Jobber of the Week

It sounds like the companies are still letting people go and fleeing overseas. The positive effect here is most likely retail stores opening up temp positions that will disappear after the holidays.

Yep. That was used as an angle to Dusty Finish a Flair/Luger match. Flair bladed and the announcer said that the Athletic Comission had stopped the match for blood loss, although it was a work.

Vince listens to whoever makes him money usually. Russo has made Vince money before, and although he lost a lot of money for WCW we all know that in Vince's World your WCW work experience doesn't count for anything. The only problem I see is that Russo has heat with Goldberg, IIRC. EDIT: And before you mention it, HHH did in fact make Vince money at least once when he thought up the "simulcast" Raw/Nitro thing for the WCW purchase. As crappy as the InVasion was looking, a lot of people decided to buy the show on that night alone and it made one of the biggest buyrates ever.

Don't forget: - Stupid lists

Give the casual fans some credit. They broke the addiction and HAVEN'T been turning in for the past two years because of the amount of bullshit on the screen. These little 3.2s are by all of us hardcores who just keep watching no matter what the hell they're fighting over.

Still amazed that a company with McMahon, Bischoff, and Heyman under one roof can't make ratings happen. I think before the brand extension goes kaput that Vince will probably bring Russo back once he leaves TNA and give him control of Raw. I hated Russo's inconsistancy and his utter stupidity when left unchecked, but the guy can book a feud between two midcarders better than almost anyone at creative can book a main event feud.

What a pervert! I knew they were fruity but, damn....

Are you saying this is overrated? It only has a shred of the hype Doom III or Half-Life 2 has.

OH NO ALL THIS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

I think the idea behind the suits is that the Confederate side should be spoken of as villains instead of heroes because they were essentially fighting to own slaves. I guess you could make a building with FDR on one side and Hitler on the other, but hey that's not the same thing because the Nazis weren't Americans and for some stupid reason it's considered heroic for Americans to die in battle even if they're on the wrong side. And CERTAINLY it's heroic for Americans to die in battle for their leadership's ignorance. That's why we have soldiers dying in battle right now in a sense. EDITED: Before I get torn apart for that controversial statements, I'm not questioning whether those overseas are heroic, there's no question, but whether the reasons they're over there really are as heroic as they're being drummed up to be. These tributes aren't to those who died as much as they are people like the guy in the statue opposite Lincoln being sued about

As I see it, terrorism, bombers, etc is just as good as troops in uniform when a country's flat broke and can't afford tanks, helicopters, etc. So don't even go there. By the same token though, I do consider attacks by these so-called fringe extremists to be just as much an act of war as if fantasy Palestine soldiers fired rocket-propelled grenades into the nightclub/weddinghall/market/whatever. What this leaves is the Palestinan's intentionally doing this to innocents, and yes I find that pretty revolting. Some (not all) Israeli responses though can best be described as shooting at a bee with a shotgun and the general "Oh, yeah. Uh.. Oops." attitude towards the civilians they put at risk makes what they're doing as dangerous to Palestinian civilians as the bombers are to Israelis.

One word: Whine. I mean, give it up. I could understand it from a business perspective sort of but to whine because the boss wanted you to lose a blowoff match against the guy you've been programmed against in an angle that was probably one of the tackier nationalism angles (up there with Iraqi Slaughter and The Unamericans) was very petty, no matter how much he hated the guy. WCW wasn't going to drop their interest in him because of he lost his departure feud. Here's a kleenex. What I'm saying is that whether it's in a wrestling capacity or not, the guy is teasing himself in his own mind about how he'd like to be performing in front of big crowds again ("Fans ask me when I'll make my comeback" [yeah right], "I dreamt that I was wrestling the other night," etc.) The only question is whether his emotions will outweigh the politics and paranoia.

I doubt that from his last column. He was talking about fans asking him when he's going to make a comeback, and anyone over the dumbest of marks knows Bret Hart isn't going to easily make a comeback. My guess is he sees himself doing so in his ego-driven mind.

Well, I never expected to see Shawn Michael go through a table again either so what do I know. Even if Bret changes his mind this match is near-guaranteed to be not good, but they'll get all the respect in the world from the crowd for doing it. And I say that as a guy who's noted as not liking Bret Hart.

This kind of stuff would put asses in seats if it were televised. Vince, where are you man?

What he said.

http://www.wtev.com/news/world/story.aspx?...FD-B5617B3DEA09 Yeah, Saddam is a piece of shit, but isn't this kind of personal bounty for someone's death/capture against the law in the United States?

LOL LA TIMES 2003!

RVD/Xian was announced last week and had been advertised since then. A big for that match was the frontpage of WWE.com all weekend once WM20 tickets were done selling. The tag match was only announced at the web site "preview" and at the beginning of the show (and the ladder match was mentioned immediately after.) More people would know about the ladder match than the tag match.

Hey, Drudge is reporting this too. OMG BIAS Though I won't defend the L.A. Times. Hell, I read the SF Chron, one of the oldest Hearst papers, and while I've noticed the editorializing in the frontpage news go down drastically over the past year, the L.A. Times is so biased that I could never bring myself to read it.

$+R4W M4N U FAG

Of course, because any amateur bomber who wanted to make an attempt would have an open oppertunity. If there were no settlements around and less tanks (but not no tanks at all), would that create a foundation to settle things? Who knows, and we probably won't until Sharon is replaced. Both sides could probably use a change in figureheads, since both guys seem determined to make the other non-existant. But the old arguement that Palestinian culture must be eradicated entirely because of some violent parts that will most likely disappear after two generations of peace is overboard.

They just took another seat across the pond, which gives them more power than the US' socialist/communist parties. At risk of turning this into another thread on homosexual tendencies, once again you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong in this matter. Certainly, popular opinion and some studies have proved otherwise. But that doesn't matter because you've already figured it out. That's the bottom line, because Mike said so!

So you proved my point and agreed that both sides put each other's civilians at risk. That's what I'm talking about. It's like the political cartoon that says "Who's right?" and there's two graves, one Israeli and one Palestinian (marked with flags) next to each other. One says "ME" and the other one says "NO, ME."

They didn't want to stop at first but after pressured from Palestine agreed to take part in the cease-fire. When the roadmap fell apart, they announced they were resuming. Did Israeli enforcements at least thin during this period? With no military backdown at all, there's no real obvious sign to the other side that they're really seeking peace.