JDJ tried to jump the ship to Ward

[Enlightened-One]

Nothing that I said was even remotely close to being as offensive as some of the shít uttered by Sergey Kovalev, but you defend him whilst attacking me for my “offensive” words that you deem to be in “poor taste”... to the point that you actually have the sheer audacity to compare my behaviour to someone that is proven to be a long-term racist!

You previously claimed that “actions speak louder than words”, so what does that say about someone that chooses to support a racist, by defending them, whilst attacking their disparagers?

Your position is, Kovalev is a racist. Mine is, Kovalev may or may not be a racist. You present a rigid argument. Mine is more balanced. Both of us agree that his comments are inappropriate. You have admitted that your joke was intentionally provocative. You have not acknowledged that it was and could be offensive to me. Your joke and your rebuttal both imply that John David Jackson is an Uncle Tom. I acknowledge that Sergery Kovalevs words are inappropriate, I also acknowledge that your joke was inappropriate. Furthermore; you have attacked me for raising this.

I am only willing to defend my actual words. I flatly refuse to comment on your interpretation of them.

Therefore, please quote each sentence that I wrote, which you take an issue with, but please don’t exclude any of my other comments that directly relate to the same point… and then challenge my thoughts accordingly.

I am willing to retract/correct any errors and also apologise for any deeply-offensive claims or poorly articulated explanations that I may have provided, if you’re able to detail precisely the problems that you have with my posts.

The issue I have with you, relates to your assertion that there is a doubt about Sergey Kovalev being a racist, whilst also admitting to not having researched all of his previous bigoted misdemeanours.

I have researched Sergey Kovalev’s racist antics, so I am able to defend my words, but you believe your argument is more “balanced”, despite it being less educated.

I’ve even provided a quote from Kovalev explaining his thoughts about disliking “tanned” people less as each day passes, yet you refuse to comment on this, but then you pretend your argument isn't "rigid".

You are claiming that I have either said or implied certain things that I feel bear no relation to my actual words, hence the need for you to quote my sentences instead of simply arguing your general high-level interpretation of them.

[lazboy]

Nothing that I said was even remotely close to being as offensive as some of the shít uttered by Sergey Kovalev, but you defend him whilst attacking me for my “offensive” words that you deem to be in “poor taste”... to the point that you actually have the sheer audacity to compare my behaviour to someone that is proven to be a long-term racist!

You previously claimed that “actions speak louder than words”, so what does that say about someone that chooses to support a racist, by defending them, whilst attacking their disparagers?

Your position is, Kovalev is a racist. Mine is, Kovalev may or may not be a racist. You present a rigid argument. Mine is more balanced. Both of us agree that his comments are inappropriate. You have admitted that your joke was intentionally provocative. You have not acknowledged that it was and could be offensive to me. Your joke and your rebuttal both imply that John David Jackson is an Uncle Tom. I acknowledge that Sergery Kovalevs words are inappropriate, I also acknowledge that your joke was inappropriate. Furthermore; you have attacked me for raising this.

I am only willing to defend my actual words. I flatly refuse to comment on your interpretation of them.

Therefore, please quote each sentence that I wrote, which you take an issue with, but please don’t exclude any of my other comments that directly relate to the same point… and then challenge my thoughts accordingly.

I am willing to retract/correct any errors and also apologise for any deeply-offensive claims or poorly articulated explanations that I may have provided, if you’re able to detail precisely the problems that you have with my posts.

The issue I have with you, relates to your assertion that there is a doubt about Sergey Kovalev being a racist, whilst also admitting to not having researched all of his previous bigoted misdemeanours.

I have researched Sergey Kovalev’s racist antics, so I am able to defend my words, but you believe your argument is more “balanced”, despite it being less educated.

I’ve even provided a quote from Kovalev explaining his thoughts about disliking “tanned” people less as each day passes, yet you refuse to comment on this, but then you pretend your argument isn't "rigid".

You are claiming that I have either said or implied certain things that I feel bear no relation to my actual words, hence the need for you to quote my sentences instead of simply arguing your general high-level interpretation of them.

-You continue to berate me. My opinion is standing, my argument, a balanced one. You ask me to quote each sentence of yours. Why can't you follow the flow of this debate? It is there for you to revist. Are you geniunely confused? Are you being difficult? Is there something else that I'm not aware of or is it you that is not aware of it? It should be clear where I take the issue. I'm confident in my writting skills. Just so you don't further insult me, by insinutating that I am avoiding this simple yet jarring request, here is the "joke" I take issue with.

Sergey Kovalev simply wanted a black US figurehead leading his training team as a token gesture to create the impression that he is "fond" of Americans and to also deflect any widespread and regular accusations of any racism on his part, due to his bigoted actions outside the ring.

I can imagine him saying "Look everyone... I can't be racist against 'thoroughbred ni**a tanned monkeys', because I employ one... and I even feed him 'bananas', despite the 'dark-skinned talking a lot and earning easy money'!"

At least he can still use Kathy Duva to deflect any criticism he regularly receives for his misogynistic actions (since she can't be at "home" doing the housework whilst she's also promoting his fights).

Just kidding... kind of.

I would however encourage you, or whomever is reading this to revist it from start to finish, (your original quote and my subsequent replies) to understand my conjecture. Again I find myself repeating myself. I feel you have disrespected John David Jackson. Through your subsequent replies you havn't made it clear to me that you are apologetic, or that you were ignortant to my interpretation, quite the opposite, you believe you are justified because Kovalev used that language and two wrongs make a right but do you know what you are implying with that joke? I have made it clear. I said it in my most recent post, it is there for you to read. Words are interpreted, sentences are interpreted by the beings that read them. Will you flatly refuse to comment on my interpretation as you stated in the first line of your reply if it doesn't allign with your view?


Furthermore; Jackson has been quoted saying he would not work with Kovalev if he was a racist. Do you see my educated opinion on the matter? How it creates a balanced debate. I'm yet to throw down the gavel and draw a conclusion but why did you need to drag John David Jackson into this in such a vulgar manner.

[boxing_rocks]

Lazboy, you can't win a pissing contest with a skunk.

[Enlightened-One]

-You continue to berate me. My opinion is standing, my argument, a balanced one. You ask me to quote each sentence of yours. Why can't you follow the flow of this debate? It is there for you to revist. Are you geniunely confused? Are you being difficult? Is there something else that I'm not aware of or is it you that is not aware of it? It should be clear where I take the issue. I'm confident in my writting skills. Just so you don't further insult me, by insinutating that I am avoiding this simple yet jarring request, here is the "joke" I take issue with.

The vast majority of the comments you've articulated describing your general high-level interpretation of my posts should be considered as total utter fúckíng búllshít, since they bear almost no relation to any of my written words, which is the main reason why you’ve intentionally refrained from quoting them.

In regards to my words that you’ve quoted above, you have conveniently excluded my clarification of this matter, which proves that you’re behaving dishonestly, by specifically criticising extracts of a “joke” rather than my complete explanation of the issue. See below:

This "joke" was a half-truth. Sergey Kovalev is notoriously difficult to work with and John David Jackson concedes that the Russian doesn’t always listen to him. I do believe that his American head trainer is merely a figurehead, but I am not convinced that he’s being used to deflect accusations of racism.

Of course I was joking, kind of… since Sergey Kovalev can still be a racist even if he employs hundreds of black people.

The reason why I originally asked you to quote my words was to prevent you from making claims that bear little or no relation to my actual sentiments contained within my posts.

You clearly refuse to do this, since it weakens your position, because it’s easier for you to argue against a misrepresented version of my claim that you’ve fabricated in your mind rather than my actual thoughts that I’ve already clearly articulated to this forum, which you are obviously unable refute.

[lazboy]

-You continue to berate me. My opinion is standing, my argument, a balanced one. You ask me to quote each sentence of yours. Why can't you follow the flow of this debate? It is there for you to revist. Are you geniunely confused? Are you being difficult? Is there something else that I'm not aware of or is it you that is not aware of it? It should be clear where I take the issue. I'm confident in my writting skills. Just so you don't further insult me, by insinutating that I am avoiding this simple yet jarring request, here is the "joke" I take issue with.

The vast majority of the comments you've articulated describing your general high-level interpretation of my posts should be considered as total utter fúckíng búllshít, since they bear almost no relation to any of my written words, which is the main reason why you’ve intentionally refrained from quoting them.

In regards to my words that you’ve quoted above, you have conveniently excluded my clarification of this matter, which proves that you’re behaving dishonestly, by specifically criticising extracts of a “joke” rather than my complete explanation of the issue. See below:

This "joke" was a half-truth. Sergey Kovalev is notoriously difficult to work with and John David Jackson concedes that the Russian doesn’t always listen to him. I do believe that his American head trainer is merely a figurehead, but I am not convinced that he’s being used to deflect accusations of racism.

Of course I was joking, kind of… since Sergey Kovalev can still be a racist even if he employs hundreds of black people.

The reason why I originally asked you to quote my words was to prevent you from making claims that bear little or no relation to my actual sentiments contained within my posts.

You clearly refuse to do this, since it weakens your position, because it’s easier for you to argue against a misrepresented version of my claim that you’ve fabricated in your mind rather than my actual thoughts that I’ve already clearly articulated to this forum, which you are obviously unable refute.

You're a pathetic creature I will be reporting you.

[lazboy]

Lazboy, you can't win a pissing contest with a skunk.

You were right. John David Jackson would bitch slap him to oblivion. If only verlitche was here to support me.

[Enlightened-One]

-You continue to berate me. My opinion is standing, my argument, a balanced one. You ask me to quote each sentence of yours. Why can't you follow the flow of this debate? It is there for you to revist. Are you geniunely confused? Are you being difficult? Is there something else that I'm not aware of or is it you that is not aware of it? It should be clear where I take the issue. I'm confident in my writting skills. Just so you don't further insult me, by insinutating that I am avoiding this simple yet jarring request, here is the "joke" I take issue with.

The vast majority of the comments you've articulated describing your general high-level interpretation of my posts should be considered as total utter fúckíng búllshít, since they bear almost no relation to any of my written words, which is the main reason why you’ve intentionally refrained from quoting them.

In regards to my words that you’ve quoted above, you have conveniently excluded my clarification of this matter, which proves that you’re behaving dishonestly, by specifically criticising extracts of a “joke” rather than my complete explanation of the issue. See below:

This "joke" was a half-truth. Sergey Kovalev is notoriously difficult to work with and John David Jackson concedes that the Russian doesn’t always listen to him. I do believe that his American head trainer is merely a figurehead, but I am not convinced that he’s being used to deflect accusations of racism.

Of course I was joking, kind of… since Sergey Kovalev can still be a racist even if he employs hundreds of black people.

The reason why I originally asked you to quote my words was to prevent you from making claims that bear little or no relation to my actual sentiments contained within my posts.

You clearly refuse to do this, since it weakens your position, because it’s easier for you to argue against a misrepresented version of my claim that you’ve fabricated in your mind rather than my actual thoughts that I’ve already clearly articulated to this forum, which you are obviously unable refute.

You're a pathetic creature I will be reporting you.

In other words, you're frustrated that I won't take the bait by participating in your childish game, due to the fact that I flatly-refuse to defend a position that I do not hold.

Are you really going to report me to a forum moderator by citing an allegation that you're unable to substantiate?

[lazboy]

The vast majority of the comments you've articulated describing your general high-level interpretation of my posts should be considered as total utter fúckíng búllshít, since they bear almost no relation to any of my written words, which is the main reason why you’ve intentionally refrained from quoting them.

In regards to my words that you’ve quoted above, you have conveniently excluded my clarification of this matter, which proves that you’re behaving dishonestly, by specifically criticising extracts of a “joke” rather than my complete explanation of the issue. See below:

The reason why I originally asked you to quote my words was to prevent you from making claims that bear little or no relation to my actual sentiments contained within my posts.

You clearly refuse to do this, since it weakens your position, because it’s easier for you to argue against a misrepresented version of my claim that you’ve fabricated in your mind rather than my actual thoughts that I’ve already clearly articulated to this forum, which you are obviously unable refute.

You're a pathetic creature I will be reporting you.

In other words, you're frustrated that I won't take the bait by participating in your childish game, due to the fact that I flatly-refuse to defend a position that I do not hold.

Are you really going to report me to a forum moderator by citing an allegation that you're unable to substantiate?

Normally I like to fight my own battles but I would love for Verlichte to jump on this thread, teach you a thing or two about what is right and wrong.

[Enlightened-One]

You're a pathetic creature I will be reporting you.

In other words, you're frustrated that I won't take the bait by participating in your childish game, due to the fact that I flatly-refuse to defend a position that I do not hold.

Are you really going to report me to a forum moderator by citing an allegation that you're unable to substantiate?

Normally I like to fight my own battles but I would love for Verlichte to jump on this thread, teach you a thing or two about what is right and wrong.

Thank you for conceding defeat.

[AntonS]

No Mars Bar for guessing what's gonna happen to this topic, if it continues the way it is.
Cheers

[SaadOffTheDeck]

No Mars Bar for guessing what's gonna happen to this topic, if it continues the way it is.
Cheers

This is every thread enlightened one takes part in. Brutal troll.

[Enlightened-One]

No Mars Bar for guessing what's gonna happen to this topic, if it continues the way it is.
Cheers

This is every thread enlightened one takes part in. Brutal troll.

I simply fact-check my claims prior to making them and can always support the information I convey with evidence.

You veteran members of the forum inevitably dislike anyone whose opinion you cannot undermine, so you all gang up on me and resort to personal insults as your primary debating tactic, since none of you are able to effectively challenge someone that is armed with a whole host of irrefutable facts that supports their claims.

It would only take ten minutes for a forum moderator to verify this claim.

[AntonS]

Mods don't research. They simply deal with posts they're faced with & act according to forum policy. One of your posts was deleted, because of racist content.