JerryvonKramer

Okay, let's try that again: 7/5 - Mil 7/8 - Sheik, Brody, Mil 7/12 - Mil 7/15 - Sheik, Brody, Mil 7/19 - Mil 7/22 - Sheik, Brody, Mil 7/26 - Mil 7/29 - Sheik, Brody, Mil

I'd like these dates please Kris: 7/5 - Sheik, Abby, Mil 7/8 - Abby, Mil 7/12 - Sheik, Abby, Mil 7/15 - Abby, Mil 7/19 - Sheik, Abby, Mil 7/22 - Abby, Mil 7/26 - Sheik, Abby, Mil 7/29 - Abby, Mil

Updated to Dylan's Gerry Morrow pick.

There goes another heel JTTS from my list. Where is Doug Somers? I demand to know!

Fucking hell, is no one safe?

[wrong thread]

The CHAMPAGNE MAN! Gerry Morrow!! One of the funniest things I've ever seen in wrestling.

The reception of Salo vs. the reception of Pink Flamingos is actually an interesting little side bar to this topic. Because whereas Salo is all certified high art Criterion collection, Pink Flamingos is exploitation, "trash" and not really seen in those terms. Again, we might ask "why?".

Doing this now. Cheers goc.

On the whole "wrestling is art" thing. Has anyone ever watched Pier Pasolini's Salo? That's the film adaptation of the Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. Well, if you haven't, don't rush. But there's a scene in it where the four libertines have platters of shit brought to them. Actual human feces. They eat it. If that isn't gross enough, they then start to categorise the different types of shit. "This one has bite". "This one has texture". "This one has a distinctive flavour" and so on. I am sure Pasolini's underriding point was to mock the borgeous impetus to aestheticise seemingly everything. Those libertines aestheticised a lot of things: sex, rape, violence, actually eating shit. Their de facto response was to try to reify the pleasure they were getting from these various sadistic acts by categorising and ranking them -- and weirdly in so doing sort of sucked the life out of them too. They were fascists, and so brought a kind of dull order even to the extreme forms of pleasure they were trying out. Anyway, apologies from bringing up this unpleasant film, but it makes a good point. Seemingly anything can be aestheticised and then categorised and brought under scrutiny, even eating actual shit. My point is that I don't know if we NEED to say "Wrestling is Art". Why? Because we rank and rate it? Is food art? Are cheeseburgers? I think the desire to rank and rate is coming from a different part of human thinking that has more to do with taste and categorising taste than it has to do with "art".

I think I suggested writing on masculinity in the Tully vs. Magnum feud to the editors after they got in touch (still not sure who told them I was a wrestling guy). What they actually wanted was a 10,000 feet removed view talking very generally about wrestling from a "performance studies perspective". That is, don't get into specifics about individual wrestlers or feuds, but look at the whole thing like a performance and write about it like Roland Barthes did. In other words, excuse yourself from actually learning anything about wrestling itself, just look at it like some curious alien thing at a safe academic distance. It's very poor because in academic work about literature and drama, the specifics are essential. You'd never write about Shakespeare's Othello, or indeed any play, at such a level of remove. Thought it was pretty dispresectful to the topic.

Would prefer Matt D as Jim Barnett. NWA president must have a territory.

I second that last sentence (about scholars) and even turned down an invite to be part of an academic study after they replied to my reply by essentially saying "shhh, knock the actual fan stuff off".

VJM would like his seat to be next to Eddie Graham's seat.

VJM would like to be part of the committee but not president.

Not sure this holds. You can just as well say: "Some porn is art, but not all porn is art. Porn that is art fulfills criteria X." There's no need for the absolutism of the "if, then" statement.

Valeria Messalina beat us to the idea by almost 2000 years. My new favourite jdw post.

If I could have prised Stevens and Patterson from Dylan, I might have taken Blassie. But I dunno, my LA cards are going to be small. Superstar Graham will have to carry that load I guess.

Finisher could be called "Hung, drawn and quartered". Imagine the Ole promo going into medieval history to get it over. Re: Blassie, when I took Heenan, I couldn't think of a way of using the three wise men that wouldn't make them feel second string. Those guys deserved better, so I didn't draft them.

The WWF and ICW are pleased to announce that they have agreed 50-50 co-ownership of the following workers: Arn Anderson Gene Anderson Lars Anderson Ole Anderson This marks the first time in wrestling history that all four members of the great Anderson family have been united in one (make that two) place(s).

Kris might know, but at some point Jim Barnett was booking the champion as "treasurer" and the NWA President got the deciding vote if crucial things were ever tied up. For that reason, it would make sense to me for the "war council" to have an odd number of seats. 5 or 7 or 9. Otherwise the Presidential vote is not that powerful.

Got to be kidding me, another 34-pick gap. How many is that now?

I'm marking undergraduate essays, these are slow days for me.

One thing I think is that non-NWA members shouldn't be able to see in-house discussions.

Population of catchment area of the promotion.