JNLister

As usualy, we need a definition of 'Rookie'. For example, Gene Snitsky made his pro debut in 1997, Eugene started in 1998 and Carlito Colon debuted in 2000.Presumably the award is more 'WWE newcomer of the year'.

Your mum and your dad.

Does the UK wrestler of the year have to have wrestled at least one match in the UK this year?

He's had x-wrestling commitments.

Flair vs Windham (Worldwide 1987)Warrior vs Savage (WrestleMania 7)Misawa/Kawada/Kobashi vs Tsuruta/Taue/Fuchi (1991 handheld)Owen Hart vs Danny Collins (Bath, 1991)Guerrero/Love Machine vs Santo/Octagon (When Worlds Collide)Hokuto vs Kandori (Destiny, 1995)Choshu vs Hashimoto (G-1 Climax 1996)Scorpio vs Jericho vs Pitbull 2 vs Douglas (ECW Heatwave 96)Austin vs Rock (WrestleMania X-7)HHH vs Benoit vs Michaels (WrestleMania 20)No Bret Hart or Rick Steamboat, which sucks.

The sun is rising and I don't want to go to bed in case I wake up and it was all a dream...

I think the main question of the night is:Did you scream 'Tap out, bitch' or 'Tap out, motherfucker' at the end?

There appear to be some people who didn't enjoy this show. (Interestingly, the type of people who sit by a computer while watching WrestleMania.)People who didn't enjoy this show should stop watching WWE right now. Seriously. Don't waste your time.

FUCK! FUCKING F'N FUCK!

I'll tell you what else is funny. Someone said they thought Alex Shane was an idiot cause he worked us...... Hahahahahahahaha..... Its wrestling for fuck sake. It is by definition a work.

No, believe it or not, the professional wrestling product and real life are different things.

Oh, and from the 'no evidence whatsoever, total speculationa nd hypothesis' department, is it not possible that the term 'sole and exclusive' is being bandied around mainly for the benefit of potential or existing investors in FWA because it sounds more prestigious than 'have obtained a slot'?And finally, on the various arguments for and against FWA getting a truly exclusive slot, my half-coldhearted business, half-altruistic idealist view is that directly competitive action shouldn't even be on the radar until the entire industry is big enough that every competent wrestler with a decent amount of experience in this country can make a full-time living from professional wrestling.

FWA being on the Wrestling Channel is good for wrestling in Britain.No other promotions being on the Wrestling Channel for at least five years is bad for wrestling in Britain.How people can disagree with either of those statements to the point that a 17 page thread ensues is beyond me.

 

Are they releasing ROH branded trust-me trousers?

It's A scam by that evil Teddy Hart to frame the heroic promoter.

...Looking in the papers today I came across the same story...about this girl who got shot in the eye with a pellet gun at school by a boy 2 years older than him...Aberdeen area IIRC...anyway...each paper had their own writer to write about the story....yet you could argue they all copied each other since they were all pretty much the same frecking story.

They probably both wrote up the same Press Association report. In 90% of stories the newspapers cook the same cake with the same ingredients and the only difference is their choice of flavouring (to use a dodgy analogy).

No, the second article was both Mo and Fin together

Ah.You see, Mo probably wrote the new article, but gave Fin equal credit because his article took into account some of Fin's work from a previous article. That's OK then. Giving credit where credit is due~~~~~~~~~~~~Passing off other peoples work as your own````````````````````````

I'm fairly sure that Mo 'borrowing' from a previous article by Fin Martin is ethically OK considering Mo had to then submit his article for editorial approval by, erm, Fin Martin.There's always a degree of overlap when you do the 'they did this, then they did this, then they did this' type of article in PS anyway - there's a very high 'turnover' of audience for PS, which is why certain stuff (like the 'your questions answered' feature) repeats every so often.

Does Nigel Law exist or is he Phil Lowe?

Pogues and Kirsty MacColl - Fairy Tale of New YorkWhile you're in the states, don't forget to stand on Broadway for exactly one hour.

Don't forget the ultimate lameass wrestling tie-in of the weekend... go down to the subway and ride the A Train.

Less of a post and more of a saga - Blackburn's missing ring.

Regarding the 'most popular language', the disparity is probably between native (of 'first language' speakers), of which Spanish may well be higher the English, and 'fluent speakers' (including people who speak it as a second, third or other language), which is where English is more likely to be the most popular (partly because the US/UK/Australia/Canada position in international trade makes it beneficial to learn for non-native speakers, and partly because it's such a hybrid, grammatically illogical language that native English speakers are more likely to feel it's hard enough to cope with by itself and forgo learning a second language).

where do you think the line will be drawn on the immigration issue? if things DO continue the way they are and in 10 years time there are 10 times the amount of illegals in this country, will the things we are saying today still be the same?

If by 'illegals' you mean asylum seekers who don't have a legitimate case, then by definition the number cannot grow ten-fold in ten years. After a certain amount of time claiming asylum, either they will be judged genuinely in need of asylum (at which point they are reclassified as refugees and allowed to work, so they no longer get 'handouts' - and they aren't eligible for most benefits until they have worked/paid national insurance for a certain time) or their case will be rejected and they'll be deported. So in the long-term, the number of 'illegals' will remain relatively constant.If you mean that more people will enter illegally each year (and there isn't any statistical trend that leads to a ten-fold increase in 10 years), and we assume that every asylum seeker enters the country illegally (which they don't), you're suggesting there'll be 750,000 illegal entrants a year. I'd be interested to know how more than 2000 people are going to sneak into the country every day.Of course, there will be an added cost to supporting these people while they are awaiting the outcome of their claim for asylum. Taxes would have to go up. In fact, if the amounts paid the asylum seekers remained at the same leve;, the average taxpayer would find the basic tax rate rising by 0.01 percentage points, or put another way, their gross income would fall by 0.0009%, or slightly under one-thousandth.People would, in fact, be working 25 seconds a day just to pay enough money for Britain to support asylum seekers.Oh, and assuming the number of asylum seekers in the world remains constant, Britain would have gone from housing 2% of asylum seekers in the world (the actual proportion we deal with at the moment) to 20% - which would be almost as high as the 25% figure which was the average (incorrectly) estimated by British citizens in a recent BBC survey.So if the number of 'illegals' rose ten-fold in the next ten years, the situation would in reality be 'better' than the false picture people have today.Oh, and to quote Columbo, one more thing:Somebody on this thread mentioned that they support the BNP's anti-immigration stance and then tied it in to how it's unfair they have to pay tuition fees for university.Let's step into this fantasy world where the two issues are linked. Oh, and let's pretend we haven't spent all the asylum seekers money on pensioners as per the BNP slogan.Instead, let's kick out all asylum seekers and spend the cash on funding students in further and higher education.Thanks to this radical policy, we can now reduce tuition fees from

I've got bad news everybody. Based on last year's figures, around 750,000 people are going to enter the UK this year.None of them are going to work any time soon. They are too lazy to lift a finger.They will all receive state benefits.On their arrival, they expect a full medical check-up, paid for by the taxpayer. Then they will expect free healthcare (and statistics show these type of people are more likely to get ill) and education. None of them will pay any taxes.They will literally get a free ride on public transport.I'm sorry to seem insensitive, but the country simply cannot cope with this influx of people that are a drain on our society.It's time to end this scourge that the PC brigade lovingly refer to as 'babies'.