The fear that I'll lose my ability to cope.

It really boggles my mind that so many people have been single for 2 years, 3 years etc and think that's a really long time.

Oh God.

Try being single for thirty years and you might have something to complain about.

Oh God do I hate dogs. When I was a kid I didn't mind them, but I had a series of bad experiences with some nasty dogs during the 90s that made me cold to them.

My friends had this friggin' insane dog that would tear at its chain until its neck bled just to get loose. Then it would hunt me down and chase me around the neighborhood.

Years later, they owned a rottweiler and that dog hated me. The feeling was mutual.

In the late-90s I was working a paper route with a friend as a favor to another friend. There was this house in the trailer park section of town. In the summer, their door was always open, and they owned 6 or 7 dogs of all sizes. Legend has it that they let them **** everywhere too, even in the bathtub.

That first year I delivered papers there, there was this time when the dogs caught my scent and bolted out of the house after me. They chased me all the way down the street. When they had chased me far enough, they returned home, and their owner sat out on the porch and scoffed at me while I shakily got on my bike.

I filed a complaint with the town, but nothing was ever done about it.

A year later, we were doing the papers again. I continued to deliver to that house out of some kind of stupidity, although I never entered the yard and left the douchebag's paper in the fence. Of course, he complained because it would rain, and his paper would get wet. Like I cared.

I also made sure to carry a piece of metal rebar with me. I stashed the rebar in my paper sack and always had it ready as I neared the place.

This one morning, I was sticking the paper in the fence as I normally would. On this occasion, they had this stupid little black poodle tied up in the front and it was yapping at me. I briefly toyed with the idea of braining it and then biking off, but estimated it to be too great of a risk, since the others were no doubt lurking.

Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye I saw Pixie, a fully grown golden retriever and the largest of the dogs, run out of the open door. The body language was a dead giveaway. It ran in an aggressive trot, eyes locked on mine in an attempt to psyche me out. I knew that dog wanted my throat. At that point, I expected it to lunge over the fence in an effort to get at me. I pulled my piece of rebar from the sack. Instead of lunging over the fence, it ran around it. Then it jumped. I vividly remember the openness of its jaws as it snapped for my throat. I pulled the rebar out of the sack like a sword out of the scabbard and swung. It's front legs hit my chest, knocking me off balance, and I wasn't able to get the full weight of my body into the swing. But as my rebar struck the dog in the corner of its open jaw to emit a hollow thud, I knew that dog had felt the blow. Its head rocked back with the force as I fell backwards into the ditch. As the mutt slinked off to return to its master, I knew I had earned the damn thing's respect.

I definitely prefer cats. My family owned around 12 through the course of my childhood, and I'd definitely have one or two now if it wasn't against house rules.

When I was a kid I did...

Now the sum of change has to amount to at least 50 cents before I'll be bothered. Who has time to pick up pennies anyway?

Most interesting space question to ponder:

Can spiders be fitted into little space suits and used to sort tiny screws in space?

Hell yeah, we should be able to build ships capable of warp propulsion and teleport a pine needle to Alpha Centauri by now. The fact that we cannot disconcerts me greatly.

And now I'm the red pirate ninja!

ABASH YE LUBBERS!!!!

I'm the red ninja!

When I was in second grade, I wanted to be a mountain climber.

In third grade, I was going to be an astronaut.

Fourth grade, my dream was to be an inventor.

By sixth grade it was my idea to be a veterinarian.

In seventh grade, I gave up on all that "hopes and dreams" nonsense as I prepared for the most nightmarish 4-year period of my life, late elementary.

Maybe if not for all the bull**** that went on then, I might still actually have "hopes and dreams."

Nah, I'm kiddin'. My greatest dream is to become a great but unappreciated writer, tragically die young, and make my surviving family millionaires as the world realizes what a prodigy I was.

Hey, there was a time when Al Snow wasn't such an underdog...sadly I guess that was prior to his WWE days...

I've never been able to forgive him since he wrestled as Avatar briefly in '95. For those who don't remember, as Avatar he wrestled in an outfit that looked identical to the one Hayabusa wore, although that was more WWF marketings fault.

Maybe they were interested in Hayabusa?

I started out that way. Two of my favorites going way back were Virgil and (ugh) Doink the Clown. What was wrong with me?

What's worse is I actually believed they had a chance of winning.

The Grudge was seriously twisted though. If it's as bad as The Grudge, then that is very very good.

I agree with you on the Evan Bourne point; I watched him a lot in his ROH days, when he was Matt Sydal, and he impressed the hell out of me. I am glad WWE hasn't had him tone down his style, although I hope they don't give in to the temptation to do so in the future. If WWE has improved the way they do things as you say, I perhaps will give Raw or Smackdown another look at some point. I will however remain skeptical for now, until I see proof of this for myself.

Also, I will not argue that a lot of what TNA does is just wrong...Yet it is what TNA does right that causes me to have so much faith in them. Historically speaking, the number-two promotion sometimes tries too hard to mimick WWE in some aspects. WCW was guilty of this ad nauseum, and TNA falls prey to this on occasion as well. I blame Vince Russo for this. His ideas remain stupid at times and it is only when he is censored appropriately that he becomes a benefit. Sadly, I can see his fingerprints on much of what TNA does. Fortunately, TNA is not giving him the amount of power as WCW did. I blame Russo for killing WCW. He is one of those that was directly responsible for the stagnation of the business in the early 2000s.

Personally, I say lock both Russo and Brian Gewirtz into a big iron box and sufficate them with carbon monoxide. A little extreme perhaps, but it wouldn't hurt the wrestling industry.

I may look at WWE again, but sadly, I fear they will always be dead to me. Fortunately, I guess, I have found plenty of alternatives to WWE, many of which weren't present in 2000-01.

Then my question is answered.

I must see this movie.

Alright so maybe there is an anti-WWE bias...I won't deny it, but let me just say this...I have given WWE so many chances that it is sad really. I assure you there is a logical reason for this.

Up until the early 2000s, I was the biggest WWE fan. The biggest. I wanted them to trump WCW so bad. Be careful what you wish for. In 1999, the WWF began to overtake WCW in the ratings. The deficit between the two companies got so bad that I got the feeling that the WWF no longer considered WCW a threat. Whereas before, Raw had been the most compelling show on television, with matches averaging 15 minutes, that number was halved, and 30-minute monologues became standard fare. 7-minute matches and 30-minute monologues. Ugh.

As a true fan, I stayed loyal to the WWF, even in the face of such absurdities as the Mae Young pregnancy and the Katie Vick necrophilia angle. Eventually, WCW was brought out by the WWF. With no competition in the wrestling industry, the quality of the WWF product became worse than ever.

I was patient; in retrospect I believe too patient. I figured that with the WWF's acquisition of WCW and later ECW, we would see the compelling WWF-WCW dream matches that we as wrestling fans had been waiting for.

Ugh. How naive I was. How could I have ever believed, in my right mind, that McMahon would pass up the opportunity to completely discredit the promotion that very nearly put him out of business?

From the start, the WWF sabotaged what should have been the greatest angle in wrestling history. Only a handful of WCW main eventers, such as Booker T and Dallas Page, were brought out of their Time Warner/AOL contracts to become involved in the war. The WWF simply wasn't willing to sign other stars. Goldberg, Nash, Steiner, Flair, they were all a major part of WCW. None were signed. Now, you could argue that the WWF would have lost a lot of money in signing them out of their ridiculously overpaid contracts. I would argue that the company had money to spare. The WWF was enjoying its most profitable period, and without viable competition from a wrestling source, Things were bound to get better. The WWF also paid a mere $2-million for WCW, which as far as wrestling promotions go, was very cheap. I would go further to say that if the WWF had ever intended the Alliance storyline to work, they would have been all too willing to shell out the extra bucks to gain a few more WCW stars.

2001 was a dark period for wrestling. It was that year that we were subjected to the travesty that was the WWF-Alliance feud. As a wrestling fan I felt raped. To make the storyline semi-believable, the WWF had to put turncoat WWF stars into the major positions in the Alliance. Steve Austin, who left WCW on very bitter terms, was pushed as the champion of the WCW cause, which was almost more than I could stomach. Except for Booker T, the WCW championship was held solely by WWF guys. Except for Rob Van Dam, not one, NOT ONE wrestler who had made his name in WCW or ECW was given a meaningful win on WWF pay-per-view in 2001. I'm not counting The Dudleys, who arrived in the WWF two years before the Alliance feud started.

2001 was the year I was subjected to such tripe as "Sing-along with Austin." Every WWF segment during this time appeared to be arranged to induce as many chuckles as it could. I found myself extremely insulted as a hardcore purist and a wrestling fan, and I also found that I watched less and less Raw in the late months of 2001 as I truly wondered what was happening to wrestling. I also found myself thinking a lot about how hard I could kick the balls of Brian Gewirtz, the creative genius who invented a lot of this nonsense.

As far as I was concerned, Survivor Series was the last straw for my WWF fanhood. Survivor Series 2001 was, in my opinion, the worst PPV abomination in wrestling history (and I've seen some godawful TNA ppvs too). I sat down in a bar to watch it via closed circuit wondering if WCW really stood much of a chance and whether this was really worth seeing. I somehow convinced myself that it was. But when it was over, I felt like I had wasted three hours of my life that I would never get back. I felt ripped off...and I had paid a mere $5 cover charge for my seat. Had I paid the full amount to see the Series at home, I would have been really irate.

Survivor Series 2001 was the most predictable, one-sided wrestling PPV I had ever witnessed. It was a showdown between the WWF and Alliance, and if the Alliance won most of a best of seven series of matches, they would get to stay in the WWF. I didn't figure they would win, but it wasn't even close. The main event was an 10-man tag between the two factions. Booker and Van Dam were the only two wrestlers on the Alliance side with legitimate ties to WCW and ECW. I remember little else about it, other than it was 45 minutes of the punch-kick that had by then become typical of WWF wrestling, followed by the win by the WWF. That ended the Alliance storyline, and it took what was left of the reserves of patience I still had for the company. I phased out all WWE programming for quite awhile.

Then, guess who shows up in the WWF the next night. Flair. I didn't see it, but I read about it. It's like the WWF was holding him in reserve in case his presence was enough to hotshot the Alliance angle.

I have criticized WWF/WWE for many paragraphs, so let me switch gears. The first brand extension draft occurred in early-2002. I know this because I continued to follow wrestling through the magazines even as my fanhood hung by a thread. In mid-2002, I watched Raw and found it to be the same tired crap. Endless talking, punch-kick matches. A few guys like Shawn Michaels actually tried, but more or less Raw hadn't changed. Then I watched Smackdown and was thoroughly impressed. WWE had decided that Raw would showcase the talkers, Smackdown the wrestlers. Guys like Lesnar, Angle, Misterio, Benoit and Guerrero carried the show and made it well worth watching. I was pleased with this, and eagerly plunked down cash to buy a number of PPVs. SummerSlam '02, Survivor Series '02 Royal Rumble '03 and WrestleMania XIX featured some good wrestling that easily stands up against the wrestling of any era. I was overjoyed to say the least, especially because I wasn't sure that TNA had what it took to ultimately last more than a few years.

Then the talent draft of '04 shifted some of Smackdown's best wrestlers---Benoit and Shelton Benjamin most notably---to the Raw side. Everything began to unravel. I was displeased to say the least, but I continued to watch Smackdown in good faith while occasionally monitering Raw to detect any improvements. I saw little of anything good in Raw.

Anyway, continuing my rambling story, I kept faith throughout 04 and 05 that if I kept watching Smackdown it would get better. I noticed the opposite trend was taking place. By the end of 2005, I had written WWE off. Now once every few months, I told myself I would watch something made by WWE to see if there was any change. With the sole exception of WrestleMania, WWE just wasn't worth watching anymore. The ridiculous angles, including the stupid Vince McMahon "death" angle, unfortunately reinforced that opinion.

As far as match quality goes, I don't understand how anyone can consider WWE to be superior to TNA. WWE has the advantage in marketable stars and the knowledge of how to best push those stars. Overall, TNA simply has the better workers. This is not a mark against certain guys like Shawn Michaels. Kofi Kingston is another I'm impressed with.

But simply put, WWE exercises certain restraints when it comes to their wrestlers and what they can do in the ring. Since 2000, it was as if many of the wrestlers had lost their skill inexplicably. You can dispute me on that, but the spate of injuries WWE stars were suffering in 2001 is what led the company to adopt a less demanding "WWE-style." I understood the motivation, but their decision was having an adverse effect on the ring action, and don't wrestlers know the risks? They even have developmental leagues in which wrestlers are taught the WWE style. Wrestlers coming in from other companies are encouraged to "adapt" to this style---that is discard each and every little thing that is unique about that wrestler in exchange for a character. Said star is then pressured to change their in-ring styles to be less risky and therefore less entertaining.

An excellent example of this is Paul London. No one can sit here and tell me that that guy is anything like the wrestler he was in Ring of Honor. In ROH he was such a risktaker that the fans would chant "Please don't die" during his matches. Last I saw, the only thing unique about him was his backflip dropkick. It was the only thing he retained from his time in the independents. Now you could state that he receives a bigger paycheck so why take as many risks? But what about Booker T? In WCW, he was the man, a great wrestler with tremendous potential. When he entered WWE, he was reduced to a dreadlocked spineroonied Rock clone overnight.

Ultimo Dragon was another example. Within weeks of his debut in 2004, Linda McMahon had the nerve to publicly state that he wasn't adapting well to the WWE style. Who cares that his wrestling was as good or better than most of the roster. Dragon was punished for his cutting edge wrestling by being booked in more and more abbreviated matches, and had to be satisfied with a spot on the lower tier. It's not surprising that his WWE stint was brief; WWE wanted him to do less and Dragon wasn't willing to sacrifice his art.

That is what it comes down to; art. Last I saw, WWE was continuing to lose their grasp of the term. I have no reason to believe anything has changed in the year or two since I last caught a WWE broadcast. You might think that ignorant, but WWE has insulted me and let me down too often in the past.

You're right, TNA is not perfect. In terms of pure workrate however, WWE cannot compare. I'm even sure that McMahon himself would not argue the point. Many agree with me, to judge from the "This is awesome" chants regularly heard on TNA PPVs.

Definitely.

While doing phone surveys last summer, an angry drunk picked up his phone and immediately yelled, "ARE YOU GAY?"

I was shocked and not sure how to respond at first, so I didn't say anything. Again he barked, "ARE YOU GAY?"

More than irritated with this prick, I stayed calm, but I guess you could say I lost my temper. "Are you?" I asked him.

He started throwing all kinds of curses at me, so I hung up.

If my bosses had been listening, I might have been fired for that incident. There were others too, way too many to go into detail over. Doing phone surveys is thankless work that I wouldn't recommend unless you've already failed at prostitution.

I don't see how you can perceive TNA action to be "choppy" at all...Now granted, I only watch the PPVs on a regular basis...but if I was to attach the term choppy to a wrestling product, it would be WWE's product. All televised WWE matches follow the same pattern and have since 2000 or so, regardless of whether it is pay-per-view or Raw, Smackdown, etc. The wrestlers just punch and kick with the odd chair shot thrown in to appease the hardcore fanatics. Then its a particular wrestlers set up move followed by his finisher. Since 2000, WWE wrestling has been become bland and predictable as they tried to suck the art of wrestling out of the business in favor of Vince McMahon's narrow concept of "entertainment." That's what I would call choppy.

The lone exception to this was Smackdown TV and PPVs from 2002 to about 2004. That was when they strived to make the brands as different from one another as they could, before suddenly shifting gears with the poorly conceived talent draft of '04. Said talent draft made Raw and Smackdown indistinguishable from one another, and I've never been into WWE since.

I don't know specifically who you are referring to when you say choppy, or if you mean the promotion as a whole. I certainly wouldn't describe the matches of Angle, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, The Latin American Xchange or a lot of the other talent as choppy. New Japan wrestlers are used to wrestling in the traditional ring of their home promotion, yet I see no difference in the quality of their work when they perform in TNA's six sided ring.

Looking to TNA, even if what you say is true, and that every concept is entirely scripted, I wouldn't blame Jarrett. Remember, the Jarretts gave up their majority share of TNA to Dixie Carter and Panda Energy several years ago. Carter has more of a say in TNA than Jarrett, although Jarrett maintains influence with his position on the booking team. Remember also that since Jarrett's wife Jill died of breast cancer a year or so back, Jarrett distanced himself from the business until recently.

TNA has always been a company that is markedly superior to WWE in terms of match quality. If everything were scripted, rest assured, we would not have that.

I am such a big trekkie dork...That I have ideas for a whole new series with original cast members, and I'd write screenplays of each episode if I could ever motivate myself to do so.

Actually, I did do the first part of a pilot 2-parter...then I looked it over and got frustrated and said, "No, no, no, no this is ALL WRONG!!!!!!!"

Generally, I gravitate toward anything that has a unique idea and executes it well.

I'm not talking about almost all first person shooters, most of which implement the same boring run-and-gun technique. The only exceptions to that rule are Bioshock and Condemned. One of the reasons I liked Condemned is that you get guns so seldom that it comes to be a fun novelty to blow someone's head off an the rare occasion you do. That's why I didn't like Condemned 2 as much, they went overboard with the guns thing and in effect lost some of the horror of the first game. But I'm rambling.

I'm also not talking about racing games in which the object is basically to drive around in circles ad nauseum.

RPGs that have me invest a ridiculous amount of time to character development are also a no-no.

And sports games when I don't even like most sports.

My main attraction in games is something that is both "different" and funny. Or either one or the other. I also like puzzle games. To me the most attractive aspect of any game is the artistic look, which is why some of the more "cartoony" games tend to catch my eye.

I own an xbox and an xbox 360 with almost forty games between the two. Some of my favorites are Fable 2, Fable Lost Chapters, Overlord, Psychonauts and Assassin's Creed.