Enlightened-One wrote:
You actually have the audacity to criticise my words that you quoted but admit to not even reading them... and now you're telling me that you refuse to defend your criticism by reading the actual points that I made?
Read the first post in this thread and you'll surely realise that you got it wrong!
wow , I bet you have fun argueing with yourself .
Goodnight
Goodnight my friend. I'll consider your departure from the discussion as an apology.
Yes my humblest apologies , in hindsight it was an awful bill with most of the fights one sided beatdowns .
I bow to your superior knowledge and should think more carefully about my replies in future
rd350lc wrote:
wow , I bet you have fun argueing with yourself .
Goodnight
Goodnight my friend. I'll consider your departure from the discussion as an apology.
Yes my humblest apologies , in hindsight it was an awful bill with most of the fights one sided beatdowns .
I bow to your superior knowledge and should think more carefully about my replies in future
I appreciate your sarcasm, but I never said the fight card was "awful", but I did say it contained a lack of competitive fights, since nearly all of the eventual winners on the night entered their bouts as favourites with betting probabilities in excess of 95%... and the only upset was Buglioni scoring a last round KO to win his bout, since he was a country mile behind in the scorecards entering the 12th round against the heavy betting favourite.
If you're going to criticise me, attack my actual words not some sort of fictional account of events that only ever existed in your mind... please review the original post in this thread and try to undermine each and every single point I made.
I know you won't, because doing so renders your argument as redundant.
Enlightened-One wrote:I accurately predicted that the Burton-Buglioni would be moderately competitive.
It very competitive, not moderately.
For vast majority of the bout it was only moderately competitive since Burton was comfortably outboxing Buglioni.
Only the last minute or so of the bout was very competitive... and when I use the phrase "very competitive", an example of which could be the Chisora-Whyte fight.
Let's face it, the vast majorof my predictions and claims made in this thread were remarkably accurate.
Enlightened-One wrote:I accurately predicted that the Burton-Buglioni would be moderately competitive.
It very competitive, not moderately.
For vast majority of the bout it was only moderately competitive since Burton was comfortably outboxing Buglioni.
Only the last minute or so of the bout was very competitive... and when I use the phrase "very competitive", an example of which could be the Chisora-Whyte fight.
Let's face it, the vast majorof my predictions and claims made in this thread were remarkably accurate.
Of course, you're right. How foolish of me.
It was a very competitive fight, which had many close rounds, was scored differently by ringsiders and was won by knockout, by the guy you said was losing. Your problem FUGMO is that your more interested in winning arguments than talking about boxing. It's alright to admit you're wrong.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
It very competitive, not moderately.
For vast majority of the bout it was only moderately competitive since Burton was comfortably outboxing Buglioni.
Only the last minute or so of the bout was very competitive... and when I use the phrase "very competitive", an example of which could be the Chisora-Whyte fight.
Let's face it, the vast majorof my predictions and claims made in this thread were remarkably accurate.
Of course, you're right. How foolish of me.
It was a very competitive fight, which had many close rounds, was scored differently by ringsiders and was won by knockout, by the guy you said was losing. Your problem FUGMO is that your more interested in winning arguments than talking about boxing. It's alright to admit you're wrong.
Your posting history suggests you're very argumentative ... so you should put your own house in order before you start telling me about my "problems".
Enlightened-One wrote:
For vast majority of the bout it was only moderately competitive since Burton was comfortably outboxing Buglioni.
Only the last minute or so of the bout was very competitive... and when I use the phrase "very competitive", an example of which could be the Chisora-Whyte fight.
Let's face it, the vast majorof my predictions and claims made in this thread were remarkably accurate.
Of course, you're right. How foolish of me.
It was a very competitive fight, which had many close rounds, was scored differently by ringsiders and was won by knockout, by the guy you said was losing. Your problem FUGMO is that your more interested in winning arguments than talking about boxing. It's alright to admit you're wrong.
Your posting history suggests you're very argumentative ... so you should put your own house in order before you start telling me about my "problems".
My house is fine thanks. I ask you questions and you ignore them.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Of course, you're right. How foolish of me.
It was a very competitive fight, which had many close rounds, was scored differently by ringsiders and was won by knockout, by the guy you said was losing. Your problem FUGMO is that your more interested in winning arguments than talking about boxing. It's alright to admit you're wrong.
Your posting history suggests you're very argumentative ... so you should put your own house in order before you start telling me about my "problems".
My house is fine thanks. I ask you questions and you ignore them.
Statements aren't questions and I am not obliged to address them.
Enlightened-One wrote:
Your posting history suggests you're very argumentative ... so you should put your own house in order before you start telling me about my "problems".
My house is fine thanks. I ask you questions and you ignore them.
Statements aren't questions and I am not obliged to address them.
I'm talking about questions, which, if you didn't know, are indeed questions.
Enlightened-One wrote:
Statements aren't questions and I am not obliged to address them.
I'm talking about questions, which, if you didn't know, are indeed questions.
You haven't posed any questions in this thread... if you disagree, quote them.
I'm talking about other threads were you haven't answered my questions. If you would like I could ask them again, but I think we both know that you won't answer them, so there's not much point really is there?
keithmoonhangover wrote:
I'm talking about questions, which, if you didn't know, are indeed questions.
You haven't posed any questions in this thread... if you disagree, quote them.
I'm talking about other threads were you haven't answered my questions. If you would like I could ask them again, but I think we both know that you won't answer them, so there's not much point really is there?
You've become a bit random for me... You attack me in a thread for not answering your questions, but then you admit to not asking any.
Enlightened-One wrote:
You haven't posed any questions in this thread... if you disagree, quote them.
I'm talking about other threads were you haven't answered my questions. If you would like I could ask them again, but I think we both know that you won't answer them, so there's not much point really is there?
You've become a bit random for me... You attack me in a thread for not answering your questions, but then you admit to not asking any.
Yeah, turns out when I said, other threads, what I really meant was other threads.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
I ask you questions and you ignore them.
Statements aren't questions and I am not obliged to address them.
You haven't posed any questions in this thread... if you disagree, quote them.
I'm talking about questions, which, if you didn't know, are indeed questions.
keithmoonhangover wrote:I'm talking about other threads were you haven't answered my questions.
And my final response was:
Enlightened-One wrote:You've become a bit random for me... You attack me in a thread for not answering your questions, but then you admit to not asking any.
Enlightened-One wrote:Here’s how our conversation has flowed:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Enlightened-One wrote:
Statements aren't questions and I am not obliged to address them.
I'm talking about questions, which, if you didn't know, are indeed questions.
keithmoonhangover wrote:You haven't posed any questions in this thread... if you disagree, quote them.
I'm talking about other threads were you haven't answered my questions.
And my final response was:
Enlightened-One wrote:You've become a bit random for me... You attack me in a thread for not answering your questions, but then you admit to not asking any.
You’re not much of a challenge.[/quote]
Just to clear this up, I'm here to discuss boxing and have some banter, not win arguments. As I said, I have asked you questions in other threads (not this one) that you didn't answer. Would you like me to ask them again?
keithmoonhangover wrote:Just to clear this up, I'm here to discuss boxing and have some banter, not win arguments. As I said, I have asked you questions in other threads (not this one) that you didn't answer. Would you like me to ask them again?
I created a thread discussing the competitive nature of a boxing promotion, but completely out-of-the-blue, you chose to insult me and also attack me for things that occurred in other threads. You instigated that, so you can’t try to take the moral high-ground now.
keithmoonhangover wrote:Just to clear this up, I'm here to discuss boxing and have some banter, not win arguments. As I said, I have asked you questions in other threads (not this one) that you didn't answer. Would you like me to ask them again?
I created a thread discussing the competitive nature of a boxing promotion, but you chose to insult me and also attack me for things that occurred in other threads. You instigated that, so you can’t try to take the moral high-ground now.
I'm not taking anything. I'll leave it at this.......
A fight takes place where ringsiders are split on who is winning. Then one of the guys, (who is behind on your card) knocks out the other guy. You think that was a moderately competitive fight. Says it all really.
keithmoonhangover wrote:Just to clear this up, I'm here to discuss boxing and have some banter, not win arguments. As I said, I have asked you questions in other threads (not this one) that you didn't answer. Would you like me to ask them again?
I created a thread discussing the competitive nature of a boxing promotion, but you chose to insult me and also attack me for things that occurred in other threads. You instigated that, so you can’t try to take the moral high-ground now.
I'm not taking anything. I'll leave it at this.......
A fight takes place where ringsiders are split on who is winning. Then one of the guys, (who is behind on your card) knocks out the other guy. You think that was a moderately competitive fight. Says it all really.
I'm done FUGMO.
I really do wish that some people would learn to read and comprehend information that they have digested instead of spontaneously uttering nonsense in a Tourette’s syndrome like manner.
keithmoonhangover wrote:Just to clear this up, I'm here to discuss boxing and have some banter, not win arguments. As I said, I have asked you questions in other threads (not this one) that you didn't answer. Would you like me to ask them again?
I created a thread discussing the competitive nature of a boxing promotion, but you chose to insult me and also attack me for things that occurred in other threads. You instigated that, so you can’t try to take the moral high-ground now.
I'm not taking anything. I'll leave it at this.......
A fight takes place where ringsiders are split on who is winning. Then one of the guys, (who is behind on your card) knocks out the other guy. You think that was a moderately competitive fight. Says it all really.
I'm done FUGMO.
Nice one Keith , you clearly have more staying power than me
couldn't be arsed in the end cos' youb obviously aint going to win the argument with this kind of bloke
He probably is one of Horse's closest mates , can you imagine going out for a beer with them two ?
Enlightened-One wrote:
I created a thread discussing the competitive nature of a boxing promotion, but you chose to insult me and also attack me for things that occurred in other threads. You instigated that, so you can’t try to take the moral high-ground now.
I'm not taking anything. I'll leave it at this.......
A fight takes place where ringsiders are split on who is winning. Then one of the guys, (who is behind on your card) knocks out the other guy. You think that was a moderately competitive fight. Says it all really.
I'm done FUGMO.
Nice one Keith , you clearly have more staying power than me
couldn't be arsed in the end cos' youb obviously aint going to win the argument with this kind of bloke
He probably is one of Horse's closest mates , can you imagine going out for a beer with them two ?
Not sure if they've ever left the house mate, if I'm honest.
