Atticus Chaos

It's not that far fetched. It's a common tv trope. I've seen shows where it'll be revealed a character was waiting years and years for revenge on someone, even though they interacted perfectly fine with that person prior to the reveal. I guess if we go by Orton's story he was storing it all up for years, and it wasn't till now that he could let it out and finally get his revenge.

I saw twelve rounds. Not great, but nowhere near streetfighter levels of bad. Although the main villain's plan was incredibly stupid, in retrospect.

I can see them inserting a lot of Vickie/Edge/Big Show backstage segments into the final airing. Although, even then it doesn't look nearly enough to fill up a smackdown show.

Orton would make a great Bond villain. He revealed his evil plan to take over WWE...before he was entirely sure he had won.

http://podcasts.hesserlaw.net Interesting podcast with former WWE writer, Andrew Goldstein. You know I used to think writing for WWE would be awesome, but looking at all the interviews with the ex writers, I don't think any of them had anything but terrible things to say about WWE, the creative process, office politics or working with the McMahons. There was a good article in powerslam magazine about it, and it really shed a lot of light onto why none of the WWE writers ever last long. For all the shit they get, I have more sympathy for them than perhaps anyone else in the company.

The whole "Orton's been planning this for years' storyline didn't make sense because a few weeks ago you had HHH having to convince Orton to fight him at Wrestlemania. Unless, this was also part of his nefarious plan. Santino was hilarious. I'm still not bothered about the Big Show/Edge/Cena.

I totally agree.......it's nothing but a good thing that he is the way he is right now, and it certainly doesn't appear that he's in any sort of health risk at all anymore. I don't know if you could say that. Certainly, he's not anywhere near as bad as he was towards the end of his WWE run, but even just looking at him now, he's not exactly a picture of health. I think Kurt has done himself so much damage over the years, he's never going to be entirely in the clear, not while he's wrestling anyway. It doesn't help that he still seems intent on taking the same risks now, that he was earlier in his career. There are always stories going around various newssites and publications that he's still struggling physically, and he's not in great shape at all. I think, to an extent, Kurt's always going to be a health risk, it's just not as bad as it used to be. I'm missing where he looks unhealthy, since to me he just looks small, not anemic or anything. Just because he's not juiced up and huge means he's struggling physically? Have you seen his arms? It would be a stretch to say he's healthy. I'm not arguing he's less healthy since slimming down, just that in general his body is still in quite bad shape.

I totally agree.......it's nothing but a good thing that he is the way he is right now, and it certainly doesn't appear that he's in any sort of health risk at all anymore. I don't know if you could say that. Certainly, he's not anywhere near as bad as he was towards the end of his WWE run, but even just looking at him now, he's not exactly a picture of health. I think Kurt has done himself so much damage over the years, he's never going to be entirely in the clear, not while he's wrestling anyway. It doesn't help that he still seems intent on taking the same risks now, that he was earlier in his career. There are always stories going around various newssites and publications that he's still struggling physically, and he's not in great shape at all. I think, to an extent, Kurt's always going to be a health risk, it's just not as bad as it used to be.

I agree with the sentiments about Russo. He is that he is talented...in his own way. But he always needs someone to edit his ideas and make them workable. McMahon did that, WCW and TNA didn't. He's right when he says he always gave undercard talent something to do, as opposed to WWE, who are genereally quite apathetic about everyone except main event talent and he was right when he said Vince was way behind the times before he came along. And I'd still say he was better than Stephanie because at least he has a track record of success somewhere, and didn't blow a potentially huge money making invasion angle. A Russo booked invasion, with Vince editing, probably would have been a lot better than what we got. As far as Gerwitz goes he probably has more creative skill than he's given credit for, but I think he became a pretty staunch yes man, and the only stuff he feels comfortable contributing now is bad comedy because Vince loves it. The only people that survive long on the creative team are the ones who don't rock the boat, and I guess he figured that out after a while.

It still doesn't explain why it fluctuates from week to week, though. The last 3 million rating they got people said it might have been the Watchmen premiere splitting the audience, but I'm not sure how you explain last night.

I hope they plug this on impact, I really do. And you thought Lawler and Cole had their work cut out for them trying to make 12 rounds sound good. I'd like to see Tenay try to sell people on that piece of crap. 'It's a taut psychological thriller!' Here's some more from the official website LOG LINE: An ill-tempered cop pursuing a psychopathic sexual killer becomes the target as he attempts to rescue his girlfriend and special-needs daughter from certain brutal death. SYNOPSIS: Alex Meinert was a sick boy! Rumors of his playing with dolls and killing the neighbor’s pets never shook the authorities enough to remove him from society. So as an adult his penchant for killing “live” dolls only intensified. With the new identity of Brad Mayfield, he became adept at covering his tracks. Burke is an all-too-serious cop with an agitated wife and special-needs child at home. He’s hampered by Mayfield’s tactics of removing and burning evidence. Getting closer to his target Burke receives a phone call from Mayfield in the midst of burning out the evidence in his own apartment. “If you come now, I’ll let you in personally” is the line used by Mayfield to aggravate the cop. Burke’s rocky marriage gets worse when he takes up with Carol Peterlake, one of the victim’s roommates, a classical dancer turned stripper. She has also caught the eye of Brad Mayfield who sees a greater opportunity to get under the detectives skin. Holed up at a recent victim’s house the killer doesn’t realize that undestroyed evidence has led a swat team to his front door. Mayfield awakens to the sound of barking neighborhood dogs and narrowly escapes. He decides to turn the tables and through his use of disguises he pushes into Burke’s private life to kidnap his daughter and assault the wife. Mayfield exclaims that “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood” as he brutally cold cocks Mrs. Burke. Having abducted both Carol and the daughter Mayfield takes to his vacation boat in safety. Unshaken by the kidnapping and assault on his wife Burke gets a tip from a past Bill of Sale related to Mayfield’s house boat. With only that to go on he borrows a friend’s boat and scouts the rivers. As dark approaches Burke finds the boat and thinks he’s got his man only to have one more misstep. TAGLINE: He's the one your mother warned you about.

The episode got 3.8 million viewers. Which is a less than last week and they didn't have nearly as much competition. I can't figure out this show's audience.

EricMM, you can't tell people how to feel about this. If they don't think it's good comparision, then who is to tell them their wrong for feeling like that? I'm not going to pretend I know better than someone who's lived their life as an ethnic minority. There's even been GLBT minorities who have said themselves it's not the best comparision to make and you can't say they're bigoted. Also, I think if No on 8 had came out and explicitly said, like you, that gay people now are 'oppressed just as much' as black people in the past....eh, it would not have been taken well.

Because that's the most similar struggle that has occurred in the United States that we (LGBT) can compare our struggles too. Who else can we compare too? One could say the Irish or Chinese I guess but then they'd take offense. It's not like we've been absent in situations where blacks were discriminated against (Germany under the Nazis, 1960's and 1970's movement) so why should we pretend that our struggle is any less meaningful than theirs? Just to satisfy them and give them the honor of going through a bigger struggle and arguably overcoming it? Are we supposed to say, "Well... our struggles have been going on for over a century but our rights can partly be overlooked just because we didn't have to go through what ___ minority went through"? Pissing off ethnic minority groups, just to so you can evoke their experience and claim their moral superiorty, seems somewhat counterproductive. At the very least, if you're going to make that comparision, knowing full well they don't like it, you can't complain when 60% or 70% of minorites continue to vote against it. Instead of comparing it to one racial group or another, don't compare the gay marriage cause to anything, and let it speak for itself.

Strategy is probably a better conversation topic than talking snakes. Also, I've actually argued against the whole 'it just makes them feel icky' rhetoric as to why the majority of people have not yet come around to gay marriage.

Caroline's backstory was dissapointing. I thought it was would be a lot more major than it was. Not to mention, she didn't come off as crazed animal rights activist, but that might have been Dushku's acting. She came off as far too casual about the whole thing. She was planning a major break in at a top medical facility like it was a sleepover.

I'm not saying what they did or didn't do, or that it hasn't been going on for years, but if you know the race comparision doesn't work with the majority of people, and it in fact can backfire and alienate minorites, why keep making it?

It'll do well on DVD, though. WWE movies always do. I think the condemned may have even made it's money back eventually.

While there are some similarities, my problem is that the comparision gets brought up all the time. I'ts been said to me at least 2 or 3 times, throughout this thread, and probably a dozen times overall. It's laziness. No-one can argue anything about strategy or suggest compromise without someone resorting to comparing it to the civil rights movement in the sixties because they can't think of anything better to argue. It's not the same thing to most people. And the insistence that is the the same thing, is probably why gay marriage supporters have been losing ethnic minority voters. Look, if ethnic minorities don't accept the gay/race comparision, and most of them don't if polls are anything to go by, who am I to argue? They know better than I would. As for the schools: I believe in people minding their own business. Gay people should be allowed to mind their own business and get married, and parents should be allowed to tell their kids about sexuality when they feel the time is right. The best thing is to have gay marriage, but not teach in it schools, and that way no one feels like anyone's beliefs are being forced on them. The people insisting on having gay marriage and teaching it in elementry school , against the parents will, are doing the cause more harm than good. Sometimes you have to tolerate a certain level of intolerance.

Okay, in the last couple of days, Kennedy, Cena and Jericho have all had various digs at him. Kennedy even challenged him to a match. Obama= new mega heel.

Yeah, well Nancy and Daniel say hi. That's why I hate the whole 'personal choice issue' talking point. People's families don't have a choice do they? Also, it would require wrestling fans to basically ignore the huge body count piling up. There's no proof that their deaths were caused by 'roid rage', but you do have a point about the body count. I agree about roid rage, and thought that was BS, but Benoit had a fair amount of drug issues in the years leading up to his death, besides steroids. I don't think what happened can be pinned on one thing exactly, but it didn't help that the man had serious drug issues.

I hate to keep beating this drum, but I'm pretty sure it freaked people out to see interracial couples on TV or read about them back in the day, like in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Most people got over it. What's so bad about acknowledging that gay people exist? Someone being uncomfortable or finding something icky just isn't a strong enough argument to marginalize a class of people. It's been pointed out on other posts in this thread why the gay/race comparision isn't a perfect one. I don't think gay people in general will feel marginalized if it's not taught to young children. I doubt they would care. Especially since the school issue is the one major obstacle in front of gay marriage. It's not about letting people off because a subject makes them feel 'icky' it's about trusting parents to make their own decisions in regards to their kids, and not margininalizing them. And like I said, it's not popular at all. So, in terms of strategy it seems like a bad idea.

I guess I'm confused. Why is teaching (or telling) a child that a "princess could marry a princess" so crazy and needs to ask for your consent? Why is that any different from a student learning about certain science subjects (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) or certain history subjects (i.e. Nazis) that a parent might disapprove of? It's different because people have overwhelmingly made it clear they don't want it taught in schools. And No on 8 acknowledged that when they ran the ad with the superintendent ensuring parents it wouldn't be. So, if you're telling people when they vote to legalize gay marriage it won't be taught in school, you should stick to that. Now you're forcing your view on others. You insist 'they won't tell their children about it anyway' so schools have to do it for them. I would trust parents to make their own decisions on this issue.

It's fine if you feel that way, but the majority of parents don't. And no campaign ever trying to win a vote on gay marriage would say to people 'it will be taught in school, but so what?' because it would guarantee they wouldn't win. And if the only way to win a vote on gay marriage is to ensure people it won't be taught in school, like No on 8 tried to do, you should probably stick to your word. Or at least, get permission for it.

Okay, annoyed bigots. Is it really bigoted not to want your child in the first or second grade to come home and tell you they learned at school the princess could marry the princess? Or at least, have a minor problem with it? Look, I thought the couple in Massachusetts that started a lawsuit over it really over-reacted, but, in principle, they were right . The teacher had no right to do that without their permission. If I had a a child and they came home and told me that, I would probably laugh it off, but I'd be slightly pissed that they didn't even ask for my consent. And I'm pretty liberal. I dread to think how the average person would handle it. And if you look at Prop 8, voters weren't going to force their beliefs on anyone, and No on 8 was headed for an easy victory, till the ads started, and people realized other people's beliefs could maybe be forced on them.