Ronnie

Doing so to superhuman levels isn't. They're supposed to aim for those ideals, but it's understood that all will fall short because humans aren't perfect. It's not for nothing that the Catholic mass begins without a seemingly hypnotised rendition along the lines of "Since I last came to mass, I have sinned in my body and in my mind."

 

And I don't see what that has to do with baiting him based on his religion. He said a lot of things in the context of that thread that were less than desirable from where I sit (which were, I suppose, the equivalent of toeing the party line), but the fact that people will throw jibes his way purely on the basis of his Catholicism outside of that thread is something I find distasteful, particularly as he's the only person on the receiving end. (Again, I'd make an exception

for Dimebar Duane's scientology fetish on the basis that we all know the artificial origins of that 'faith', but I don't see that it's the same with the established religions, regardless of whether I happen to see them all as superstitious nonsense.)

Kenny mentioned early on in the religion thread that he (and other Catholics) have to cop it a lot because of their affiliation.

 

I originally felt that it was a self-indulgent thing for him to write and unreflective of reality (Act of Settlement excepted), but the more things I see thrown his way purely on the basis of religion ("Captain Catholicism" and so on), the more I find myself seeing what he means. I don't imagine people would be quite so quick to taunt him like this if he belonged to some other group, save scientologists. I can't picture him being addressed as "Master Muzzy" or seeing as many comments about terrorism aimed at him as he gets about child-rape.

 

It's pretty sad that so many people are comfortable throwing that mud around everywhere.

^^ Done.

 

I could've voted for several of them, but the fact that Fitch is a white-noiser added to his sig here and apparent strop in this thread and another in Paid Members means that I'm happy to give Dimebar Duane and steven1977uk2002 a break.

I came into this thread thinking Wrestlemania 17.

 

I don't necessarily know that the whole card would hold up against other ones, but I loved this one, sitting around with a bunch of friends.

 

I loved the main event (which had been promoted superbly once they removed Debra from the mix), and Austin's heel turn was a great, unexpected spectacle on which to end. Vince vs Shane was a fun brawl, which had a fun, lengthy backstory and the inclusion of a returning Foley who hadn't outlived his welcome at this point.

 

Possibly 19 was a better show overall, but I enjoyed and rewatched 17 more at the time, so that's where my vote is going.

It's pretty much the thread you liked the most. "Most memorable" has just always been it's name.

That being the case, I've logged a vote for MS Paint. Nearly everything in there was magic.

How are we supposed to vote on this, Rick? Are we supposed to ignore our favourite ones if there is a more memorable one which we liked less?

 

In my case I think that the best was easily Paint A Wrestler In MS-Paint, in which nearly every post was great. However, it's not as memorable as ones which were more prominent for longer periods of time, such as the religion one, even though a tonne of the content there is throw-away.

Loki's switch into a medieval gimmick was a work of comedic art.

 

What would be a great gimmick on a forum, Woyzeck - a confused 16th century court jester who has somehow got access to the internet.

 

Verilee young master Mab hast so smale a brane that methinks his hede is empty like the King of France's codpiece! Thou dankish earth-vexing haggard! Begone before thou receivest a banning from the knavish Neil.

 

That was great!

Most of the above.

 

I'll give it to Lister, since most of his posts (where he's not attempting to be funny) are good, so I'm conditioned to click on them when I see he's made the last post in the thread. I'm doomed to occasional disappointment, whereas I know not to have positive expectations anyway with most of the other candidates.

 

And just to be contrary, I don't find Just Me to be unfunny at all, really.

^^ Actually, I wonder how he'd handle it if he lost his pre-ordained top slot on the basis of a gimmick push. Would he blog about how unfair it is that some spoilsports pushed the undeserving Sup-RATM-o to first place and deprived a young boy of his rightful place at number one?

We can only vote for one? Boo-urns

 

I want to say children of bodom. He started this thread in which he castigated Wikipedia, since the Shawn Michaels article made a claim that Shawn, son of a military guy one-time based in the UK, once lived in the vicinity of Reading. Ignoring the fact that Wiki provided a source (reference details in Shawn's book) COB denounced it, since the little-known fifth law of thermodynamics states that Shawn can't have, since COB lives there.

 

A couple of days later he asked for a proof-reader for a "novel" he'd written. This was doubly funny considering that not only did the literary aspirations come from a man whose output to date includes the grammatical disaster (and candidate post in itself for this award) that was

 

if this is true i m with the BNP. its getting stupid the amount of foregins who come into england, get free health care,free student loans, and take all are jobs. its about time we stopped being so british and saying "welcome to britain" and tell them to fuck off back to their own country.

 

but also that it was nine pages in length.

 

I'm a little bit stuck on what dolt could be construed to mean, though. I mean, COB seems more erm ... resigned or disenfranchised than simply being unable to breathe on his own without someone to remind him.

 

So, in my opinion the best person to qualify for the award (though not an unlikeable poster) would be steven1977uk2002. His list of crimes against intelligence include numerous instances where he's arrived on the scene after several posts have been made, clearly only read the first post, and then posts something which will already have been addressed and which comes across as doltish, usually in some sort of matter-of-fact way.

 

I refer, for example, to his contribution in this thread about Shane McMahon leaving WWE. Arriving on the scene after 67 replies to the original posts (some of which queried whether it might be genuine) he asked whether it was "a [sic] angle". He then affirmed that the news was not true since "Im sorry but WWE is a Mcmahon family business and I just dont see any of them quitting." He typed that a mere couple of weeks since it was publicised that Linda McMahon was doing exactly that.

 

Alongside this specimen there are the endless ones in classified where he clearly shows he has no idea about the value of money, especially this great thread where he's trying to sell a few DVD cake tins for

One of the girls in work has a tendency to be completely oblivious to world events outside the realm of make up, fashion and Katie Price. Me and another lad in the office were just talking general news and the Queens speech and Brown was mentioned when she chirped in with...

 

"isn't he the chef?"

"no that's Gordon Ramsay"

"oh, who's Gordon Brown then?"

"Prime Minister"

"What's a Prime Minster?"

 

I assure you the last quote is not a typo. I simply left it to my more patient colleague to answer that and following questions.

It's not Waterboy's girl moonlighting, is it? Please? Or do we have to resign ourselves to the fact that there could be a plague of the braindead out there?

 

Read the last few pages.

 

Read the BNP's Wikipedia page.

 

Maybe consider reading the thread Would You Support The BNP?

(I'm guessing Iran was a typo in the report)

It was; this was indicated in the report:

"Sir Richard and Sir Ken (sic) fall squarely into this bracket, and they must not think that they will escape culpability for pursuing the illegal wars in Iran (sic) and Afghanistan."

So I had a few days off. During that time, I thought maybe it was time to give the idiot a fair chance and be more tolerant of her.

 

45 minutes into my first day back, however...

 

Maths for the insane:

 

In typically arrogant fashion, WWE debuted the Bashams in complete contrast to their gimmick which was running concurrently in OVW. (They were a tag-team of brothers in WWE whilst engaged in a feud at the same time in OVW.)

 

I've read a few times in the past that Jim Cornette came up with some genius explanation which he presented in OVW which explained whilst these two combatants could hate each other in the local territory whilst also working together as a team on the national stage.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know what this explanation was.

 

Can anybody enlighten me, please?

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

Apart from Bret.

Ha! Beautiful. Just beautiful.

As this was only weeks before the WCW purchase, I would have thought Vince would have seen dropping Michaels as an obvious cost-cutting measure.

 

I suppose a response depends on your line of thinking. There's the case that people have suggested that Michaels had some weird psychosexual hold over McMahon.

 

I'd look at it rather that Vince didn't have to cut costs, and so was loyal to a man who "broke his back" for the company and, like Undertaker, was a mid-90s main-eventer that didn't flee to WCW, when there was plenty of opportunity to head there.

 

This is the first i've heard of this. What was the whole story?

 

Near enough what Dopper said.

 

Michaels was scheduled to appear on TV during the night of the RAW/Nitro simulcast. Hunter, Taker and others were in Vince's office to watch the show on the screen when Shawn stumbled in, totally pilled up, drooling everywhere. Taker looked at Hunter and said "Can you believe this?" Hunter tried to get Shawn out of there but Vince saw him and told Hunter to find him and tell him he was done. Shawn cut a promo on Hunter for not sticking up for him and didn't speak to him until a year later, when he had become religious and discussed things with Nash, who directed him to talk to Hunter and apologise.

This supposedly happened during the time that Michaels was out for around four years, and I remember people saying it was one of the reasons why he had no need, financially, to bother trying to come back.

I hadn't heard the story of the will, though that seems to have been corroborated by daztraction.

 

During the four-year lay-off he was still receiving a fair bit of cash. (As best I recall, his downside at the time of his injury was reported to be $650k, which translates as $12.5k a week whilst he was injured.)

 

I remember reading somewhere seemingly reputable that when the cost-cutting measures post purchase of WCW came in, whoever was told to look at where to reduce downsides was told by McMahon that he was not to touch Shawn's, which came across as strange to him since he was cutting the lesser salaries of active members of the roster yet was forbidden to cut the bigger salary of someone inactive.

 

This being the case, he was perfectly financially stable during the lay-off and didn't need to come back. He genuinely doesn't need to work, but has delayed time off/retirement over the last couple of years at McMahon's request when other people are injured.

I think they played it out as Shawn had beat Bulldog for the IC Title and Bulldog had only beat Bret for the Title 3 months earlier. Shawn challenged Bret to the match stating if Bulldog could beat him then so could Shawn as he had beaten Bulldog for the IC Title.

 

Or something like that.

Yep, that was exactly what Shawn said leading into the match.

 

Bulldog beat Bret for the title, Shawn beat Bulldog for it after, ergo Shawn would beat Bret.

anal

 

MAT.

 

Now Mab's next use of the search function will be a success.

Except for the fact that the search function doesn't accept words less than four letters long.

Thorpe. Fixed for him

Dylan with just the one L is still a lovely name

That's kinda subjective. When I was growing up, it was an insult, so I wouldn't be naming my sprogs that. As was "ben", come to think of it. And "trevor", a little later on."He's a right dillon.""No, the other one, you ben.""No, don't pick that trevor, or we'll lose."

Haven't you got a demonstration to be at somewhere?

Nah. How's the comedy circuit coping without your blinding wit anyway?

I think it should be applauded if anythingI'm sick of all this PC bollocks

Ha! Let's get the old racist chants going too. Wouldn't want to perpetuate this "PC bollocks" thing that so sickens you. Woooo! Time to encourage some hatred!We'll have to remember to start a chant of "Smells like ga-as *clap clap clapclapclap*" next time we see a Jewish wrestler too. After all, being pig ignorant is a way to combat political correctness, is it not? Go you!