tbondrage99 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 At least Austins name is normal and makes sense unlike Warrior.
Thanks for the Fish Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 why would Austin need bother to change his name unless he was planning a break from the wwe and wanted to keep using it sorta deal?
Angelus Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Because in this business you're never know what next, because now he can do thing outside wrestling without the approval of the office, not to share benefits with them and maybe because he's still can't swallow de fact that Vinnie does give The Rock his trademark name for free
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 WWE couldn't trademark "Steve Austin." It was a character in "The Six Million Dollar Man" first.
Jingus Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 At least Austins name is normal and makes sense unlike Warrior. Beating women is normal and makes sense? I know what you mean, he's not as incoherent as Warrior, but obviously Austin has his own problems.
Enigma Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Yeah, because he totally beats random women for no reason 24/7.
Dandy Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 At least Austins name is normal and makes sense unlike Warrior. Beating women is normal and makes sense? I know what you mean, he's not as incoherent as Warrior, but obviously Austin has his own problems. I think you missed what the post was saying. Changing your name to "Steve Austin" makes more sense than changing it to "Warrior Warrior."
Hawk 34 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 Jingus just felt like taking a unrelated shot at Austin.
Toxxic Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 There's nothing wrong with taking unrelated shots at Austin. Guy's a wifebeating twat.
Lt. Al Giardello Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 There's nothing wrong with taking unrelated shots at Austin. Guy's a wifebeating twat. The bitch problay had it coming.
Kizzo Posted December 30, 2007 Report Posted December 30, 2007 EngadgetHD is reporting that WWE will be broadcasting the 2008 Royal Rumble in High Definition. It is expected that all PPVs will air in HD starting with Royal Rumble '08. Smackdown will convert to HD starting on January 4 on The CW. Raw and ECW are expected to convert to HD on both USA Network and Sci-Fi Channel respectively at some point later in 2008. About damn time. Wrestlemania will be my first WWE PPV purchase since 2003. If it wasn't being broadcast in HD.. I wouldn't even bother
Hawk 34 Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 You'll be happy about plopping down $60 for something that doesn't affect the quality of the product at all? Just pretty colors and clearer bacne shots?
Silence Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 You'll be happy about plopping down $60 for something that doesn't affect the quality of the product at all? Just pretty colors and clearer bacne shots? Kizzo's becoming Marvin.
luke-o Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 For a second I thought Kizzo WAS Marvin.
Dobbs 3K Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 I was going to say that Kizzo should watch it with Marvin, and they can give each other hand jobs while marveling at the picture. Anyway, my cable company carries no USA or CW HD feed, so the switches to HD don't mean jack to me at the moment, even though I have an HD-ready TV set (yes, with an HD cable box).
AntiLeaf33 Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 Hmmm, seeing as WrestleMania is the one PPV I actually order per year, and I do have a beautiful HD TV, I just may get the HD feed if Rogers has it (which is Newfoundland, is a big IF)
Black Lushus Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 hey I have CW in HD...of course I dont watch Smackdown so big fucking deal, right?
MillenniumMan831 Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 My CW affiliate as an HD logo on the corner of the screen but of course, the HD feed is not available in my area.
JHawk Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 My CW affiliate as an HD logo on the corner of the screen but of course, the HD feed is not available in my area. Isn't the CW affiliate like channel 35 or 29 or one of those shitty channels nobody watches anyway though?
MillenniumMan831 Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 I think it's WBNX-55. WUAB-43 became MY Network TV.
DrVenkman PhD Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 On April 30, 2007, WBNX began broadcasting in high definition and 5.1 surround sound stereo. WBNX broadcasts on digital channel 30. WBNX has three digital subchannels. Currently, channel 55.1(30.1) WBNX-DT1 is active as the high definition channel. 55.2(30.2) may be used as a digital simulcast of the SDTV broadcast of WBNX to give cable and satellite companies a digital SD version of WBNX
JHawk Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 All I know is Channel 43 became My Network TV and my cable company stopped carrying it. Luckily I get Youngstown stations too and they have a CW affiliate.
DrVenkman PhD Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 --For what it's worth, the most number of TV wins this year in WWE was C.M. Punk with 48 followed by Jeff Hardy with 44. Bobby Lashley and HHH would have been top ten except they were both injured much of the year. Most tag wins were The Highlanders with 16, to Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch with 15, showing how useless these stats are (thanks to Emerson Witner) Emerson Witner = UTS?
Hawk 34 Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 Where has he been anyways? Was he really broken up about his useless stats thread being removed from the front page?
Scroby Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 Where has he been anyways? Was he really broken up about his useles stats thread being removed from the front page? Who cares? Though I do kinda miss my constent arguing with him. Maybe he fainted and fell into a coma when he found out I got to work with the Great Muta? Who knows.
DrVenkman PhD Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 He was in the 24/7 threads not too long ago.
Kizzo Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 You'll be happy about plopping down $60 for something that doesn't affect the quality of the product at all? Just pretty colors and clearer bacne shots? I can't help it.. I'm an HD nutcase But its Wrestlemania.. and its in HD. For the other PPVs.. I probably won't even bother.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 --For what it's worth, the most number of TV wins this year in WWE was C.M. Punk with 48 followed by Jeff Hardy with 44. Bobby Lashley and HHH would have been top ten except they were both injured much of the year. Most tag wins were The Highlanders with 16, to Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch with 15, showing how useless these stats are (thanks to Emerson Witner) Emerson Witner = UTS? Ouch. Useless or not, way to bash a guy for sending you information. If you find it a waste of time, thank the emailer politely and just don't use it.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 And for the record, once HDTVs fall to the $120 or cheaper range, my old television breaks, and HDTV is offered at the exact same price as standard tv, then I'll watch a WWE show in HiDef.
DrVenkman PhD Posted December 31, 2007 Report Posted December 31, 2007 --For what it's worth, the most number of TV wins this year in WWE was C.M. Punk with 48 followed by Jeff Hardy with 44. Bobby Lashley and HHH would have been top ten except they were both injured much of the year. Most tag wins were The Highlanders with 16, to Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch with 15, showing how useless these stats are (thanks to Emerson Witner) Emerson Witner = UTS? Ouch. Useless or not, way to bash a guy for sending you information. If you find it a waste of time, thank the emailer politely and just don't use it. I think Meltz came off harsher than he intended. I'm finding it hard to explain but I would think he was more saying how useless the results of the results stats are when the tag team with the most televised wins is a jobber act, if that makes any sense. On that note, these results must have used Heat because I can't even think of 16 times the Highlanders were on TV, let alone winning.
Recommended Posts