Wrestling News, Opinions, Etc. 08.19.03


Wow.  That’s all I have to say.  WWE champion, Intercontinental champ, tag champ, Euro champ…the record speaks for itself.  You would think that someone who was training for the Elimination Chamber match, with an opportunity to win the world title again, would have enough on his mind, but to go out like that and win the PGA, well…

…what do you mean “Shaun Micheel”?…oh…well, ignore that.  On second thought, don’t ignore that completely.  That seven-iron on the last hole will live in immortality like Tway’s bunker shot and Pavin’s four-wood.  I rarely mark out over anything, but even I had to yell “Holy Shit!  Holy Shit!” at the screen.  If he never does another thing on the tour (and indications from his career are that he won’t), that thing will be replayed forever.

If I’m Ben Curtis, I’d go out, find Micheel, and lick his asshole clean, because all the pressure’s off of him now.  We’ve got a new “unknown” to scrutinize, and he’ll be interesting to look at.  Oak Hill was even more of a death march than Royal St. George’s, so we’re not talking about normal tour conditions here.  Besides, Micheel can’t just kick back, play in a tournament, take his 38th place check, and head off to the next tour stop anymore.  He’s now a millionaire just from Sunday alone.  Maybe he can ask his wrestling name-alike for some advice on the subject of being a millionaire, just like he gave to Jericho.

One more thing, and then away we go:  I have never seen a scarier-looking woman than Micheel’s mother, and CBS kept putting her on camera like she was Brenda Warner or something.  Thanks for ruining my appetite by giving us views of that trailer trash witch.

Anything in wrestling that Fleabag didn’t discuss yesterday?  No?  Okay, then…


Let’s use his own words against him again, shall we?

The fact that the Episcopalian Church would publicly announce something like that really angered me because, as Christians, we’re both supposed to have faith in the same Bible…

Wrong.  The Episcopalian Church, like the Catholic Church, does not believe in the Bible as being the Literal Word Of God.  You criticized them from your perspective as someone who does believe that, and did so under the assumption that their belief was wrong.  You, in fact, claimed moral superiority over an entire sect of Christianity because your beliefs were “right” and theirs were “wrong”.  That is chutzpah.

…in that Bible, homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY described as a sin (Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6:9)

Please note the bold text.  Now, let’s go back to his column from last week and see what he said on this subject:

Leviticus 18:22 makes things pretty obvious to me. It says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”…I don’t see how Leviticus 18:22 can be open to much interpretation.

So where did the references to 1 Corinthians come from in his newer statement?  This is why I went after Michaels in the first place, because of his using Leviticus as a crutch on this issue.  If he had cited 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and/or Romans in addition to Leviticus (or preferably in place of Leviticus), I would have not written what I did.  Of course, Michaels has to deal with the fact that none of that material was directly from Jesus, but from St. Paul.  Michaels should try being Catholic for a while.  That way he could use St. Paul and St. Thomas Aquinas vis-a-vis this issue with a clear conscience.

Unfortunately, Eric Szulczewski of the 411Wrestling Zone did not agree with (and was OUTRAGED with) what he thought (decided?) I was saying

Damn skippy I was.  I’m sick and tired of holy rollers constantly using Leviticus as the one and only justification for the anti-homosexuality stance, so I decided to present to you some of the other things that Leviticus also bans.  As per what Peter did in Acts, I think that was presumptuous of him to invalidate sections of Leviticus.  If you’re making a break, make a clean break, and then justify a new set of taboos afterward.

Let’s face it, Michaels, the reason why there were taboos against certain types of sexual behavior in both the Jewish and Christian communities was because both communities were small, and reproduction was a key part to their growth.  Anathemize sexual behavior that does not lead to reproduction inside of a religious context, and your believers will reproduce more.  Of course, back then, they didn’t know about biological factors behind homosexual behavior, so a lot of people got stoned for being what they are.

Some mails were very well written and half thought-out, some were just flames, but most of them (including Eric’s original column) seemed to ignore my editorial’s actual intent and actual words.

No, I didn’t ignore your actual words, I quoted them.  And if I misinterpreted your intent, it’s simply because you didn’t express it clearly.  It got buried under your anti-homosexuality and anti-Catholic FUD.

I never once mentioned that homosexuals were going to hell or were to be cast aside, etc.

But Leviticus does, and you said that your beliefs against homosexuality were due to Leviticus, and only Leviticus.

For one thing, I’m not the person to be handing out judgment. (I would remind everyone that none of us meet the requirements for that job.)

Wrong.  I do.  As I’ve said before, I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other wrestling news columnists before me.

I simply said that homosexuality was a sin according to the Bible.

No, you said that acts of homosexuality carried a death sentence according to the Bible, and that you agreed with this.  That’s what you get for only citing Leviticus.

Now, I’m not going to play a game of “The Bible Says” with Eric or anybody else. I find it pretty futile to play that game with someone who doesn’t believe and doesn’t want to believe one word the Bible says.

It’s not futile at all.  The fact that you believe in the Bible is enough for me to be able to use it as a weapon against you.  You were the one who defined the parameters of the argument, not me.  Claiming that my argument against your position was invalid because of my particular beliefs is the sign that you got clowned.  Or are you just embarassed that a “non-Christian” would know the Bible well enough to use it to refute you, thus tearing your beliefs down at the foundation?  Keep going, Michaels; I’ll make an agnostic out of you yet.

The funniest thing about the entire situation is that my whole beef was with the Episcopalian Church, another group of Christians, yet I didn’t get a single negative e-mail from one Episcopalian or one Christian.

So in one breath you say that Episcopalians are Christians, and in the next you state that they aren’t (the word “or” usually states a conjunction between two mutually exclusive elements, which you’d know if you had any education in the English language).  The sad part is that I’m certain you honestly believe that Episcopalians aren’t Christians.

Although, given my responses, I think there should be a new major religion called “non-practicing Catholic”. I think it could be the fastest growing religion in the world considering how many people practice it.

Non-practicing Catholics are a major religion.  They’re called Protestants.

But my point is why should it concern a non-believer what my take on the Bible is? Shouldn’t a non-believer just be happy that a Christian was put-off by the actions of another Christian? Maybe you guys should think a little more before you flame me next time.

Because you were being a self-righteous prick when you did it.  When I say stuff, people know that it’s only my opinion.  You, however, back your opinion up with Bible verses and tell everyone that since the Bible says so, it’s the truth.  There’s a difference there.  I allow people to possess their own opinions, no matter how whacked out they are.  You simply shut the door on them and cast the fact that they don’t agree with you into a context that implies they’re morally deficient.

People who are anti-Christian would LOVE to believe that Christians are all about going around in a mob at night, looking for two guys having gay sex through their bedroom window, just so we can toss them out in the street and stone them to death.

But that’s what Leviticus tells you to do, and you believe homosexuality is wrong because of Leviticus.  That’s what you said.

I love everyone. I love homosexuals. I love non-believers. The love of the Lord is a powerful love, and that love drives us to want others to seek the Lord before it’s eternally too late.

Paging Bruce Pritchard…

People who are “smart” like Eric and others want to point out the sins of folks like Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker and others as a way of condemning Christianity, when it’s public figures who cast a negative light on Christianity like them that I was so angered about in the first place.

First of all, I, at least, know how to spell Jim Bakker’s name.  Second of all, if you’re so angered about them casting a negative light on Christianity, why haven’t you condemned Falwell’s and Robertson’s un-Christian behavior in regard to the Supreme Court ruling about the Texas sodomy laws?  Or do you like to spend time praying for one of the Supremes to die like Robertson does?

And one more thing: it’s nice to stereotype people as a “redneck” for their religious beliefs, geographical location and their musical preferences. Did I say nice? I meant completely friggin’ ignorant. Maybe if you people got down from your ivory towers every once in a while and looked around in the southern states, you’d find the same thing you find in the rest of the country and world: people with diversified opinions and beliefs just trying to make an honest living and find a little happiness in this life. If you actually lived and related with people, you’d find a world that can’t be defined strictly by the television you’ve watched. I mean, it’s 2003 people, and Deliverance was just a friggin’ movie.

I lived in Texas for two and a half years, Louisiana for six months, and rural Ohio for a year.  I know “redneck” when I see it.  Of course, it’s perfectly acceptable for you to stereotype Catholics as giving Christianity in general a bad name and conveniently forgetting that for the majority of Christianity’s existence, all Christians were Catholics (whether Roman or Orthodox), and also ignoring the fact that the dominant media presence in Christianity today are fundamentalists who embarass themselves on a regular basis.  I am also out to find happiness in my life.  I do so by pounding the ignorant and outright stupid into the ground.  So, therefore, let me pursue my happiness by ruining yours.

Consider yourself spanked again.

And Memo to the yo-yo who keeps signing me up for the Daily Devotional every time I say something negative about Christianity:  it was funny the first time, but now it’s annoying.  So stop it.


Dear God, there’s actually something to pimp…

Biscuiti, Chris Isomer talks about what he’d like to see out of the Elimination Chamber match.  I’ll reserve my comments for the Round Table.

And, oh, yeah, it’s Madden Week in the Games section (with audience participation, and the prizes are real, people), and rumor has it that they’re going to do a review of the PC version!  Wonder who it’ll be by…

Believe it or not, I’m written out right now, so let’s just move on to the final event of the day…


Match Results:

Molly Holly over Trish Stratus, Women’s Title Match (DQ, Trinity-ference):  So, Gail Kim keeps f*cking up her spots, nearly injuring her fellow competitors, and making the weekly women’s match look like a slop-fest.  What happens?  She gets the biggest push in the women’s division even after dropping the title.  If I’m Molly, I’m really, really pissed.

Test over Big Sump Pump, Winner Gets The Services Of My Beauitful And Beloved, But Only If I Say They Can Use Her (Pinfall, big boot):  Okay, they’ve figured out the fact that even the marks know about the crossed-arm symbol used by the ref for legit injuries.  Isn’t the fact that they have to resort to this level of obfuscation a demonstration that kayfabe is dead?  Then again, nothing that Test could have done on his own could have been convincing.  No one screams that loud when being prodded.

Chris Jericho over Kevin Nash, Nash Needs A Haircut For His Movie Role Match (Pinfall, use of international object):  Even knowing the ending like we did did not help the situation of having to watch this match.  Nash matches are always very slow affairs, but this was painfully so.  We’re just not used to Jericho having to operate at this speed, and he couldn’t overcome that handicap.  There was zero flow and zero pace to the match.  Sad.

Quoth Slick Rick:  I found the closing scene of Jericho kissing Nash’s shorn, bleached locks profoundly disturbing.

I found the whole experience profoundly disturbing.  Not as disturbing as Bisch and Linda, but disturbing nonetheless.

Quoth the Ravin’ Cajun:  Was I the only one who watched the Walls of Jericho being applied tonight and hoping beyond all hope that those knees would suddenly just rip into shreds? And one gets the feeling Nash prepared for the Shaving of the Hair by getting that awesome dye job! Totally groovy!

Oh, God, that dye job…there are two general classes of people who shouldn’t dye their hair drop-dead blonde:  Hispanic women and Kevin Nash.  And that was a fresh dye job; no roots.  He did end up getting a good flattop out of the experience, though.

Rosey over Rodney Mack (Pinfall, sidewalk slam):  I was answering some mail, which probably saved my sanity.  I will say this, though:  Teddy, start wearing suits that don’t look like horse blankets, and maybe one particular black man will start getting some respect.  Belee that.

Christian over Rob Van Dam, Intercontinental Title Match (Presumably COR once Nick Patrick wakes up):  Actually, Kane’s run-in was very helpful.  It’s difficult to get into a match when both performers and the ref are obviously, visibly bored.  Everyone other than Kane mailed it in.  So tell me again why the IC strap was revived, especially with no match for SummerSlam scheduled?

Bill Goldberg over Randy Orton (Pinfall, the usual):  Goldberg going for a submission victory?  I didn’t know this was a comedy match.  Very nice chain interference after the match was over, though.  Good timing on all the interventions.  What’s even better is that, given the results of this match, my contention about what they might do starting next week with the booking of the championship might just come true, and might just work, enough so that I’m going to base my Round Table results on it.

Angle Developments:

Low-Key Masterpiece:  Here goes Jericho, demonstrating again that sometimes not going over the top is the best thing to do.  By lowering his register and going quiet, he forced everyone to pay attention to what he was saying rather than how he was saying it.  And what he was saying had enough context and content to be worth listening to.  Also, kudos to Trip for the “Evolution Chamber” remark.  Once might have been a slip, twice means it was on purpose, no matter how much Ross says it’s Trip’s “take” on what’s happening.  It’s a wonderfully telling remark (telling us that he considers the Elimination Chamber Evolution’s “backyard”, to use UT’s phrase), and it provides a lot of depth to Trip’s character.  It just makes us, the audience, hope even more that someone this cocky gets what he deserves at SummerSlam.

Quoth Derrek Croney:  Chris Jericho’s promo style kinda reminds me of Roddy Piper, just not wound so tight.

High praise indeed.

Get The Fab Five, Stat!:  Linda, Martha Stewart will be going to jail soon.  So how about if you get someone else to decorate that home office of yours?

Memo To Jim Ross:  Saddam’s military rank may have been mostly honorary, and ditto his degree in military science (he was already vice-president of Iraq when he received both), but he served his country militarily more than, say, someone who dodged the draft through service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Two-And-A-Half-Year Tease:  It’s rather late in the day, but Bischoff revealing that his beef with Shane is over WCW was a brilliant piece of work by “creative”.  Unfortunately, the only way they can go through with this is to continue the feud after the SS match, and then that leaves the logical gap of Vince not becoming involved in it.  I don’t think they can pull this off without major suspension of disbelief.  There is one way they can get mileage out of it, and that’s to continue it on Smackdown with Steph and Heyman (Heyman, of course, was forced to sell ECW to her because Vince drove him broke…good kayfabe).  Reviving the Invasion on a much stranger basis might be a way to salvage a little something out of the last two and a half years of disasters.

Memo To Kane:  There are reasons why I use a Zippo.  You just demonstrated one of them.  By the way, good promo other than the matches.

Quoth Slick Rick:  Uncle Fester knocks RVD out with a chair and carrys him back stage over his shoulder. If my last name was Hyatte, there would be a Pat Patterson joke in there somewhere…

Nah, we’ve had enough deviant sexual activity in one night courtesy of Bisch and Linda.  And I don’t think even Telemundo viewers would buy this plot.

And speaking of not buying stuff, I’ll be back tomorrow, and you’ll get it for free, like you always do.  Until then, have a good one.