eayragt

Yes, the bit that annoys me when I have people knocking on my door to "sell" religion is that they will always accept that there is just one true power - however, this power is exactly what they believe in, and every other religion is worshipping an incorrect interpretation of that God. And as proof they come up with "look around you, the proof's everywhere". Oh yes, you're right, Buddha's clearly just an interpretation of their God. Proven. I've got an open mind, but really? You expect me to be sold just like that?

Said like it was fact. Don't get me wrong, I like a good debate, and find this thread fascinating (if perhaps for nothing more than realising how some people are simply unable to debate), but when you throw in lines like that it really makes me turn against you. And I like turning - I'll quite happily argue both sides of a debate. I have to do it sometimes when I want a decent debate but no-one can think of the counter-arguments to what I'm saying that I can see. This is true, and an argument I use. However, a name is just a name, why can't God=Buddha=Zeus? Maybe everyone (who worships a God) is worshipping the same God, just different representations. All have huge backgrounds and stories about them which have developed over the years - it doesn't take a genuis to see these have changed. But perhaps, thousands of years ago, they all started with the same message. I questions things, and God is completely unproven to me. But the absence of a God is also completely unproven. I have no reason not to believe in a higher power. I don't think it's silly to believe either side of the argument.

The Christian one is purely down to his contract running out - once it ran out, WWE had no say on what he did. Most of the releases seem to happen while they're contract is still running, which is why WWE have a say in what happens. The Lesnar situation is abnormal, as it wasn't WWE releasing Lesnar, it was Lesnar asking for his release. This meant that WWE could (in their minds) ask for any additional clauses (i.e. 10 year no Wrestling / MMA compete clause) that they wanted.

I think that'll be the case. It's effectively giving them there 90 day notice, paying them up front for the 90 days, telling them that they don't have to come to work for the next 90 days, but they can't compete for anyone else in the 90 days. I think Peter put it more eloquently than me.

Yeah, I don't want to see Vince fight himself either...

Sheamus might not be everyone's idea of a new champ, but surely now is the perfect time to try it out? At best he keeps it to The Royal Rumble, because that doesn't normally sell on the title matches, it sells on the Rumble. Even if Sheamus doesn't sell PPV's, they've got two other potential sells (Smackdown Title (I have no idea if it's the WWE Championship or World Heavyweight Championship) and Tag Title) for No Way Out.

I used to love watching Veolcity - I remember getting home from work, slapping on the TV and seeing Kendrick & London (before they ever spent any real time on the main roster) vs Bryan Danielson and... someone else. Must have been... 6 or 7 years ago? You were always guaranteed one relly good wreslting match on the show, which was more than you were guaranteed sitting through 2 hours of one of their flagship shows back then. Now, granted most WWE viewers, like it or not, would rather watch Cena vs Orton than London vs Akio (who had a storming match). but I don't fall in that group, and Velocity really ticked the boxes for me. Or at least that 1 match in the three did.

Drove past a sign today for Wooton Fitzbaine in Dorset... but found it difficult to explain to everyone else in the car why I found that interesting. Given the amount of _____ Langton's around the place, I don't think it'd be a giant leap to say that somewhere there may just be a Thimbleby Langton too.