The Unknown Poster

Great article here; https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/breaking-kayfabe-an-inside-look-at-wwes-unlikely-business-empire Here's an interesting story that was unknown until this article: A few years ago, as Levesque was gearing up to launch NXT, ratings were down and Vince was on edge. The writing room became a battlefield, and even people outside of the company took notice, including Shane McMahon. In March 2012, Vince, according to a source familiar with the exchange, called a surprise meeting at the WWE production office, a separate facility from the main headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. Shane had returned with a friend: James Frey, the author of the critically acclaimed and, later, highly controversial A Million Little Pieces and by that time the CEO of Full Fathom Five, a content creation company he founded in 2010. (A spokesperson for WWE originally denied that Shane had approached WWE in any capacity between 2009 and 2016, but later confirmed that this meeting took place when asked about this exchange specifically.) "When Stephanie found out Shane was going to be there, she went white in the face," the source told me. "And Paul freaked out." Shane had set up the meeting through Kevin Dunn, WWE's executive vice-president of production and Vince's right-hand man for nearly three decades; he is the second-highest-paid employee at the company behind Vince (according to SEC documents, Dunn's 2016 base salary is $909,560). Shane had a simple proposal: that he take over all of creative, including the writer's room, with Frey and his team at Full Fathom Five as consultants. "Kevin Dunn is very close to Shane," the source said. "And there's tremendous tension between Kevin, and Paul and Stephanie. They feel like the company is theirs, but they don't have power to control Kevin." Presumably, if Dunn could figure out a way to get Shane back in the company in a high-ranking position, he would have even more influence with Vince. And Shane, too, could regain control over at least a portion of his family's legacy. It was a win-win for the pair. In the end, however, Vince declined his son's offer. It would be four more years before Shane found himself on the inside of the company again. In the meantime, WWE would go through major changes internally as it continued its transformation from a TV-only wrestling outfit to a digital-forward entertainment super-corporation.

And inadvertently showed that people dont need to be armed to "act like men" and defend themselves and others.

Yes, by my logic. Most people dont have Wills from the time they can drive, but we drive every day and take that risk. The odds of needed a gun to defend yourself is rare. Far too rare to simply allow the masses to arm themselves with increasingly powerful weapons with little to no training in how to use them, little to no training in dealing with stressful & emotional situations, little to no training in self defense & first aid. its like giving a child a tank to drive. Killing someone is not the act of a "man". Are we now bringing gender roles into this? Are women not expected/permitted to defend themselves? I sure hope no one feels like a "man" when he takes another person's life. That statement speaks to the heart of this issue: too many weekend warriors with their chests puffed out, walking around armed looking for justice to serve. When I worked at a nightclub, we went out of our way to avoid hiring people looking to be "men" by physically imposing their will on people, even if those people deserved it. Take a tense situation and add ego and cowboys and you've got a recipe for disaster. Add guns and it gets worse. I've been assaulted more times than I can count. Struck with all sorts of weapons from bottles to knives to baseball bats with nails sticking out of it. had some point a gun at me and shoot the guy beside me. I never once wished I had a gun. And never once did I need one. We dont need guns. The fact so many desperately want them is proof enough they shouldnt have them.

So the public doesn't need to be armed to defend themselves and others. That's a great point.

Am i the only one that thinks Baywatch looks like a lot of fun? Good cast! Who's got their Rogue One tickets??

Well, he should be charged with the appropriate offense. DA's and Crowns here use charges for bargaining too often. Police do too, charging people when they know its going to get tossed just to cause grief. But that's another issue. There was a lot of news coming out about this early on. For example, I had heard that a witness claimed the shooter stood over the victim and emptied his clip into him. That apparently is false. There was outrage because the shooter was initially released. We dont know all the details but let's assume the police and DA have the facts and see it correctly.

I suspect its about developing them a certain way. Whether we agree or not, its learning to play defensively responsible before being allowed to get the fun assignments. I would think there are things they want to see, whether the player can excel at them or not, they want to see them make the effort. Ehlers is off the charts this year and we've seen Laine be moved down for a couple of games, get moved back up and be better. Maybe they like what Connor is doing in limited time. Oh well, he should light it up for the Moose (lets hope)

Agreed. Its hard to crack the top six and playing the third line requires some skills that arent his forte yet. Play top line minutes for the Moose and learn the game at top speed. He will probably be back at some point. Connor and Roslovic could be two parts of the future second line.

Continues to show the respect he has around the league

After the purchase, you can provide feedback and I did. When activity is low, you can zoom in on the map and see individual seats. But when its busy, you can only see the zoomed out map. So I suggested they have a static (unaffected by sales) map that can show individual seats. When the ticketmaster site suggests "best available", you could then at least see where that is. For example seat 22 might be aisle in some rows or not in others. Anyway...I got 1-3 go I know Im aisle. it was either section 120 or loge in section 110. Probably would have gone with Loge but I could only get two there and I needed 3. The other thing to consider is that some of the sections closest to the stage slant away from the stage (for better football viewing). Should be fun!

I was half right. I thought it would be after the weekend.

It's time to move Stafford.

It's pretty good. I condone anything if it's part of an interesting story and he's decent. Funny. Styles is unbelievable and worth watching just for him.

John Glenn, dead at 95. RIP

if not sooner. Wont wait, I dont think. Give him another 5 years.

5 games of top minutes with the Moose is better than sitting around all week and then watching their next game from the press box.

The Jets have several days off after Sunday. I suspect Connor is being kept until then. Especially with back to backs on the weekend and the general state of exhaustion of the team should one or more players go down to injury, they have him. Come Monday, barring long term injuries, I suspect he gets sent to the Moose.

Atrocious! Not only bad picks but complete mismanagement of assets to trade away so many. Although I guess I'd have to see what they got in return but given the make up of the team when it arrived, I cant image they were quality decisions.

I prefer Vegas Knights if it was just Knights. In fact as silly as dropping the "Las" is, it makes sense in that context in double meaning. Vegas Knights = Vegas Nights. No one says "I cant wait to experience those wild Nevada Nights" lol

Yes, a very good third line. I agree. His added value is he's good enough to move up to the top six due to injury. So he's not a low end third liner. He's a top end third liner. He's a third liner on a Championship team. And I think thats the intention. If Connor was better (or developed better) he'd be taking Stafford's place on the second line. And will eventually.

The second amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The problem is interpreting what the founding fathers meant. Personally I think the easiest gimme is that they NEVER envisioned assault rifles and things of that nature so to me, that should be the easiest thing in the world to agree that it cant possibly apply. And Im not even sure the gun nuts care about assault rifles. They see weapons like that as the buffer between the anti-gun people and the "reasonable" guns. If you take the machines guns, my revolver is next. That sort of thing. The issue is, what is meant by "the people" and what is meant by "militia". Someone like me thinks its clear, that when you take the time they lived in, they meant the right of the people to form a militia to defend the state, essentially a reserve army. Back then, you did have to fight. Now, you dont. There is no need for the average person to form a militia to defend the country. The argument to that is that Alexander Hamilton stated: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed…” and adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” One can read that pretty clearly. He felt the thing preventing any government from just seizing power was the threat of the people to overthrow that government and start over. And without the ability to physically defeat the government or those that might attempt a coup, then the people lost a key position of power. Fair enough. And within the TIME that it was stated, it made some sense. And there is the argument that the founding fathers intended to instill in the people the absolute right to defend themselves (not just from a bad government), that this ability to defend yourself was a right. Gun nuts will claim only by having guns can you have this right but I think it can be arfued you always have the right to defend yourself, but the constitution does not specify that its with bigger, badder, more lethal weaponry of whatever time frame you live in. If Mexico attacked Texas, it would not be the expectation of the average citizen to go to war. The US has a military for that purpose. And the average citizen, even gun activists arent generally armed or trained well enough to fight the state-trained and state-armed military of another nation. That notion simply doesn't apply. Gun people claim its sacred and should not be touched. But its not sacred because it has been amended, not often, but it has. The first ten amendments were included as the Bill of Fights upon ratification in 1791. It has been amended 17 times since then, 12 times since 1913 and as recently as 1992. The constitution has been amended due to change in culture and thought over the years, essentially, due to the time frame we live in. Blacks were given the vote. Women were given the vote. Presidents were limited to two terms. Voting age was reduced. etc. But Guns are sacred?? I find that to be an unreasonable position. Personally, I think the second amendment is pretty clear. But others see it differently. But the one obious thing is, people dont agree. So it should be updated. And thats the problem.

Okay guys, lets not split hairs. The Jets logo is a lot closer to the RCAF than the Vegas logo is to the other Golden Knights. If the RCAF said no, Jets would have a completely different logo even if they wanted to use the same one. Its just too close. Then again, Im no trademark lawyer. I do know that the original logo of my wrestling company was based on the corporate logo of our investor. It contained a blue swish and he had sued another company for using a the same swish. And he won a settlement.

teams always think a player struggles because of the organization and not because of the player. They always think they can do better. Which is great for us, if true.