RayW

They haven't uploaded all the Raw's, Nitro's, etc yet. They have pretty much the entire Raw collection from 1993-1996 and Nitro of 1995-1996, and I'm assuming they're going to upload the majority in order (so 1997 next). I believe I read somewhere that the 'random' episodes that are up are because they are episodes featured in original programming like the Monday Night Wars and Rivals. I may be wrong though. But this is also why I opted to go back to 1985 and start from there. By the time I get through to the Monday Night Wars I'm hoping they'll be at least up to 1998/1999. And if you imagine, watching 1996 in chronological order (without mentioning ECW) would be 152+ hours of viewing alone. It'll take me a good while to get through just a year of that haha

I've been watching WWE Network since the UK launch, and now that I've caught up on all the original content and watched a few of the Beyond the Ring documentaries, I started to watch a few of the PPV events, randomly. I've now decided that I'm going to watch the WWE, WCW and eventually ECW through in chronological order from 1985. The events I'll be including are anything classed as a 'PPV' and all WWF SNME and NWA/WCW COTC events, until I get to 1993 and I'll start including WWF Raw. I'm hoping that by the time I get to 1993 (should take me a while, I'll probably only watch one event every couple of days) that WCW Saturday Night will be uploaded, also. Looking forward to watching them in order, I've never really seen much of anything pre-1995, so I'm hoping to get a much better appreciation of certain legends like Steamboat, Funk, Piper, etc. who I've only ever really seen in 'classic' match ups and compilation videos.

Obviously Mania is different because as you say all the stuff involved with getting flights, hotels, etc. but a regular Raw? I think my point is valid for that, especially this far into the period of time that people are displeased with the product on a whole. If people are still buying tickets to a show now that they aren't enjoying, well... Oh I agree. I'm not saying that the WWE are doing anything right, but just that people do have a choice. I've been watching Lucha Underground and Reality of Wrestling lately, both have been more entertaining than Raw, to be honest. I'm going to Raw in a couple of weeks in London with some friends, I'd be pissed if they were going just to boo everything. It's different being angry at something on the night, but going with the mentality of just crapping on everything "just because you can" is kind of strange and pathetic. Just my thoughts, though.

I, for one, am tired of the fans proverbially taking a dump "on everything". It's no longer about being displeased with the product and has become the "cool" thing to do. If you are going to the shows just to boo, why waste your money or your time? Seriously? It's pathetic. If you don't enjoy the shows any more, don't watch it, it's that simple. I no longer like Agents of SHIELD, I don't sit and watch it just to bitch, I simply stopped watching. Simple solution, you'd imagine, no?

I have my gaming PC set up on my living room television (it's actually dual screened, set up on both a separate monitor for every day use, and my TV for gaming and media browsing via Kodi). It's not too bad using a K+M for me, as I have a wireless K+M, and I'll just sit on my sofa with a laptop tray or desk (whichever my wife isn't using). I've not really had any issues, and at least for me, it's fairly comfortable.

Max Landis has released his short film "Wrestling Isn't Wrestling". I really liked it. Be warned, there is quite a bit of foul language here, so better not to watch it at work or around the kids.

I'm not sure with Watchdogs, I have it on PC and both my brothers have it, one on a PS4 and the other on an Xbox One, and on my PC it looks very obviously better in comparison to both. But, yeah, it's taxing. I have an i7 with 32GB RAM and a lot of air circulation / decent fans, and it still makes my tower so hot that I could probably cook my dinner on it. It's the only game I own that does this.

The winner gets a title shot, so the last two matches stay true to the point of the Rumble match itself, even though they didn't headline. In 2006 and 2008 the winner still got to fight for the Championship. In 1999, no one was going to buy a PPV headlined by a non-wrestler. Of course McMahon would give up his title shot. In 1997 if I remember correctly the referee's were busy dealing with something at ringside, and didn't see Austin throw Hart out of the ring, but had to declare him the winner by default as he was the only one left in there. This lead to Austin being called the 'unofficial' winner and caused the match that it lead to at Mania, so I'm not really sure 1997 can count? And why shouldn't we act as if the Rumble is an 'unbreakable promise'? Every year we are reminded over, and over, and over that the winner of the match will get a title shot at 'Mania. Or have I just imagined that for the past twenty-two years? I've never once heard Michael Cole or Jim Ross say "The winner of the Royal Rumble might get to face the Champion at WrestleMania!" or "If he wins the Rumble there's a pretty decent chance he will get a title shot at WrestleMania!" If the winner of the Rumble has to defend his spot at Mania after winning the match, why then should I, as a fan, invest my time and emotion in the Royal Rumble match itself? Why should I root for my favourites? Why should I care who wins, if after the event 'creative' decide 'nah, we'll go with someone else'? It totally defies and undermines the entire point of the match itself. I do not like Roman Reigns, I'd rather a handful of others won the Rumble instead, but I detest this self-entitled mentality that wrestling fans have suddenly developed over the last two or three years. Roman Reigns won the Rumble, and hopefully he beats Bryan at Fast Lane, because it's a match that he shouldn't have to fight in. He's already earned his spot against Lesnar (in a pure keyfabe sense).

So after a few months of back and forth on the idea of cutting my Sky subscription, I've decided to do so. I bought a DVB-S PCI card and have connected it up to my Sky dish so that I can receive FreeSat, and using Kodi (formally XBMC) as my front end, I have set up a PVR system that includes the channels from FreeSat, some FilmOn streams and the basic channels from USTVNow.com. I finally feel ready to get rid of Sky and save myself some money! Lol Plus, the PVR front end I am using allows me to make channels based on Kodi plugins, which is pretty cool, as I use Amazon Prime and can use the plugin for that to make some decent 'catered to myself' channels.

While I'd rather have seen Bryan win the Rumble, if they have him go over Reigns at Fast Lane, then that'll be two years in a row where the Royal Rumble has been undermined. If that's going to become the trend going forward, I'd rather they just got rid of the event, or else what's the point in winning it?

Kevin Nash helped usher in one of the biggest boom periods of professional wrestling...

I'm assuming you're after a refund? Surely they have to abide by the UK distance selling rules and honour your request? EDIT: I posted this before you replied to MLT

I can respect and appreciate if people want to cancel because they no longer enjoy the product, my issue is with the uproar and movement of people cancelling because of one man winning. By cancelling because of Roman Reigns you're saying that you care more about disliking him than you do about supporting the guys you do like. I again take it back to my Sky Sports example, I don't unsubscribe because they show a lot of the teams I dislike, I keep to watch those that I do. It's the same principle here. But cancelling because you're displeased with the overall product and cancelling because someone won the Rumble that you didn't want to win it are two different things.

I'm a little lost, what have they done?

So because of one man, people are going to stop paying for the service? It's inane. It's so over the top that it's laughable. I don't like Arsenal, but I still pay for Sky Sports so that I can watch the teams I do like. It's the exact same argument here. I don't particularly like Reigns, but I do like Ambrose, Rollins, Ziggler, etc. so why should I forego seeing them just because I don't like one person? This. Mootinie is saying he doesn't like the programming, this implies the overall show. He's stopping his subscription because he no longer likes the product - not because one man has upset him. It may have been the final nail in the coffin for him, but it's not he sole reason, unlike all those "Reigns won so let's cancel our subs because Daniel Bryan isn't main eventing WrestleMania!!!!1!!!1111" comments I'm seeing everywhere.

Jesus, the IWC is full of babies throwing their dolls out of their prams because they aren't getting what they want. I'll keep my Network subscription, because as a wrestling fan, there's for too much enjoyable content on there, that I'm grown up enough not to get upset that a company wants to push someone that I disagree with. Jesus.

Sorry, I was kind of annoyed because I was enjoying the show for the most part, but the booing at the end of the show really took all the enjoyment out of it for me. I think I spoke without really thinking. I think I'm just stuck between a rock and a hard place, I'm kind of tired of WWE trying to force Reigns on me, but also tired of the IWC crapping on everything that isn't Daniel Bryan related.

Also, off topic, but I just can't get into "Mizdow". It's stupid. It's not even a silly type of stupid, it's just out right dumb. The guy is meant to be his 'stunt double', right? So why does he mimic him? That make zero sense. Stunt doubles don't mimic, they replace the main star for dangerous spots, right? What, in my opinion, would have worked better, would have been for The Miz to have Damien Sandow, as his stunt double, fight for him. Have The Miz claim his wins for himself, as he's the star, and Sandow is just 'filling in for him' as his stunt man, not mimicking everything he does. But, that's just my opinion.

I enjoyed the Royal Rumble, not so much the match itself, although I enjoyed elements of it. My main issue was that it was too predictable, and by the third (or fouth, if you include kick off show) tag team match, I was a little bored of the concept. I'm not over the moon that Roman Reigns won, but then I also didn't want Daniel Bryan to win. I was rooting for Bray Wyatt or Dean Ambrose, and I'm glad that both those two come out looking relatively strong. I'm also getting a little tired of smarky crowds ruining the big shows for me. In all honesty, WWE should stay clear of towns known to be overly "smart". Roman Reigns winning the Rumble didn't ruin it for me, I can live with that, the inane booing of his win ruined it for me. The guy's a Face, cheer him. You just ruined a major event because you didn't get your own way. So what? That's life. I see like this... The "smart" fans don't want to see anyone shoved down our throats unless they decide who it is? What? Pure hypocrisy.

T, I wasn't discrediting Brock, if anything I was trying to stick up for Alberto in terms of record Alberto is very average, ignoring who he fought, but the numbers are very similar to Brock. That was my point. Yeah, CroCop destroyed him and PRIDE gave him one more chance which he also blew, but I wouldn't think it fair to mock him with a "it worked out so well for him last time" comment, as there are plenty of fighters that make a career out of MMA with very similar records (regardless if people think they are good or not). But like I said in a follow up post, I care very little for this "cross over" of sports. Brock managed to be a success, but I iust don't care enough about him as an MMA fighter, and it's soured me on him as a pro wrestler. Same as i don't care about Punk or Lashley, I didn't care about Batista, or Big Show doing boxing.

I'm not disagreeing, I don't care for the cross over appeal. I was just saying that in comparison to Lesnar, who usually gets high praise, their records aren't really that different.

His record, while not anything special, is comparable to Lesnars, who for some reason gets highly praised. 5-3 for Brock, 9-5 for Alberto. Not too dissimilar.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="28397" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There's no way to play my Steam games without having the Steam client open is there? I don't use it often, but it always seems to use quite a bit of resources on my laptop(which isn't that powerful to begin with).<p> </p><p> It's not that big of a deal because I hardly play, but I'd probably play my games more often if I could exit the client.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Nah, you have to have the Steam client open to play any game that is redeemed via Steam, unfortunately.</p>

<p>While Steam is great, if you're going to get into PC gaming, it'd be wise to make a bookmark list of digital shops. I know that for me, when I want to buy a game, I'll search 10-15 shops before purchasing it, as someone usually always has a great deal on it. For example, FIFA 15, got that for something like £25 on a deal in it's launch week, but can't remember where from now... This website is also quite good for finding a cheap version, but it only counts 'sales', so if a store usually sells a game for £30 but it isn't a sale, and another store sells the game for £40 but has it on sale for £35, then the first store won't show: <a href="http://www.isthereanydeal.com" rel="external nofollow">http://www.isthereanydeal.com</a></p><p> </p><p> Steam has a nice library feature in Big Picture, but personally I use XBMC as a launch platform for my games on my HTPC.</p>

I didn't really mean Punk here as he did on a podcast, I was just generalising.