Pinc

Not sure if this is common knowledge, but according to this Cracked slideshow Mideon now works as a chef in an ostensibly swanky Florida restaurant.

Plenty of wildlife photographers shit themselves when they come face to face with a big fucking bear or a Komodo dragon for the first time. Specifically looking or not, that adrenalin is going to flow.

Yep, that's why we don't have any clear photos of either of those animals.

You'll note that he said plenty, and not all.

I was meaning to imply, through sarcasm, that photographer fear/ineptitude isn't sufficient to account for the lack of clear images of famous cryptids like Big Foot or Nessie as there are innumerable well known species which would have been similarly frightening on first encounter but nonetheless been photographed without problem. Like fucking bears and Komodo dragons.

Plenty of wildlife photographers shit themselves when they come face to face with a big fucking bear or a Komodo dragon for the first time. Specifically looking or not, that adrenalin is going to flow.

Yep, that's why we don't have any clear photos of either of those animals.

The whole thing seems counter productive, why can't they just talk about beating the shit out of eachother like Rock and Stone Cold always used to?

 

That was sarcasm right? You know, what with the whole Debra thing, them singing to each other, etc. The build up to Rock vs. Austin at WM 17, bar the Limp Bizkit video, wasn't what you'd call great. They changed it a bit in the go home show but it certainly wasn't all "I wanna beat the shit out of you."

The segment with the singing was on the go-home show for Survivor Series later that year, with Austin and Rock as the respective captains of the Alliance and the WWF.

My relatively small friends list is almost completely free of most of the daftness documented in this thread. There is however a small contingent who share links to sites like WorldTruth.tv and The Alternative World News Network, etc. They invariably have a pre-occupation with nutrition, and seem very fond of the trope about docile masses eating microwaved food and watching reality TV. Almost every post will allude to this trope in some way.

Thank fuck for that North Korean dude.

He got the desired reaction at SummerSlam and they beat him. Its not his fault they put him against Chris Jericho in the midcard of Badd Blood. The idea that Jericho not only worked with him, but outsmarted him for weeks and then got the heat on him is astonishing even now. They booked him absolutely shite. You have to protect your assets and they never did that with Goldberg. If he'd have been booked like he was for the 10 minutes he was in the ring at SummerSlam, he'd have done huge business for them. All of what you mentioned could have easily been avoided if they have protected him. He was booed because nobody wanted this shite version of Goldberg. The bloke who runs around after getting outsmarted by the Rock who rips the piss out of him on the mic for ages and makes us love him because he's quite funny. Who would have cheered Goldberg over the Rock at Backlash? He came into it looking like a right mug. People generally like people who smash through their opponents, no sell offense and looks a monster. Nobody likes big apes who end up on the floor because they are thickos.

Aye, I agree with all of that. They could've done a better job of booking to his strengths, and if they had done he'd have likely got strong reactions right from the off. I didn't mean for it to sound as though Bill was solely to blame for the mixed reactions or anything.

My contention was that by SummerSlam a lot of damage had already been done, and the strong response he got on the night was far from predictable. Judging by the previous few months, if they'd have given him the belt in the chamber there was a real possibility of SummerSlam going off the air with an impotent face champion nobody liked standing tall over everyone else who was worth anything to them at that point. Faint heart never won fair lady of course, but the decision to have Goldberg go down fighting on the night was perfectly defensible.

Did anyone actually watch the finish of SummerSlam? Goldberg was made to look like a complete goon. Missing a spear into a sledgehammer shot and getting pinned? What's that all about? There was no business in a Triple H vs Goldberg match at Unforgiven. Goldberg should have beat him, like he beat everyone else in that SummerSlam match and maybe you could have had a top babyface with momentum going against a heel who wanted his belt back.

The Goldberg push hadn't gone well to that point though, and it would've taken a brave man to suggest he squash every other active main eventer they had in one night and leave SummerSlam with the belt. He'd been booed by large sections of the crowd in his first big match against The Rock, and didn't even appear on the following Pay-Per-View before dicking around with Christian and Jericho for 6 weeks or so.

The stars aligned for him on the night and he looked great in the chamber, and had he won that night he would've been made for at least a few months, but that outcome looked far from certain going into the show. Going down to a sledge hammer job after running through everybody else was pretty smart booking, and should've worked on paper, but a combination of Goldberg's limitations and Triple H's bad form made the one-on-one match the following month manifestly unappealing.

If Goldberg had been getting the desired reactions between his debut and SummerSlam I have no doubt he would've taken the belt in the chamber, but the fans had been actively irreverent towards him on several occasions. Testing the water by having him run Haitch close was the safe option, and probably the right one even in hindsight.

Personally, I thought the face/heel dynamic was off for that whole feud. I mean it started because Foley aired a legitimate gripe with Flair in his first book (and put it across in a fairly respectful fashion) but Flair just came off like a cunt when he responded in his own book. The whole "glorified stuntman" thing was just obnoxious as fuck. Why not respond to his criticism rather than just shit over his whole career?

My favourite thing about that feud was Flair's habit of blowing that line and calling Foley a "human stuntman" instead. As opposed to a canine one, or something.

I really, really enjoy Dean Ambrose's character. But, I can't help but think that he's gone too far with the quirky edges of his character. Not for me, personally, but I can imagine the old farts sitting around deciding who to anoint next and thinking 'yeah, that Ambrose is good but a bit too wacky for the big time...'.

 

Also, Wiki says he's 27. I know the internet, in particular Wikipedia, is known for getting ages/birthdays wrong but jesus, that seems MILES out. He looks way, way....WAY older than that.

I could do without the particularly wacky selling as well, though I know some people really dig it.

I wouldn't have had him pegged at much older than 30. He looks alright for his age, but he will have to make a decision on his hairline sooner rather than later. That big sweaty lock that was stuck to his fod during the 'John Cena problem' promo nearly put me off my dinner.

He's got pretty much everything though. There's no reason he can't be a big main event star in the realtively near future, and I'd say he has more cross over potential than anyone they've had for a long time. In fact I struggle to think of anyone I'd expect to be more comfortable on a talk show since The Rock, which is obviously praise indeed. Punk is probably the best guy they have for that now. Whenever I see the Miz on Sky Sports News or whatever I get the impression he has to have a little panicky cry to himself once he's off camera.

Cena and Bryan as brother-in-law best mates needs to be a storyline ASAP.

Let's face it, if it was almost anyone else then you or anyone else wouldn't have cared how long it took he or she to reply or whether they chose to spend their time in other threads.

I tend to agree with Devon that if anyone else had posted such a trivial question it would have went un-noticed, and certainly wouldn't have warranted any discussion in the paid section.

I haven't a clue who David is or about any reputation for posting shite that he apparently has, and I don't have access to the paid forum.

I also don't care which threads he spends his time in, but to say that you're too busy with 'real life' to respond to a simple question before spending the afternoon posting elsewhere on the same message board is an obvious stalling tactic. All the more obvious when your eventual reply is a couple of sentences saying "it was just a simple question really".

Yeah, it was just a simple question really. I asked if Chest bought into the whole idea of the "war on terror". I suspected that he doesn't, and that he knows it's not quite as black & white as us being the good guys and anyone who takes issue with our foreign policy being the bad guys.

But that's a trite, asinine point that had nothing to do with what Chest had posted.

Since breakfast you've had sufficient time to post a catty rejoinder to SpursRiot and change your avatar. How much time do you need to articulate the meaning of 12 words spread across 2 sentences?

 

Edit: On further inspection you've also posted 8 times in 5 other threads.

 

I'm sure it was Duane, but it could also have been aaron or any of the other interchangeable complete idiots that we had at one point in this thread, but "I'll reply when I have time" is basically their code for "I have no comeback to that, I'll wait for the topic to change".

 

I'm sure it got so bad with Duane that mods were forcing him to reply under threat of bans and suspensions.

 

Not replying on a topic for a few hours or a day or two is hardly a fair comparison to Duane's regular fortnight disappearances, is it? Plus I've not seen David post all that much in off-topic recently but even when he did it's not as if I remember him having form for this.

He did reply though; to say that he was too busy with real life to reply. He then found the time to reply again, after posting 8 times elsewhere, to say that "it was just a simple question really".

I think its quite clear he'd realised his question to Chest was incoherent and had begun indulging in some Duane-esque stalling.

Since breakfast you've had sufficient time to post a catty rejoinder to SpursRiot and change your avatar. How much time do you need to articulate the meaning of 12 words spread across 2 sentences?

Edit: On further inspection you've also posted 8 times in 5 other threads.

When they're written grammatically incorrectly but still contain no question. Anyway, why does there "have to be more" to it?

I think you'll find that there is a question in there. As I said, I haven't done much reading up on it, but from what I've seen - two brothers, no real history of behaviour usually linked to this shit, older brother posts online about representing the US in sports rather than Russia, younger brother seems as normal as they come - there surely has to be something more than them both simply coming to the conclusion that blowing up people at a marathon is a good idea one day?

 

I asked the question in this thread because anything other than the official line is considered a conspiracy theory these days, and I'm simply curious if anyone who has followed the situation closer than me has any theories or ideas why this happened?

 

Apologies if me asking if anyone has heard any so-called conspiracy/alternative theories about a major event in the conspiracy thread is out of line...

No account of the bombing that I've seen, official or otherwise, contends that the Tsarnev brothers "simply [came] to the conclusion that blowing up people at a marathon is a good idea one day". For one thing the elder brother appears to have been known to the CIA for at least 18 months.

You seem to have assumed that the official account is static and reductive, when it is actually complex and evolving in light of emergent new details. You're correct that there must be more to it than two otherwise normal people spontaneously committing murder without forethought, but that is neither a novel contention nor in contradiction to the prevailing story.

No, you're doing more than that. You're making statements like:

there has to be more to it than two guys deciding to blow the shit out of people?

without offering any evidence or reasoning as to why that must be the case, and littering your posts with weasel phrases and judiciously placed question marks. If you have time to ask for theories here you have time to google 'Boston Bomb Conspiracy' or go to r/Conspiracy. If you do either of those things feel free to report back with anything interesting.

I'm assuming David is referring to the comments about suspect #2 being a normal guy. There have been a lot of people saying that he seemed totally normal, friendly, a regular kind of kid, and that they are all very shocked by what he allegedly did.

Pretty much. I'm not suggesting that they aren't responsible or that there's a mega-secret conspiracy that framed them, but there has to be more to it than two guys deciding to blow the shit out of people?

Fuck off with the sales speak David. If you have evidence that contravenes the prevailing account of the bombing then present it.

Yep. That's them.

Shut up. You're not funny.

 

I've not had the time to really follow it myself, but I've seen a few interviews with what look like normal US citizens, just bystanders in the street, who seem to think that something isn't quite right with it all.

What did these normal US citizens say? Its difficult to comment either way without knowing what apparently isn't quite right with all.

I'm assuming David is referring to the comments about suspect #2 being a normal guy. There have been a lot of people saying that he seemed totally normal, friendly, a regular kind of kid, and that they are all very shocked by what he allegedly did.

Innumerable murderers have been described the same way in hindsight.

What aspects don't add up? Apart from this naked guy stuff, what are people picking on as holes in the story?

 

In the immediate going on and aftermath it seemed like a fairly coherent timeline of events given the confusion, but I admit I haven't really reviewed it since, nor have I read what questions are being asked.

I've not had the time to really follow it myself, but I've seen a few interviews with what look like normal US citizens, just bystanders in the street, who seem to think that something isn't quite right with it all.

What did these normal US citizens say? Its difficult to comment either way without knowing what apparently isn't quite right with all.

Wasn't Mike Tyson showing up to weigh-ins, press conferences, fights surrounded by an entourage of security guards around that time? I always presumed they nicked the idea from there.

Bulbo Spongiosus.

I don't mind the pregancy/new born stuff. If you don't want to receive online updates on important events from the lives of the people you know, why are you on Facebook? That's what its for, no?

i'd rather they do this one:

 

- Oh and it isn't an actual harlem shake in this video

Painful shit.

Mongs say Michaels, Men say Lawler, or Funk, or Hansen.

I'm just repeating this for truth.

My brother emigrated to Japan a year ago and I only get the chance to speak with him intermittently. Nevertheless I spent about 20 minutes on the Facebook chat to him the other day arguing that a) Terry Funk is probably the greatest wrestler ever and b) Terry & Dory Jr are the wrestling equivalents of Bobby and Jacky Charlton, citing the dodgy combovers from a young age (Bobby/Dory) and early 90s reinventions (Terry & ECW, Jacky & Ireland) as particularly striking parallels.

 

A video cover of ECW Barely Legal signed by RVD.....& Booker T?!

 

The story behind this was that I was bought a VIP package for Insurrextion about 12 years ago as a birthday present and RVD & Booker were doing the autograph signing. RVD signs the cover no problem. I go over to Booker, he signs my WCW Mag, spots the video sleeve and then just signs it without even looking at what it was he was signing! At least I can say it's one of a kind I guess!

I got Dwight Yorke and Will Mellor to sign my copy of Kind of Blue by Miles Davis under similar circumstances at the Trafford Centre in 2002/03. The only one in the world of its type, I expect.

I was going through some photos on an old phone today and found this:

Scribbled on the side of a derelict house in New Cross, South East London, c. 2011.