Jump to content
TSM Forums

garfieldsnose

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1400

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by garfieldsnose

  7. Posted · Report reply

    The Angle being smaller thing is, IMO, the positive finally showing of him leaving the E. The guy is still a fantasitc worker and he doesn't have to be larger than life to pull it off. If he was near death when he gut cut by WWE then we can only look at his TNA run as a success. He's healthier. He's still performing at a top level. And he looks nowhere near death or the destruction that he was rumored to be at. Let's not forget...this was a guy who we read was so far gone that him signing with TNA was a legit shocker. He's OBVIOUSLY changed up his game in the last few years...and like TNA or not...this guy is good. Read into his shrinking what you want...but I think it's good on him.

     

    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?

     

    Come on, RedJed, you don't need to bring up steroids. A lot of guys on here read the dirtsheets and want to believe 99% of it as fact, and the fact is that in these dirtsheets, for the better part of his TNA run, they've said he's not doing well at all. Sure, the limited schedule probably works in his favor, but I also agree with MillenniumMan about the Paul Orndorff type injury. Guys can keep their arms big after stopping steroids, but his just look weak and frail.

     

  16. Posted · Report reply

    I'm not sure where this 'Duke doesn't graduate athletes' thing comes from.

    2009 sweet 16 team graduation rates

     

    Note that Duke is tied for the top rate of the 16 schools. Thinking maybe they had a problem graduating other atheletes outside of basketball or something I kept reading and while their basketball graduation rate is 89%, their overall student athlete graduation rate is 97%. So how exactly is that a bad thing?

     

    Orlando, FL – March 25, 2009…If the Sweet 16 for men’s/women’s basketball teams were based on Graduation Success Ratesi, then the complete seeding would be 

    (team’s overall GSR is in parentheses after the school’s name):

     

     

    Men’s      Women’s 

    #1. Duke (89%)     #1. (tie) Connecticut (100%)

     

    #1. (tie) Villanova (89%)    #1. (tie) Ohio State (100%)

     

    #3. North Carolina (86%)    #1. (tie) Stanford (100%)

     

    #4. Xavier (82%)     #1. (tie) Vanderbilt (100%)

     

    #5. Purdue (77%)    #5. (tie) Iowa State (93%)

     

    #6. Pittsburgh (69%)    #5. (tie) Pittsburg (93%)

     

    #7. Gonzaga (67%)    #7. Arizona State (90%)

     

    #8. Kansas (64%)     #8. Purdue (89%)

     

    #9. Michigan State (60%)    #9. Baylor (88%)

     

    #10. Memphis (55%)    #10. Michigan State (85%)

     

    #10. (tie) Oklahoma (55%)   #11. Louisville (80%)

     

    #12. Syracuse (50%)    #12. California, Berkeley (71%)

     

    #13. Louisville (42%)    #13. (tie) Oklahoma  (69%)

     

    #14. Missouri (36%)    #13. (tie) Rutgers (69%)

     

    #15. Connecticut (33%)    #15. (tie) Maryland (67%)

     

    #16. Arizona (20%)    #15. (tie) Texas A&M (67%)

     

     

    And the formatting doesn't work to paste the chart showing overall student athlete graduation, but the jist of it for Duke is that they graduate 97% of their student athletes (highest of the sweet 16 teams), 86% of their black basketball players (tied for highest) and 100% of their white basketball players (tied for highest).

     

    So unless I'm missing something huge (which i never deny is possible) Duke is graduating kids just fine, so complain about the media love or something, not the academics please.

     

     

    They must have hired someone worth a damn in the academic field. The numbers I saw from a couple years ago (in a class, so that's the only exposure I had) are a complete 180. And so what if I was wrong, Duke is a big faggot. That's right. I likened Duke to something I can call a faggot.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    http://exitmundi.nl/volcano.htm

     

    So, we'd run away, right? Hmm. If only it was that easy. An even bigger problem than the lava itself is the ash. 64,000 Years ago, a supervolcano made a mess of what is now the US. Of the current 50 states, 21 were covered with a layer of ash, at some places was over twenty meters thick!

     

    Well, who cares, you might think - we'd just dust it away. But it isn't that simple. Volcanic ash is not like the ash you find on the barbecue: it is made of tiny pieces of rock. If it falls on your roof, your house can collapse under it's weight. If it gets into contact with cars or airplanes, they will break down or crash. Even worse, if you inhale it, the ash will mix with the liquids in your lungs and form a cement-like substance. You'll literally drown in conrete!

     

    So you'd take a boat to another continent, right? Wrong. Apart from lava, volcanoes spew out a deadly brew of toxic chemicals. There are sulphurous gases that turn all rainfall into a blistering downpour of pure sulphuric acid for years to come. There are all kinds of chlorine-bearing compounds, that break down enough of the ozone layer to turn the Sun into a real killer. There's carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that not only nibbles at the ozone layer, but also causes long-term global warming. And last but not least, there's soot. A super eruption will darken the Sun, and gradually push the Earth into nuclear winter. For many years, or even centuries, we will have to survive in darkness and cold.

    Ok, we may be smart enough to escape from the lava and the ash, dodge the acid rains, survive the nuclear winter and protect ourselves against the killer solar radiation afterwards. But plants and animals definitely are not. We'd find ourselves in an increasingly empty world, as one species after another goes extinct. In the end, even the toughest survivalist would starve to death.

    In fact, 74,000 years ago, humanity almost did. In those days, a supervolcano erupted in Toba, Sumatra. Quite a lot of scientists believe this is what pushed humanity to the brink of extinction: it is a well-established fact that in those days, humanity suddenly was reduced to a slim total of some ten thousands of men.

    Alright -- but that was a long time ago, you might argue. Well, here's some bad news. Geologists agree that another supervolcano will definitely show up sometime somewhere in the future. It's a bit inconvenient no one knows where it will happen -- or when.

    But that's not even the worst part. If you still want to have a good night's sleep tonight, better stop reading here. For actually, the next Magmageddon is due to arrive any day now.

    At this very moment, a well-known supervolcano broods its ugly plans right under beautiful Yellowstone Park. On average, the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts once every 600,000 years - but the last time it erupted was 640,000 years ago. Oh, and by the way: in parts of Yellowstone Park, the ground has gone up seventy centimeters during the last century.

     

    I shouldn't have read the last part. I can't go to bed now.

     

  22. Posted · Report reply

    If you've seen any of the HBK/UT promos, then no, Foley/Sting won't be more entertaining.

    And that's not even counting the angle to be shown tomorrow night.

    Seriously, I said this Foley/Sting was a piece of shit match, and it is. The whole point of TNA should be to get over the younger talent and have them in main events in every PPV. Sting/Foley does not help out TNA at all. Obviously, they're going for the big 4 or 5 or even 6 PPV's per year, but they're relying on name recognition for this main event, which shouldn't be happening.

     

    I'll be happy if they go out and have a good match. It'll be a clusterfuck, and if Foley wins the TNA title, that's just amazingly retarded.

×