Zheroen

The story i read said he was already injured before the transfer and Arsene was aware of it. Sounds like total bullshit, to me. What's the source of these "rumblings"?

Yet still somehow better than Maggie Gyllenhaal. There should be a Seth MacFarlane-equivalent of Godwin's Law.

Depending on how much the WWE Network ultimately affects PPV bonuses to which main-eventers/upper-midcarders have become accustomed...Punk might be the first of many.

I loved it when Meltzer's OCD forced him to look up NOAH's tour schedule to determine whether or not it was possible for KENTA to have had a tryout at the WWE Performance Center. Bryan kept trying to move on and leave it for tomorrow/a later update, but Dave was insistent on finding out RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Also, the discussion regarding the finer points of modern jean shorts was rather choice.

Because the fans demanded it, naturally.

I FEEL THE PAIN OF MY HERO WHEN THEY LOSE A PRO-WRESTLING MATCH

Glorious, huh?

You mean GET THE PRIVILEGE of listening to TATU.

and now it's going to become a semantics thread, awesome.

We're just waiting for the inevitable. Someone has to turn off the machine. Even when that machine is finally turned off EN090 will be there at bedside to try & put it back on straight away. It seems he only exists on here to defend TNA, even at their very worst. That said, I'm not sure TNA will die. Despite everything. They are just...a cockroach man. You can't kill it. EN090:TNA::Bill Frist:Terri Schiavo

Should have been an Arrested Development spinoff film about the life of Ann Veal.

FUCK YOU to icy roads. In early December, I hit some black ice right as I approached a curve. Wheels locked up and the traction control didn't kick in, couldn't regain control of the vehicle in time to navigate the curve, and would up flipping my car over an embankment. Car was a complete loss, and I received two spinal compression fractures and a broken scapula for my trouble. I missed an entire month of work due to being in the hospital for a week and was stuck in a TLSO brace/shoulder sling until just over a week ago. The timing was exceptionally fortuitous in that I had signed a lease for a new apartment all of two days before the accident, and ended up almost a week late in paying my first month's rent while I waited for a short-term disability claim to be processed. Hell of a way to make a first impression with one's landlord, yeah? Also, no idea as to when I'll get around to obtaining a new vehicle. Cell phone was also apparently thrown from the vehicle in the midst of the wreckage, so being without a reliable means of communication has been nifty. On the other hand, I'm alive. If it wasn't already keenly aware of it, the awesomeness of my girlfriend was reiterated infinifold in her selfless actions in helping get to follow up doctor/physical therapy appointments, work, and just being immensely supportive in general. My employers were quite sympathetic and stayed in contact as much as possible, and have been kind in regards to delegating some of my workload as I ease back into a groove. So I guess this is kind of a combination "fuck you/life can be pretty sweet when put into perspective" post.

You are most welcome. I often find myself in the same quandary when it comes to instrumental pieces, so I know how vexing it can be.

Profokiev's Peter and the Wolf?

But guys, it's all in the name of SPORTS JOURNALISM! I mean, would you expect Woodward or Bernstein to not honor a mentally-unstable person's explicit request not to expose their gender change in the course of a hard-hitting expose about an matter of national importance like a golf club? Doesn't the fact that someone was born of one sex and then later began identifying with another send CHILLS up your spine?

Well, for a long time (especially judging from the reaction of Ebert and other critics of the time), I was thinking that I was the only one who cared for Freddy Got Fingered, but now it is apparently starting to gain a bit of cult sentimentality (not altogether unlike Baseketball). Nathan Rabin's write up on the AV Club (http://www.avclub.com/article/my-year-of-flops-case-file-61-ifreddy-got-fingered-10849) does a far better job of summarizing the inherent genius behind the crude madness than that which would be evident in any attempt I would make in its defense. I would put forth Chris Elliott's magnum opus Cabin Boy for a similar consideration. I believe that as mainstream humor has evolved to the point where the absurd and dark forms have become more accepted, so too has the appreciation for these and similar films. I'm more disturbed by the many of the posts in this thread expressing vitriol and condemnation for others who don't enjoy the same things as they do than I ever have been about the prospect of someone not extolling the virtues of a film that I cherish, though.

Because Pellegrini starts Milner for the away matches.

Oh, it was a total howler by Boruc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um8rci0PSbE Also, I think Victor Wanyama might be dating Mark Clattenberg, as he got away with murder over the course of this match and only had a couple of fouls and a yellow card to show for it. On the plus side, I absolutely love the chant for Giroud to the tune of "Hey Jude". I mean, it's no "HE IS SIX FOOT TWO HE WILL DO YOU", but it sounds nice over the airwaves.

As if CR7 has any room to insinuate that anyone else is a crybaby, ever.

I think it was worst then Jones/Gus cause Jones actually hurt Gus. George had some good jabs, and landed lots, but never came close to doing any damage to Hendricks. But the rules don't say anything about 'damage' Which we all agree is something of a substantial oversight by those who drafted the rules, right? No not at all. The problem is in the way the scoring is implemented. Hendricks won round 2 so you score it 10-9. Gsp won round 3 so you score it 10-9 for him. But the issue is that while those rounds are scored equal they certainly don't look equal. Judges go 10-9 for decisive rounds and even rounds that there seems to be no clear winner they still go 10-9 and not 10-10. They'll go 10-8 on occasion if a guy is really dominant and comes close to finishing someone and I mean really close. Even more rare is the 10-7 round where it seems the ref should have stepped in and stopped the fight a couple of times. The point is that doesn't leave any room for those rounds like we saw tonight to be scored differently. If we are using 10 point must then what the hell are numbers 1-7 for? Because they sure don't get used. Utilizing the full range of numbers would allow a fight like Gsp/Hendricks to be scored differently and in the favor of Hendricks. Like maybe the first round which was really close should actually be 10-10. And the second and fourth rounds that Hendricks won should be 10-7 or 10-8 in his favor and rounds three and five that Gsp won should be scored 10-9 in his favor. Just bringing in the more widespread use of 10-8 and 10-7 would alleviate issues like that. I don't even want to talk about 10-6 or 10-5 because peoples heads may explode at the very consideration of it. I still think the criteria by which you are using to separate the 10-9 round 2 for Hendricks and the 10-9 round 3 for GSP is damage. Octagon control being a more important factor in a full contact MMA fight is such a strange priority over actual damaged inflicted. To me, it encourages lay and pray/wall and stall, since that "scores" more than actually attempting to finish your opponent. I guess it depends on what you're considering damage. If you're talking about cuts or bruises then no I don't think that should hold any weight. I mean, some guys have so much scar tissue they might as well start bleeding as they walk to the cage. And it's hard to get into an interpretation of how you think a strike effected a fighter if he didn't show signs of being effected. So I think the best thing is to just score the clean strike in that case. I know there have been a lot of times I've been watching a fight and in an exchange it's looked like a guy blasted the hell out of the other fighter but he doesn't react much and then I see a replay and it turns out the strike didn't really land as clean as I thought. Trying to score by "oh that looked like it hurt" just gets really muddy in my opinion. I actually believe we're on the same wavelength, here. I'm talking about favoring significant strikes and submissions that cause visible duress/damage (i.e. staggering an opponent with a strike, or even application of a submission not resulting in a tap that leaves the other fighter with a notable indicator that it had an effect). One pertinent example that always comes to mind of the latter is when Rafael Dos Anjos had caught Tyson Griffin in a deep knee compressor for a good amount of time in the first round, and Griffin seemed to limp for the remainder of the fight, but yet because Griffin didn't tap, that seemed to have zero bearing in the round being scored for Dos Anjos. Griffin won the fight 30-27.

I'm going to see Fates Warning tomorrow night, and Kreator/Overkill/Warbringer on Thursday. I'm rather pleased with this.

Or "Matt Lindland is #2 at Middleweight behind Anderson Silva"?

I think it was worst then Jones/Gus cause Jones actually hurt Gus. George had some good jabs, and landed lots, but never came close to doing any damage to Hendricks. But the rules don't say anything about 'damage' Which we all agree is something of a substantial oversight by those who drafted the rules, right? No not at all. The problem is in the way the scoring is implemented. Hendricks won round 2 so you score it 10-9. Gsp won round 3 so you score it 10-9 for him. But the issue is that while those rounds are scored equal they certainly don't look equal. Judges go 10-9 for decisive rounds and even rounds that there seems to be no clear winner they still go 10-9 and not 10-10. They'll go 10-8 on occasion if a guy is really dominant and comes close to finishing someone and I mean really close. Even more rare is the 10-7 round where it seems the ref should have stepped in and stopped the fight a couple of times. The point is that doesn't leave any room for those rounds like we saw tonight to be scored differently. If we are using 10 point must then what the hell are numbers 1-7 for? Because they sure don't get used. Utilizing the full range of numbers would allow a fight like Gsp/Hendricks to be scored differently and in the favor of Hendricks. Like maybe the first round which was really close should actually be 10-10. And the second and fourth rounds that Hendricks won should be 10-7 or 10-8 in his favor and rounds three and five that Gsp won should be scored 10-9 in his favor. Just bringing in the more widespread use of 10-8 and 10-7 would alleviate issues like that. I don't even want to talk about 10-6 or 10-5 because peoples heads may explode at the very consideration of it. I still think the criteria by which you are using to separate the 10-9 round 2 for Hendricks and the 10-9 round 3 for GSP is damage. Octagon control being a more important factor in a full contact MMA fight is such a strange priority over actual damaged inflicted. To me, it encourages lay and pray/wall and stall, since that "scores" more than actually attempting to finish your opponent.

I think it was worst then Jones/Gus cause Jones actually hurt Gus. George had some good jabs, and landed lots, but never came close to doing any damage to Hendricks. But the rules don't say anything about 'damage' Which we all agree is something of a substantial oversight by those who drafted the rules, right?

He's a wrestler with knockout power and the wrestling part is something that gsp doesn't even have to worry about. Johnny is going to be on his back the entire fight and he offers zero danger from that position. Gsp only has to avoid the big shot on his way to taking him down. That big looping haymaker that you want Hendricks to avoid is literally his only chance at a victory. You really have no clue what the hell you're looking at when you watch these fights do you?