So I guess that even the stuff that sucked served some purpose? Yeah, let's be positive about this!

But I *was* talking more about parts like the tributes to the three retiring (and/or deceased) network anchors, and definitely about Dave Letterman's hand-crafted speech about Johnny Carson (made humbly, and without the realization that whether he admits it or not, HE is the new "gold standard" for "tucking you in at night," as he's so often referred to Carson as and which strikes me as just about the most worthwhile service that a personality can provide to whatever audience he/she might have accumulated; that was underscored by the aforementioned Stewart in a sincere, off-the-cuff remark just a few moments later). Good stuff. Sucks that people have to die or retire to make these moments, but once in a while, even I'm down for a little well-crafted sappiness.

And of course, most memorable of all: Shatner. Who was jobbed. Criminally. You all know it. And yes, I know he won the Emmy. But that's not what I'm talking about.

End current events "date stamp" pre-ramble. Begin wrestling column: 

• My, my, my... 
   
  So I finally get around to checking my e-mail last night shortly after posting the Unforgiven PPV Recap. It seems that the feedback sent in after the show (but before my recap got posted) was mostly of the "hey, that was a pretty OK show, I bet you're surprised how well it turned out, Rick" genre.
   
  Then after the recap is published, the tone changes immediately to a handful of "what the hell is your problem? that show was decent and better than you expected, so why are you savaging it; you used to not be one of those knee-jerk Internet Jackoffs, Rick, but on this, you sound just like one of them" messages. And to be honest, checking e-mail again this afternoon, that's a bit of a common theme:
   
  Apparently, I'm to believe that last night's Unforgiven was a "decent" PPV, and then should be praised.
   
  Allow me to retort:  WHHHAAAAAAAAA??
   
  Since when is 2-and-a-half hours of mediocrity worthy of praise? Oh, wait, I forgot: this is the same easily-impressed society that embraces the flamboyantly average, and is enthralled by crap like "Lost" that bores most halfway-intelligent people with Good Judgment and Lives Of Their Own to tears. The Emmys reminded me of that. See, I didn't pre-ramble about it for no reason! And just like that, I put more thought and effort into one half-assed Monday column than JJ Abrams or Stephanie McMahon's writer monkeys have put into their shite in the last 12 months.....
   
  If you are OK with "decent," and think that's good enough to justify a $35 price tag, or the investment of your time, fine; I can't stop you from feeling that way. Me? I still feel like any time you present a once-a-month major event, you oughta be shooting for better than "decent." And I happen to feel I DESERVE better than "decent." I am OWED better than "decent" the second I make my investment in that show. Put "decent" out for free on TV, if you like, and let people flip to and away from your show at will... but once those customers become paying ones, "decent" just doesn't cut the mustard, in my opinion.
   
  To everybody who used the argument "Well, everybody expected it to totally suck, so you should give credit to WWE for still doing a decent show," I say: shut up. When you say that, you are not giving credit to WWE for anything. You are merely crediting them with a barely-passing "C-minus" grade for Unforgiven, while also pointing out that the few weeks leading up to said show were graded an "F." Again: you can't applaud somebody for doing the bare minimum. You just can't. And I honestly feel like that's roughly what was delivered last night: the least that WWE thought it could get away with.
   
  So yeah, "decent," "average," "mediocre," whatever you want to call it: that's what Unforgiven was for 2-and-a-half hours. But that STILL doesn't factor in the sheer ill-conceived craptacularity of the finish.
  
  And to those who wrote in to say that "Rick, you're supposed to be a reporter, and if you'd just gone to WWE.com, you'd have known that they clarified that Angle DID still win the match by DQ, though Cena has retrained the title," I say again: shut up. For two reasons: (1) even if I knew that was the official "decision," it was still not clear from the PPV itself, and I was recapping/critiquing the PPV (not recapping WWE.com's surely-vapid and pointless recap of the PPV). And (2) even once clarified, it's still just a shitty, lazy finish to a PPV.
   
  And I honestly wasn't joking last night in the recap, either: it's just a guess, a gut feeling, but having at least SOME sense of how things are prioritized by certain WWE big wigs, I think a big part of the reason why the finish was such a dumb-ass mess is because WWE has all these commercials and all this hype for the jump back to USA Network that features Cena with the lame Bling Belt. And so I bet at some point AFTER those things were filmed over the summer, WWE decided they wanted to put the title on Kurt, but somebody else decided it can't happen until after October 3. Because heaven forefend that RAW go live on USA Network that night and upwards of DOZENS of casual fans who saw the commercials of Cena be offended when it's Kurt Angle, holding a non-dumb-looking title belt, who is the champion. I want to be wrong about this, but it sure feels right.
   
  The thing is, wrestling stories should be told in a way that helps ALL the characters... this telling, now? Well, it doesn't help Cena, since his deal is that he cheated and lost this match, and if this IS all building up to a title change, it means he'll lose at least twice to Angle. It doesn't help Bischoff, because once again, his appearance and his inability to accomplish his goal despite supposedly wielding Complete Control Over RAW make him looking like a bumbling fool. And it doesn't really help Angle, since his Dreaded Ankle Lock did no damage to Cena, who was able to get up after it and end the show by kicking Angle's ass (albeit, inconsequentially, after the match was over).
   
  Last night was the night, set up perfectly in the ONLY really well-told story heading into the PPV, where Kurt Angle needed to win the WWE Title, and it would have made EVERYbody look better. Cena's leg/ankle was already injured heading into the match, and you notice: they didn't use the ankle lock AT ALL on Cena the last month, saving that back for use at the PPV. It should have been the central point to the match: Angle knowing that Cena was hurt and that all he needed to do was cinch in the ankle lock, and Cena knowing it, too, and reacting as such. The two could have done their match, and had it led up to a finish (hey, bring Bischoff out if you must, I really don't care) where Cena finally gets locked in. And he tries for the ropes. But Angle drags him back. Tries again for the ropes. Angle drags him back. Then you have a choice: I say there would be nothing wrong with Cena actually tapping out, but in "WWE Think," they'd probably insist on doing the Stone Cold Finish, where Cena "passes out from the pain without tapping," forcing the ref to call for the submission. And I'd be fine with that, I guess. Give us a real finish and give us the title change last night, and Angle looks "good" (not in the babyface kind of way, but in the "vicious, will do anything to win, including spending a month softening up your ankle" kind of way), Cena looks good (because he fought the good fight, only got beat because of a pre-existing medical condition, and most of all: DIDN'T FUCKING CHEAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REF LIKE A PETULANT LITTLE BRAT), and even Bischoff looks good (because he accomplished his mission of taking the title off Cena).
   
  Not only do the three particulars come out looking strong and well-positioned for additional story-telling/rematches, but the fans actually get a finish to the pay-per-view event that they invested their time and money in. Which is a commendable goal of its own.
   
  I honestly don't see how anybody out there can defend, or even tolerate, that finish. Even if I had some confusion over the "official outcome" last night (and even if I could have alleviated that confusion by visiting WWE.com for the details), the point is that the confusion DID exist. And when an attentive viewer doesn't know what the hell he just saw, I again opine that it means that the writers/bookers don't know what the hell they're doing.
   
  Up until that finish, the show was -- by all y'all's OWN ADMISSION -- "decent." That is all. It was teetering on the brink of mediocrity. I'll agree with you on that. But then, a finish that awful? That brings the show off the brink, and plunges it down into the depths of Suck.
   
  I will not apologize for feeling this way. Nor will I apologize for trying to browbeat some of you into being a bit more-demanding of the product. 
   
  Actually, you know what? I might joke about how too many Americans "embrace mediocrity" as evidenced by the amount and quality of TV that they watch... but in this case, I almost wonder if WWE isn't back to a trick I know they and WCW used to both do back during the Monday Night Wars: namely, trying to sway online opinion by having company employees pretend to be normal fans, and then have them e-mail big websites (or post on message boards or vote in polls). I wouldn't put it fricking past them to have people e-mailing me or Scherer or the Torch or whoever, saying "Hey, that Unforgiven sure exceeded expectations, didn't it? Please publish this notion of mine, or at least take it under consideration as you form your own opinions. Love: Some Completely Average Fan Who Is Not On Vince McMahon's Payroll."
   
  Problem for them is: I don't publish reader feedback e-mails here (I figure if people want to say something in public, that's why I maintain the OO Forums), and I'm also not a freaking weak-minded retard. I form my opinions, and will not be swayed by poorly-thought-out rhetoric from somebody who sounds more like A Person With An Agenda than like a simple wrestling fan who watched the show. Seriously: "Unforgiven was a mediocre show prior to a bad finish. Thumbs Up to WWE for exceeding expectations!"... this is gonna win me over? Or even soften my criticisms. No way, Pedro; you ask me, YOU are the one who needs to rethink your stance, not me.
   
  Anyway, in addition to the Extremely Poor Ending, I would also like to single out Big Show/Snitsky for sucking out loud. And then you had a bunch of Heat-caliber type stuff, which didn't suck, but which also was not exactly eyeball riveting (like the women's match, Chavo/Shelton, and the tag title match); not ready for PPV was that stuff. A notch up from that, Flair/Carlito and Michaels/Masters actually did make it up to the "average" mark, and were generally entertaining enough to hold your attention, and both featured satisfying conclusions.
   
  The only really memorably amusing moments of the show, though: Hardy/Edge's cage match (which was very good by the time they got to a densely booked climax), and Flair's hilarious backstage skits. And there's a problem when you only have two highlights, and one of them is a batch of throw-away comedy bits.
   
  To me, there's no way that adds up to any sort of credit being due WWE. If you like average, if you are pleased with your investment in Unforgiven, and if you honestly read my assessment and DON'T think that there were very simple ways to fix the show's biggest problem and give the fans a superior climax, then fine... I applaud you, and your willingness to accept what is served up without raising a stink.
   
  Me, though? I'm still gonna stand over here with (what I hope are) the majority of wrestling fans, and identify problems and in the same breath point out the simple ways things could be better. Because if I ever stopped seeing the ways things could get better, THAT is when WWE would be in danger of losing me as a fan.
   
  As it stands, what frustrates me the most is that these improvements seem like they are RIGHT THERE in front of WWE, that satisfying shows and quality episodic TV (and then the rebounding TV ratings and event attendance that would go with them) are not some ludicrous pipe dream that would take a complete overhaul to achieve. Instead: all the pieces and resources seem like they are here, yet WWE CHOOSES to do the dumbest, least compelling things, instead of opting for the good stuff. That's the REAL source of my pain: that the good ideas are there, the entertaining alternatives are available... and yet, WWE seems unable to recognize them, and keeps shooting itself in the foot with things like the finish to last night's PPV.
   
  If this was a franchise/product/series that had NEVER been good, and had never drawn ratings or fans, then I wouldn't care so much... but the fact is, we've seen good wrestling shows. We know what they consist of. And we know how big wrestling can be when its not doing dumb things to drive away casual fans. The fact that we've seen the good times makes it impossible for me to be satisfied with what WWE's stubbornly servicing up... not as long as the resources to return to those good times seem so near at hand.
   
  I have a theory: that of the people still watching wrestling and still really caring about it, they are such long-time loyal fans that maybe they honestly feel like "decent" is good enough for them. They can't stop watching, so they might as well enjoy it. Clearly, the "healthy" thing for somebody as disenchanted as I'm getting to do would be to just stop watching. Like the other 70% of fans who used to be around in 1999 and 2000, but are long since gone. And I would probably do that the second that I sensed that wrestling was broken, that it simply couldn't ever be good again.
   
  But as long as the improvements seem so easily-made, I can't do that. If I quit on wrestling, I'd be as lazy as the company that I'm accusing of quitting on the fans; way I look at it, just because WWE is letting down millions of viewers is no excuse for ME to let down tens of thousands of readers. And if I ever stopped taking the time to point out the problems and the fixes like I do, I'd be as lazy this group of brainwashed WWE Loyalists who have decided to accept mediocrity.
   
  So that's that: my (perhaps long-winded) response to what I think is some of the most confusing -- and possibly even disappointing -- e-mail feedback I've gotten after a PPV in a while. I just feel like, as long as your heart is in the right place, sometimes it's OK to be frustrated and disappointed and to voice those feelings. And if you don't think last night was the right time for a bit of that, then I don't what to say. I think y'all could use a bit more sand in your vaginas, because there's simply no way that a show that peaked at "decent" should have been as staunchly defended as this one was. 
   
  If you saw the show and defended it to me, and still feel the same way after reading this, feel free to re-retort, and see if you can make a bit more of an impact on my views. If you saw the show and thought I nailed it, feel free to e-mail me just to tell me "Hell, yeah, Rick, you are dead-on," because I'd like some positive reinforcement.
   
  And if you didn't see the show and want to know exactly what happened and what the hell all this rambling is about? Well, that's when I once again direct you to the OO Unforgiven PPV Recap, which should tell you just about everything you need to know about last night's big event. 
   
  
• WrestleLine is, I believe, still stuck in a brief hiatus, so OO was only battling itself when it came to last night's PPV Predictions. Brother vs. Brother (vs. 7 more brothers and then vs. one sister, too), and all...
   
  My quick eyeballing of our picks convinced me that we all did very well. I, myself, was 6-for-8, to continue well ahead of my 2004 pace. On this night, though, OO had a few guys pick 7-for-8, so the Prognosticatory Crown is theirs to share.
   
  PyroFalkon has the details on how our ten-person crew fared (and all our year-to-date stats, too), in the PPV Predictions Results Round-Up.
   
  
• Going back a few more days, to Friday's SD!...
   
  A pretty good show, I thought. Better than RAW last week, anyway.
   
  The opening bit with Benoit/Christian/Jordan/Booker was a nice angle that sets up Christian as a top contender to the US Title, and was also just a solid 10-12 minute wrestling match.
   
  I also really liked the exchanges between Batista and Eddie. Eddie's smarm is perfect for his character... but Batista realizing Eddie is full of shit without making a big fuss out of it is even MORE perfect for his. This is the first time since last November or December that I can really recall Batista coming off this well as the Logical Monster. And he even got a few laughs in, but trumping Eddie's "friendly" request for a handshake... because friends don't shake, friends gotta hug.
   
  A bit more of that stuff between them, and the next few weeks of TV should be interesting. And then when they face off at the PPV, I'm confident that Eddie will do everything in his power to get the absolute most out of Batista that he can. We could even be looking at Batista's best match to date, if the two really click.
   
  I continue to like Ken Kennedy, too.
   
  Then, the rest of the show? Mostly mediocre (with the exception of yet another successful title defense by Heidenreich and Animal, which is just soul-crushingly dumb)... that includes the "SummerSlam Rematch" between Orton and Taker, which was yet another step further away from their very good WM21 contest. Orton killed a ton of the momentum with a couple of his patented chinlocks, slowing the pace of the match below the advisable level. And then they did some of the Gay Spooky, as Orton and his dad brought out a casket, and when Taker opened it, thinking he'd stuff Randall inside, he saw a look-alike of himself. Ugh. But after reaching a nadir, there, the last 5 minutes of the match really picked up pace with tons of false finishes and stuff. As bad (and as dumb) as the match had gotten, those last five minutes were hot enough to bring the overall thing back up to average. A nice, satisfying win for Taker hit the spot.
   
  FYI: in addition to Eddie/Batista, my understanding is that the next PPV will feature Taker vs. Orton/Orton in a handicap match. Considering that Cowboy Bob took the best bump of the match at one point Friday night, I guess that might not be a totally horrible idea.
   
  I wish I had a link to a full SD! Recap for you here. But alas, I begin to suspect that dealing with Unknown Readers who seem literate and promise to deliver quality recaps, and then don't follow through, is going to be an on-going problem. I might give one more Canuck a try. Or maybe not. I have at least three Known, Dependable Recappers on standby, so I might just go to my Domestic Recapper Rotation effective this weekend. We'll see if I'm feeling lucky or not come later this week...
   
  
• The rating for Friday's SD!... well, it APPEARS to be a 3.0 broadcast rating. But remember: that's a 3.0 only in markets where SD! aired on Friday night... in other words, it's 3.0 percent of the homes IN WHICH SD! WAS AVAILABLE IN ITS NORMAL SLOT.
   
  With so many preemptions (mostly for baseball), and with them in key markets, the final rating will likely be revised HEAVILY downward once the ratings from those cities are factored in. Since SD! usually airs in late night or in the afternoons (instead of in prime time) in those markets, its ratings there are lower than the UPN Friday night average...
   
  Remember, the week before for the first Friday night show, the initial rating came in as a 2.9, but was revised downward by a full point when final numbers were tabulated. A similar revision might be possible this week.
   
  Still, the two weeks of initial ratings SEEMS to suggest that once SD! gets past baseball season and isn't preempted anymore, it SHOULD do about the same ratings as it was doing towards the end of its Thursday night run. Which is to say: about a half-point below where it should be, but at least they haven't lost any viewers in the move to the new night.
   
  
• If you missed the newsbite prefacing the PPV Preview on Friday....
   
  Jeff Jarrett is once again the TNA... errrr, NWA Champion. He beat Raven for the title on a tiny indie show in Canada last Thursday night. TNA had cameras there, and will likely be releasing the footage on their website, and will also have it available to air on their debut show on Spike TV in 2 weeks.
   
  Something interesting about the switch: it is being questioned and vilified by fans (even some of TNA's staunchest supporters think it a dunderheaded move), but this might possibly be more a *business* decision than a wrestling one. I got a few notes over the weekend that suggest this was a move made to placate SpikeTV, who are convinced that Jarrett is the most recognizable and marketable personality among TNA's contracted, full-time workers.
   
  My question would be: who gave them that impression? Because chances are, it could be Jarrett himself, in which case... well... whatever. I think it's a sketchy move, and even if you accept that Jarrett is the most "recognizable," I don't know how that follows that he's the most compelling or marketable. I mean, I *recognize* Paris Hilton. But then I hasten to change the channel. Know what I mean?
   
  I stand by my knee-jerk reaction from last week: the only way I really see the upside of this move is if TNA has a plan to have Jarrett defend the title against somebody HUGE on the first Impact, and have him drop the strap there. Problem is, the only guy I could think of who'd fit that bill would be Chris Jericho. Cuz nobody on TNA's existing roster has that kind of star power, the free agent pickings are slim at that very top level, and any of the part-time legends TNA might get on the show (including Kevin Nash) probably shouldn't be involved in any title feuds, cuz that just sends a bad message to fans who want something current and fresh.
   
  So we'll see where this goes... but to me, it represents a WWE-caliber misjudgment by TNA, one made after they'd worked so hard to finally build up a positive buzz among the internet fan base. D'oh.
   
  
• Over the weekend, somehow a rumor got started that a "Major Celebrity" would be appearing at WrestleMania 22 in a "Major Role." And then it came out that the "celebrity" in question was Jose Canseco.
   
  Ummm, what the hell? First, Canseco's not much of a celebrity. Second, for as paranoid as Vince is about the steroid issue, this would just not make any sense.
   
  So I asked around, and apparently the source of this was a newspaper gossip item in Philadelphia. And it's worded in such a way that it almost sounds more like speculation than anything else. At best, it's hearsay. I wouldn't go putting much stock into it.
   
  
• James "Jamie Noble" Gibson dropped the ROH Title over the weekend, which many believe is a sign that he'll be back on WWE TV sooner, rather than later. He dropped the title to Bryan Danielson, which means this is the first time in months that the ROH Title has been held by somebody who ISN'T under WWE contract. Heh.
   
  
• Many readers, aware of my tastes and preferences, brought a recent Ottawa Sun newspaper article to my attention. It focuses on Trish Stratus, and her return to the ring.
  
  The thing I thought was funny is that of the people who forwarded it to me, half of them did it for a silly reason. Not because it's once again Proof Positive that Trish is pretty awesome.... but because there's a non sequitur bullet point in there about how Trish became a fan of "Rock Star: INXS" during her injury hiatus. As one reader noted: "Awwww, just like her favorite internet writer." Suddenly, I don't feel as lame for admitting my own interest in the show last month. I'm in dandy company, at least! 
   
  Better yet, Trish's two favorites? One of them is the guy I actually suspected would/should win pretty early on (not my favorite, but just the guy who seemed pretty talented, and like he'd fit in with a band like INXS), and then cemented that opinion when his original song was so catchy that FUCKING HELL, now that I've been forced to contemplate it, it's stuck in my head. And it won't go away. And to be honest, I don't totally mind. I forget his name, but of the three remaining finalists, he's the only one who resembles a heterosexual male. I think it's JD? Whatever, that's not even the point of the article, nor is it the point of this.... ummm, bullet point. 'Twas just a funny coincidence that a few of you latched on to. Given how few people are actually watching the show (here in the US, anyway, where it routinely gets slaughtered in the ratings), I'm with you: it is pretty coincidental.
   
  Of course, the meat of the article is more about the actual wrestling business. But there's only so many ways to commend the work ethic and intelligence of Trish for working hurt, getting healthy, and for totally understanding what her appeal was and is to fans (and promising it won't be changing just because she's a babyface, now)... so I'll just clam up and tell you the article is right here, if you want to see it.
   
  
• And finally for today... a bit of RAW Preview.
   
  As of this writing, I believe the intent is to sell RAW on the strength of a "Surprise Announcement" by Vince McMahon.
   
  Unless it's a full refund of $35 to each and every Unforgiven Viewer, I have a feeling we'll be underwhelmed.
   
  More likely possibilities: 
   
  (1) Details about October 3's "Homecoming Edition" of RAW. Vince won't be able to say "USA Network" (I don't think), but he could announce the three-hour time slot and all the guest stars who are going to be a part of the show. And he could talk nebulously about RAW's "new home," too, just to get it out there that RAW is changing channels. Fans ain't dumb, they'll find the show. Especially if Vince uses his slot tonight to announce the guests and set up a big match or three.
   
  (2) The creation of the second annual "Taboo Tuesday." WWE didn't have good success with the show last year (because of baseball playoffs siphoning off viewers), but they are keen on the concept. I say if they want this thing to pick up, they need to up the ante on the things we get to vote on. Because I, for one, couldn't give a shit about voting for which weapon is going to be used in a match.... but if I could vote for un-firing Gail Kim or the Dudley Boyz, I would log on and click away like a madman. Anyway, whether the categories count or not, the PPV *is* happening, and it's another thing Vince could announce tonight.
   
  (3) Something related to last night's PPV finish. It was so screwy, that I almost wonder if they aren't going to do something retarded, like have the title be vacated/held up. If they did that, then Vince would be the one to announce it. And to also announce the solution to the problem. Which then might tie back into #1 for all I know.
   
  Anything outside of those three alternatives, and I think you're getting into the realm of kooky-talk. Or letting yourself get worked up into a tizzy over something that's highly improbable.
   
  Beyond a Vince Announcement being rumored, there's nothing I know of set in stone...  WWE.com's preview is the standard post-PPV deal where they have no information other than "stuff happened last night... so what'll happen tonight? Tune in and find out."
   
  So a few guesses:
   
  Obviously, John Cena and Kurt Angle aren't done with each other. But what shape their on-going rivalry takes is beyond me. Again: I still think there could be a twist ahead in terms of the disposition of the title itslef, so who knows? I just know you look for those two to not be very friendly.
   
  The same "on-going rivalry" status should be afforded to new IC Champ Ric Flair and ex-champ Carlito Cool. Difference is that here, I have a VERY specific vision for what you could do tonight: Carlito could demand his rematch... and because of the hilarious limo skits with Flair last night, the gimmick could be that Flair is still so exhausted that he drops the title back to Carlito. It'd be a perfect way to set the stage for Triple H's return, too, who could come back and be upset with Flair's hard-partying ways interfering with business.
   
  Hurricane/Rosey are probably also due a title rematch against new tag champs Cade/Murdoch.... difference is that there, I don't see them winning the belts back, or there being much of a story coming out of the rematch.
   
  Matt Hardy finally beat Edge, and that might mean they "rest" their feud for a bit, or something.... if they do, though, it'll be interesting to see what each of them gets up to. If I had to guess: Edge and Big Show tussled last week, and could easily be programmed with each other for a mini-feud, since Show is free and clear of Snitsky, now.
   
  And I have to assume the women's division will be placed on the shoulders of Trish and Victoria, who are more than capable of handling things. They didn't do anything last night to set up that feud, but that can change tonight. Diva Search Ashley, Tweedle-Dumb, and Tweedle-Dumber can be used as props to set things up.
   
  Beyond that? I'm blanking on anything that would count as a standing-storyline that would have to be addressed tonight. I mean, there's a lot more guys, but they're all doing nothing, so.... well, there's 6 weeks till Taboo Tuesday, so hopefully there will be some of this sorted out so that we don't have a replay of Unforgiven's Interest Level.
   
  I can't, in good conscience, say whether RAW will be any good or not tonight. But if you're like me, you'll watch, anyway; and you'll love the good stuff, and your mind will race with ideas at how to fix the bad. Then, unlike me, that's the end of your investment into the show. But good or bad (or somewhere in between), RAW still gets the full OO Recap Treatment from me tomorrow. And that? Is ALWAYS good.
   
  So enjoy your Monday night (remember: for the good of the nation, quit embracing mediocre crap, and everybody WATCH ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT TONIGHT; it's on Fox, 8pm eastern time), and I'll see you tomorrow with the greatest and best RAW Recap in the world. Later on, peoples.....