Places Limited - BOOK NOW!
We're taught to hold our posture from a young age. We copped it from mum at the dinner table and from the teachers at school. And probably from coaches and physiotherapists along the way, too.
If you train in a martial art of any kind, be it a modern combat sport or ancient budo, you'll have heard it from your instructor more than anyone else. Correct posture — or at least, a posture that serves our chosen fighting method — is drilled into us every time we hit the mats. And it doesn't take much hitting or getting hit to realise why: it has a direct effect on our balance and power.
What is not often said, perhaps because it's not widely recognised, is that our posture also influences our combative mindset. Not only that, it influences the mindsets of our enemies. And why wouldn't it? The term 'body language' exists for good reason. We detect, often on a subconscious level, the subtle movements of other humans, and interpret their meaning. This in turn influences how we act and interact. And although we're often unaware of the physical signals we're sending ourselves, most of us will have at times used body language very deliberately to our advantage. 'Stand tall'…'hold your head up'…'look him in the eye'… No doubt you'll have given or heard instructions like these at some point. Why? Because like many other animals, we identify strength, or a lack of it, in the physical presence of others. And as a species whose brain is both his primary tool and weapon, we have learned that it sometimes helps to manipulate this.
Non-verbal communication doesn't just happen between humans — to an extent, it's an interspecies thing, too. As participants in a global food chain in which we weren't always the top dog (and at times, still aren't), we can recognise the signs of danger that familiar creatures present. For example, you probably don't need to read the notes on these images of dogs to spot the body language that spells out a warning. And you don't need to have seen many David Attenborough films to be able to recognise a hunting lion's intent (you've probably even seen a much smaller cat display the same cues in your own backyard). If we don't overthink it, our ability to interpret signs of threat is better than you might expect. It's innate because it's integral to human survival.
So how does all this relate to human-on-human combat?
Well, I take a pragmatic approach to teaching combative skills. I'm always looking for links between the various martial arts, combat sports and military techniques in which I have experience, aiming to find the simple truths that apply to all. The five principles of my own system, Kinetic Fighting, were formalised using exactly this method, with the first three originating from combat sports and supported by the principles of Advanced Close Quarter Combat (ACQC). The fourth principle came directly from the old Military Unarmed Combat (MUC) doctrine and was handed on to Special Forces Close Quarter Fighting (CQF) training. The fifth principle I developed after my own experience of hand-to-hand fighting on the battlefield — and it's here that any notion of combat being a 'sport' is removed.
The first principle of Kinetic Fighting is to maintain balance, which is achieved via correct posture. But there is also a 'hunting posture', which is what affects our mindset. I remember after the selection process for entry into the Australian Special Forces, during the reinforcement cycle, that the instructors of the close-quarter combat course would be yelling out instructions like 'adopt a hunting posture' and 'bend the knees, roll the shoulders, like you are hunting'. Years later, after becoming an instructor myself, I began to investigate the purpose of such a posture. Was it just about shooting straight?
I never would have imagined where I'd find the answer.
While training with combative instructors from the US Marine Corps in 2006, I was fortunate enough to meet a man called Hunter Armstrong, and over the years that followed, we became friends. Armstrong was a student and friend of the famous American martial artist, researcher and US Marine Corps Captain Donn Draeger. Draeger was one of the many American soldiers stationed around the Islands of Japan and Okinawa after World War Two who began studying the fighting arts of the region. But Draeger took it to another level: in fact, he was so highly regarded for his training and research that he became the only non-Japanese allowed entry to the Kobudo Shinko Kai, the Classical Martial Arts Preservation Society. He also wrote 30 books on human combat, including Western fighting traditions, before his death in 1982.
Like others involved with Draeger, Hunter Armstrong took up the Japanese martial arts in the early 1960s, starting with Goju-ryu karate. He later moved on to one of the oldest Japanese classical arts still being taught today, a sword-focused system called Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Heiho (the last word meaning 'strategy'). It was this old knowledge linking posture to combat mindset that caught my attention. Armstrong was taking methods tested on the battlefields of feudal Japan and applying them to US Marine Corps bayonet training. His training was backed up by his deep knowledge of hoplology, the study of the development and evolution of human combative behaviour.
And as it turns out, posture was considered key to survival long before our school teachers started hassling us about it.
The postures displayed during a typical street fight or pub stand-off really have nothing to do with a combat mindset. This form of posturing is known as 'affective behaviour' and is high in emotion. It's used with members of one's own species and its first aim is to intimidate via a threatening posture. This is where the human 'animal' attempts to show how big they are, standing tall with arms splayed and chest out, while threatening with words and eye contact. If an attack is launched, it is usually an angry attack, provoked by insult or a desire to prove dominance within the social group. It often starts and stops spontaneously without real conclusion, and usually results in relatively minor damage (one-punch kills often owe more to our hard-surfaced built environment than the striker's specific intent). Similar behaviour is exhibited by many other mammals and especially among alpha males, where it's used to determine rank.
On the other hand, predatory behaviour is backed by a cool mind. Predatory aggression is seen across the animal world and is predominantly interspecies — meaning, one species hunting another. Its primary purpose is hunting and killing food, and as such the posture must be efficient for movement and attack. There is no sound during the stalk so as not to warn the prey, although sound may be used as part of the attack. The eyes are used only for gathering information and a calm, calculating mind is required in stalking and planning the attack. The aim of the attack is to kill, not 'win a fight', and is absolutely necessary for the survival of the hunting species.
In turn, the purpose of stalking posture is both concealment and biomechanical functionality for attack — just as you've seen on Attenborough's videos. It is this stalking posture that's hardwired in us. And if seen, it tells our opponent of our intent. It says that we are a predator, not prey; that we are not afraid and, by extension, perhaps they should be.
With that in mind, you can see how posture can help us develop a combat mindset and further enhance it in conjunction with other training methods. Once we have tapped into this 'hunting' mindset, we can switch it on as needed and even apply it outside of combat. So the next time you think about your posture, have a think about what your mindset is at the same time. The link may surprise you.


Our teams are characterized by the dynamism and diversity of our colleagues. Insolvency is a multidisciplinary challenge, therefore you will have the opportunity to constantly improve yourself by working close to professionals and experts in the following fields: legal, economy, marketing, asset management, sales, management, financial analysis and consultancy.
We strongly believe that people add value to our business. To them we owe the success of both CITR, as well as of our partners who believed in our solutions. Our colleagues are this company's development engine, through the comprehensive services provided, perfected at the highest professional standards.
Flexibility, innovation and passion for this field challenged us to expand the CITR teams each year, in Bucharest and another 10 subsidiaries across the country. We take pride in our colleagues and support their development through continuous professional training programs and a merit-based promotion system.


text:
Categories 2010 Issue 3, FeaturesPosted on September 15, 2010 April 28, 2014
Scruffy-Looking Nerf Herders: How Seth Green and Matt Senreich '96 Took Over the Galaxy
By Nathan Scoggins '99 | Photography By Aaron Tamayo
In a nondescript warehouse in the heart of Los Angeles, a galaxy that was once far, far away is now very near. At least it is for the small band of craftsmen laboring against time to put the finishing touches on Cartoon Network's award-winning Robot Chicken: Star Wars series, co-created by Seth Green and Matt Senreich '96. A series that began as a set of sketches on Robot Chicken, Robot Chicken: Star Wars has in many ways revitalized George Lucas' epic space fantasy, introducing a fresh, irreverent (yet oddly reverential) sensibility to the blockbuster franchise, and garnering a whole new series of fans.
On one well-guarded set, a technician lights a shot that will feature hero Luke Skywalker facing down his old nemesis, the Wampa Hoth creature from The Empire Strikes Back, albeit in a new environment —an intergalactic gas station. Despite the set-up's inherent silliness, the technician carefully crafts the shot, which will be captured in a computer for additional special effects (in this case, a starfield will replace the green screen surrounding the set). This episode, reportedly the last in the series of award-winning Star Wars specials, featuresRobot Chicken's staple animation style: stop-motion, in which puppets are painstakingly photographed and then adjusted one frame at a time.
The Star Wars series of specials is an extension of the Robot Chicken brand, which quickly emerged as the hallmark of Cartoon Network's Adult Swim late-night cartoon series. As created by Green and Senreich, the series was initially an excuse to have fun with pop culture and experiment with a new kind of sketch comedy. As the show has grown in popularity, however, it has now become part of pop culture itself, winning four Emmy awards in the process.
Not bad for a show that, as Family Guy once put it, is "guys playing with Star Wars dolls."
NS: Matt, did your career go in a straight line after Wesleyan?
MS: I was always the person who was going against what people were telling me to do, which was actually encouraged at Wesleyan. I don't think that was a bad thing, because I wanted to get into comic books, and nobody at Wesleyan knew how to do that. But I knew the people at the Career Planning Center (now Career Resource Center) really well, and I asked them what the best thing to do was. They encouraged me to just try to get anyone in the entertainment world from Wesleyan to talk to me. Susan Ellis at HBO was one of the people who had me come down to New York to meet with her.
NS: So you were doing this while you were still a student.
MS:Oh yeah. My roommate and I had a two-bedroom apartment, and the walls were all covered with my rejection letters. Wallpapered with rejection.
NS: Kind of like collecting baseball cards.
MS: Exactly. What's funny is I had an interview with Lucasfilm back then. It was for ILM or LucasArts, and I think they wanted me to be a computer guy or a game designer because of my comic book experience, only to learn that I couldn't draw. So that didn't work out too well.
NS: So you didn't do the typical film program.
MS: No. But Bob White, who was the A/V guy at the Science Center of all places, had his own editing system—this was before AVID—and an effects monitor. I wound up creating my own one-on-one class with him, where I learned how to edit. Also I took a screenwriting class. I thought that was really interesting. But I was a history major.
NS: So you graduated—did you head for New York first?
MS: I did. I started out at Wizard, which was a magazine that gave an overview of toys, video games—it was like Entertainment Weekly for geeks. It was while I was there that I ended up meeting Seth. I'd read in Entertainment Weeklythat he'd made action figures for the cast of Buffy as a Christmas present, and I thought that would make an interesting article. And then basically he called me up one day and said, "Hey, I have this idea (for Robot Chicken), do you want to try to put something together?"
NS: Did you start with one-off stuff at first?
MS: We made 12 animated shorts for Sony Digital back in 2000, and then we shopped the show around for four years.
SG: Four years, taking it to anyplace that we thought had this natural sort of format —Mad TV, SNL. We really thought of it as interstitials, kind of like a Robert Smigel piece on "SNL", because we didn't think it was a whole show. We took it to Cartoon Network, which didn't have a platform for it at that time…
MS: We took it to Comedy Central, and then 9/11 happened and comedy wasn't funny anymore.
NS: Irony died.
SG: And then a really big thing happened. Adult Swim started gaining in numbers, and they started manufacturing their own programs. Mike Lazzo (president of Adult Swim) liked our show and bought an order for 20 episodes.
NS: That was an interesting time, because the Internet bubble had burst…
SG: We wound up, oddly, ahead of trends by accident. We came up with something you could make inexpensively—short-form, easily digestible content, not terribly important, just funny—and it connects with people at the most basic level. Pop culture they were familiar with—jokes about commercials and toys.
NS: And Robot Chicken is uniquely poised for those YouTube-style, bite-sized nuggets.
MS: We almost called the show ADD TV. A lot of sketch comedy shows—for us, the sketches last too long. If we didn't have an "out," we could just flip the channel. Even if we didn't have a "start," we could start where we thought it was funny and go from there. And that worked for the format we were trying to do.
Our whole thing is self-awareness. We know that we are part of our audience, and we just try to make things that are funny to us. Even if it's just a joke that we know four people will get, we do it and then we're on to the next one. We're the guys in Ferris Bueller who wink at the camera from time to time.
NS: How does this work between the two of you? From everything I've read, it sounds like this is a true partnership.
MS: I always say this—I don't want people to know who I am. I'm perfectly happy not to get recognized; I love that Seth can be, that Robot Chicken can be "The Seth Green Show with that Other Guy."
SG: But the thing about Robot Chicken is that it's not "The Seth Green Show."
MS: I agree, I totally agree.
SG: We were very intentional about not putting my name in the title. This isn't like Everybody Loves Raymond or Seinfeld. This is a really specific type of entertainment that isn't just about my reputation.
NS: So Matt's the actual mastermind, Seth is just the puppet.
SG: (laughs) What's funny is that we both have different work experiences, but the same goals. So where I'm really good at doing the song and dance in the meeting and getting celebrities and getting Twitter attention to what we're doing, Matt's the guy pushing rocks all day, getting the schedule in, making sure the deadlines are hit, making sure that everything is functioning.
NS: So it sounds like a true collaboration in that you guys both bring different things to the table.
SG: It's the best partnership I've ever had, second to my wife.
MS: We do have those moments where we're like, "I can't believe we're getting paid to do this."
SG: And then we have those moments where we're like, "I'm going to kill you." (laughs) I always refer to Matt as my TV wife.
MS: On the set, we're "mom and dad."
NS: Talk about partnering with Lucasfilm, because it feels like that's been an incremental process.
SG: Ten years of working that relationship.
NS: And now you're taking it to the next level by actually doing a show set in the Star Wars universe. I'd love to hear how this all came about.
MS: For me, Star Wars is what inspired me to want to collect the toys growing up, and what got me into this business. And when we did that Emperor Phone Call sketch, and the phone lit up and the Caller ID said "Lucasfilm," we had a heart attack. We thought we were going to get sued. I actually answered the phone pretending to be our assistant. But it was Tracy Cannobbio at Lucasfilm, who was a really big fan. And she was like, "Hey, we love the Emperor's phone call sketch, would you want to come up for a tour," and we were on a plane the next week.
SG: And we're trying to figure out what their take on all this was—it was before the Clone Wars TV show, they had just finished Episode III—and they're like, "What do you want to do?" And Matt comes out with, "I'm thinking we do a half hour Robot Chicken show that's all Star Wars." And I start up with, "Maybe we do a Super Bowl halftime show, we could do one of these huge collaborations." It didn't work out quite like that…
MS:…but within three weeks we were up and running. And they loved it. We got George to do his own voice for it, which is hysterical…
NS: And you had an attitude of respect and wanting to honor the work that they'd done…
MS: Absolutely. The thing I always tell people when I've gone back to Wesleyan is, there's a way to ask for help and be humble about it.
SG: And there's a way to be confident without being arrogant or repulsive.
NS: Last question. Seth, you've had the chance to work with Joss (Whedon, '87) and Matt…
SG: Is this a Wesleyan question?
MS: We've actually had Joss on the show. I believe we referred to him as "Wesleyan's own Joss Whedon."
NS: I think applications went up 50 percent that next year. What would you say is the Wesleyan secret sauce?
MS: From my perspective, I think Wesleyan encourages creativity. I was pulled in so many different directions while I was there, that I was able to accomplish so much more. I was doing SJB, I was doing stuff at the Career Planning Center, I was editing at night, I was doing intramurals at the same time, I did hockey all four years I was there—but you look at the people who came out of there, and it justifies all the creativity that's there.
SG: Nothing beats hard work. Matt and I get here by 8 in the morning and we don't leave until 6 or 6:30 unless there are extenuating circumstances. We're here pushing rocks all day long. That's what it takes. Every single thing that we have gotten done has been done by sheer will.
MS: I always go back to that time period when I was in New York, and I would leave my first job and go to my second job, which was working on these digital shorts until 3 or 4 in the morning, and if I hadn't worked that hard, it never would have happened. I always come back to that. Those six months were the worst hell I've ever experienced, but it paid off in the end.
Download a PDF of the complete article HERE
Magazine Editor
Category 2010 Issue 3Posted on September 1, 2010 October 1, 2014
Category 2009 Issue 2Posted on June 20, 2009 April 28, 2014
Lab of Ideas

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Subscribe to Enuffa.com!
Enuffa.com Official Merch
Top Ten Things: Worst WWF/E Tag Team Champions
Welcome to another edition of Top Ten Things devoted to piss-poor championship title reigns! As you may have guessed from my previous entries (HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), I like complaining about crappy champions. So thought I'd continue doing so. Admit it, you're happy to read more of it.
Anyway, today I'm tackling the subject of weakest WWF/E Tag Team Championship reigns of all time. The WWE Tag Championship dates back, in some form, to the company's 1963 inception (and even earlier; the WWWF United States Tag Titles were created in 1958). After a couple different incarnations, the World Tag Team Championship as it was known for decades was created in 1971 and was first worn by Luke Graham and Tarzan Tyler (who captured the titles via a REAL tournament, as opposed to the imaginary ones Buddy Rogers and Pat Patterson won for their respective inaugural titles). This version of the tag belts was around until 2010 when they were merged with the WWE Tag Team Titles (from Smackdown), and for some reason the current RAW Tag belts follow that newer lineage that began in 2002, while the current Smackdown Tag belts only date back to 2016. I don't get it either.
Regardless, this particular set of belts has a rich, storied history, and just about every team that was anyone possessed them at one time or another. For years the longevity record was held by Demolition, who had a stranglehold on the titles for 16 months. Recently though The New Day eclipsed that record, but again the current set of belts is supposedly not the same as the old one. I dunno. Fuck it.
That's all irrelevant, I'm just here to talk about the shitty champions, so here we go, in chronological order.....
1. 1-2-3 Kid & Marty Janetty (1994)
As with the previous Worst Champions lists, there are some entries here that aren't intrinsically undeserving, but made the list due to the way their title run was booked. Our first example is one such....example. In January of 1994 this upstart team, fresh off winning their Survivor Series match two months earlier (outlasting fellow team members Razor Ramon and Randy Savage, plus opponents IRS, Diesel, Adam Bomb and Rick Martel) got a title shot against The Quebecers on Monday Night RAW and shocked everyone by winning the straps. This was an exciting title change for rising underdog Sean Waltman and Shawn Michaels' former sidekick, and it seemed like the company had made a brand new star babyface tag team. Aaaand then they dropped the belts back to The Quebecers at a house show one week later and were never heard from again as a team. Pointless.
2. Men on a Mission (1994)
Another short-lived title run in between Quebecer stints took place over a two-day period in England, only two months after Kid & Marty's. Mo and Mabel, the goofy but sorta dominant babyface tandem who took The Quebecers to the limit at WrestleMania X, finally got the job done at a house show two weeks after 'Mania. What an accomplishment, and what a treat for the British fans--- oh wait, they lost the belts back 48 hours later. And like Marty and Waltman, they'd never win them again. Look, I wasn't the biggest MOM fan by any means, but what is the point of giving a team a championship for two days and never putting them anywhere near said championship again? And what was with Jacques and Pierre temporarily losing the belts over and over?
3. 1-2-3 Kid & Bob Holly (1995)
Poor Sean Waltman is on this list twice, as in 1995 he'd have another cup of coffee with the tag belts. This time there was a tournament to crown new champs after Shawn Michaels and Diesel split up and vacated the titles. Diesel went on to win the WWF Title three days later, while Shawn became the company's top heel. The tournament brackets were announced in December or January, with the finals taking place at the 1995 Royal Rumble. Problem was the heavy favorites, The Smoking Gunns, had to bow out of the tournament due to injury, and were thus replaced by this unlikely duo. Kid and Holly became the Cinderella story, their resilency taking them all the way to the finals against Bam Bam Bigelow and Tatanka. At the Rumble, in a shockingly good match, another upset took place, and our mongrel babyface team triumphed! And then the next night on RAW the Smoking Gunns returned and got a title shot, even though they hadn't even participated in the tournament. Surely Bam Bam and Tatanka should've been first in line, no? Regardless, Billy and Bart Gunn won the titles, cutting short Waltman and Holly's celebration. And what happened to this team after that? You guessed it, they went their separate ways and this whole tourney was for nothing. May as well have just handed the vacant belts to the Gunns at that point.
4. Holly Cousins (1999)
Bob Holly gets two consecutive mentions on this list. In 1999 Holly, repackaged as "Hardcore" Holly, who specialized in the WWF's new "kitchen sink" style of wrestling, teamed with his pretend cousin Crash Holly as essentially a heel comedy duo. Bob was the serious one and Crash was the goofball. This gimmick stunk, and really the only good thing to come out of it was Crash's 24/7 defenses of the Hardcore Title, where the belt was always on the line, no matter what time of day or where Crash happened to be. Oh, and Molly Holly. I heart her. In October of 1999, amid Vince Russo's short attention span booking spree where belts changed hands on a weekly basis, Bob and Crash defeated the Rock n' Sock Connection (the mega-over Rock-Mankind tandem) for the belts on RAW. And then two weeks later at a Smackdown taping they lost them to Mankind and Al Snow. So in the span of two weeks the tag titles were downgraded in prestige from Mankind-Rock, to Mankind-Snow. Jeezus H. Christ. Bob and Crash of course never saw tag gold again.
5. Too Cool (2000)
The year 2000 saw tag team wrestling revolutionized, as Edge & Christian, The Hardy Boyz and The Dudley Boyz blew the roof off the Arrowhead Pond with the first-ever Triangle Ladder Match. Edge & Christian, who had struggled to connect with fans as a babyface team, quickly found their identity as obnoxious heels who thwarted the Hardys and Dudleys at seemingly every turn. They were on track to have an epic tag title run and feud with both of their groundbreaking rival teams throughout the year. But wait, here came a silly comedy act called Too Cool to break it all up. Grandmaster Sexay (RIP Brian Lawler) and Scotty 2 Hotty defeated Edge & Christian on RAW less than two months removed from WrestleMania, getting a big pop from the live crowd but little more. Four weeks after that Edge & Christian regained the titles at King of the Ring, and, what a shock, Too Cool never came close to the belts again.
6. Rock & Undertaker (2000)
During The Attitude Era the WWF was notorious for taking to top singles stars who didn't get along and having them briefly win the Tag Team Titles. This happened so many times from 1997 on that I could fill a whole Top Ten Things with just these instances. The earliest example I can remember is Steve Austin and Shawn Michaels, which was actually awesome (their title run got cut short when Shawn got injured), but the company tried to recapture that magic ad nauseum, and this entry might be the most pointless. In December of 2000 Kurt Angle was the WWF Champion and every top babyface in the company was gunning for him, including The Rock, who he'd defeated for the belt, and The Undertaker, who he'd beaten at Survivor Series. At Armageddon Angle defended against Rock, Taker, Steve Austin, Triple H and Rikishi, and eked out a win. I guess to give them something to do and to give them back some heat or whatever, the company had Rock and Taker beat Edge & Christian (who'd just regained the titles at Armageddon) for the tag belts a week later on RAW, only to lose them back to E&C the next night on Smackdown. Why? Who the fuck knows? Just one of many nonsensical tag title pairings during that era.
7. Rico & Rikishi (2002)
In 2002 WWE held the first roster split, where Smackdown became a consistently pretty great show for a while, and RAW became pure drivel. One of the issues was the uneven distribution of championships between the two shows. For example both the Intercontinental and European Titles went to RAW despite its roster being significantly thinner than Smackdown's. Additionally the Tag Team Championship became Smackdown-exclusive despite an already razor-thin company-wide tag division. Even on top of that, the company split up the Dudley Boyz and the APA, two of the top four teams, leaving almost no one to contend for this championship (The Hardy Boyz were the only other top team left, and they were on RAW). Thus at Judgment Day 2002, the champs, Billy & Chuck, dropped the titles to the makeshift duo of Rico (formerly B&C's manager) and Rikishi. Oh super, there's a classic feud. Don't worry though, Billy & Chuck regained the belts 16 days later before pointlessly losing them to another mongrel team.
8. Edge & Hulk Hogan (2002)
This one might've pissed me off more than any other because of the card reshuffle it caused. 2002 was of course the year Hulk Hogan came back to WWE, faced The Rock at WrestleMania, and due to the overwhelmingly positive crowd response he got, was given one last WWF Title run out of nowhere (which meant Triple H's huge crowning moment as Undisputed Champion lasted a measly four weeks). But not only did he fuck up the WrestleMania aftermath, his presence ruined what could've been a Match of the Year contender at Vengeance. Edge had begun feuding with Chris Jericho a month earlier and were slated to face off at Vengeance, but their match was canceled (fucking CANCELED) after Edge teamed with Hogan on the July 4th RAW (America, yay!) to unseat Billy & Chuck for the tag belts. So a potentially great PPV match for Jericho (which he could've used after being so weakly booked all year) was off so Edge and Hogan could defend against Jericho's friends Lance Storm & Christian, while Jericho got a six-minute clean loss to a rookie named John Cena (Yes, I know Jericho was totally fine with this loss because he saw a lot of potential in John, but it still made him look like a total fucking chump). Meanwhile Edge and Hogan's title run ended after 19 days and Hogan was gone a month later, having won two championships he didn't need in 2002.
9. Ric Flair & Roddy Piper (2006)
Speaking of fifty-plussers who don't need titles, in 2006 Ric Flair was sorta feuding with The Spirit Squad (because who doesn't like a 5-on-1 feud?) and had been granted a Tag Team Title shot at Cyber Sunday (the ill-conceived annual PPV where the fans got to vote on the matchups and the company would throw together a show based on the tabulated results from that day). What the fans got to vote on here was Flair's tag team partner, a choice between the 61-year-old Dusty Rhodes, the 58-year-old Sgt. Slaughter, and the 52-year-old Roddy Piper, none of whom was in anything approaching wrestling shape. Piper won the vote and teamed with the 57-year-old Flair to defeat two Spirit Squad guys for the belts. That's right, a duo with a combined age of 109 were now the WWE Tag Champions. And this company wonders why it has trouble creating new stars. These old fucks lost the belts eight days later to a hot new heel tandem called Rated RKO (Edge and Randy Orton), who seemed primed to take the company by storm.
10. John Cena & Shawn Michaels (2007)
But wait, we can't let anyone new get over, here's another pairing of feuding main event guys to fuck it all up. Only a couple months after Orton and Edge took the belts, the two babyfaces slated to main event WrestleMania 23 against each other snapped up the titles. WWE Champion John Cena and his WrestleMania challenger Shawn Michaels actually went into their 'Mania head-to-head meeting as tag team partners, which added absolutely nothing to their match. It was a WrestleMania main event for the company's top prize, why did the two guys involved need the tag belts too? Couldn't Edge and Orton have benefitted from a high-profile title defense at the biggest show of the year? Cena vs. Shawn was an excellent match, but their being co-champions didn't even enter into the story. They were rivals for the WWE Championship and nothing more. And then one night after 'Mania they dropped the belts to the Hardy Boyz. So this was entirely without purpose. Why not have Rated RKO vs. The Hardys at WrestleMania, hmm? Fuck this company.
Well that's enough pissing and moaning from me today. Hope you enjoyed another look at some stupidly booked championship reigns. Don't forget to join us on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter (@EnuffaDotCom)!
Posted by Justin Enuffa Ballard at 4:13 PM
Labels: Top Ten Things, Wrestling Stuff, WWE Network
Follow Enuffa via FeedBurner!
Subscribe to our FeedBurner feed to stay updated on all things Enuffa!
Buy Enuffa.com Koozies Here!
31 Horror Movies in 31 Days
Awesomely Shitty Movies
Beer Brawl
Best Picture Reviews
Brewery Reviewery
Cinema Showdown
Dan Moore's Stuff
Dan's Top 9
Dumb Action Movie Reviews
Helluva Band
I'd Like to Introduce You To...
Movies of Disbelief
One-on-One With the Bald One
Parents' Night In
PPV Showdown
Pro Wrestling: A Mark's History
Stuff I Drew
TFFY
The Dive Bars of America
The Great PPVs
The History of NJPW Dominion
The History of NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling
The History of NJPW WrestleKingdom
The History of NWA/WCW Great American Bash
The History of NWA/WCW Halloween Havoc
The History of NWA/WCW Starrcade
The History of NXT: TakeOver
The History of WCW SuperBrawl
The History of WWE King of the Ring
The History of WWE Royal Rumble
The History of WWE SummerSlam
The History of WWE Survivor Series
The History of WWE WrestleMania
Top Ten Things
Winery Outlinery
Wrestling Do-Overs
WWE Predictions
WWE vs. NJPW Supercard
Year-End Awards
YUTBSG
Enuffa on Facebook
Join the Enuffa.com Facebook group and stay updated on all Enuffa happenings!
Most Popular Stuff
The Dive Bars of America: Sully's Sand Trap (North Weymouth, MA)
by Dan Moore @SouthieDanimal This column features some of the greatest and grossest dive bars in the U.S. of A. I'll be using a 5-categor...
The Dive Bars of Yesteryear: The Quiet Man Pub (South Boston, MA)
by Dan Moore @SouthieDanimal Back with another edition of The Dive Bars of America , but with a twist. In this edition, I talk about a st...
The Dive Bars of America: The Harbor Inn (Ocean City, MD)
by Dan Moore @SouthieDanimal Back with another edition of The Dive Bars of the Good Ol' U.S. of A . I've got a 5-category rating system b...
The Dive Bars of America: Delaney's Pub (Quincy, MA)
The Dive Bars of America: The Cellar Tavern (Abington, MA)
by Dan Moore @SouthieDanimal This column features some of the greatest and grossest dive bars in the U.S. of A. I'll be using a rati...
The Dive Bars of America: Sully's (Quincy MA)
by Dan Moore @SouthieDanimal Another edition of The Dive Bars of the Good Ol' U.S. of A . I've got a 5-category rating system between 1 a...
Top Ten Things: Brock Lesnar Matches
***Originally published 10.27.15*** What's up folks? Welcome to Enuffa.com 's Top Ten Things , where I'll count down the ten be...
The Dive Bars of America: Irish Pub Parking in Rear (Quincy, MA)
by Dan Moore @ SouthieDanimal This column features one of many beautiful dive bars in America. I love these places. The dive bar is my pr...
Top Ten Things: Fawlty Towers Episodes
Welcome to yet another edition of Top Ten Things , where I pick my ten favorite of somethingorother.... Today what's on my mind is the...
The Dive Bars of America: The Connection (South Boston, MA)
If you couldn't tell by the title, this column is going to feature one of the many beautiful dive bars in and around Boston. I'm a purveyor ...
Search for More Stuff!
Can't Get Enuffa Old Stuff
Awesomely Shitty Movies: Last Action Hero
Top Ten Things: July PPV Matches
Parents' Night In #10: Jaws (1975)
Book Review: The Greatest Matches and Rivalries of...
Brewery Reviewery: One Love Brewery (Lincoln, NH)
Top Ten Things: Worst NWA/WCW World Champions
Top Ten Things: Disappointing Wrestling PPVs
Toys That Pissed Us Off: Playsets
The History of NWA/WCW Great American Bash (1991)
Top Ten Things: Star Trek Films
WWE Extreme Rules 2018: A Microcosm of Vince's Shi...
Awesomely Shitty Movies: Mad Max Beyond Thunderdom...
Top Ten Things: Worst NWA/WCW/WWE US Champions
Awesomely Shitty Movies: Mallrats
NJPW G1 Climax 28 Preview & Predictions
WWE Extreme Rules 2018 Preview & Predictions
Top Ten Things: Guns N' Roses Songs
Top Ten Things: Worst WWE Intercontinental Champio...
NJPW G1 Special Review
Awesomely Shitty Movies: Face/Off
Top Ten Things: Worst WWE Champions
NJPW G1 Special in San Francisco Preview & Predict...
Awesomely Shitty Movies: Independence Day
Bob Dylan's "Blonde On Blonde" Revisited
B-Cuddy
Justin Enuffa Ballard
Landon Wayne
Miggsy
Other People's Stuff
Bumming With Bobcat
Funny Action Movies
Off the Monster Sports
Patriots Fans Unite Against the NFL
WWF Old School
Copyright 2014 J-Ball Music. Powered by Blogger.


The full scope of what causes Alzheimer's disease is not completely understood, but research has found compelling evidence that certain specific factors play a role in the development of the disease. Today, the El Dorado Hills Alzheimer's care experts are going to explore the risk factors of Alzheimer's and how a combination of these risk factors can point to a higher incidence of the disease.
A family history of the disease plays a small role in its occurrence, and about 5% of cases are traced to a genetic root. Scientists have isolated three gene mutations that cause the illness, and individuals are more likely to contract the condition if an immediate family member has been affected. In general, women are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than men.
Patients who have suffered one or multiple head injuries are at risk for developing the disease. Families can help reduce the risk of head injury for their loved ones by encouraging daily physical activity to strengthen muscles and enhance flexibility. Enlisting in the help of a professional home caregiver in El Dorado Hills can also help to ensure safety at home while completing daily activities.
Though aging is not a direct cause for the condition, individuals are more likely to develop Alzheimer's as they get older. The risk of getting the disease increases after patients reach age 65.
If you have an aging parent or loved one who has been recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's, educating yourself about the disease and starting to plan for the future as soon as possible will help to ensure his or her health, wellness and quality of life as the disease progresses. To learn more about in-home Alzheimer's care for seniors, visit our website at www.homecareassistanceeldoradoco.com or call a friendly Care Manager directly at 916-358-3801. Home Care Assistance of El Dorado Hills is a leading provider of Alzheimer's care and offer flexible hourly and live-in care schedules with no long-term contracts.


Genesis 39:1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither. Genesis 39:2 And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. Genesis 39:3 And his master saw that the LORD [was] with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand. Genesis 39:4 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all [that] he had he put into his hand. Genesis 39:5 And it came to pass from the time [that] he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field. Genesis 39:6 And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was [a] goodly [person], and well favoured.
Genesis 39:7 And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. Genesis 39:8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what [is] with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; Genesis 39:9 [There is] none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou [art] his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? Genesis 39:10 And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, [or] to be with her. Genesis 39:11 And it came to pass about this time, that [Joseph] went into the house to do his business; and [there was] none of the men of the house there within. Genesis 39:12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
Genesis 39:13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, Genesis 39:14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: Genesis 39:15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. Genesis 39:16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. Genesis 39:17 And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: Genesis 39:18 And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. Genesis 39:19 And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled.
Genesis 39:21 But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison. Genesis 39:22 And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph's hand all the prisoners that [were] in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he was the doer [of it]. Genesis 39:23 The keeper of the prison looked not to any thing [that was] under his hand; because the LORD was with him, and [that] which he did, the LORD made [it] to prosper.


text:
Guidance update: latest NICE guidelines on chest pain
By Dr Ivan Benett and Dr Toni Hazell on the 10 January 2018
Dr Ivan Benett and Dr Toni Hazell offer a free module on how to implement NICE guidance on chest pain of recent origin.
2. What is the latest evidence?
3. What's new in the latest guidance?
4. What to do differently in your practice?
5. Any areas of uncertainty/controversy?
6. New and upcoming treatments
7. Multimorbidity
8. Case study
9. Quality improvement activities
10. Key points
11. Useful resources
Chest pain is a common presentation, accounting for 1-2% of all adult consultations in primary care, 5% of visits to emergency departments and 40% of emergency hospital admissions.1
The NICE guidance on chest pain of recent onset that was published in 2010 was updated in November 2016.2
The main change that is relevant to GPs is the section on assessing a patient with stable chest pain and deciding who should be referred. This section assumes that the person does not have current pain and that the pain has not occurred in the last 72 hours – patients who have had pain in this time frame should be referred more urgently. This is discussed in more detail later in this module.
Unchanged from 2010 (and from what we all learnt in medical school) is the advice that we should take a history and examine, with a view both to diagnosing angina and assessing for other causes. New in the 2016 guidance is that we should assess the pain according to how typical it is for angina. Anginal pain can have three characteristics (Box 1).
Box 1. Characteristics of anginal pain
Constricting discomfort in the front of the chest or in the neck, shoulders, jaw or arms
Precipitated by physical exertion
Relieved by rest or glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) within about five minutes
If the patient's pain has all three of these characteristics then it is classed as typical angina, whereas two of these characteristics is atypical angina and one or none is non-anginal chest pain. An assessment of the typicality of chest pain should be included in any referral to secondary care. Those with non-anginal chest pain should not be offered diagnostic investigations for chest pain unless a resting ECG shows ST changes or Q waves – left bundle branch block is also highlighted as an abnormality that may indicate ischaemia or previous infarction.
Any patient in whom angina cannot be excluded should have a resting ECG taken as soon as possible and we should also consider the possibility of other diagnoses such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in patients with anginal pain who have a low likelihood of coronary artery disease. A chest X-ray should only be requested if an alternative diagnosis such as lung cancer is being considered.
This assessment should be the same for both men and women and for patients from different ethnic groups. Other features that make anginal pain unlikely are if the pain is continuous or very prolonged, unrelated to activity, brought on by breathing in or associated with dizziness, palpitations, tingling or difficulty swallowing. An alternative diagnosis should be sought in patients with chest pain that is not felt to be of cardiac origin.
This guidance formalises the assessment of stable chest pain that we were probably all making anyway and so is unlikely to change what an experienced GP will be doing now, though it may be useful for teaching purposes. It could be useful for medico-legal purposes because it backs up a decision not to refer a patient whose symptoms do not suggest angina.
Important! An assessment of the typicality of chest pain should be included in any referral to secondary care.
There is also a section in the guidance on acute chest pain, which hasn't been updated since 2010 but is worth highlighting. Anyone who has had chest pain in the last 12 hours should be treated the same as those who have chest pain at the time of assessment and referred to hospital, if a resting ECG is abnormal or not available. Of course, a normal resting ECG does not rule out acute coronary syndrome (something that isn't made clear in the guidance) and clinical judgment may well still support an emergency referral even in the presence of a normal ECG. Those who have had pain in the last 72 hours but are now pain-free with a normal resting ECG should be referred for 'urgent same-day assessment… if there are no reasons for emergency referral' – in most areas emergency referral and same-day assessment are essentially the same thing, so we should maybe consider referring all patients who have had pain in the last 72 hours.
Any patient in whom angina cannot be excluded should have a resting ECG taken as soon as possible
Other reasons to refer would include a suspicion of a complication such as pulmonary oedema after chest pain has settled, or further chest pain after a recent episode of acute coronary syndrome, which may be caused by further coronary disease, pericarditis and Dressler's syndrome, or pulmonary embolus.
The guidance is slightly contradictory when it comes to the investigation of patients who have no features or only one feature of anginal pain. It initially says that these patients have 'non-anginal chest pain', which would suggest that the clinical assessment has ruled out angina and no further tests are needed. However, it then says that we should assess the likelihood of coronary artery disease (using the usual risk factors such as age, diabetes, lipids, hypertension, family history, etc) and that those with non-anginal chest pain should only be referred if there are ECG changes – but if the guidance is followed to the letter, and patients with no features or only one feature of anginal pain are considered not to have angina, then it doesn't obviously follow that a resting ECG would have been requested. In the presence of this slight confusion, and in these litigious times, it would seem sensible to have a low threshold for requesting a resting ECG in patients who have any anginal features or risk factors in whom you are not considering a referral to secondary care.
NICE now advises that any patient who has a clinical assessment suggesting typical or atypical angina should have a CT coronary angiography which takes 64 slices or more as their initial test. This should also be the case for those whose history does not suggest angina but who have ST changes or Q waves on a resting ECG. If the CT is not diagnostic then non-invasive functional imaging should be offered eg stress echo, exercise ECG, perfusion scintigraphy or MRI, with invasive angiography being reserved as third-line.
Clearly, these decisions won't be made in primary care but this information may be useful for those GPs who are involved in commissioning secondary care services, or those who need to make a decision about which of several local hospitals to use for chest pain referrals.
Important! Any patient who has a clinical assessment suggesting typical or atypical angina should have a CT coronary angiography which takes 64 slices or more as their initial test.
There are no specific multimorbidity issues in this guidance, except that those patients with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease may be more likely to have angina as a cause for their chest pain than those without.
Maria is a 65-year-old woman who comes to see you complaining of chest pain, on and off for the last month or so. She last had it one week ago. The pain is mainly there when she climbs stairs or if she runs for a bus but she is vague about how quickly it goes when she stops exerting herself. It is a tight squeezing type pain. She has well-controlled hypertension but is otherwise healthy. You explain to her that the pain sounds like angina, though the uncertainty about how quickly it goes away on rest would put it in the category of atypical angina. You arrange for a resting ECG and refer her to your local rapid access chest pain clinic.
Two weeks later you get a letter from the chest pain clinic saying that she has had a CT angiography that shows coronary artery disease and she is on the waiting list for an angioplasty. This is subsequently carried out and a stent is inserted.
You see Maria three months later for a review of her blood pressure and she is delighted to tell you that she has no chest pain now and thanks you for your prompt action.
Review the last five referrals to your local rapid access chest pain clinic. Had a clear assessment been made of the typicality of the pain and was this communicated in the referral letter?
Consider having a standard letter with space to add information on typicality of chest pain as a reminder to anyone who is referring
Audit and review your arrangements for checking resting ECGs that are brought into your practice. Do they go to the duty doctor or the doctor who had requested the ECG? What happens if the requesting doctor is away? Do you need a more cast-iron system to ensure that they are all reviewed on the same day and any relevant action taken?
Anyone who has current chest pain or has had chest pain in the last 12 hours should be referred to hospital as an emergency, and those who have had chest pain in the last 72 hours should be referred on the same day
Assess the typicality of stable chest pain and use this assessment to guide your decisions on investigation and referral
If coronary disease cannot be excluded then the best next test is to use CT angiography to make the diagnosis. If there is remaining doubt after a CT angiogram, then use functional imaging to rule out false positive results
If no significant coronary artery disease is found, consider and investigate for other causes of the symptoms. These may be cardiac, such as valve disease, or non-cardiac, such as musculoskeletal pain or gastro-oesophageal reflux
MIMS. Anti-anginal preparations, summary by pharmacological class. Details of available formulations of anti-anginal drugs listed by pharmacological class.
MIMS. Cardiology clinic. Latest news and quick-reference resources to support primary care prescribing for cardiovascular conditions, including angina, heart failure and hypertension.
Patient.info. Chest pain. April 2016
NICE. Clinical knowledge summary: Chest pain: prevalence. January 2017.
NICE. Chest pain of recent onset: assessment and diagnosis. CG95. Updated November 2016.
Dr Ivan Benett is a GPSI cardiology in Manchester
Dr Toni Hazell is a GP in London
Take a test on this article and claim your certificate at MIMS Learning
Case study: Breathlessness on exertion
Clinical review: Valvular heart disease
Breathlessness - red flag symptoms
Mitral valve disease: clinical review
Chest pain - red flag symptoms


text:
Q: MySQL Cluster - Excessive network traffic I am currently in the process of testing a brand new MySQL Cluster on a few VirtualBox VMs.  I have successfully configured everything and have 1 management node, 2 data nodes and 3 application nodes working perfectly as far as data consistency is concerned.
The issue is that there appears to be quite excessive network traffic between the ndbd and ndb_mgmd processes on each machine.  Memory usage also seems to be quite excessive although this is not as much of an issue.  My cluster is not doing anything and yet there is quite a few Kb/s being transferred between the nodes.
Is this normal?  And if not, what have I done wrong?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Looking for Norwalk singles on online dating sites? If you are ready to date online, make a winning profile and start searching. The Norwalk personals can easily connect you with the person of your choice because it is a totally free dating service for singles in Norwalk. Find your match right now.


text:
Brian and Charles
One event on July 3, 2022 at 5:15 pm
| $13.33
Rating: G (19+ at the Vic)
Director: Jim Archer
BRIAN AND CHARLES follows Brian, a lonely inventor in rural Wales, who spends his days building quirky, unconventional contraptions that seldom work. Undeterred by his lack of success, Brian attempts his biggest project yet. Three days, a washing machine, and various spare parts later, he's invented Charles, an artificially intelligent robot who learns English from a dictionary and has an obsession with cabbages. What follows is a humorous and entirely heartwarming story about friendship, family, finding love, and letting go.
The Residency at Clive's presents Laowai, Vancouver
Music by the Shore
Film, Theatre
https://www.victoriafilmfestival.com/product/brianandcharles/
The Vic Theatre
808 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC V8W 2B6 Canada + Google Map


Marriage and Other Arrangements - What is Unbreakable? - Kenneth Stewart, Ph.D.
into words, we are left groping in the dark.
inside our relationships with another.
contortions to begin to discover what is eating us. We can't always approach this carefully. In fact, we sometimes need to risk being un-careful in order to arrive at proper description of what's bugging us. Essayist Michael Ventura says that if we are afraid of breaking – either breaking down within ourselves or breaking something in the relationship, then all that carefulness may mean that something is terribly wrong with this marriage or this relationship.
But, how are we going to know for sure ? He suggests that sometimes we need to not be so careful. In fact, sometimes we need to let the winds blow and see what's left in the morning. What will be left after the latest hurricane has blown through the marriage or the relationship? What will be left standing when the storm blows over and we peek outside the next morning to survey the damage? Seeing what is left afterward, after the unsaid has been said, after what has been eating us has been exorcized – and the ugly monster is out in full view – that is "the solace of marriage." It is the discovery of what is unbreakable among all that is broken. What withstands the storm? What part of our connection– our memory, our hopes, dreams, and horrors – is still standing ? Ventura says that he finds comfort in what is standing after the storm. This is the irreducible center of the marriage or the relationship. He says that in the midst of this process, when carefulness is set aside and unsaid things are finally said, then we make important discoveries. We discover what we didn't know about each other and what we don't know about ourselves as well. Keeping talking past the point where we usually stop, keeping talking to the point of some kind of breakthrough – if you will allow a play on words – leaves a lot of images and careful constructions broken. And whatever is left unbroken – this is the center or solace of the marriage. Scary, isn't it ?
Most of us would dare not go that far. We would not start such a storm for fear that when all was said and the winds stopped blowing, nothing would be left unbroken. We would have said too much and broken everything of value. We fear that there would be no solace. So we don't take the risk to find out. For those that do and discover unknown areas in themselves and the relationship that are unbroken, an enormous sense of relief must follow. For here is where we can find solace and comfort.


text:
Q: SPFx Custom Property Pane save property save When building a SharePoint Framework web part - How to Save Custom Property Pane value?
I have created a multiselect field for Property Pane, but not able to retain the values when refresh the page.
In couple of links its mentioned to save the value in Host Webpart, what does that mean - Saving back in SharePoint ?


text:
Partisan hack Habib forgets his new job duties
December 14, 2016 / News You Can Use, NYCU, Out of Left Field, Shining the Light
State Senator Cyrus Habib ran a campaign for Lieutenant Governor that suggested he would be a fair, non-partisan presiding officer for the Senate, saying he wanted to "lead the State Senate in a more collaborative direction."
Unfortunately, as the outgoing Lt., Governor (of Habib's own party) warned, Habib is little more than a partisan hack.
That is readily apparent from a social media exchange that Habib had yesterday with Bellevue Deputy Mayor Kevin Wallace, regarding Jay Inslee's huge tax increase plans. Rather than take a bi-partisan approach, Habib attacks the Republican Senators that he will allegedly be presiding over come January:
"The challenge for us democrats is convincing our republican friends that fighting illiteracy is at least as important as fighting congestion."
For Habib, nothing says "collaboration" like insulting your "republican friends", of which he has zero.
News You Can Use NYCU Out of Left Field Shining the Light
Habib is a partisan human hand grenade launcher!!! And his comments about using the office of Lieutenant Governor as a policy setting office rather than a process watchdog for the senate as prescribed by the state constitution should be enough to show what this guy is really up to. It will be interesting to see what happens, but the Habib candidacy and campaign sure didn't impress Brad Owen, that is for sure.
tensor says
Habib is a partisan human hand grenade launcher!!!
What did the Deputy Mayor of Bellevue say to Habib? Shift does not seem to be interested in telling us. (Maybe because Habib's response might seem mild and reasonable by comparison?)
I wasn't aware it was the sworn duty of our Lieutenant Governor-Elect to get along with the Deputy Mayor of Bellevue. Thanks, Shift, for educating us on that fine point of Washington State Constitutional law.
Also, quoting only half of a tweet that you've already taken out of context may be a new record in willful deceit, even for Shift. Good to see there's more going on here than endless unflattering images of Governor Inslee atop whiny posts about how easily he achieved re-election.