Kahran Ramsus

The #1 Championship RAW - Edge v. Cena Smackdown! - Kurt Angle v. Mark Henry (w/ Daivari) Lesser of two evils. I know Henry injured Batista, but it was reportedly not his fault so I don't hold it against him and he's currently running a decent short-term monster angle while working pretty well the last couple of weeks. Edge won the title 10 months after he had any heat, and I don't think we need to discuss what has happened to Cena since he went to RAW. The #2 Championship RAW - Ric Flair v. ???? Smackdown! - Booker/Orton v. Benoit Flair has nothing left that interests me at all. The US Title situation has dragged, but it is still Chris Benoit and Orton/Booker would be interesting if they ever decide to pull the trigger on that breakup, even if only to have a three way with Orton in the tweener role. Regardless, the IC Title situation is RAW's weakest point right now and has been since Carlito beat Shelton. As an aside, the US Title matches got a lot better once Orton replaced Booker. Even though I can't stand Orton personally, he's better in the ring than Booker at this point who hasn't been the same since his back injury a couple of years ago. The Tag Titles RAW - Show/Kane v. Heartthrobs? Snitsky/Tomko? Viscera/Val? 3 Minute Warning? Smackdown! - MNM v. Mexicools? Kendrick/London? Dicks? Gymini? Regal/Burchill? The biggest gap by far. RAW's tag division is non-existant, while Smackdown has developed an interesting little group with talented workers like MNM, London/Kendrick & Burchill/Regal. Smackdown's tag division right now is the deepest of any WWE tag unit since the first half of 2003. The "Other" Title RAW - Trish Stratus v. Victoria? Mickie James? Smackdown! - Kid Kash v. London? Kendrick? Jamie Noble? Nunzio? I like Trish, but she doesn't have anyone to fight that is any sort of serious threat to her in her terms of starpower. I take the cruisers. At least it is competitive. The Midcard RAW - Carlito/Masters/Show/Kane/Shelton/RVD/Flair Smackdown! - Orton/Benoit/Booker/JBL/Rey/Kennedy/Lashley RAW - Crap/Crap/Stale/Stale/Great but dumb gimmick/Crap/Old Stale Crap Smackdown - Decent/Fantastic/Stale/Entertaining/Great/Entertaining/Jury's Still Out No contest. The GM RAW - Vince? Smackdown! - Teddy Long Kind of by default. Long's okay. This should really be an incomplete until we see what RAW does. The Top Backstage Guys RAW - HHH/HBK/Vince Smackdown! - Undertaker/Kurt Angle/JBL Vince has lost his mind. Kurt & JBL are usually justified in what they do. Only Taker sometimes causes significant problems and even he doesn't dominate shows nearly as much as HHH & HBK. Might as well add Flair to that group too, as he's rapidly becoming the worst of them. The Internet Show/Jobbers RAW - Heart Throbs/Snitsky/Tomko/Viscera/Val/Gregory Helms/Rosey/Murdoch/Cade/Dupree/Conway Smackdown! - Kendrick/London/Jamie Noble/Burchill/Regal/Holly/Hardy/Orlando/Nunzio/Vito/Sylvan RAW - Crap/Crap/Crap/Crap/Stale/Okay/Crap/Crap/Crap/Last I heard he had a career-threatening injury, but he used to be okay/Crap Smackdown - Great/Great/Great/Good/Great/Okay/Okay/Crap/Good/Haven't seen enough of him/Crap The Women RAW - Trish Stratus/Mickie James/Victoria/Candice/Torrie/Ashley/Maria Smackdown! - Stacy/Sharmell/Melina/Jillian RAW - Great/Useless/Okay/Useless/Useless/Useless/Useless Smackdown - Useless/Useless/Okay/Useless The Announce Team RAW - Styles/Lawler/Coach/Maria/Todd Smackdown! - Cole/Tazz/Matthews/Funaki Styles is good, but Coach & Lawler are so bad that they are killing him. Basically the same thing as when JR was there. The less said about Maria & Grisham the better. Cole & Tazz are good together, and Matthews is possibly the best announcer on the roster. Funaki doesn't really do much. As an added bonus, Ken Kennedy has been amusing in a limited role recently. Wrestlecrap RAW - Spirit Squad, Vince's Devils, Mama Benjamin Smackdown! - Boogeyman, Jillian Hall's face, Midgets Both are bad, but RAW's wrestlecrap recently is more watchable than Smackdown's. The Time Slot RAW - Monday nights at 9pm on USA Smackdown! - Friday nights at 8pm on UPN This is a bit different for me. RAW as the TSN 9 PM Timeslot which is often pre-empted for other sports (that I'd probably rather watch anyways, but that's besides the point) and this fall will be off every week for MNF. Smackdown is on at 8PM Thursdays. A much better timeslot. --------------------------------------- Neither show is very good right now. Smackdown was on a role in the fall, but the loss of Eddy Guerrero & Batista has shattered their main event. RAW was garbage then and is still garbage now. I end up with 10-2 in favour of Smackdown, but like I said the TimeSlot issue is entirely based on the Canadian timeslots. In the US, I would agree that RAW has the better slot, making it 9-3. But a lot of Smackdown's victories aren't even close, so even with its decline it is still the much better show at this point.

I tend to miss the really horrible movies, although I have seen plenty of bad ones. But the absolute worst that I can remember seeing is Jaws: The Revenge. I loved the first Jaws, and Jaws 2 was decent enough. I even got some enjoyment out of the one set at Sea World. But Revenge is just horrid on every level. Even Michael Caine sucks in it.

It's so funny seeing fans of teams that went 4-12 thinking they can talk any smack at all. Hey, I'm not about to sing the praises of the 2005 Packers either. But there is only one stat that matters at the end of the year. There will be 1 Champion and 31 Losers.

You mean the Broncos who beat the Packers last time they were in the Super Bowl? These aren't the same Broncos.

This game isn't surprising me in the slightest, and Plummer's meltdown was to be expected by anybody but Broncos fans. 6 for 11 with two turnovers. Seattle/Carolina could really go either way.

Angle was an average wrestler at best until 2001, and Taker was during his dark period from 1998-2002. Their later stuff is much better. Angle vs. Taker was also done at Survivor Series 2000 in another match that sucked so bad that it didn't even close the ppv, and it was a World Title match. That was still in 2000 though, so the same thing applies.

Good -Joe Carter, Game 6. 1993 World Series -The final out of the 1992 World Series -Green Bay winning Super Bowl XXXI -Brett Favre's performance against the Raiders after his father died -Al Harris returning Matt Hasselbeck for a TD in Overtime in the Playoffs -The Leafs/Senators series 2005-06 Bad -4th & 26 against the Eagles. -1995 NFC Championship -Various Sens/Leafs playoff series -Montreal Expos move to Washington -Steve Young to Terrell Owens in the Wildcard Playoffs -Bud Selig cancels the 1994 World Series due to the Players Strike

1. Lincoln 2. Washington 3. T. Roosevelt 4. F. Roosevelt 5. Reagan 6. Jackson 7. Polk 8. Eisenhower 9. Monroe 10. McKinley

Angle was an average wrestler at best until 2001, and Taker was during his dark period from 1998-2002. Their later stuff is much better.

What I like: The Animation - I actually liked the style in X-Men Evolution & Batman: TAS which is used here as well. It certainly allows for a lot better movement in the drawings. I can't stand the animation in the old 90s X-Men series which is more detailed, but stiff and rigid. The PG-13 Rating - It won't be completely sanitized. What I don't like: The Voices - They sound way too young for these characters. They are not supposed to be in their late teens, early 20s like Spider-Man & The X-Men. The Dialogue - Ugh...

29th in the NFL. Only the Chiefs, Patriots & 49ers were worse this year.

Speaking for myself, I could care less about the NFC Title Game. Like say if Washington had won. If Washington & Chicago both won, then I'd just be depressed.

I almost put 17-9 too.

Can't you post this in the Divisional Playoff thread?

I couldn't be happier that Chicago got beaten, even though I picked them. A Packers fan cheering for them is like the Pope cheering for Satan.

The only reason I wanted New England to win this game was because there is some interesting history between them and the Colts, whereas Denver's history with the Colts is getting their asses kicked by four TDs. Denver cannot beat Indianapolis, so that leaves the only hope of having an interesting AFC Championship hanging on a Steelers upset. Fortunately in the NFC both potential matchups are interesting.

Am I the only one who thinks that the 68 Colts (the best team of the Super Bowl era never to win it) were better than this year's version? They crushed everybody, set the record for least points allowed in a season, had a four game stretch in which they didn't allow a TD, had four shutouts, had the NFL MVP as their QB, were second in the league in most points scored, ravaged the Browns 34-0 in the NFL Championship (avenging their only loss in the regular season to the same Browns), then beat themselves in the Super Bowl (they drove the ball inside the 20 three times in the first half and came away with one missed FG and two poorly thrown INTs in the end zone).

Also, it just isn't the AFC Playoffs without Denver getting raped by the Colts. How many points will they lose by this year? 40?

Somebody must have neglected to tell the Patriots that Christmas was last month because that was a mighty big gift that they gave the Broncos. However, this means that Green Bay is STILL the only team in history to win three straight World Championships!

Tough to lose your biggest star like this. At least he held the belt longer than Cena, even if it was two days, and he got to leave with his dignity. Any ideas on how long he will be out? Summerslam? Survivor Series? Wrestlemania XXIII?

Martz is a horrible playcaller, but he's great at developing offensive players, especially QBs and WRs.

Right. Nobody is arguing that the earth hasn't gotten warmer in the past 150 years. Likewise, nobody is arguing that human activity hasn't increased CO2 levels. But there is a considerable argument as to whether the latter is the main cause of the former, or whether it is only a minor contributor.

Not true at all. It may be reported that way, but it is not accurate in the slightest. The fact that there is so much opposition from the scientific community should be enough to suggest that the group as a whole is not united on this issue. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not a concensus, not matter how much they like to claim it is. Even the concept of Global Warming is disputed. It depends largely on scale. Use a scale of about 100-150 years, then yes, the earth is getting warmer. You look at the past 1000 years, and we are a little above average now (the unusual warmth of the first 400 years of the second millenium almost cancels out the unusual cold spell in the next 400). You look at the Holocene as a whole, and the earth is getting cooler. Climate change is so gradual that you can't just look at last year (or even ten years ago) and say definitively that the earth is getting cooler or warmer. But we'll get away from that for now as the area that scientists are discussing is that approx. 150 year period in which modern meteorology has existed. Once you toss out the increased temperatures due to the Urban Heat Island effect (in which case we are mainly looking at atmospheric temperatures) you get to the 0.6 C increase in the last century that even the IPCC agrees with. What caused that increase is very much up for debate.

If we pass Kyoto and the like today, will this effectively stop global warming? Bandage it? Kyoto is based on junk science in the first place, but even if you do believe in the principles behind it, the agreement wouldn't work. Not only is Stephen Joseph correct, but it would also take centuries for any results to come from Kyoto in even a best case scenario. From Dr. Tim Ball, Canada's foremost climatologist (now retired). Doesn't a longer summer mean more time for farmers to grow crops? It would vary on a regional basis. Some places, such as the Great Lakes region and Eastern North America would likely experience a longer growing season that would produce much greater yields (there is a reason why wheat is no longer grown in Ontario). There would be more droughts in the Great Plains, especially in the more arid areas and the Californian Citrus crops would take a hit as well. This is all speculative, of course. But based on how things usually occur during warmer periods, you would be able to get a reasonable estimate as to what happens. On average globally, conditions would improve on the east coast of continents and decline on the west coasts. Which is good news if you happen to live in China or Japan and bad news if you happen to live in southern France or Spain. There are overriding factors though. Britain is basically powered by the Gulf Stream and wouldn't be affected nearly as much by atmospheric conditions. Conditions in Scandinavia would actually improve most likely. So it gets rather complicated.

I'm suprised I made it one. Go Vikings!