Clarence Said:

Pros & Cons of a bachelors degree in paralegal studies then moving onto law school?

We Answered:

Don't believe in anyone,just please believe yourself at the point that you have the potential to strike at the career of your choice,which can make your life,and as before i told you,go to the experienced and the learned people having expertise to enter and remain constantly in this type of service by gaining more and more experience through watching and observing about the daily improvements and actions going on in this service.

Bernice Said:

When TNA has high enough ratings to truly compete with the WWE, will WWE stand a chance?

We Answered:

I think that it will take a very long time for TNA to surpass WWE. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is, at least at this point, highly improbable.

You brought up a number of good points, but what I don't think you've considered is the brand value that WWE holds over every other wrestling promotion on the planet. The fact is, like it or not, when the average person thinks of professional wrestling, they think of the WWE. The hardcore fan may not think that way, but to the mainstream, casual fan who doesn't like talking about wrestling on the internet, which also happens to be the audience WWE designs their programming to cater towards, TNA isn't even a blip on the radar, even with Hulk Hogan.

Just look at the ratings for the recent Monday editions of RAW and Impact. TNA ran the first hour of their show unopposed, and they were very strategic about how they unfolded their show. For example, Hogan first appeared live at the end of that first hour, right when RAW was about to come on the air. Despite that advantage, and the public interest in their company at the highest level it's ever been, they still only managed to draw a 2.2 rating. Meanwhile, WWE churned out a 3.6. That's a massive difference considering how much TNA threw into this week's Impact. Now, to be fair, things like this often do take time, but it wasn't a great start.

Now, one point I do take issue with is your views on the WWE writing staff. I agree, they aren't always pumping out Emmy level programming, but I really don't think it's any worse than what we saw on TNA. Now, this is just my opinion, and feel free to disagree with it, but I thought that TNA's writing was very jumbled and non-sensical. They run a TON of promos and vignettes that often don't mix with what we're seeing on T.V. and to tell you the truth, their big stuff on Monday wasn't that good.

I mean, take the Hogan debut for example. Eric Bischoff marched out to the ring and ripped up the producer's script and then handed him his own. There was zero explanation as to why anyone would listen to Bischoff. I mean, why should the show's producer just let Bischoff tear up his format? That doens't make any sense. That isn't "realistic" in any way.

Or look at the booking for the steel asylum match for another example of horribly poor writing. For starters, their was no reason to have that match other than as a platform to introduce Jeff Hardy. I mean, there was no prize or incentive for winning the match, and for the life of me I still can't figure out how a cage match can end in a DQ finish.

Also, just look at the match count on Monday. In three hours, TNA had just six matches. In two hours, WWE had five, and that's with far fewer commercial breaks. I think that's a pretty telling stat, despite the WWE-haters on here who always maintain that TNA has more and better wrestling, even when that is proven not to be true.

I don't think that WWE comes out with crap at all. Sure, some of their stuff isn't great, but on the whole I prefer them greatly over TNA. That being said, I still watch TNA, and they do produce classics like the main event on Impact between A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle. The main difference is that WWE aims their programming to appeal to a wider audiance, while TNA focuses mainly on older teenage males. That doesn't mean one is "better" than the other, they are just different, and they bring different things to the table.

Your comments about Russo were spot on. When he has a solid authority figure to answer to and edit his ideas, he can be a really creative individual. But when he's allowed to do whatever he wants, we end up with crap like the late WCW days and the steel asylum match on Impact this week. I sort of compare him to George Lucas. When Lucas first started making movies, and had someone to answer to, he came out with all time classics like the original Star Wars. But he became such a huge name that everyone was afraid to change his stuff, and as a result we ended up with things like the new Star Wars films or Indiana Jones 4. Russo is the same way.