tbarrie

Yeah, I'm worried Wight vs Marshall isn't going to get the time it deserves.

It's not unique to FPW. The sequel to Exciting Hour had a spinning kick referred to as a "rolling sole butt", as I recall.

I liked this show a lot. I thought it was better than last week, which was itself a step up after a rough few weeks. My only complaint was the continuation of Colton Gunn's reign of terror.

Before he faked his death, you mean.

What, just a triple negative? Why not throw an "ain't" in there to really befuddle people?

I love FTR, but I think it has to be a face team that puts down the Bucks, and I don't much like the idea of FTR turning face. I'm hoping it'll be Jurassic Express in the cage. FTR won their feud with Express, so that gives them a logical way to get back into the title picture.

On a board where people constantly (and accurately IMO) assert that WWE can screw up any can't-miss prospect, do we really have people arguing that WWE's difficulties getting Roman Reigns over as the company ace are an indictment of Reigns and not WWE?

So apparently Humankind came out a couple of days ago. No reviews from the Windows crowd?

Thanks Flips. Though I should point out that while I have a math degree, stats was my least favourite branch of math. So there are probably subtleties I'm missing. Anyway, you're certainly right that if you have the technology to measure the full population directly, you can achieve certainty without messing around with sampling at all. And I strongly suspect you're right that nowadays, the various cable providers could tell you exactly how many screens are tuned into a given show. (For broadcast TV, I doubt that's possible, even if the signal is digital. I could be wrong of course.) On the other hand, I'm less confident that the cable companies would have any way of determining how many people in a given household are actually watching that screen at a specific time, much less give accurate demographic information on those people. (And we've all had it beaten into our heads in recent years that advertisers care more about "the demo" than overall viewership.) So there's probably still a role for sampling-based data. None of that is to say that Nielsen is super-accurate; I've never really examined their methods, but it's difficult to see how they'd avoid self-selection bias at a minimum. (Even if their method of selecting households at random to participate is top-notch, they can't compel the households they select to actually participate.) But I'd wager they have actual statisticians who know way more about this stuff than I do working on the problems.

That's not how sampling works. Suppose, rather than trying to determine what percentage of people watch a specific TV show, you're trying to determine what percentage of rolls of a given die come up 1. (You're not sure whether the die is fair, in other words.) The number of times you could possibly roll a die is infinite. Does that mean, to draw any conclusions, you have to roll a reasonable fraction of infinite times? Of course not. Just roll that sucker a thousand times, and if it comes up 1, say, a hundred times, you can be reasonably confident the probability of it coming up 1 is close to 10%. Doesn't matter that you've in effect sampled exactly zero percent of the total population you're trying to study. It's the same thing with literal sampling. If you can pick members at random from your population and do so a thousand times, then if you find a hundred people watched TV Show A then you can be reasonably confident that 10% of the population watched TV Show A. If you picked ten thousand people or a million people you could be even more confident, of course. But whether the population size is 100 times bigger than your sample or 10,000 times bigger or a million times bigger isn't really relevant. It's that "if you can pick members at random" part that's the trick, incidentally, and the reason why polls are often inaccurate. Generating a truly random sample is hard. Almost any practical method will introduce biases of some sort.

Interesting that they still list Cena as a sixteen-time champion and five-time Wrestlemania main eventer. I thought the Firefly Funhouse Match retconned pretty much his entire WWE career away. Did firing Bray restore the timeline?

That makes PERFECT SENSE.

It's a heart symbol. It's over his heart. Well, sort of.

Woohoo! Jamie Hayter! I mean, after this long I pretty much only remember loving her name. But she was pretty good in the ring too, wasn't she?

Yeah, the nerve - calling Commander Azeez a punk.

? Of course, I should point out that I'm a huge Spectacular Spider-Man fanboy, so my recommendation isn't necessarily unbiased. And I've seen some weird criticism of the show on this board, so I can get prickly about it. And much as I hate to dissuade anybody from watching Spectacular, be aware that if you're a completionist you may be left unsatisfied even if you do warm to it, because they didn't get to finish the story. So in a sense you can't watch all of it. Edit: How the Hell do I get the board not to turn my classical ASCII emoticon into one of those graphical abominations?

Disagree. WWE has sucked at being WWE for years now.

It's commonly known that it's awesome from start to finish. TRY HARDER. Okay but seriously, nothing is for everyone. And I hated the art too, but to me the writing was good enough that I got used to it eventually.

Wait, is there a rule that you can only pummel Chris Jericho for five seconds? Because that would suck for wrestlers who like to pummel Chris Jericho. Which I'd imagine is a lot of them.

It may have been a necessary beat in Adam Page's story, but reminding people how much they wanted to see Page win the belt, teasing that match, then not delivering it certainly didn't do Christian any favours.

Honkytonk Man was exactly as entertaining as he should have been, which was not at all. The point of the character was that he was contemptible, not entertaining.

For the record, they established early on that the rule in AEW is that you have ten seconds to get out after the tag, not five. Of course, having established a rule they really should stick to it.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out when that could possibly have happened myself. According to Google, though, they apparently teamed in OVW in 2001.

I have difficulty seeing that as fucking anyone over, as I can't imagine anybody seriously thought for one second that the "expanded universe" stuff would mean anything when the time came to make sequel movies. That "rights but not obligations" bullcrap is purely out of the "Who cares what the law is, you can't afford a legal battle with Disney" theory of jurisprudence, though.