Ronnie

Bah, it wasn't any form of hatchet job on Linda after all. It was a simple piece on how ever-greater amounts of money are being thrown into US elections. It started with one of Linda's campaign videos, the voice-over saying "She seems conventional ... until you see her in action", followed by Linda kicking JR in the balls. Back to the campaign video, where she says "I'm Linda McMahon: I'm running for the US Senate, and I approve this message because it's time for something different." The presenter then voices over "Something different, like runaway election-spending right in the middle of a recession", over footage of Kane pulling Linda about by her hair on the stage area immediately before the Titantron, before tombstoning her. "McMahon has dropped a cool 50 million of her own wrestling-empire fortune to try to become the next senator for Connecticut." They like money in Greenwich, CT. It's the nation's hedge-fund capital, the kind of place where McMahon's husband can proudly name his own speedboat 'Sexy Bitch'. Her Democrat opponent is less brash, but not exactly poor either." And that's the end of the McMahon part. The report, only a few minutes in length, gives examples of other massive spending, saying that there's been a "radical change in that outsiders can spend as much as they like anonymously" to donate in elections. "Political spending is protected as a kind of freedom of speech." And that was that.

Jeez, it's made it to the UK. The current-affairs program Newsnight has just started, and the host has just previewed the evening's skedule. (It's 22:30 here.) I heard a familiar robotic drone saying that "30 years ago my husband and I started our company. It took hard work and perseverance", and looked up to see Linda McMahon talking to the screen, with the host voicing over "The best democracy money can buy: We report on the cost of winning and losing elections in America." There was also footage of Linda kicking JR in the bollocks. I've set this to record, and I'll pop back later if there's anything worth mentioning.

And here's Vince commenting on the issue, before it was made public that he was suing.

Vince is suing CT: “On behalf of myself, my company, WWE fans and any Connecticut citizen who wants to exercise their constitutional right to vote, I have filed a lawsuit today asserting that Susan Bysiewicz’s directive that allows poll workers to refuse registered voters wearing WWE merchandise the right to vote is a flagrant act of censorship and discrimination,” said Vince McMahon, Chairman and CEO, World Wrestling Entertainment. Source

She's caught the attention of President Obame, who has come out to suppot Blumenthal and criticise McMahon. Obama Stumps for Blumenthal in Conn.: 'Public Service Is Not a Game'... Like Wrestling

It's uncanny how many of Vince's verbal mannerisms have transferred to his talent without his having to direct it. Wrestlers seem to throw in an unusual number of mentions of "quite frankly" compared to the rest of the populace, and just about everybody a few years ago would speak about "this very ring". One of the examples that really jumped out to me of subliminal adoption was actually one of JR's terms. Lita was on Off The Record and described something as "hellacious". I know that etymologically it was college slang from the 30s, but I'd never heard anyone other than JR use the word. (Which really ground my gears anyway: What's wrong with "hellish"?) Well, if you choose to ignore that the first two to be given that label by JR were Shawn Michaels and Billy Gunn, I suppose so.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I wondered by John's wording whether it was simply the case that there was something known. I understand the circumstantial stuff too, of course.

Huh? I know people say he's a coke fiend, but is there any suggestion that he actually has any addictions? Or is that just a throw-away line?

Dawn Marie's allegedly paid up for a lawyer to send an email to Munchnick [sic]: Irv doesn't seem too concerned, and it doesn't strike me as overly daunting that the email was sent from the [email protected] domain.

In the April 19th WO Meltzer summarised Hogan's appearance on Stern thus: (Edited for legibility -- paragraph breaks are wonderful things.)

I love Meltzer, and can't think of a more mild-mannered, inoffensive man, but I'm embarassed for him when I see that photo. I think he'd be better off with his mullet back again, because that current haircut makes him look identical to Forrest Gump Bizarro-world update. When uploading that pic (and tagging it as "Dave Meltzer looks like Forrest Gump") what is one of the two words that Captcha generates for me to fill in?

Oh, come on, that doesn't mean that at all. There was no mention of "when I was growing up". The wrestling that Batista liked when he decided to get into the business was the Rock/Austin style. No need to twist things with the usual sorry attempts at "haha, Meltzer got it wrong."

Michael Benoit has written to the Hartford Courant outlining why CT voters shouldn't vote for McMahon.

WWE made a profit of £56m between January and April 2001. I'd say that that indicates that they could have financed the contracts should they have wished to, although that's not to say that they should have done.

For the record, I don't consider this grouchy, vile, or hateful, but in the absence of an "interesting comments from JR" thread, I figured this would be a good place to put it. Source I hope that this is the shape of things to come, and we get a look behind the curtain through the eyes of JR. He says he's not interested in doing a shoot interview, and he still has a talent-relations contract with WWE (it's just the on-air contract that has expired), but I'd be intrigued to see whether he'll expand on statements like the above one in the book that he's currently penning.

I totally concur. That running hug kills any disbelief that I'm able to suspend. It looks effective when Batista does it, and Goldberg had a great one. It doesn't work at all when it's a person of Edge's build doing it, however. One might argue that it's not terribly professional of Dave or Bryan to word it like that, but good on them for doing it. I can't imagine how hard it must be for those people who aren't members of the right clique in TNA to have had that scumbag around, lording it over them all.

In the early part of the decade a whole plethora of WWE performers with long, blonde hair, were compelled by the office to cut their luscious locks. One person didn't have to, and maintained "his image". Wasn't it also the case that not only did he only require the one Pedigree to beat Booker, but he could also afford a 23-second power nap before making the cover, secure in the knowledge that Booker wouldn't kick out? There was the opposite thing last night, where the fact that Sheamus only needs to hit his kick thing once against everyone else was irrelevant. Despite assaulting HHH with an iron bar and giving him nerve damage prior to the match, Sheamus still had to hit his kick four times. Four. The glee with which HHH packaged the Spirit Squad off to OVW on live TV was a bit much for me to think that the writers just happened to write that into the script off their own backs. And I thought that it was particularly galling that the retired Lilian Garcia came back as a one-off the other night to help resolve the problems of the Raw crew being stranded in Europe, only for HHH to acknowledge her return with a comment for the TV audience's delectation about her "horsing around".

For embellishment's sake, I understand that it was for disparagingly asking the pecker-checker whether he really spent years at college to watch men take a pee.

Got ya. Sorry, yep, I read your post, took a mental note, read the following ones, then posted and kind of misremembered what you'd actually said

How does that make JR grouchy, hateful, or vile? There's been an awful lot of stretching to meet those terms in this thread, but this one seems by far the furthest away from applying to those adjectives. Edit: Here's a screencap: I note that it doesn't actually say to whom the comment was directed, though I suppose that Taz would be a very likely candidate.

I recall that when they initially floated the WWFE stock they had to declare to the SEC any risks that investors might face but not have realised. The only thing that was established as an extraordinary risk (so, not such things as changing economic circumstances) was the importance of Vince McMahon, and that his death would greatly impact the abillity of the business to create profit. They still mention this now, so I don't think that Vince's importance has diminished. From 2009:

I can understand why someone like McMahon would tell big lies. I cannot fathom why she would tell pointless lies that are easily verifiable, when the truth would do no harm at all. Has she absorbed some of pro-wrestling's culture of embellishing everything? Meltzer reports in the lastest WON about this hammering she got from the Hartford Courant's John Lender on 4/4. But what really makes me want to take a step back and shake my head at the unbelievability of bullshitting is this quote from Meltzer: That absolutely beggars belief to me. What's the supposed payoff that justifies running the risk of being exposed as a liar in that case?

Ah, OK. I thought the term "controversial lifestyle" flashed something about sexuality up in your eyes, especially as it's been traditionally attached to the gay scene. No problem

Is JR saying what I think he's saying?Presumably you're reading into that that he's saying that Shawn was gay (or, at least, unsafely promiscuous) and was at risk of contracting HIV, judging by the phrasing. Surely it makes much more sense to stick with what we know: Shawn was pilled up, and JR's acknowledging that that particular lifestyle would've likely resulted in his being found in a hotel room one day had he kept it up.

I think that his status was somewhat more integral to the success of the company too, which was being built really around the persona of Hogan For a modern-day equivalent you'd have to think that Cena would be the preferred commodity to protect. That it's the boss's son-in-law, who has a history of seemingly having decisions made to protect his status that aren't necessarily in the company's interest (notably, allowing people who could overtake him to founder when the time to elevate them comes at his expense), invites a bit of speculation.