PJ Power

Smiths Salt & Vinegar I've became a bit partial to in the last few months, has a strong flavour without being overpowering. Usually plenty of 7 packs for a quid in most poundshops and bargain basement stores. Golden Wonder S&V ain't too bad either. I wish Walkers kept on the "deep ridged" crisps they had a few years ago, their Max range isn't the same IMO.

Not really a Cheese & Onion eater, but I like Tayto's Spring Onion, a flavour hardly anyone else does any more. That's the NI Tatyo though, the southern Tayto's are a different beast and their Salt & Vinegar pisses over their northern counterparts.

As far as I know, no TV channel in Britain has an old-school teletext service any more. I think Racing UK (now Racing TV) was the last one to close theirs. I think RTE still have their Aertel teletext on Sky, but I can't check it right now. A fair few countries in Europe still run teletext services, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Spain and Sweden spring to mind. I don't think there's any left outside Europe.

It crossed my mind yesterday watching a triple-threat match, and I guess would also include matches with more participants like a four way, five way etc. Since such bouts are normally set up that they end up finishing with one fall from a pin or submission, what would be the technical decision where a participant says "I quit" or taps out if there is no other wrestler applying a hold or even be in physical contact on the participant who submits?

I know that such a scenario sounds barely plausible, but I could envision a case where a participant like a cowardly heel manager or other normally non-wrestling talent would do something like this in a scenario where the other wrestlers in the bout trap or corner them into a position where they're going to get seven shades kicked out of them, and declares they quit before anyone lays a hand on them. Now in a standard one-on-one bout, the submission declaration would see their opponent declared the winner, but who'd win a multi participant match is not as clear.

So I guess, has this situation happened before anywhere and if so how was it addressed? It seems to be a logistical loophole the same way that multi participant tag team bouts ended up with the "Outlaw rule". It sounds like something to me that Vince Russo could have booked at some point.

18 hours ago, Brewster McCloud said:

It's not debatable to say the least: countries who have adopted capitalism are more wealthy than those that haven't. I'll link you to graphs if you really want...

The problem with that statement is that almost every country in the world (excepted include North Korea, officially, and Cuba until recently) operates a mixed market economy that embraces capitalist economic theory to a greater or lesser extent alongside socialist, mutual & commons ownership and models, often blurred into one another. So suggesting that countries that have adopted capitalism are wealither than those that haven't is an effective non sequitur because such present day empirical evidence will be scant.

From my point of view, the implementation of some capitalist economic principles has definitely had notable benefits, but this has run alongside other economic and social reforms. It is impossible to ignore that many large scale social programmes in Western countries, be it universal or targeted, has also been instrumental in lifting millions out of poverty. Also this doesn't take into account what personal and communal freedoms that may exist in an economic environment - for example in the Victoria era if you were a wealthy businessman then you had quite a lot of social as well as economic freedom. But the wealthy businessman's wife? Socially and politically at least she had a lot less freedom even if she would never to be found wanting for anything material.

BTW considering the purpose of this thread, you can stand on having nominally right of centre economical and social views within the modern traditions of a local, regional or national area and yet bemoan at the way how the traditional right-wing and centre-right parties and groupings have drifted to the fringes of extremities to fundamentally change it's character to something that you no longer recognise, belong to or even respect. And on that basis, the Tories in 2019 are the best example of this. So yeah, fuck them. Disraeli, MacMillian & Heath would likely be spinning in their graves to see what the Conservative party has become.

A fair cop RR. Though I doubt Sean Morley at his peak time in the WWE would have been able to easily shrug off the porn actor gimmick.

1 minute ago, Pinc said:

Yes he was always careful never to do anything that might antagonise them on screen.

While he did do that, there's a difference between ripping the piss out of them and giving them fodder to make them look like a lot less of a bunch of religious kooks.

Val Venis, even during the highest excess of the Attitude Era, would never have been even given a realistic sniff of challenging for the World Championship belt simply because of his gimmick. Having a wrestler whom had a second job as a porn actor, either holding the belt or challenging for it at one of the "big five" PPVs would never happen there. It might have been possible if Val Venis been in the original ECW, Russo would probably have gone for it in WCW if "Standards and Practices" wouldn't have veto'd it straight away, and even when being on the booking committee in the WWF I doubt he'd have openly suggested it despite some of the suggestions he was reported to come out with. The last thing Vince McMahon would have wanted, having turned a corner after poor business in the New Generation era, would have been to push its ECW-lite-with-big-lights image too far, risking sponsorships and even further wrath from the likes of the PTC, politicians etc. They would have gained nothing from it. So because of this, Venis would never have been higher up than being a solid mid-carder.

On 6/12/2019 at 12:57 PM, TildeGuy~! said:

One of the main events for the WWE Japan tour is Karl Anderson, Luke Gallows, AJ Styles and Triple H Vs Samoa Joe, Drew McIntyre, Bobby Lashley and Baron Corbin.

Why Triple H is part of the Bullet Club team and Finn Balor isn’t just amazes me.

Edit: Double Post. Sorry.

What's the story behind some of those whom attend CZW events using airhorns, usually when a finishing manoeuvre is executed or a high-risk or dangerous spot happens? It's not new, I remember hearing them back in the early 2000's and it's something I haven't seen used elsewhere in another American promotion (I haven't seen any GCW yet), so was it something original or did it come from elsewhere?

On 5/19/2019 at 12:40 AM, Nostalgia Nonce said:

This one always gets my vote for stupidest spot. Anything that high impact, where the first thing to hit the mat is your opponents face was never going to end well.

The video cuts out just before the ref hesitates to count the 3, because this wasn't even intended as the finish.

For me that spot is not so much stupid, but reckless & dangerous. As you say, Mike Syndall is completely unprotected having his head being driven into the mat with the momentum of Spyral's whole body weight behind it. The fact that Syndall was 'trapped' into taking the move makes it worse as no wrestler with an IQ above 70 is going to be willing to be at the receiving end of that move, and that the "only" injuries he suffered from were a broken thumb, getting knocked out and a concussion was a little fortunate - that move could have legit broken Syndall's neck or cause head injuries akin to a car crash and killed him. As for Spyral himself it's lucky for him that he was able to get all the momentum in that move to effectively carry the weight of two people as had he not been able to, he'd have been in trouble himself. Anyway, the bitch called Karma (no relation to Awsome Kong) eventually met him.

Also for the mention of the Irish Whip, the only time I've seen the move as having legitimacy as a believable manoeuvre in the ring was when Bret Hart would take it, being flung front first into the turnbuckles, no landing it turning around before hitting the corner. The way Hart took it would make it look that it would knock the wind out of you. It's also a bit more believable in areas surrounding the ring where competitors are often whipped front-first into the steel steps, occasionally the barricade (and often going over them with the momentum), a third person holding an inanimate object like a belt or the ring bell etc. Otherwise, yeah that gif of Santino mocking the Irish Whip into the ropes does say a bit.

On 5/14/2019 at 1:10 PM, JNLister said:

This is more general politics but is clearly a consequence of the Brexit events: Labour's decline means Sadiq Khan is no longer polling above 50 percent for next year's mayoral election. If that held, it would mean a second round run-off. In normal times, that's simple enough -- the Labour guy beats the Tory guy unless its Boris.

Problem is the Tories have collapsed so much in London that it's not guaranteed it would be Labour-Conservative in the second round, and instead it could be Khan against a Lib Dem or Green. That then becomes a crapshoot because your second preference only counts in London mayor if it's for one of the two people in the run-off, and you don't know that in advance. So it's quite conceivable you could get Leavers doing some combination of two from UKIP/Brexit/Conservative that means their second vote isn't counted, but hardcore Remainers doing some combo of Lib Dem/Green/ChUK and those second preferences causing one of them to win.

The system that's used for a run-off vote to elect the Mayor of London is a horrible hodge podge when voters casting their ballot can have no certainty that whoever they cast a second vote for, and effectively semi-disenfranches them. There's at least two ways to address that.

One is what is done in some other countries where they hold a primary ballot with all candidates available to vote for. Once all votes have been counted, if one candidate gets 50% +1 of all the valid votes they are deemed elected. Otherwise all but the two candidates with the biggest personal vote are eliminated and a secondary ballot is then held between these two to determine a winner, usually 2-4 weeks after the primary ballot. If a secondary ballot is needed, then the votes won in the primary ballot by the two candidates do not count or carry over. This is done, as an example, to elect the President of France.

The next is to undertake preference voting, which allows for a single polling day to happen. Namely you list the candidate(s) that you wish to see elected in order of your own preference e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. This can either be required of voters to rank all candidates from first to last (as last weekend's Australian federal election does for each constituency to their House of Commons) or allow voters to give preferences to as many candidates they want, even if its just "1" and that's it. If this looks familiar, it's almost the same as the "Alternative Vote" that was put to a referendum in the UK in 2011 and failed to pass. It's not too difficult to follow - if after the first round of vote tallying no candidate has reached 50% +1 of all valid votes cast then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed based on their next preference. If after redistribution no candidate has reached 50% +1 then the candidate now with the least amount of votes is eliminated with their preferences going to the highest ranked candidate that has not been eliminated etc. to the point that if there are just two candidates left and after redistribution neither of them still hasn't achieved 50% +1 of the valid ballots (this can happen when some ballots become "exhausted" meaning that the voter made a limited number of preferences on their ballot paper that when all of the candidates they ranked were eliminated, they no longer indicate whom they want their vote to transfer to and so it now no longer counts except to determine the 50% +1 amount, often referred to as a "quota"), then whoever has the highest amount of votes wins at this point. This is done to elect the President of Ireland and effectively a "single seat" version of STV voting (Single Transferable Vote) done in Northern Ireland for all elections except UK General Elections, and also for council elections in Scotland.

Something just hit me about Ashley Massaro and that fake Stephanie McMahon twitter account from about four years ago. Given what she has spoken about during and beyond her time as an "independent contractor" at the WWE, why did she respond to the fake invite to Raw the way she did? In hindsight, the way she had responded in that incident is now a fair bit less amusing given what is now out in the open.

On 5/18/2019 at 7:05 AM, Wretch said:

Ashley's affidavit.

https://t.co/pf4cgyb5Rj?amp=1

Heartbreaking, grim reading.

Jesus, that is some uncomfortable reading.

TBF back in the day she was in the WWE, I would have been one of those who would have ragged on her calling her "Thrashley" and having no talent other than being an advert for anorexia. But reading that affidavit, no one needs to put up with that shit telling someone with no ring experience whatsoever to go into matches broadcast on live TV while also being told not to train on her off days. That doesn't even include the number of injuries she racked up, something down to her lack of experience which wasn't in this case really her fault, nor the horror of getting raped in a US army camp in the Middle East whilst under heavy sedation and the events concerning it afterwards. Her story of getting chewed up and being spat out by the Vince McMahon machine is far from the first and certainly won't be the last, but this one is quite disturbing given the story she gives on being raped in a helpless position and then being told by the boss that it was "one bad incident" that she should take for the WWE. That's just fucked up.

R.I.P. Ashley.

P.S. In the affidavit near the beginning she mentions picking up a back injury from a stiff backbreaker in a bout from an "experienced" female wrestler, I wonder who that was? Looking at the list of matches she was in for the first few months would the likely suspect be Victoria? Doesn't seem to be Trish Stratus given Ashley's comments on her later.

CZW Tournament of Death 18 is on next month. Surely not?

56 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

The Independent Group, that's really a company funded by a tory donor, are registering as a political party.  The name?  Change UK.

The CUK party.  It's the most fitting name possible.

Just wait until the next general election if they keep that name, as there's a good chance on election night of "CUK HOLD" flashing up on TV screens.

Aside from any underlying racism, anyone who says that a quarter of a million pounds is "chicken feed" is a pretty big cunt in my book.

There are a few reasons why Johnson (I refuse to simply call him "Boris" for the reason mentioned below) will thankfully never be Prime Minister.

1. It is not exactly a secret in the corridors of Westminster that Boris Johnson is loathed by many in the Conservative party with a number of Tory MPs vowing that if Johnson ever became party leader, let alone PM, they would resign their party membership. When you think that the Tories will nearly always settle differences for the sake of party unity and power, Johnson must be really polarising for the threat of such an exodus to be there.

2. Contrary to popular belief, opinion polls tend to show that  the public think he is quite the shitarse. This report from YouGov at the end of last year ranked potential candidates to succeed  Theresa May as Tory party leader, and shows that while Johnson had the best response from those who think he'd make a good PM, he also had the highest response of those thinking he'd make a bad PM giving him an overall personal rating of - 37! The only other contenders to achieve anywhere near such wrath are (not surprisingly) Gove and Hunt though far fewer think either of them would make a  good PM compared to Johnson. If he was to lead the Tories into a general election, Johnson would probably do a good job rallying a large proportion of troops in the party but he'd be toxic in trying to get floating voters to cast their ballots for Conservative candidates.

3. Outside of the UK, other than those who worship at the feet of Steve Bannon, Johnson is largely regarded as a joke. From foreign comedy & satire shows I've seen in the last couple of years, Johnson is the second biggest foreign punching bag after Donald Trump. If a lot of countries think that the UK is already a nuthouse, what would they think with Boris Johnson in charge?

4. The main reason Johnson is largely still in the public eye is thanks to his journalist background, where he has a lot of networking among fellow journalists and editors of the newspapers that are right of centre, not to mention Darth Vader Rupert Murdoch himself. Johnson along with Gove is probably the biggest conduit for Murdoch to try and influence the government. They have helped him build up the "Boris" brand by usually calling  him in headlines and articles simply by his slightly eccentric first name that most people have unwittingly taken up when speaking about him, even those who hate his guts. This astroturfing by his friends in the national press (same applies to Gove in a slightly lesser extent) means that he keeps a higher public profile than one he deserves.

11 hours ago, hallicks said:

TIG is like New Labour, but with less social conscience. Pro-austerity, pro war, etc. Just the usual neoliberal shenanigans - what else could an amalgamation of the labour right and a few ever so slightly less horrible tories be? An actual seismic change would be a genuine alternative like the Greens getting in, who are politically left of Corbyn (who's had to reel in a load of his more "wack" stuff in the name of pragmatism, something he never gets credit for). They're unashamedly socialist, anti nuke, universal basic income etc. 

The TIG don't pretend to be much more than a bunch of neo-Blarites, but the fact is that the MPs that make it up came about because they felt that their home political party was no longer something they could stand with. People will have different views  on them but a seismic change in British politics isn't really about a political party that's well away from the political centre suddenly gaining a governing majority, more than in my view the two party system is broke and that both Labour and the Tories are badly fractured. The only thing keeping the Tories right now from imploding is their collective thirst for power. I'd rather see at least the House of Commons end up becoming more like it is elsewhere in much of Europe where it is unusual for a single party to get an absolute majority to form a government and where the debating chamber can actually accommodate all elected members without the yah-boo childishness. The difference I see in the Daíl Eireann in Dublin and the green benches of the Commons in Westminster is night and day. It may have usually less drama and not have an atmosphere resembling a pantomime compared to Westminster but the Irish parliament is a more effective body in showing representative democracy in action.

P.S. I wouldn't mind seeing the Greens be able to get a more visible presence with more MPs than just Ms. Lucas, but until FPTP is put to the sword and some effective form of PR is used for electing members then bar a godlike turn of events its gonna prove difficult for small parties like the Greens to get breakthroughs beyond the odd popular local MP being elected on a significant personal vote

P. P. S. Keith Houchen - Rees Mogg is someone whom is happy to stay at the level he is as an MP more for its privilege than its actual job, but he is still far more qualified to become British Prime Minister than Donald Trump was to become POTUS.

1 hour ago, David said:

Yeah, you get the feeling that he prefers to operate behind the scenes where he can control how much he's under the spotlight. The job after May is most likely going to be a bit of a poisoned chalice.

It already was a poisoned chalice by the time May became PM by default. And the consensus at the time was that she was the "least worst" of the potential candidates!

Whatever the outcome regarding Brexit, the best thing that could  happen to British politics would be for an earthquake to hit both the Conservatives and Labour to effectively dissolve them with new parties to rise from the ruins. The Independent Group is a potential first step, but history will in future determine wherever it was the start of the inevitable, or a damp squib that didn't take long to fizzle out.

47 minutes ago, bigfoote said:

If Labour had any credibility before tonight, it's all gone now. For Corbyn to order his lot to abstain from the vote on a second referendum, only to then proclaim at the dispatch box that policy is still to seek one...is just hypocrisy of the highest order.

Tories can't be trusted, Labour have no spine. Would not surprise me if the EU just turn around and go "Fuck it, you had your chance, now fuck off and deal with life outside"

Jean Claude Juncker at his next press conference...

2 hours ago, Chest Rockwell said:

Is there any good reason why they couldn't have approached Brexit as a cross party initiative? The referendum campaigns weren't divided along party lines anyway so it would have made more sense.

I can think of two reasons. One is that the referendum was called by Cameron when his bluff was called by the headbangers in his own party as the 2015 Tory GE manifesto promised one in an effort to stop UKIP taking votes off them. Cameron was gambling on having to go into coalition again probably with the Lib Dems and could have claimed to sacrifice the referendum pledge as a deal to form another such government. Because he won with a small majority the Euroscepitcs would have caused hell had he held off from calling a referendum sooner or later, so he called one, confident he'd win and be able to tell his anti-EU MPs to STFU for the foreseeable future. Ergo, the referendum was called by Cameron more as a response to try and tame dissent in the Conservative party more than actually to debate the wider issue of the UK and its place in the European Union. The result obviously backfired for Cameron and the rest doesn't need explaining.

Secondly, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been burned by their associations with the Tories over the last few years, Labour got almost wiped out in Scotland in 2015 after the fallout of the independence referendum, while the Lib Dems suffered the same to a lesser extent but was far more hurt by being a minor coalition partner. Neither party could be blamed for wanting to work with the Tories on Brexit based on recent experience.

Cohen has published what will be his opening statement at his public appearance today in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & Reform (pdf doc)

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001

I think by the time Cohen is finished in front of the committee later today, the excrement is going to be hitting the fast rotating blades in large quantities.

8 hours ago, PunkStep said:

When did BBC end their daily programming with the national anthem? I never knew that, must've been before my time. What was the point?? What a load of old bollocks.

Both the BBC (BBC One) and most of the ITV regions used to play GSTQ before shutting down for the night prior to broadcasting 24 hours. The last time BBC One would have played it was likely the night before the launch of BBC News 24, that would have been the evening/early morning of 8/9 November 1997 as News 24 was launched on the 9th and from that date it was carried on BBC One overnight rather than turning the transmitters off.

OTOH I don't think BBC Two ever played the national anthem at the end of their broadcast day, certainly not on a regular basis anyway.

There's a few videos floating about on YT of TV station closedowns in the past. HTV in Wales used to play Land of my father's before GSTQ. It's not just a UK thing, RTÉ One used to play The Soldiers Song when they finished for the day (though like BBC Two, RTÉ Two/Network Two didn't), in the USA most stations would play their anthem both at closedown and before commencing their broadcast day. Canadian and (most) Australian stations also played their anthems at closedown etc. so it's not an uncommon practice. I'm not sure if they still do it but I think BBC Radio 4 still play GSTQ just before closedown at about 1am after the last shipping forecast of the day, with the World Service being relayed until 5.30am.

Edit: This was the final "shutdown" on BBC One just after 3am on Sunday 9th November 1997, with GSTQ being played.

2 hours ago, jazzygeofferz said:

Are they gauging response ahead of a PPV match? 

"Could you put Nia over on your way out?" 

Death match?

I'll bet a lot of these dodgy wrestling stories mentioned so far had appeared first on the wrestling fan page of Sky Text.