Unfair Accusations Made by Lazy Fight Fans!

[Enlightened-One]

As I’ve repeatedly stated to this forum, I genuinely believe that there are participants and also officials involved in all sports that are either corrupt or at least obscenely biased. So the scope of my sentiments obviously encompasses the sport of boxing.

That being said, judges score fights according to a set of criteria that are generally subjective in nature, which means they’re open to interpretation and can possibly be influenced by the environment from where they are viewing the bout (i.e. the judge may be located in a position where they cannot see certain punches land cleanly or the crowd hysteria could subconsciously swing their vote during evenly-contested rounds).

Also, judges are only allowed to score each round one-at-a-time, not the entire fight based on their general perception of the events that occurred.

What I mean is this; the judges should only score each round independently, without considering the events that occurred beforehand.

The concept of “owning the winning momentum” at the start of each round should not apply, since the events that occurred in previous rounds cannot be considered, which differs from how many fight fans view their bouts… or at least the manner in which the events are being conveyed to the TV audience by the commentary team.

Personal stylistic preference also plays a part. For instance: Dougie Fischer from The RING has repeatedly articulated his preference for aggressive “stalk-‘til-they-can’t walk” type fighters, such as GGG. So whenever there’s a classic “boxer versus a brawler” matchup, he’ll inevitably favour the latter rather over the former. His scorecards generally reflect his preference. Whether we like it or not, we all consciously or subconsciously judge fights this way.

Another factor to consider is competence. All human beings have different ability levels. Some judges are more vigilant and objective than others. There are highly-experienced judges that recognise minutiae that merely casual fight fans cannot detect or they use criteria that differs from the barometers employed by the viewing audience (i.e. when all things are considered equal, the fighter that makes his opponent miss and then makes them pay [effective defence], usually outscores a fighter that solely employs effective aggression, due to the former requiring greater skill to execute).

I’m not suggesting that corruption doesn’t exist in the sport of boxing, but you shouldn’t accuse individuals of engaging in criminal activity if you: don’t know them; never met them; live in a completely different geographical location; have no personal first-hand experience of the situation; and possess no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing being committed.

When there’s no evidence of any crime being committed, how can anyone determine guilt of someone being involved in some form of illegal activity for a sport where the scoring of fights is highly subjective in nature? How can you determine the actual reason for the different scores being applied by different people, when: competence; environment; criteria; personal stylistic preference; and other factors come into play?

I feel that boxing is a sport where the subjective nature of the scoring being employed by the judges inevitably results in the occasional controversial decision ever now and then. We just need to remember that whenever someone’s opinion differs from ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve to be imprisoned.

[Jip]

Shut up

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Great post

[gilgamesh]

Yeah...I'm not gonna read all that

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Yeah...I'm not gonna read all that

Because you are stupid.
It was an intelligent post.

Instead you guys want to argue about the same things repeatedly like idiots.
Why not consider something bigger?

[gilgamesh]

Yeah...I'm not gonna read all that

Because you are stupid.
It was an intelligent post.

Instead you guys want to argue about the same things repeatedly like idiots.
Why not consider something bigger?

I consider all sorts of things.

[Jip]

Yeah...I'm not gonna read all that

Because you are stupid.
It was an intelligent post.

Instead you guys want to argue about the same things repeatedly like idiots.
Why not consider something bigger?

Haha i thought you meant great post jn a sarcastic way. Bjt u actualy meant jt hahaha

[Ossyrules]

As I’ve repeatedly stated to this forum, I genuinely believe that there are participants and also officials involved in all sports that are either corrupt or at least obscenely biased. So the scope of my sentiments obviously encompasses the sport of boxing.

That being said, judges score fights according to a set of criteria that are generally subjective in nature, which means they’re open to interpretation and can possibly be influenced by the environment from where they are viewing the bout (i.e. the judge may be located in a position where they cannot see certain punches land cleanly or the crowd hysteria could subconsciously swing their vote during evenly-contested rounds).

Also, judges are only allowed to score each round one-at-a-time, not the entire fight based on their general perception of the events that occurred.

What I mean is this; the judges should only score each round independently, without considering the events that occurred beforehand.

The concept of “owning the winning momentum” at the start of each round should not apply, since the events that occurred in previous rounds cannot be considered, which differs from how many fight fans view their bouts… or at least the manner in which the events are being conveyed to the TV audience by the commentary team.

Personal stylistic preference also plays a part. For instance: Dougie Fischer from The RING has repeatedly articulated his preference for aggressive “stalk-‘til-they-can’t walk” type fighters, such as GGG. So whenever there’s a classic “boxer versus a brawler” matchup, he’ll inevitably favour the latter rather over the former. His scorecards generally reflect his preference. Whether we like it or not, we all consciously or subconsciously judge fights this way.

Another factor to consider is competence. All human beings have different ability levels. Some judges are more vigilant and objective than others. There are highly-experienced judges that recognise minutiae that merely casual fight fans cannot detect or they use criteria that differs from the barometers employed by the viewing audience (i.e. when all things are considered equal, the fighter that makes his opponent miss and then makes them pay [effective defence], usually outscores a fighter that solely employs effective aggression, due to the former requiring greater skill to execute).

I’m not suggesting that corruption doesn’t exist in the sport of boxing, but you shouldn’t accuse individuals of engaging in criminal activity if you: don’t know them; never met them; live in a completely different geographical location; have no personal first-hand experience of the situation; and possess no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing being committed.

When there’s no evidence of any crime being committed, how can anyone determine guilt of someone being involved in some form of illegal activity for a sport where the scoring of fights is highly subjective in nature? How can you determine the actual reason for the different scores being applied by different people, when: competence; environment; criteria; personal stylistic preference; and other factors come into play?

I feel that boxing is a sport where the subjective nature of the scoring being employed by the judges inevitably results in the occasional controversial decision ever now and then. We just need to remember that whenever someone’s opinion differs from ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve to be imprisoned.

It's a very easy cover story to just claim to horrendously incompetent. On face value there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove that wrong. Does such a horrendous scorecard deserve to be treated as a bad day at the office? Anyone can make a mistake. Does it deserve to be treated differently that that judge was so far off the mark, the magnitude of the fight. It's unacceptable so should the judge be reprimanded in some form.

Of course none of this proves or disproves any corruption.

There's lots of goings on in sport that requires people to look deeper than just accepting things on face value, and they shouldn't be accused of lazy accusations.

Without proactive investigations, would lance armstrong ever had been caught? By your principles, he's passing all the drug tests thrown at him, he cannot be accused. However if you scratch the surface, chinks appear and it requires a deeper look. Of course as you will know the system and the organisation of it all was eventually revealed.

Numerous tennis players have been under investigation for abnormal results. From world number 1 at the time Novak Djokovic and down. Did he just play a bad game amongst looking unbeatable at that time.

Cricket has had its investigations

Athletics has had loads

Football, allardyce, George graham... all proactive work

I'm not saying Byrd is corrupt and has taken a bung, but when something absolutely stinks, with the history professional sports has broadly speaking, fans absolutely can question what's going.

[Enlightened-One]

As I’ve repeatedly stated to this forum, I genuinely believe that there are participants and also officials involved in all sports that are either corrupt or at least obscenely biased. So the scope of my sentiments obviously encompasses the sport of boxing.

That being said, judges score fights according to a set of criteria that are generally subjective in nature, which means they’re open to interpretation and can possibly be influenced by the environment from where they are viewing the bout (i.e. the judge may be located in a position where they cannot see certain punches land cleanly or the crowd hysteria could subconsciously swing their vote during evenly-contested rounds).

Also, judges are only allowed to score each round one-at-a-time, not the entire fight based on their general perception of the events that occurred.

What I mean is this; the judges should only score each round independently, without considering the events that occurred beforehand.

The concept of “owning the winning momentum” at the start of each round should not apply, since the events that occurred in previous rounds cannot be considered, which differs from how many fight fans view their bouts… or at least the manner in which the events are being conveyed to the TV audience by the commentary team.

Personal stylistic preference also plays a part. For instance: Dougie Fischer from The RING has repeatedly articulated his preference for aggressive “stalk-‘til-they-can’t walk” type fighters, such as GGG. So whenever there’s a classic “boxer versus a brawler” matchup, he’ll inevitably favour the latter rather over the former. His scorecards generally reflect his preference. Whether we like it or not, we all consciously or subconsciously judge fights this way.

Another factor to consider is competence. All human beings have different ability levels. Some judges are more vigilant and objective than others. There are highly-experienced judges that recognise minutiae that merely casual fight fans cannot detect or they use criteria that differs from the barometers employed by the viewing audience (i.e. when all things are considered equal, the fighter that makes his opponent miss and then makes them pay [effective defence], usually outscores a fighter that solely employs effective aggression, due to the former requiring greater skill to execute).

I’m not suggesting that corruption doesn’t exist in the sport of boxing, but you shouldn’t accuse individuals of engaging in criminal activity if you: don’t know them; never met them; live in a completely different geographical location; have no personal first-hand experience of the situation; and possess no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing being committed.

When there’s no evidence of any crime being committed, how can anyone determine guilt of someone being involved in some form of illegal activity for a sport where the scoring of fights is highly subjective in nature? How can you determine the actual reason for the different scores being applied by different people, when: competence; environment; criteria; personal stylistic preference; and other factors come into play?

I feel that boxing is a sport where the subjective nature of the scoring being employed by the judges inevitably results in the occasional controversial decision ever now and then. We just need to remember that whenever someone’s opinion differs from ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve to be imprisoned.

It's a very easy cover story to just claim to horrendously incompetent. On face value there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove that wrong. Does such a horrendous scorecard deserve to be treated as a bad day at the office? Anyone can make a mistake. Does it deserve to be treated differently that that judge was so far off the mark, the magnitude of the fight. It's unacceptable so should the judge be reprimanded in some form.

Of course none of this proves or disproves any corruption.

There's lots of goings on in sport that requires people to look deeper than just accepting things on face value, and they shouldn't be accused of lazy accusations.

Without proactive investigations, would lance armstrong ever had been caught? By your principles, he's passing all the drug tests thrown at him, he cannot be accused. However if you scratch the surface, chinks appear and it requires a deeper look. Of course as you will know the system and the organisation of it all was eventually revealed.

Numerous tennis players have been under investigation for abnormal results. From world number 1 at the time Novak Djokovic and down. Did he just play a bad game amongst looking unbeatable at that time.

Cricket has had its investigations

Athletics has had loads

Football, allardyce, George graham... all proactive work

I'm not saying Byrd is corrupt and has taken a bung, but when something absolutely stinks, with the history professional sports has broadly speaking, fans absolutely can question what's going.

There's a huge difference between "questioning what's going on" and demanding that the law enforcement agencies investigate matters, whilst there's a complete lack of evidence, coupled with persistently and unfairly accusing people of engaging in criminal activity.

It seems to me that the most popular catchwords being cited by lazy uneducated casual fight fans, whenever the outcome of highly competitive and fairly evenly contested bouts aren't scored according to their preferred expectations, are: "robbery"; "corruption"; "biased"; "fixed"; "bribed" etc. All the while there's a total lack of justification for them to use such derogatory terminology.

[candyslim]

There is some sense in what your saying EO I acknowledge that, however adopt this as the way to look at scoring and you're basically saying any old sh*t is acceptable because nobody has been caught with their hand stuck in the cookie jar, and it's all largely subjective anyway.

It sounds like a cheat's charter to me. I'm going to stick with being belligerent and unreasonable if you don't mind. If it looks like a t*rd and it smells like a tu*d then I'm calling it a t*rd.

[Enlightened-One]

There is some sense in what your saying EO I acknowledge that, however adopt this as the way to look at scoring and you're basically saying any old sh*t is acceptable because nobody has been caught with their hand stuck in the cookie jar, and it's all largely subjective anyway.

It sounds like a cheat's charter to me. I'm going to stick with being belligerent and unreasonable if you don't mind. If it looks like a t*rd and it smells like a tu*d then I'm calling it a t*rd.

People are entitled to their own opinions and to also like and dislike whomever they deem fit, but they should phrase their frustration in a manner that isn't slanderous, whilst being factually correct.

Some of the people that frequent this forum are actually demanding that the law enforcement agencies get involved and imprison specifically named individuals, which I feel is fûckîng ludicrous!

[gilgamesh]

I don't feel anybody should be jailed, but I certainly feel Adalaide Byrd should be out of a job.

It's one thing to score a fight opposite from most, it's another thing to have a score that's so completely out of line that it's not even within the realm of possibility that it was an "Honest" mistake. It could ONLY be corruption to be THAT far off the mark, and if she keeps her job then the Nevada State Athletic Commission is basically telling the entire world "We're not legitimate"

[boxing_rocks]

Why do you even reply to this EO idiot ?

[candyslim]

Granted I did feel that was a bit over-the-top but I sympathize with and share their frustrations.

Why are people continually appointed as judges when their integrity is questionable and/ or they are very impressionable and/ or not very good judges. No need to answer that - sadly I think I already know the answer

[candyslim]

Because he generally supplies an alternative viewpoint and that's not a bad thing on a forum in my opinion. I accept he can be tiresome when riding one of his stable of pet hobby-horses, and he can be way too serious but he frequently makes some good points.

You can always block him if he seriously gets on yer tits

[Ossyrules]

As I’ve repeatedly stated to this forum, I genuinely believe that there are participants and also officials involved in all sports that are either corrupt or at least obscenely biased. So the scope of my sentiments obviously encompasses the sport of boxing.

That being said, judges score fights according to a set of criteria that are generally subjective in nature, which means they’re open to interpretation and can possibly be influenced by the environment from where they are viewing the bout (i.e. the judge may be located in a position where they cannot see certain punches land cleanly or the crowd hysteria could subconsciously swing their vote during evenly-contested rounds).

Also, judges are only allowed to score each round one-at-a-time, not the entire fight based on their general perception of the events that occurred.

What I mean is this; the judges should only score each round independently, without considering the events that occurred beforehand.

The concept of “owning the winning momentum” at the start of each round should not apply, since the events that occurred in previous rounds cannot be considered, which differs from how many fight fans view their bouts… or at least the manner in which the events are being conveyed to the TV audience by the commentary team.

Personal stylistic preference also plays a part. For instance: Dougie Fischer from The RING has repeatedly articulated his preference for aggressive “stalk-‘til-they-can’t walk” type fighters, such as GGG. So whenever there’s a classic “boxer versus a brawler” matchup, he’ll inevitably favour the latter rather over the former. His scorecards generally reflect his preference. Whether we like it or not, we all consciously or subconsciously judge fights this way.

Another factor to consider is competence. All human beings have different ability levels. Some judges are more vigilant and objective than others. There are highly-experienced judges that recognise minutiae that merely casual fight fans cannot detect or they use criteria that differs from the barometers employed by the viewing audience (i.e. when all things are considered equal, the fighter that makes his opponent miss and then makes them pay [effective defence], usually outscores a fighter that solely employs effective aggression, due to the former requiring greater skill to execute).

I’m not suggesting that corruption doesn’t exist in the sport of boxing, but you shouldn’t accuse individuals of engaging in criminal activity if you: don’t know them; never met them; live in a completely different geographical location; have no personal first-hand experience of the situation; and possess no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing being committed.

When there’s no evidence of any crime being committed, how can anyone determine guilt of someone being involved in some form of illegal activity for a sport where the scoring of fights is highly subjective in nature? How can you determine the actual reason for the different scores being applied by different people, when: competence; environment; criteria; personal stylistic preference; and other factors come into play?

I feel that boxing is a sport where the subjective nature of the scoring being employed by the judges inevitably results in the occasional controversial decision ever now and then. We just need to remember that whenever someone’s opinion differs from ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve to be imprisoned.

It's a very easy cover story to just claim to horrendously incompetent. On face value there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove that wrong. Does such a horrendous scorecard deserve to be treated as a bad day at the office? Anyone can make a mistake. Does it deserve to be treated differently that that judge was so far off the mark, the magnitude of the fight. It's unacceptable so should the judge be reprimanded in some form.

Of course none of this proves or disproves any corruption.

There's lots of goings on in sport that requires people to look deeper than just accepting things on face value, and they shouldn't be accused of lazy accusations.

Without proactive investigations, would lance armstrong ever had been caught? By your principles, he's passing all the drug tests thrown at him, he cannot be accused. However if you scratch the surface, chinks appear and it requires a deeper look. Of course as you will know the system and the organisation of it all was eventually revealed.

Numerous tennis players have been under investigation for abnormal results. From world number 1 at the time Novak Djokovic and down. Did he just play a bad game amongst looking unbeatable at that time.

Cricket has had its investigations

Athletics has had loads

Football, allardyce, George graham... all proactive work

I'm not saying Byrd is corrupt and has taken a bung, but when something absolutely stinks, with the history professional sports has broadly speaking, fans absolutely can question what's going.

There's a huge difference between "questioning what's going on" and demanding that the law enforcement agencies investigate matters, whilst there's a complete lack of evidence, coupled with persistently and unfairly accusing people of engaging in criminal activity.

It seems to me that the most popular catchwords being cited by lazy uneducated casual fight fans, whenever the outcome of highly competitive and fairly evenly contested bouts aren't scored according to their preferred expectations, are: "robbery"; "corruption"; "biased"; "fixed"; "bribed" etc. All the while there's a total lack of justification for them to use such derogatory terminology.

I dislike in boxing the word robbery being banded around when a fighter doesn't get a decision as they quite often aren't robberies. A robbery to me is when is basically unexplainable how a fighter didn't get a decision. Lennox Lewis only getting a draw in Holyfield 1. Lewis robbed of his victory in that fight is an example. For sure kovalev wasn't robbed vs ward 1. I scored the fight to kovalev, but that's not a robbery.

Sporting irregularities, I raise my eye brow to them. And whilst we the fans will almost always have no evidence to support opinions, and sometimes there is incompetence in professional sport, I guess I'm too cynical and they raise too many questions.

I am a lover of sports and pure competition, so I don't like to think of sportsmen, many of who are my heroes and idols, cheating. I am also a realist though in the dirty world of pro sports.

On one hand I agree with you concerning ignorant spouting off, on the other... being inept and making g mistakes and then being forgotten about is all too easy and I hope for sure people with the relevant authority are looking at things

[Enlightened-One]

I don't feel anybody should be jailed, but I certainly feel Adalaide Byrd should be out of a job.

It's one thing to score a fight opposite from most, it's another thing to have a score that's so completely out of line that it's not even within the realm of possibility that it was an "Honest" mistake. It could ONLY be corruption to be THAT far off the mark, and if she keeps her job then the Nevada State Athletic Commission is basically telling the entire world "We're not legitimate"

If something about the universe cannot be explained at this point in time by science, many people prefer to assume an overly-simplistic solution, by believing that “divine intervention” has to always be the “logical” explanation behind any complex situation or problem.

Many fight fans are similar, but sometimes even worse, they always assume “corruption” is at play whenever there’s a lack of information to explain the situation they’re perplexed with.

Faith is said to be a belief without proof and sometimes people’s opinions are so persevering that whenever their judgements have been totally refuted with compelling evidence, they often feel insulted and then stubbornly refuse to revise their views.

Certain people can only embrace information that supports their beliefs, whilst rejecting anything out-of-hand that contradicts them.

Therefore, whenever certain people are confused about the reason why the judges didn’t score the fight in favour of their favourite fighter, they feel compelled to automatically assume that “corruption” has to be the go-to explanation.

I’m glad I don’t think that way!

[gilgamesh]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

[Enlightened-One]

It's a very easy cover story to just claim to horrendously incompetent. On face value there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove that wrong. Does such a horrendous scorecard deserve to be treated as a bad day at the office? Anyone can make a mistake. Does it deserve to be treated differently that that judge was so far off the mark, the magnitude of the fight. It's unacceptable so should the judge be reprimanded in some form.

Of course none of this proves or disproves any corruption.

There's lots of goings on in sport that requires people to look deeper than just accepting things on face value, and they shouldn't be accused of lazy accusations.

Without proactive investigations, would lance armstrong ever had been caught? By your principles, he's passing all the drug tests thrown at him, he cannot be accused. However if you scratch the surface, chinks appear and it requires a deeper look. Of course as you will know the system and the organisation of it all was eventually revealed.

Numerous tennis players have been under investigation for abnormal results. From world number 1 at the time Novak Djokovic and down. Did he just play a bad game amongst looking unbeatable at that time.

Cricket has had its investigations

Athletics has had loads

Football, allardyce, George graham... all proactive work

I'm not saying Byrd is corrupt and has taken a bung, but when something absolutely stinks, with the history professional sports has broadly speaking, fans absolutely can question what's going.

There's a huge difference between "questioning what's going on" and demanding that the law enforcement agencies investigate matters, whilst there's a complete lack of evidence, coupled with persistently and unfairly accusing people of engaging in criminal activity.

It seems to me that the most popular catchwords being cited by lazy uneducated casual fight fans, whenever the outcome of highly competitive and fairly evenly contested bouts aren't scored according to their preferred expectations, are: "robbery"; "corruption"; "biased"; "fixed"; "bribed" etc. All the while there's a total lack of justification for them to use such derogatory terminology.

I dislike in boxing the word robbery being banded around when a fighter doesn't get a decision as they quite often aren't robberies. A robbery to me is when is basically unexplainable how a fighter didn't get a decision. Lennox Lewis only getting a draw in Holyfield 1. Lewis robbed of his victory in that fight is an example. For sure kovalev wasn't robbed vs ward 1. I scored the fight to kovalev, but that's not a robbery.

Sporting irregularities, I raise my eye brow to them. And whilst we the fans will almost always have no evidence to support opinions, and sometimes there is incompetence in professional sport, I guess I'm too cynical and they raise too many questions.

I am a lover of sports and pure competition, so I don't like to think of sportsmen, many of who are my heroes and idols, cheating. I am also a realist though in the dirty world of pro sports.

On one hand I agree with you concerning ignorant spouting off, on the other... being inept and making g mistakes and then being forgotten about is all too easy and I hope for sure people with the relevant authority are looking at things

I think we’re almost on the same "page".

The main discrepancy is the fact that I don’t believe that professional officials that regularly make mistakes should get away with things.

However, the accused individuals should not be punished without receiving due process. Their incompetence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[greg]

..pray, forgive those lazy fight fans, they/we are only human

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3wKzyIN1yk

[Enlightened-One]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

If a frustrating situation occurs that cannot be explained, but I’ve not been presented with enough information to draw a fair and logical opinion, then I cannot automatically assume that “corruption” is the root cause.

If you’d read my first post… you know, the one you boasted that you wouldn’t read… then you would not have submitted that post.

“I must say”, it’s “not very enlightened” to attack an opinion, such as mine, that you brag about ignoring!

[gilgamesh]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

If a frustrating situation occurs that cannot be explained, but I’ve not been presented with enough information to draw a fair and logical opinion, then I cannot automatically assume that “corruption” is the root cause.

If you’d read my first post… you know, the one you boasted that you wouldn’t read… then you would not have submitted that post.

“I must say”, it’s not “very enlightened” to attack an opinion, such as mine, that you brag about ignoring!

I got ya. You're a contrarian. You like to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing with people so that you can pretend to be real smart. It works on some people I guess

[candyslim]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

I think that gave me my loudest laugh of the day. You said exactly what I was thinking only more succinctly and more eloquently

[gilgamesh]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

I think that gave me my loudest laugh of the day. You said exactly what I was thinking only more succinctly and more eloquently

I have my moments. Glad to hear you got such a kick out of it

[Enlightened-One]

So in other words you can't tell the difference between a scorecard being a little bit off the mark, and being COMPLETELY off the mark to the point that it's not even remotely defensible, and you feel the need to lash out at those who can tell the difference?

Not very Enlightened of you I must say.

If a frustrating situation occurs that cannot be explained, but I’ve not been presented with enough information to draw a fair and logical opinion, then I cannot automatically assume that “corruption” is the root cause.

If you’d read my first post… you know, the one you boasted that you wouldn’t read… then you would not have submitted that post.

“I must say”, it’s not “very enlightened” to attack an opinion, such as mine, that you brag about ignoring!

I got ya. You're a contrarian. You like to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing with people so that you can pretend to be real smart. It works on some people I guess

If you’d read my first post in this thread… or any of them for that matter, you’ll find that my opinions are consistent.

I don’t flip-flop my stance in order to play the role of the “Devil’s Advocate”… “to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing”.

In the same way you automatically assume “corruption” has to be the “ONLY” possible explanation for a controversial judges decision, without possessing any justification for the aforementioned derogatory stance… you also assume that I must be a “contrarian”, simply because I refuse to unfairly draw conclusions in the same manner the lazy “lemming-like” masses do.

We disagree on things… that doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person, but the difference between us, is that you’ve chosen to make things personal, by attacking me rather than my thoughts.