Kahran Ramsus

I excuse them because about 90% of the time, they are right. To me choosing between the MLBPA and the owners is like choosing between Hitler and Stalin.

Nah, he's better than Marc Bulger and doesn't get nearly the hype. Bulger or Daunte Culpepper are the most overrated.

Yeah, it was obvious that it was joke. On Futurama, the Simpsons is a TV show. On the Simpsons, Futurama is a TV show.

No one was as pissed as me. What about Don Mattingly?

Oh, I know how things work. I just don't give a shit. All I care is that the World Series didn't get played. I hate the owners too, but you seem to excuse everything that the MLBPA does. Who are you? Donald Fehr?

There is talk of Martz picking J. P. Losman in the first round Saturday.

Marvin Monroe came back this season.

Roy vs. Pedro II starting right away.

Summerslam's best match is between Test & Shane McMahon. That should tell you everything you need to know right there. Arguably the worst Summerslam ever. Even the main event stunk, especially considering who was involved. No Mercy & Unforgiven aren't great, but they are much better than the other choices.

Nope, I love it. It is actually better than Family Guy, and better than the Simpsons have been in 5 or 6 years. FOX screwed it over with the 7PM timeslot. It wasn't the quality that was the problem. You must really hate Family Guy then because no show gets as much praise around here than it. Compared to the amount of love it gets, Futurama's is pretty much non-existant.

I was going to say Backlash, buy you already have that. None of the others are really worth owning. 1999 was probably the worst year in the history of the WWF as far as PPVs are concerned. Russomania ran wild and ruined pretty much everything.

I am willing to help. The casual gamers don't know better. I really recommend the Suikoden series. I very much disagree with a lot of what the elitists think is not good too. Both Xenogears & Xenosaga which get a lot of hate on these boards are personal favourites of mine.

The worst by far is still the one where Bart & Milhouse form a boyband.

Now you've gone and hurt Bidwell's feelings.

What's wrong with a cap? It's not needed. I would beg to differ, but even if it wasn't needed it would hurt the Yankees, Boston and the inept spenders like the Mets (although it might help them, who knows) and that helps the Royals & Expos of the world have a better chance right there. As for the hurting the players, fuck 'em. They cost me the 1994 World Series (had they been locked out instead, I would be more likely to blame the owners) so I have no sympathy with them whatsoever.

Have you actually seen it? It is quite good, especially compared to the terrible John Wayne version. I'm not about to put it on my top ten of the year or anything, but it is nice little film based primarily on historical fact, with good actors (especially Billy Bob who is fantastic as Crockett) and compelling characters. The ending sequence is unecessary, Santa Anna is too cartoonish (although the rest of the Mexican officers are portrayed well), and the budget was certainly set too high, but it was a good film. As for not being advertised under the Disney name, that had no impact. It was a Touchstone film, like Pearl Harbor or Armaggedon and people always refer to those as Disney movies. It was also well publicized that Eisner was worried that he would be ousted if this movie flopped, and that is incentive right there not to see it. That was a big problem. Even those few that didn't associate it with Disney would associate it with the trash that was Pearl Harbor, so the point still stands. Moving the release date was a bad idea. That sent a bad message right there. But I don't think that was all of it. If you remember, Titanic was pushed back from its original release date in July of 1997 and it didn't hurt it at all. I think the big issues with moving Alamo was that one, people thought that the movie was complete (and it may have been) and was moved because they were scared of LOTR, whereas with Titanic everybody knew that the movie went overbudget and wasn't finished yet. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, putting it out on Good Friday was stupid. Had it been released in late February or early March in time for the anniversary of the battle, I think things would have been better. It still wouldn't have made money because of the other problems, but it would have done better than it did.

Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone is the third highest grossing movie of all time worldwide ($968,600,000). Other high ranking family films are Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets ($866,300,000 - #7), Finding Nemo ($853,200,000 - #9), the Lion King ($783,400,000 - #13), and ET ($756,700,000 - #14). That makes 5 family films in the top 15 grossing movies of all time. Looks pretty good. Only the fantasy genre in general, helped by three LOTR movies in the top ten (#2, #5 & #8) , the two Harry Potter films (#3 & #7), two Star Wars films (#4 & #12), Spider-Man (#11) and arguably the Matrix Reloaded (#15) did better.

I don't blame FF VII for starting the cinematic phase of videogaming. There are several like that that I absolutely love (most notably Xenogears, or at least the first disk before budget cuts began having an effect). That would be like blaming Star Wars for all the crud that came after it. My problem is that there are many flaws in FF VII. The characters are mostly vacuums personality-wise, especially the leads (Cloud, Tifa & Aeris). Red XIII & Vincent are as well, but in their case it is a part of their characters. Yuffie is just plain annoying, and Barrett borders on that too at times. Cid is the only member of your party that I actually liked, and even he doesn't have that much depth. Compare them to the characters of IV, VI, IX or X and they don't hold up. Villain-wise, it is actually pretty good. Sephiroth is good, although he doesn't get enough to do, and most of the Shinra characters are so over-the-top they end up being more entertaining than the good guys. In terms of story and gameplay, they seem to stick all of the character development stuff in the middle section of the game (between the escape from Midgar to Aeris's death) and it really slows down the plot. That could have easily been more spread out. The first and third acts are pretty good. The second is boring as hell. The graphics are okay, I don't know why you brought that up. Considering some of the games we mentioned were better include IV, V & VI, games with even worse graphics, this isn't an issue. VIII with much better graphics than this title, is the worst of the series aside from the first one, which is more of a test run. Gameplay-wise this one isn't really exciting either. The mini-games are okay, but the materia system is not something I am fond of at all. Aside from Limit Breaks it makes all characters the same, and all you need to do is move the materia around. Sure you can turn your characters into gods in some of the other games, but they still learn the spells themselves. In FFV, you can't make Galuf a White Mage and then give all his magic to Faris. You would have to work Faris up as a White Mage too. It is too customizable to the point where it hurts character individuality. The later parts of the game also suffer from the same problem that plagues FFVIII, in that you just cast long summon spells the entire time. It gets boring to watch the same five minute animation over and over again. The drop to only 3 members in your party at a time (something that began with Chrono Trigger, and I complain about in that game too) also hurt it. FFVII isn't the worst in the series, but it is far from the best too. Let alone the best RPG ever. I don't think it is even the best of the Playstation era. FFIX is much more fun to play and its characters are more interesting.

FFT is a tragedy that is based somewhat from Shakespearean plays like Macbeth. To compare them in terms of content is one thing. To compare them in terms of quality is idiotic. Yeah, but now that it was made available in the US long after it it was made, the new brand of cinematic RPG fans don't care for it. It used to be overrated, but now it is underrated. I'm curious to why you think the gameplay in FFIV is better when it is basically the same thing as in every other FF game, and FFVI is less linear. Storywise I completely disagree. The whole idea with all the villains being really good guys under control of this guy you don't see til the end always annoys me. It is as true here as it is in VIII, only it isn't as boring. I will just assume it is personal opinion, but I would like an explanation to the gameplay question. Yep. I won't hold the PlayOnline thing against the game itself though, only the company. The gameplay is nothing really new, so if you're tired of it, there isn't much I can say. I still happen to enjoy it. The game is still better than VII or VIII, with a much better job/magic system than either of those and better characters (which you seem to agree with). Nothing much to say about your FFT or Chrono Trigger comments. I do like the Magus character from CT, but he's really the only standout. Maybe Frog. GameFAQs is terrible. You should check out the MVP 2004 boards. Most of the posts are either complaining about Bonds not being in the game or how they can't hit HRs every at bat.

Yeah, as someone who has had family spend alot of time in hospitals, and an aunt that worked in one for 35 years, I can assure that our healthcare system sucks donkeyballs right now. At least in Ontario. In terms of surgery anyways. We are better than the US when it comes to prescription medication and innoculations.

Green Bay

Didn't that movie cost 160 million to make? And people have the nerve to say Aflack is a bomb. The Disney brand name has about as much value as WCW these days, aside from the theme parks. Just look at how horrible the new animated movie did too. Alamo is suprisingly a good movie, but nobody will see it because of the bad buzz surrounding both the film and the company, and because of the stench of Pearl Harbor, a movie many people feared Alamo would be like.

What's with all the Foley love? I realize he is popular, and he has a lot of charisma, but he himself would be the first to admit that he wasn't a good wrestler. He said it in both books and on his DVD. Flair, along with others (my father thinks the exact same way), don't like hardcore brawls, and that happens to be what Foley is good at. It is that style that Flair criticizes. Foley is NOT a good mat wrestler, and that is what Flair is commenting on. He probably didn't like ECW either, and he's not a fan of lucha libre. A lot of the time I agree with him. He didn't mention it, but RVD is a terrible wrestler too, for many of the same reasons. Just Foley is better at building emotion. I liked Raven when he was feuding with Benoit and when he was Johnny Polo, but that's it. I wouldn't pay anything to see him now.

You have to get them to chase pitches. You won't strike out too many by just tossing in the strike zone. I have seem to have the most success with changes and curves as my KO pitch. It is extremely easy to rack up 12-13 Ks a game with Roy Halladay by getting hitters to chase his killer curve low out of the strike zone.

Ok, I am seriously getting annoyed with the way the Jays are playing.