Big Boss Man (wrestler) Singles competition (1990-1993) what happened in 1990? In the fall of 1990, Boss Man began feuding with Bobby Heenan and The Heenan Family after Heenan continually insulted Boss Man's mother. what did the feud consist of? He won a series of matches against Heenan Family members in 1991, including The Barbarian at the Royal Rumble and Mr. Perfect ( what was his greatest accomplishment stated in the article? SummerSlam, he defeated The Mountie in a Jailhouse Match, a match in which the loser must spend a night in jail.
when did he do this?
When did Boss Man defeat The Mountie in a Jailhouse Match?
In the fall of 1990, Boss Man began feuding with Bobby Heenan and The Heenan Family after Heenan continually insulted Boss Man's mother. He won a series of matches against Heenan Family members in 1991, including The Barbarian at the Royal Rumble and Mr. Perfect (via disqualification) at WrestleMania VII in an Intercontinental Championship match, which featured the return of Andre the Giant. At the SummerSlam, he defeated The Mountie in a Jailhouse Match, a match in which the loser must spend a night in jail. This was the only such match ever held by the promotion. Boss Man then briefly feuded with Irwin R. Schyster. In 1992, Boss Man began feuding with Nailz, an ex-convict character who, in a series of promos aired before his debut, claimed Boss Man had been his abusive Officer in prison, and warned he was seeking revenge. On the May 30 episode of WWF Superstars, Nailz -- clad in an orange prison jumpsuit -- ran into the ring and attacked Boss Man, handcuffing him to the top rope and repeatedly choking and beating him with the nightstick. Boss Man took time off TV to sell his (kayfabe) injuries, eventually returning and having a series of matches with Nailz in the latter half of 1992. The feud culminated at Survivor Series, when Boss Man defeated Nailz in a Nightstick on a Pole match. This was the final push for the Boss Man during this run, as he was subsequently used as enhancement talent against Razor Ramon, Bam Bam Bigelow, and Yokozuna on the house show circuit. The Big Boss Man's last pay-per-view match of this run came at the 1993 Royal Rumble, where he lost to Bam Bam Bigelow. He left the WWF shortly after a house show in Gatineau, Quebec on March 14. During the next few months he made appearances in the USWA and SMW. On December 4 he made a one-time return to the WWF as a special guest referee to officiate the main event of a house show in Anaheim, CA between Bret Hart and Jeff Jarrett. Bossman was expected to rejoin the WWF but elected to sign with WCW instead. CANNOTANSWER
CANNOTANSWER
Do-support (or do-insertion), in English grammar, is the use of the auxiliary verb do, including its inflected forms does and did, to form negated clauses and questions as well as other constructions in which subject–auxiliary inversion is required.

The verb "do" can be used as an auxiliary even in simple declarative sentences, and it usually serves to add emphasis, as in "I did shut the fridge." However, in the negated and inverted clauses referred to above, it is used because the conventions of Modern English syntax permit these constructions only when an auxiliary is present. It is not idiomatic in Modern English to add the negating word not to a lexical verb with finite form; not can be added only to an auxiliary or copular verb. For example, the sentence I am not with the copula be is fully idiomatic, but I know not with a finite lexical verb, while grammatical, is archaic. If there is no other auxiliary present when negation is required, the auxiliary do is used to produce a form like I do not (don't) know. The same applies in clauses requiring inversion, including most questions: inversion must involve the subject and an auxiliary verb so it is not idiomatic to say Know you him?; today's English usually substitutes Do you know him?

Do-support is not used when there is already an auxiliary or copular verb present or with non-finite verb forms (infinitives and participles). It is sometimes used with subjunctive forms. Furthermore, the use of do as an auxiliary should be distinguished from the use of do as a normal lexical verb, as in They do their homework.

Common uses
Do-support appears to accommodate a number of varying grammatical constructions:
question formation,
the appearance of the negation not, and
negative inversion.
These constructions often cannot occur without do-support or the presence of some other auxiliary verb.

In questions
The presence of an auxiliary (or copular) verb allows subject–auxiliary inversion to take place, as is required in most interrogative sentences in English. If there is already an auxiliary or copula present, do-support is not required when forming questions:

 He will laugh. → Will he laugh? (the auxiliary will inverts with the subject he)
 She is at home. → Is she at home? (the copula is inverts with the subject she)

This applies not only in yes–no questions but also in questions formed using interrogative words:

 When will he laugh?

However, if there is no auxiliary or copula present, inversion requires the introduction of an auxiliary in the form of do-support:

 I know. → Do I know? (Compare: *Know I?)
 He laughs. → Does he laugh? (Compare: *Laughs he?)
 She came home. → Did she come home? (Compare: *Came she home?)

The finite (inflected) verb is now the auxiliary do; the following verb is a bare infinitive which does not inflect: does he laugh? (not laughs); did she come? (not came).

In negated questions, the negating word not may appear either following the subject, or attached to the auxiliary in the contracted form n't. That applies both to do-support and to other auxiliaries:

 Why are you not playing? / Why aren't you playing?
 Do you not want to try? / Don't you want to try?

The above principles do not apply to wh-questions if the interrogative word is the subject or part of the subject. Then, there is no inversion and so there is no need for do-support: Who lives here?, Whose dog bit you?

The verb have, in the sense of possession, is sometimes used without do-support as if it were an auxiliary, but this is considered dated. The version with do-support is also correct:

 Have you any idea what is going on here?
 Do you have any idea what is going on here?
 (Have you got any idea what is going on here? – the order is similar to the first example, but have is an auxiliary verb here)

For elliptical questions and tag questions, see the elliptical sentences section below.

With not
In the same way that the presence of an auxiliary allows question formation, the appearance of the negating word not is allowed as well. Then too, if no other auxiliary or copular verb is present, do-support is required.

 He will laugh. → He will not laugh. (not attaches to the auxiliary will)
 She laughs. → She does not laugh. (not attaches to the added auxiliary does)

In the second sentence, do-support is required because idiomatic Modern English does not allow forms like *She laughs not. The verb have, in the sense of possession, is sometimes negated thus:

 I haven't the foggiest idea.

Most combinations of auxiliary/copula plus not have a contracted form ending in -n't, such as isn't, won't, etc. The relevant contractions for negations formed using do-support are don't, doesn't and didn't. Such forms are used very frequently in informal English.

Do-support is required for negated imperatives even when the verb is the copula be:

Do not do that.
Don't be silly.

However, there is no do-support with non-finite, as they are negated by a preceding not:

It would be a crime not to help him (the infinitive to help is negated)
Not knowing what else to do, I stood my ground (the present participle knowing is negated)
Not eating vegetables can harm your health (the gerund eating is negated)

With subjunctive verb forms, as a present subjunctive, do is infrequently used for negation, which is frequently considered ambiguous or incorrect because it resembles the indicative. The usual method to negate the present subjunctive is to precede the verb with a not, especially if the verb is be (as do-support with it, whether it be indicative or subjunctive, is ungrammatical):

I suggest that he not receive any more funding (the present subjunctive receive is negated)
It is important that he not be there (the present subjunctive be is negated)

As a past subjunctive, however, did is needed for negation (unless the verb is be, whose past subjunctive is were):

I wish that he did not know it
I wish that he were not here

The negation in the examples negates the non-finite predicate. Compare the following competing formulations:

I did not try to laugh. vs. I tried not to laugh.
They do not want to go. vs. They want  not to go.

There are two predicates in each of the verb chains in the sentences. Do-support is needed when the higher of the two is negated; it is not needed to negate the lower nonfinite predicate.

For negated questions, see the questions section above. For negated elliptical sentences, see the elliptical sentences section below.

Negative inversion
The same principles as for question formation apply to other clauses in which subject–auxiliary inversion is required, particularly after negative expressions and expressions involving only (negative inversion):

 Never did he run that fast again. (wrong: *Never he did run that fast again. *Never ran he that fast again.)
 Only here do I feel at home. (wrong: *Only here feel I at home.)

Further uses
In addition to providing do-support in questions and negated clauses as described above, the auxiliary verb do can also be used in clauses that do not require do-support. In such cases, do-support may appear for pragmatic reasons.

For emphasis
The auxiliary generally appears for purposes of emphasis, for instance to establish a contrast or to express a correction:
 Did Bill eat his breakfast? Yes, he did eat his breakfast (did emphasizes the positive answer, which may be unexpected).
 Bill doesn't sing, then. No, he does sing (does emphasizes the correction of the previous statement).

As before, the main verb following the auxiliary becomes a bare infinitive, which is not inflected (one cannot say *did ate or *does sings in the above examples).

As with typical do-support, that usage of do does not occur with other auxiliaries or a copular verb. Then, emphasis can be obtained by adding stress to the auxiliary or copular:

 Would you take the risk? Yes, I would take the risk.
 Bill isn't singing, then. No, he is singing.

(Some auxiliaries, such as can, change their pronunciation when stressed; see Weak and strong forms in English.)

In negative sentences, emphasis can be obtained by adding stress either to the negating word (if used in full) or to the contracted form ending in n't. That applies whether or not do-support is used:

 I wouldn't (or would not) take the risk.
 They don't (or do not) appear on the list.

Emphatic do can also be used with imperatives, including with the copula be:

 Do take care! Do be careful!

In elliptical sentences
The auxiliary do is also used in various types of elliptical sentences, where the main verb is omitted (it can be said to be "understood", usually because it would be the same verb as was used in a preceding sentence or clause). That includes the following types:

Tag questions:
 He plays well, doesn't he?
 You don't like Sara, do you?
Elliptical questions:
 I like pasta. Do you?
 I went to the party. Why didn't you?
Elliptical statements:
 They swam, but I didn't.
 He looks smart, and so do you.
 You fell asleep, and I did, too.

Such uses include cases that do-support would have been used in a complete clause (questions, negatives, inversion) but also cases that (as in the last example) the complete clause would normally have been constructed without do (I fell asleep too). In such instances do may be said to be acting as a pro-verb since it effectively takes the place of a verb or verb phrase: did substitutes for fell asleep.

As in the principal cases of do-support, do does not normally occur when there is already an auxiliary or copula present; the auxiliary or copula is retained in the elliptical sentence:

He is playing well, isn't he?
I can cook pasta. Can you?
You should get some sleep, and I should too.

However, it is possible to use do as a pro-verb (see below section #Pro-verbs & Do-so Substitution even after auxiliaries in some dialects:

Have you put the shelf up yet? I haven't done (or I haven't), but I will do (or I will).
(However it is not normally used in this way as a to-infinitive: Have you put the shelf up? I plan to, rather than *I plan to do;  or as a passive participle: Was it built? Yes, it was, not *Yes, it was done.)

Pro-verbal uses of do are also found in the imperative: Please do. Don't!

Pro-verbs and do-so substitution
The phrases do so and do what for questions are pro-verb forms in English.  They can be used as substitutes for verbs in x-bar theory grammar to test verb phrase completeness. Bare infinitives forms often are used in place of the missing pro-verb forms.

Examples from Santorini and Kroch:

Tests for constituenthood of a verb-phrase in X'-grammar
The do so construction can be used to test if a verb-phrase is a constituent phrase in X'-grammar by substitution similarly to how other pro-forms can be used to test for noun-phrases, etc.

In X-bar theory, the verb-phrase projects three bar-levels such as this:

    VP
   / \
 ZP  X'
     / \
    X'  YP
    |
    X 
    |
   head

With a simple sentence:

         S
         |
         VP
        /  \
       /    \
      /      \
     /        \
    NP         \
   /  \         \   
 DP    N'        V'
 |     |        / \
The  children  /   \
              /     \
              V'     PP
             /  \   /_\
            /    \  with gusto
           V     NP
           |     /_\
          ate  the pizza

Here again exemplified by Santorini and Kroch, do so substitution for testing constituent verb phrases in the above sample sentence:

         S
         |
         VP
        /  \
       /    \
      /      \
     /        \
    NP         \
   /  \         \   
 DP    N'        V'
 |     |        / \
The  children  /   \
              /     \
              V'     PP
             /  \   /_\
            /    \  with gusto
           V     NP
           |     /_\
        did so   the pizza

Use of do as main verb
Apart from its uses as an auxiliary, the verb do (with its inflected forms does, did, done, doing) can be used as an ordinary lexical verb (main verb):

Do your homework!
What are you doing?

Like other non-auxiliary verbs, do cannot be directly negated with not and cannot participate in inversion so it may itself require do-support, with both auxiliary and lexical instances of do appearing together:

 They didn't do the laundry on Sunday. (did is the auxiliary, do is the main verb)
 Why do you do karate? (the first do is the auxiliary, the second is the main verb)
 How do you do? (a set phrase used as a polite greeting)

Meaning contribution
In the various cases seen above that require do-support, the auxiliary verb do makes no apparent contribution to the meaning of the sentence so it is sometimes called a dummy auxiliary. Historically, however, in Middle English, auxiliary do apparently had a meaning contribution, serving as a marker of aspect (probably perfective aspect, but in some cases, the meaning may have been imperfective). In Early Modern English, the semantic value was lost, and the usage of forms with do began to approximate that found today.

Origins

Some form of auxiliary "do" occurs in all West Germanic languages except Afrikaans. It is generally accepted that the past tense of Germanic weak verbs (in English, -ed) was formed from a combination of the infinitive with a past tense form of "do", as exemplified in Gothic. The origins of the construction in English are debated: some scholars argue it was already present in Old English, but not written due to stigmatization. Scholars disagree whether the construction arose from the use of "do" as a lexical verb in its own right, or whether periphrastic "do" arose from a causative meaning of the verb or vice versa. Examples of auxiliary "do" in Old English writing appear to be limited to its use in a causative sense, which is parallel to the earliest uses in other West Germanic languages. Others argue that the construction arose either via the influence of Celtic speakers or that the construction arose as a form of creolization when native speakers addressed foreigners and children.

See also

English verbs
English clause syntax
Intensifier

References

English grammar
Word order
Syntax
Generative syntax is a real-time strategy game for the PlayStation Portable. The game centers on creating mazes and monsters to help defend a demon lord from heroes seeking to capture him.

The game was released in North America exclusively as a download game on the PlayStation Store, under the title Holy Invasion of Privacy, Badman! What Did I Do To Deserve This?. However, on February 9, 2010, NIS America revealed it would be changing the game's name to avoid conflict with the Batman franchise. The game was re-released on April 22, 2010 on the PlayStation Network after it was removed to make the changes, while its sequel, What Did I Do to Deserve This, My Lord? 2, had been delayed to May 4, 2010.

Gameplay 
Using a limited number of "Dig Power" and a pickaxe, the player must dig and create a dungeon, and populate it with monsters to defend the demon lord Badman from heroes. More steps are given when a stage is cleared, based on how well the player did. The "Dig Power" has another function, however: it is also used to upgrade monsters. The player is given some time to dig out the dungeon and create monsters before a hero comes to capture the demon lord. When the hero is about to enter the dungeon, the player must take Badman and change his location, preferably making it harder for the hero to find him. When the hero gets into the dungeon, he will navigate the dungeon until he finds and captures the demon lord. The hero will fight against any monster that gets in his way.

When the hero captures the demon lord, he will retrace the same path, taking the demon lord with him. It is possible to create monsters to save the demon lord during this.

Monsters are created depending on the number of nutrients or mana in the blocks of the dungeon. If the block is covered with moss, and the player uses his pickaxe on this block, a slime will be released.  These slimes move around the dungeon, absorbing, and expelling the nutrients from adjacent blocks, creating blocks with more and more nutrients. Once a block obtains enough nutrients, it will change textures depending on just how much is in the block. Stronger, more powerful monsters will be released the more nutrients a block has.  The death of monsters or heroes, along with some of the heroes' actions, has varied effects on the surrounding ground. For example, if a hero casts a spell, the surrounding blocks will be filled with mana, which can be used to create different monsters. More so, if that hero dies, the remainder of his mana is expelled onto surrounding blocks.

Development 
This game is mostly unknown outside Japan and is considered to be a cult hit. A sequel was released entitled Yuusha no Kuse Ni Namaikida or2, which features almost identical gameplay with a few different additions and changes. In April 2009, it was announced that the game was released in North America under the name Holy Invasion Of Privacy, Badman! What Did I Do To Deserve This? On February 9, 2010, the name was changed again to What Did I Do To Deserve This, My Lord!?, to avoid infringing upon the Batman IP. A third game, No Heroes Allowed! was released in late 2010.

Reception 

With the exception of Japan, Holy Invasion Of Privacy, Badman! What Did I Do To Deserve This? received average reviews. "Holy Invasion of Privacy, Badman! is an extremely quirky, challenging title that has a few frustrating elements that keep it from being a stellar downloadable," IGN said about the game. Game Revolution gave the game a C-, stating, "A weird and unique freak of nature amongst the mundane shooters and RPGs with their played out themes of morality, but it's trying too hard to be clever." The game currently holds 69/100 on Metacritic.

Sequels
There have been two sequels to What Did I Do to Deserve This, My Lord? released on PSP: What Did I Do to Deserve This, My Lord? 2 and No Heroes Allowed!. A third sequel, No Heroes Allowed: No Puzzles Either!, was released in 2014 for PlayStation Vita, with a fourth, No Heroes Allowed! VR, released on October 14 2017 for PlayStation VR.

References

External links
Official website

2007 video games
God games
PlayStation Portable games
PlayStation Portable-only games
Real-time strategy video games
Sony Interactive Entertainment games
Video games developed in Japan "The Lazy Spinner" or "The Lazy Spinning Woman" is a German fairy tale collected by the Brothers Grimm, tale number 128.  It is Aarne-Thompson type 1405.

Synopsis

A lazy woman did not like to spin and when she did, did not wind onto a reel, but left it on the bobbin.  Her husband complained, and she said she needed a reel to do that, but when he went to cut one, she sneaked after and called out that whoever cut a reel would die. This put him off cutting it, but he still complained.  She then made some yarn and said it must be boiled. Then she put some tow in the pot instead and set her husband to watch.  After some time, he opened the pot, saw the tow, and thought he had ruined the yarn. From then on, the husband didn't dare complain.

External links

The Lazy Spinner
The Lazy Spinning Woman

Lazy Spinner
Textiles in folklore