Guest Salacious Crumb Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Yeah, like being Head of Creative in the WWE... And what's worse is the company is basically screwed if Vince were to suddenly die.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 *thinks about that* I don't remember exactly but I read a few years back that the way the company is set up is that Vince has to be living for them to be able to operate.
syxx2001 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Vince thrives on being beat. His best periods were when the NWA was tops in the 80s and when the nWo was running wild in 96/97. I still think that Vince is at his best when he has someone to copy off of.
Guest PowerPB13 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 *thinks about that* I'll take the book depository, you take the grassy knoll. -Patrick
EdwardKnoxII Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 So does that mean after you do the deed Oliver Stone will come out with VKM. "Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left."
Guest PowerPB13 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 The Observer recapper calls this "one of the least meaningful editions of Raw in ages". I disagree on the grounds that Raw hasn't been meaningful in years. -Patrick Looking forward to Nikki Strychnine vs. Kory Twist more than WrestleMania...
2GOLD Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Just out of curiousity, other than Kane has ANYONE on RAW mentioned the Rumble at all? They really don't seem to give a crap about it.
Guest PowerPB13 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Just out of curiousity, other than Kane has ANYONE on RAW mentioned the Rumble at all? They really don't seem to give a crap about it. After what happened to Booker last year, would YOU want to fight Triple H for the World Title at Wrestlemania? -Patrick
Lord of The Curry Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 But Kane is white, so by HHH logic he has a better chance of winning then Booker did last year. Because white people are better then black people. Remember that?
2GOLD Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 But Kane is white, so by HHH logic he has a better chance of winning then Booker did last year. Because white people are better then black people. Remember that? The WWE teaches me so many valuable lessons -Trying to run over a black man with a four wheeler is ok as long as I'm drunk -Women are allowed to be beat up if they refuse beer or don't want to show cleavage -Putting a woman through a table is ok as long as she was rude to me -Oh and white people are better than black people in all things just because we are white Just out of curiousity...was the creative team ALWAYS this racist and against women? Cause I can't remember or refuse too.
Guest PowerPB13 Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 But Kane is white, so by HHH logic he has a better chance of winning then Booker did last year. Because white people are better then black people. Remember that? Well, Kane is a bad person...see, a long time ago there was this girl named Katie Vick... -Patrick
RavishingRickRudo Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Todd Martin (WO recapper) is a fucking moron... ...that is all.
AndrewTS Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 "-Putting a woman through a table is ok as long as she was rude to me" Unless that woman is a face, then even if she interferes in a match on behalf of her boyfriend's and is trying to cost the opposition the match, attacking her in any way is a terrible act.
Guest Jimbo Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Just do what I've done the past 2 Monday Nights. Watch American Chopper. It's a lot more entertaining. ^Huzzah. Exactly what I was going to suggest.
notJames Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Just out of curiousity...was the creative team ALWAYS this racist and against women? Cause I can't remember or refuse too. This is professional wrestling. By its very nature, it's jingoistic and misanthropic. It's not just the (un)creative team.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Just out of curiousity...was the creative team ALWAYS this racist and against women? Cause I can't remember or refuse too. This is professional wrestling. By its very nature, it's jingoistic and misanthropic. It's not just the (un)creative team. Actually the writing for Miss. Elizabeth was always fairly good and tasteful.
notJames Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 There's always one exception to the rule. And I was being facetious anyway.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now