Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2006 I recommend that you read this in installments because A) It's way too freaking long and B) Vomit inducing. From the madman himself... 2/22/2006...Hello warriors. Surprised to hear from me so soon again? I bet you are...now, bow before me for being the great Warrior that I am. Just a few things ...maybe a little more tying up of loose ends. Too many of you have ridiculously written in to ask if this picture is really me? Some of you have written in even telling me how stupid it is that I have taken to driving up and down the road looking like this, instigating road rage incidents. (see 01/26/2006). Pl-e-e-a-s-e do me a favor -- Stupid people, such as those asking this, leave and never come back. Your presence is not wanted. Also, too many of you are writing and telling me about the awesome discussion you had with me in a chat room somewhere out in cyberspace. Let me say this one time: It was not me. You will never find me in a chat room anywhere on the internet. Never. Ever. I have participated in only two online chats during the entire time I have used the internet. Once, way back in the early '90's with Bob Ryder when the internet was just finding its way into the public. And the second time was in '96 when I returned to WWF and did an after-match online chat with AOL, one that caused its system to crash (another self-destructive act of mine not covered in the DVD). Repeat: I don't do chats. Never. Ever. As you’ve seen, there have been some design changes at the site. Still, there are many who clamor for more. Frankly, what I’ve come to discover, using both my take on the Internet and your criticisms and suggestions about what to do, is that “enough will never be enough.” That's a good thing to know, because I like the site just as it is, design-wise. That doesn't mean I couldn't like it a hundred other different ways. It just means I like it the way it is right now and it works to serve my purposes. I’m not convinced that Warrior Web needs today's conventional techo-creative style. My interests today and my commentaries more than make up for any Macromedia software tricks that aren’t available. That said, MORE is coming to the site. More substantive stuff, that is. Over the years many have solicited their talents to redesign the site. My greater concerns though have been to make the site more functionally interactive. I know long-time supporters of all that I've gone on to do beyond the ring have long wanted this. And so have I, so that I can continue to influence, motivate and enlighten you in positive ways. This desire of mine has taken a backseat more than a few times. I’ve finally been investigating how to cure this, with some great wants-to-remain-anonymous help, and I think major change is about to happen. This week more progress should me made and I’ll let you know the details. Right now, I can tell you substantial progress has been made towards having a storefront with some killer merchandise incorporating the Warrior brand LOGO and my one-of-a-kind quotable remarks -- all of it quality stuff and intensely motivational. There is also substantial progress being made on an ability to operate a regular forum of some sort where I can finally make more public -- on a regular, consistent basis -- a serious interactive discussion of my greater goals and ideas -- i.e., my Warrior brand of Conservatism, American heroism and history, Western Culture and Great Books enlightenment, Warrior-style working out to get your physical act together, and, as always, strong, solid, empowering and very blunt adult mentoring. Really 'self-destructive' stuff you are going to dig. LOL... A FAQ thing is going to happen, too. Not a whole immediate library or anything like that. Just a few at a time and only periodically. Questions can be submitted now, and they will fall into three categories -- keeping with the Mind, Body, Soul categories the site is now using. But to be a little more specific: 1) My Sports Entertainment career, 2) Working Out, 3) Anything relative to my goals today. Ok, something bluntly controversial before I leave? All right. Sting returned to wrestling. He said he trained for his return. Someone sent me pics. (No, I didn't buy the damn PPV!) My question: where did he train? Richard Simmons? Cellulite on a man is not a masculine thing -- it's not even a diva thing, is it? Someone also sent me a transcript of a press conference he held. A few things. No one is inspired by those who pursue goals with an "Aw, shucks, I'll be trying to do the best I can. Just have to see how much gas my tank has in it" attitude. In competitive arenas -- anywhere there is competition, sports or business, anything competitive -- those on the sidelines, all the spectators, the behind-the-scenes contributors, and those up-and-comers not yet major league players, want to see and hear the body language and words of a champion ready to stake his claim. They want the smell of competitive pheromones to fill the room. They want Joe Namath cockiness. They don't want their expectations lowered -- they want them raised to the moon or some other farther off planet. They want to leave dizzy on the impact of it all. They want to believe that you have more than enough of whatever it takes and that you are the power, not that you need to find some on the way to the event. It's obvious to me, after reading the transcript of the press conference, that for years Steve's backbone was steeled more by his relationship with the gang of cheerleaders at WCW, than any real self-generated confidence or deep sense of self-worth he himself held. No doubt, just as I have said for years, the young talent in the business do awesome things that long-time established stars cannot and they are to be praised. But, christsakes, does Steve not believe enough in what he, alone, uniquely has to offer that he can't keep himself from practically begging to be forgiven because he already fears not measuring up to the other talent? This is the puny, weak-ass role-modeling and giving back he wants to do? Hell, just stay home and keep eating your bologna sandwiches and surfing your favorite evangelical healing programs. There are already enough sexually confused, overemotional young people running around. Jeez, do we really need another self-emasculated male in entertainment, especially pro-wrestling, to model impotence, imperfection and wimpy self-esteem? Can't he be man enough to to say what the truth is? Obviously some "ingredient" is missing among the young guys for there to always be such a huge yearning, anticipation, and appreciation for a few of the established stars of the last decade and a half. We all know the names -- and, like it or not, the list is short. Sure, I can't do what the young high-flyers do. But neither can they bring to the table what I can. There's an inveterate fan base that is bonded and loyal to a deep character development that absolutely does not take place with any of the guys in the business today. There's also a thing called "charisma." And time and time again, it has been proven, you can have all the damn bags and bags of wresting moves and high spots you want, charisma trumps them all -- every single time. It's a "sure presence" that gives others confidence that they can sit back because someone capable has finally stepped up and is in charge. Is this something -- thinking, here, that Steve once had it on his own -- Steve doesn't have the confidence to CLAIM? Why is it that self-confidence is something to be embarrassed about? He speaks out two sides of his mouth. He says he wants to be a leader, of sorts, set a mentoring example for the young guys, yet given the opportunity, he talks like a worried little boy who's not sure about how to handle standing out from everyone else. It's so disappointing to see adult males who don't know how to behave like mature men, and even worse that everyone gives them a pass on it. Like it or not, believe or not, it is maturity, confidence and strong self-assuredness that TNA expected Steve to deliver, even in just a press conference. Instead, he delivered a precursory swan song making a submissive appeal for sympathy and forgiveness for the ways he was already convinced he would likely fail. Of course, I'm not surprised. This kind of behavior is rampant throughout our culture. Ironically, I even have a really nice piece of video Of Jerry Jarrett, while he was interviewed for my DVD project by the young kid I'm now having a legal beef with, where he's relaying the story of how Vince's demanding, harsh treatment of him, when he was up in NY a few years back helping with the "book" (I guess when Jeff was up there), would cause him to return to his hotel room each night crying his eyes out. It's funny, man. He goes on like Freud for over an hour psychoanalyzing me, basically coming to the same redundant, silly, false conclusion that I ruined my life because I decided not to remain in the business, and then out of the blue he has this classic Oprah moment. Then, a short time later, wonders out loud on camera, peering out over his 3-4 chins and his 60 inch waist, why I couldn't just get along with Vince. Hey, Jerry -- because some of us can still see our private part when we go to the urinal and it reminds us that we need to behave like men, not sissies. I balled my eyes out when my kids came into the world, but I was never such a scared, frail, half-man wuss that Vince McMahon made me shed any tears. Bottom line -- Steve Borden is not a "go to" guy and TNA, by bringing Steve in, isn't going to inherit "clout" anywhere near to the degree they originally thought. Believe me, everyone from the top to the bottom at TNA already has a nauseous gut sense about this. That they do is the very reason you don't hear a peep about his return and what, if anything, is forthcoming -- anywhere. Steve doesn't want the last shot, be at bat with the bases loaded, feel the pressure of an organization's success on his back -- he admits so himself. Read between the lines -- he said that exact thing right there in the press conference. Apparently absolutely convinced, with a negative mindset, that 45, 46, 47, even 50 is somehow old, and now without his WCW coterie to watch his back and bottlefeed him secondhand confidence, "go to" is "done with." And to be even more frank -- did I just say that? -- finding Jesus in the rote, irrational, nothing-but-faith way that he has, has only made him softer, weaker and the least of a man that he has ever been. (A post going into more detail about these unmanly, pusillanimous, weakminded, born-again hypocrites is coming soon.) Steve also mentioned in the press conference that Ultimate Warrior coming to TNA would be interesting. Yes, I have to agree -- it would be very interesting. What would be more interesting is if the TNA execs had the creativity, integrity and balls to entertain it seriously. Frankly, what they should do, if they want to be competitive (there's that nasty blood, sweat and tears word again), is sell some of those construction materials Daddy Jarrett has laying around, and put up the financing to bring in Goldberg and Ultimate Warrior and let us try to beat the intensity out of one another. Now there's an idea -- an attention getting one, and a money making one. I mean, instead of always using "warrior" as the adjective to fallaciously describe all those who aren't -- bring a real, and Ultimate, one in. Let the hardcore, natural intensity rip. Let both of us take our mischaracterized heads halfway out of our asses, just enough for us to be businessmen capable of discussing the serious potential success yet not enough to defuse a competitive grudge, and let the serious and creative thinkers at TNA, those without an agenda or envy problem, work out a program. Put your silly ass fear and prejudice for my strong, bold character away and think SUCCESS. Hell, I'm all for great ideas. But don't expect me to keep my mouth shut when you don't come up with any. Of course, as I hinted at, it won't be inexpensive. Goldberg has an agent and has to give him a cut. I'm my own and I charge even more. The bigger obstacle, and definitely the one that has us both the most hated in the industry, is that we are strong individualists who don't need, or even necessarily want, to be in the business and can get along having great lives without it. But, what a way it would be for the most envied and despised to shove the final word down the throats of those Nor'Easterners, while TNA capitalizes off the incredible heat of it all. Gotta Run Your Founding Father of Ring Intensity Warrior 02/20/2006...Hello warriors. In here to say a quick hello and tell you I am still at work on that, let’s call it, restatement of my warrior beliefs and principles. In the meantime, had a couple bits of info, and opinion I thought I would stop in and let you have, work as hard as I can at using this page exactly for ‘updates’ as it is intended. Happy George Washington’s Birthday. You may not know, but contrary to popular, politically-correct assertions, no action by Congress or order from the President of the United States has changed the celebratory day of George Washington’s birthday to "President’s Day." No, ma'am. No, sir. It’s just another one of those Orwellian rewrites that have brainwashed most of the American populous. You know, just another one of those trivial, inconsequential, mildly-modified details, sorta like the bogus one that the 16th Amendment was "legitimately" ratified. It wasn't -- but, hey, it's just OUR money, OUR PROPERTY we have the right to. Well, at least it used to be. Like so many other damaging historical revisions popularly gone on over the last 5 decades, this President's Day thing was done in the same name: erase the knowledge of our past so The People will forgo judgment of our present and future. A generic President's Day takes the pressure off. We can sidestep the responsibility that comes with the inalienable right, avoid controversy and confrontation, make nice and feel all warm and fuzzy while digging deeper our own self-imposed tomfoolishness that each President stood on the same philosophical ground, held the same reverence for the office, and performed their Presidential duties equally. After all, George Washington set a standard mighty high. Be an embarrassing shame on all us People if we made other Presidents stand alone on their own birthdays with their Presidency judged next to our First President's noble model. How gracious and forgiving of us -- and squandering. A real package deal of moral relativity and intellectual bankruptcy if there ever was one. Who do we think we are anyway, thinking and believing we can keep posterity from going all to hell? Also earlier this month, there was another revered President’s birthday. Yet, with so many other unnecessary and indolent, contemporary and politically-correct driven Monday holidays giving government employees another parasitic day of paid leave sucked right from the sweat off the People's backs, subsuming this previous President's birthday, too, into the generic one didn’t take any longer deliberation than the time it takes a hefty, liberty-sucking government employee to stamp "ACCEPTED" across the header of ANY and EVERY social program request for government funding. Changing the date we celebrate Lincoln’s birthday, though, is the least harmful rewrite his Presidency bears. You see, Lincoln, shouldn’t be revered as he is. That's right -- no, he shouldn't. He’s really the first President who truly gutted our Constitution and the rights therein granted each individual American citizen. Of course, it’s not the story you will hear. The myth is that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. It wasn’t. It was fought because the South wanted to exercise their Constitutional right and prerogative to secede from the Union of the states at the time. Lincoln would hear nothing of it and abused the power of his Presidency to, as well, have no toleration of it. Yes, at the end of the bloody days, with some 600,000 dead and another 400,000 crippled, Lincoln did, indeed, preserve the Union of a United States of America picture-perfect land mass, but politically and philosophically, he took a saber to our concept of sovereign state’s rights and the people’s right to self-government. And, it's a wound succeeding Presidents never let heal; each time it would start to, it was too tempting to follow Lincoln's lead, pick at the scab he left, further bleeding away more of our freedom and liberties. Regrettably, as striking as our memories are of Lincoln's eloquent performances, this is the ugly standard Lincoln set we need to remember the best. It's one that has been used over and over so that what The People once knew can no longer be seen, or heard about, through the scar tissue. Iconic as Lincoln is, as remarkably interesting and quotable was the life he lived, and even considering the monstrous human challenges he faced, when the revised history is turned to the sunlight to reveal the unvarnished truth, Lincoln was, himself, a for-the-times racist, and literally used a calvary to stampede all over the Founding intent acutely constructed into this Country's Founding documents -- and a strong, tight, and guileless case can even be made that he committed war crimes. The truth isn’t always pretty, but it always is what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Arnold_OldSchool Report post Posted February 24, 2006 Your Founding Father of Ring Intensity I love it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Papacita 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2006 I love Warrior. Seriously, his insane rants are just about all I look forward to in wrestling anymore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2006 It's weird, because I want to quote some stuff in particular to laugh at the insanity, but I honestly don't know where to begin. I'm not sure anyone can purposely write stuff this funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2006 Why doesn't Warrior have his own reality show yet? I didn't even bother to read it, because...I'm too afraid to. Show me the highlights, if you can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twisted Intestine 0 Report post Posted February 25, 2006 He calls Sting immature, yet his rants always sound like a 13 year old updating his LiveJournal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BruiserKC 0 Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Warrior's next online column...dedicated to Chuck Norris facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CookieMueller Report post Posted February 25, 2006 I had to read it twelve times to decide if it was supposed to be the actual Ultimate Warrior, then another three times to decide if I remember him being a 15-year-old girl. "Pl-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-a-s-e" make a podcast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted February 25, 2006 He's spot on about Lincoln though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Hey, Jerry -- because some of us can still see our private part when we go to the urinal and it reminds us that we need to behave like men, not sissies. This is gold! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 He's spot on about Lincoln though. Bullshit. There's no such thing as a Constitutional right to secede from the Union, and the reason the South tried to secede had nothing to do with their "rights", but about pure greed (cheap slave labor + low tariffs). Let's not also forget it was the Confederacy that started the bloodshed by attacking Fort Sumter. This kind of revisionist history is a favorite of Southerners who want to brush their history of human enslavement under the rug, and of racists who use the "states rights" red herring to distract attention away from the fact that the only thing they really want the right to do is to subjugate their fellow human beings. The Confederacy was all about preserving the rights of rich white men, and nothing more. Educated historians agree that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president America has ever had. The foolish ramblings of a deluded steriod-injecting bigot is hardly enough to convince me otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLAGIARISM! 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 You can't claim anyone, Lincoln included, is infallible, but neither's the Ultimate effing Warrior. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 You can't claim anyone, Lincoln included, is infallible, but neither's the Ultimate effing Warrior. Warrior was trashing Lincoln a lot worse than merely saying he wasn't infalliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 He's spot on about Lincoln though. Bullshit. There's no such thing as a Constitutional right to secede from the Union, and the reason the South tried to secede had nothing to do with their "rights", but about pure greed (cheap slave labor + low tariffs). Let's not also forget it was the Confederacy that started the bloodshed by attacking Fort Sumter. This kind of revisionist history is a favorite of Southerners who want to brush their history of human enslavement under the rug, and of racists who use the "states rights" red herring to distract attention away from the fact that the only thing they really want the right to do is to subjugate their fellow human beings. The Confederacy was all about preserving the rights of rich white men, and nothing more. Educated historians agree that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president America has ever had. The foolish ramblings of a deluded steriod-injecting bigot is hardly enough to convince me otherwise. I'm sure we've had this argument before Although I'm still surpised how it was fine for America to secede from the British Empire, yet it was not OK for the Confederacy to try and secede from the US. Plus the fact that Lincoln said that he believed that all people have rights to take up arms against their government if they wanted, but it wasn't OK when Lincoln was in charge of that government. But, again, we've had this argument and neither of us are going to change our minds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 Although I'm still surpised how it was fine for America to secede from the British Empire, yet it was not OK for the Confederacy to try and secede from the US. The difference being that the South had representation in the US Congress, whereas the colonies had no such representation in the British government. Plus the fact that Lincoln said that he believed that all people have rights to take up arms against their government if they wanted, but it wasn't OK when Lincoln was in charge of that government. I'm sure there's an exact quote you're going to supply me with. But, again, we've had this argument and neither of us are going to change our minds. I just wanted to make sure that both sides got represented. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 I'm sure there's an exact quote you're going to supply me with. You mean the one from 1848 when he said... Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole population of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 I'd never seen that before, but I'm guessing he changed his mind between 1848 and 1861. There's no way the South could've survived on its own as a country for more than a few decades. It simply didn't have the industrial emphastructure to survive in an industrializing world, and thus would have been easy pickings for any late 19th or early 20th century imperial power that decided to invade. Slave rebellion would also have torn them apart. Lincoln was doing them a favor by not letting them leave. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mystery Eskimo 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Warrior vs Goldberg? I would actually love to see that, if only for the moment when both men just stood stock still in the centre of the ring, no selling each others eye ball beams of intense ring presence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Warrior's next online column...dedicated to Chuck Norris facts. Warrior would more likely challenge Chuck Norris to back up said facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 The Ultimate Warrior didn't actually shoot steriods, but instead received a blood transfusion from Chuck Norris. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Chuck Norris killed the first three Ultimate Warriors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Chuck killed Renegade? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Masked Man of Mystery 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Chuck killed Renegade? Don't you mean Kerry Von Erich? .....Just kidding, of course Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Decemberists 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 I'd never seen that before, but I'm guessing he changed his mind between 1848 and 1861. I'm sure there's an exact quote you're going to supply me with. And one prior to November 6th 1860 I think would be best, don't you? Plus there's the fact that Virginia, New York and Rhode Island all had clauses included in their ratifications of the Consitiution that permitted them to withdraw from the Union if they felt the government had become oppressive. And of course with the good ol' US of A being founded on the principle of equality (if we forget the whole allowing slaves thing) with each state having the same rights, then it's impossible for those three states to have more rights than the others, so all the other states also had that right to secede. Not entirely sure that I agree with that logic to be honest, but I do find it's something interesting to think about in a Constitutional history type manner which I know some of you wacky Americans think is important I'll try and bite my tongue if you reply to this, seeing as it'll only end up like our last argument with me quoting historians and primary sources and you, well, you just saying I was wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 I can't say I'm shocked by Warrior ripping on his old buddy, Sting, like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
