Resident Evil

Well, from my experience, yeah. Not all of them, but some of them. Good looking too. Yes they can BUT only if they display some certain traits in their personality. Overall nerds tend to have a lot of traits that repel women naturally which is why they have a tough time with women.

So, for the record let me confirm this. People here really do not think that women are biologically programmed to look for the best man that will give their babies the best chance of survival and prospering? Do people here think than men are not programmed to go after the most beautiful women that will raise the healthiest children? As men, we all know we prefere the hottest women. Why do you think that is than? Do people really think women aren't bioligically progammed to want strong males for their offspring? Honostly???? Do nerds get all the women now? Do Rock stars get no women?

Was about to respond to that but John beat me to the punch. The "programm" thing is bullshit, and life will tell you otherwise. Met women who had been with shitloads of guys, and guys who are with the same girl since they are 20. The double standart comes from the fact that it's still not accepted socially that a woman can have as much lovers as she wants to. A guy fucking tons of woman is a Don Juan. A woman fucking tons of guys is a slut. Basically because men fear women who have lot of lovers. It is bullshit. As a general rule the program thing is 100% true. Of course you can find women who have been with lots of guys and guys who have only been with 1 women. Every one of us is programmed to reproduce (with some exceptions) and NOBODY can agrue that but it doesn't mean that we are or aren't going to have kids. Women are programmed to find the top alpha male to get the best seed for their babies. They than for certain reasons have to secure them. They have ways to find out who this is even if they're not totally concious of this. Facts. A lot of their actions are derived from that. Men are programmed to find the women with the best physiques for childbirth and to reproduce with multiple women. Fact. Did you ever hear the old joke of how to figure out how many women a guy has been with and how many guys a women has been with? For the guyI believe you divide by 3 to find the right number and for the women I believe you multiply by 3. Its roots are in the statement I mentioned in the previous post as a women will tend to downplay the number of men she has been with and the guy will tend to overexaggerate. And there will always be a double standard. Like it or not it will always be there. Since a woman deep down is programmed to be with the top alpha male and than secure him she will hate herself for being too loose and pride herself on finding "the one". A slut (excuse my language) is the one thing a woman never ever wants to be at all costs. A woman who has sex with multiple guys will always be called a slut by her fellow female peers and males alike. And yes, a man will always be a Don Juan for having sex with tons of women. You may not like it and I'm not here saying wether it's right or wrong. I'm just stating the facts. It's reality and the way things work. It's life. Now about men fearing women who have lots of lovers. I agree with you. There is definitely truth to that though it wouldn't apply as much to the very secure males.

Men are programmed to be with multiple women. Women are programmed to be with the top male they can find. That's why there's a double standard. As far as the drinking and drug goes, to me it's not acceptable on either ones part.

Next on "The View", Wrestling Journalist Dave Meltzer. Remember, don't be "that guy" who encourages your hot girlfriend to go into showbiz. "Star 80" does wrestling better than wrestling. Eric Roberts was a great heel, though. Logically, it would not be a good idea to encourage your gf to go into wrestling. The WWE is full of people women are naturally attracted to. Biology tends to win out over logic.

Tiger Mask never lost a match by pinfall in 80s NJPW which I thought was sooo awesome because it fit his wrestling style so well. The guy was a superhero on a different level athletically and creatively so it made sense to never have him lose. DK was the only one ever to get one over on him but even that was a DQ. It's part of what makes 4/21/83 one of the best matches ever because you can just see and feel Dynamite getting closer to actually doing it. It makes everything in the match mean more.

That's not a fair comment. We all know how risky it is for Bret's health to be in the ring.

This is actually my fav match match in ROH history. Richards is one of my top 5 fav wrestlers in the world right now. Are you an Aries or a Richards fan? It always helps when one is emotionally tied to the wrestlers. Like when Steamboat said, you can have two top name wrestlers put on a headlock such as Steamboat/Flair and the crowd will be emotionally behind it. However, if you have two other wrestlers that the crowd doesn't know put on the same exact headlock technique wise the emotional impact isn't the same. They don't care as much.

For you, it isn't worth a s***. Don't say the match isn't worth anything. For me and others, it's among the best matches ever. There's a difference. For instance, I hate and could not get through a match you absolutely love. That doesn't mean I say the match isn't worth a s***. I still respect that the match works for people and is of value. This is the kind of match where the majic can't be duplicated and I can rewatch over and over again in pure amazement of what they did.

How much discs would a complete Brian Danielson comp end up being? He has to have so much footage out there.

Yeah, I enjoyed it a lot. It's the kind of match I can watch over and over and over again over the years. Tiger's suplex at the end has got to be one of the best bridges I have ever seen. Floyd hit it right on the head on why this match works. I'd like to point out it has some good structure too. Some of the criticism for TM was that he didn't allow anyone to get enough of a beatdown on him so when he made his comebacks they'd be worth more. I understand this thought process but in TM's case I always looked at it as the guy being too kayfabe good for anyone to do that to often to him. It just addes to his mythical greatness for me.

Yeah, I love that too. Never heard of anyone that didn't. Someone's gotta emulate the Rocky IV training scenes with their own twist on it. Having done the rock throwing, log on traps -- tripping and falling in the snow bit as well as other stuff I have a tremendous soft spot for this movie (filmed in Canada too). Who doesn't? A man's man movie.

He stiffed Tazz on the outside of the ring on Raw awhile ago when they were commentators. He may have stiffed Tazz at another point too around that time but I honostly can't remember anymore.

You should watch the whole Napolean Dynamite movie. Sometimes it's just boring which may have been the five minutes you watched but other times it's hilarious in a way that other movies don't reach. It's not for everyone though. The humour some take to and some don't. Great movie though. And you should watch more A-Team as well. . Also, I'd like to go on the record as saying I have never heard of triscuits. Of all the times I've eaten crackers or been at wherever where crackers were served I have never heard the word uttered once. Ritz is what I think of when it comes to crackers. Maybe it's a US thing. Have they got Ketchup chips there yet?

I would agree with that as well especially since I'm usually always a mark for the athletic/strength side of wrestling. Thanks for the memories Doc.

I loooved Davey vs Shingo and thought it blew away almost everything I've seen this year from anywhere/ There are a few people that didn't like the "overkill" and thus the match but from what I've seen with others it's a top runner for MOTY from everyone.. I thought it was the best match of the year right alongside the first KENTA vs Nakajima match so I'm glad the review praised it extremely strongly. Stuff like that gets me excited about wrestling again. Davey is on absolute fire.

Not really. My claim has actual supporting evidence - Judd Apatow is a big name producer/director who's movies make a ton of money, have often recieved critical praise, and who's name has been used to help sell movies as much as any of his actors. Slasher's impromptu survey bears this out. "Do most people know who X is" is inherently a speculative question, of course. But I have a lot of ancillary evidence to support the speculation that, say, a lot of people know who Jesus Christ is, or that a lot of people know who Barack Obama is. Judd Apatow is a big name figure in Hollywood these days, and while I can't say for sure whether or not most people know who he is without asking every single person on Earth, all readily available evidence suggests he's a pretty famous dude. Your claim is supported by the fact that you didn't like two of his movies and you personally didn't know his name until you read it on a wrestling forum. Both claims are speculation. But one is speculation based on abductive reasoning from objective evidence, and one is based on extrapolation of personal experience. The former is valid, the latter, by itself, is not, and that's a lesson you are pretty clearly never going to learn. Res claiming that most people don't know who Jesus is in 5...4.... Didn't he help with Freaks and Geeks? Cuz I actually liked that show. You have a really bad habit of taking wussy shots at everyone not only in wrestling but with people on message boards as well. Jesus is actually not as well known as he was years ago when religon played a more prominent role in society but still, almost absolutely everyone knows who Jesus is. Maybe even more than Apatow! My speculation is based on what I have seen and heard. The circle of people I know from family to friends to associates to whoever never talk about Apatow even when discussion comes to movies. I understand he's popular for some nerds and they get defensive about him. I wouldn't call that speculation on reasoning based on objective evidence.

Exactly. There is no big deal or reason to make fun of that. Tawren gets it.

If you took a random survey of people, I bet more would know who Judd Apatow is than know who Joe Biden is. I don't now if that's evidence of anything as far as this argument goes, just a thought that popped into my head. That and just because you think something doesn't mean you should assume most of society thinks the same way, but that's a lesson Res is pretty clearly never going to learn. Completely incorrect and this is something that I've been more than aware of since I was a little kid. Your post also doesn't make sense concerning this discussion especially since it's a speculative discussion about how well known someone is. But still, I'll go with it for fun sake. You my friend are sounding like you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing. because in order to say that that you must think I'm wrong and to do that you aare assuming you are right about what society thinks which means you're assuming you know the answer to this speculative question.

That is true. But I don't think anyone should be looked at oddly or be surprised because they don't know who Ken Joeng is or Apatow especially in a time where we have so many other things to distract us. Names on average don't stick out anymore like they used to. The A Team was a surprise. Elvis or the Beatles would be odd or for today's time a big name like Tiger Woods. That is a true well known name and not just because it was discovered recently he had multiple female admirers.

It depends on what you mean by "known". My standards are high for what a "known" name is. If you were to take a survey of random people, a high percentage are not going to know who he is.

Why do people always misinterpert what others say in wrestling forums in order to take a shot at someone else? I said I only heard about Apatow is on a wrestling forum. The movies I heard about in the media. Apatow's name is not well known among the general population. Someone like Cameron is more known.

OK, now you're reaching a bit. It's one thing to have no idea who Johny Damon is (although not knowing details also isn't a big deal), but not knowing Ken Jeong is not a big deal at all I'm not saying it's a big deal, just somewhat surprising for someone in his age group. In fairness to Todd Martin, the Apatow movies are an acquired taste. I happen to like them myself, but I know many others who don't care for them. To each their own. I wonder if Martin writes all these "I don't know who this person is" comments as a rib on Alvarez and Meltzer (mainly Alvarez). I'm not expecting that either, as he comes across as a more obvious wrestling/MMA nerd than even those two sometimes, but it wouldn't surprise me. Re: Damon. He's a very good player, but due to being with the Yankees, calling him a "huge star" is debatable. I'd argue that guys like Jeter and A-Rod are bigger stars. Damon was probably a bigger star with the Red Sox due to a lot less "big name" (for lack of a better term) talent, plus he had a very unique look. Right now, he has the appearance of just another player, even if he's very, very good. Yeah, I watched 40 Yr Old Virgin and Knocked up and I absolutely hated them. I don'[t think I laughed once. Superbad though I thought was good though not great. If it weren't for one of the wresting forums I was visiting, I wouldn't even know who Apatow is. Neither would most of the people around me if I were to take a survey.

I'd say both.

Bret Hart is definitely a hero to me in some ways. Not in all ways as almost nobody is perfect but in some ways for sure.