Scott's Blog of Doom

Dear Scott.

I have question that I do not think you have ever been asked/answered about Montreal being a work.

If it was a “shoot,” why did Bret not sue Vince? I mean if there was ever a clear-cut example of breach of contract (Vince even tells Bret he is going breaching the contract), then why not seek legal action?

Bret had a twenty-year deal. And while one has to mitigate his damages (like signing with WCW), the rest of the contract Bret should have able to recovered from Vince. At the very least, use the threat of legal action as leverage for getting Owen released. And if Vince was in that bad of financial state as he claimed, that kind of judgment could have force WWF to shutdown. I mean just the threat of a lengthy legal battle makes a many people settle for fear of the "big lose."

If it was about being old school and all, would that not have gone out the door with the screwing you over in home country, the one thing you were promised? Ok, maybe, but what about the next night, when Shawn comes out and mocks Bret? Right there then would have been it for most people. I mean that is the first piece of evidence I show a jury.

I think the best evidence that it was a work is the fact that Bret never sued, or even tried to use that to get Owen released.

Love the blog (for many years).

 

I think everyone is conspiring to drive me insane with the “Montreal was a work” stuff.  But I guess we haven’t discussed Montreal in a few months…

To focus on the specific argument here, Bret covers it in his book.  If he had sued, Vince would have pressed charges for assault and then counter-sued for Bret attempting to get Owen out of his WWF contract, and the whole thing would have turned into a legal battle that neither side could afford.  Bret just wanted to move on with his life.  And once again, if it was a work, it was one devised by people who can barely manage to keep a simple storyline straight for two weeks, which was apparently turned into a 10 year deception.  Oh, and Bret was so engrossed that he maintained the lie even while working for the competition, and even after suffering a near-fatal stroke, just in case the next generation of fans wanted to see the blowoff, I guess. 

OK, computer nerds, time for recommendations.

My faithful Gateway laptop went to the great computer depot in the sky last night, as apparently it has a cracked motherboard and will no longer power on under any circumstances, and isn’t worth it to fix.  So here’s my question:  I’m checking out replacements and I’m noticing the new trend of the netbooks instead of full-blown notebooks/laptops, and I’m intrigued.  Because really all I use that computer for is updating the blog, surfing the net while watching TV, and writing reviews.  I have a real computer for playing Arkham Asylum (Sidenote:  BEST GAME EVER!) and all the other heavy lifting required, this one would just be for taking notes while watching Star Trek DVDs and such.  So am I going to be happy with a 10-inch netbook and get enough performance on the web where I’m not getting annoyed by it?  Specs on most of the ones available for $200-$300 match what my poor beleaguered piece of junk was sporting anyway (1.6 gig processor and 1GB of RAM, plus a bigger hard drive), so I don’t see where any performance hit would come in aside from the smaller screen. 

Any experience with these? 

Dear Friends,

Lord help us, it's come to this:

I have written about the New Kids On the Block:

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/112235-to-define-a-platform-new-kids-on-the-block-on-dvd

Pray and repent!

 

Could be worse, I used to date a girl who worshipped the Backstreet Boys, and she was an actual adult and everything.  You haven’t lived until you’ve had someone implore you watch SNL because “they do the chair routine” that night.  And be totally serious about it.