retraction) of government power? Now we're talking!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/airli...nity/index.html

*scratches head* Okay. Generally, I get kind of scared when people express their belief in the hereafter while they pilot the plane. Same with the people manning the nuclear arsenal.

I'm always winning to believe that things could change drastically between now and November, and if such a thing happens, my mood is willing to change. But if the course is maintained, good luck to ya. Though, to be honest, I also think the man is a blemish on our nation who needs to be removed with anyone, even the bum down the street, for the good of the country. So even if I feel Bush will win, I'll still hope he loses. =b

I don't know why. I'm so confident that we're going to win that you couldn't believe it.