Adonis Stevenson: Kovalev Don't Want To Fight - I'd KO Him!

[lazboy]

In regards to this particular situation, "lateral thinking" bears no fûckîng relation to reality.

Pretty pathetic response.

A fictional nonsense post doesn't deserve anything better than a "pathetic response".

Glad you acknowledged something. Making progress it seems.

[Enlightened-One]

Pretty pathetic response.

A fictional nonsense post doesn't deserve anything better than a "pathetic response".

Glad you acknowledged something. Making progress it seems.

As "pathetic" as my response may seem to you, at least it was factually accurate when I claimed that you had written a load of fûckîng bôllôcks!

[lazboy]

A fictional nonsense post doesn't deserve anything better than a "pathetic response".

Glad you acknowledged something. Making progress it seems.

As "pathetic" as my response may seem to you, at least it was factually accurate when I claimed that you had written a load of fûckîng bôllôcks!

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

[Enlightened-One]

Glad you acknowledged something. Making progress it seems.

As "pathetic" as my response may seem to you, at least it was factually accurate when I claimed that you had written a load of fûckîng bôllôcks!

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

[lazboy]

As "pathetic" as my response may seem to you, at least it was factually accurate when I claimed that you had written a load of fûckîng bôllôcks!

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

Calm down please. You had an op. You could have either confirmed or denied. You didn’t...you blew it.

[Enlightened-One]

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

Calm down please. You had an op. You could have either confirmed or denied. You didn’t...you blew it.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

[Blodhemn]

What a shit thread. FACT.

[lazboy]

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

Calm down please. You had an op. You could have either confirmed or denied. You didn’t...you blew it.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

Honestly I think using a quiz show as an example is poor. It’s unlikely that a quiz show would have a question with multiple correct answers and multiple ways you could argue for and or against. Generally a quiz show would have a yes or no type answer, but life is not all black and white...some of the time there are greys areas which require this lateral thinking.

[Enlightened-One]

Calm down please. You had an op. You could have either confirmed or denied. You didn’t...you blew it.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

Honestly I think using a quiz show as an example is poor. It’s unlikely that a quiz show would have a question with multiple correct answers and multiple ways you could argue for and or against. Generally a quiz show would have a yes or no type answer, but life is not all black and white...some of the time there are greys areas which require this lateral thinking.

Explain what the so-called "grey areas" are in the context to what has been discussed?

If you know what you're talking about, you'd be able to list them with ease.

[lazboy]

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

Honestly I think using a quiz show as an example is poor. It’s unlikely that a quiz show would have a question with multiple correct answers and multiple ways you could argue for and or against. Generally a quiz show would have a yes or no type answer, but life is not all black and white...some of the time there are greys areas which require this lateral thinking.

Explain what the so-called "grey areas" are in the context to what has been discussed?

If you know what you're talking about, you'd be able to list them with ease.

Are you aware that the context of what we are discussing is you? We are discussing you.

[Boxerbeetle]

As "pathetic" as my response may seem to you, at least it was factually accurate when I claimed that you had written a load of fûckîng bôllôcks!

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

Let me give you an example of what I meant, as it appears you’re struggling to understand. If you were to look at a simplified timeline of the beginning of WW2 from Wiki, it would appear as follows (the bold is mine):

1939
September 1: Germany invades Poland
September 3: Britain and France warns Germany to move all soldiers out of Poland or there will be war. Germany doesn't follow. The two declares war on Germany.

Someone without sufficient grasp of the full context surrounding these events could start a thread stating ‘Britain and France started WW2! They declared war before anyone else! The facts are indisputable! The timeline proves it!’. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, this wouldn’t be an accurate representation of what really happened before, during and after this period.

Does that help? Do you see why simply laying out timelines does not necessarily give the full story? Of course, a quiz show would never just ask ‘Who started WW2’ because it isn’t a black & white scenario with only one possible answer. Similarly, a quiz show would also never just ask ‘Did Stevenson duck Kovalev?’, for the same reason.

[Mexi-Box]

What a shit thread. FACT.

Yeah, it got stupid fast. I'm not about to read these paragraphs these guys are posting.

[TheBeast]

Mikael Zewski 30 1 0
vs
Diego Gonzalo Luque 21 5 1
vacant World Boxing Council International Welterweight Title

Zewski won by UD
Crazy guy tried to jump in the ring










FULL CARD HIGHLIGHTS HERE;
http://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/view ... 8&start=75


ENJOY!!!

[oogiebe]

This back and forth is likely to continue for the rest of the time EO is on the forum as it has. Box beetle made a comment about lateral thinking....black and white thinking unable to comprehend or argue the grey area...... EO has an opportunity to raise awareness in a bid to stop these arguments. I’m not forcing him to say anything I just think it might be a good idea to be honest about certain things, say if he had autism. Then at least some of us may be more understanding.

In regards to this particular situation, "lateral thinking" bears no fûckîng relation to reality.

Pretty pathetic response.

...very...no surprise here.

[Heretic]

That seems to be a rather random comment.

Do you believe that Sergey Kovalev rejected a guaranteed opportunity to fight Adonis Stevenson in 2015, or don't you?

What's it to be? Don't straddle the fence or keep trying to employ red herrings, make a decision that reflects your thoughts on the matter!

EO - lay off me. I'm not one to trifle with. Keep you Kalen'esque posts to yourself. You bore me.

You are as boring and irrelevant as the point of this thread. Who cares who is the ducker! They never fought; they are never going to fight; and both are to blame. What difference does it make who is the ducker?! OMG!!! I'm getting sucked into the vortex!!! SOS!!! HEEEELP!

[Datsue]

Let me give you an example of what I meant, as it appears you’re struggling to understand. If you were to look at a simplified timeline of the beginning of WW2 from Wiki, it would appear as follows (the bold is mine):

1939
September 1: Germany invades Poland
September 3: Britain and France warns Germany to move all soldiers out of Poland or there will be war. Germany doesn't follow. The two declares war on Germany.

Someone without sufficient grasp of the full context surrounding these events could start a thread stating ‘Britain and France started WW2! They declared war before anyone else! The facts are indisputable! The timeline proves it!’. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, this wouldn’t be an accurate representation of what really happened before, during and after this period.

Does that help? Do you see why simply laying out timelines does not necessarily give the full story? Of course, a quiz show would never just ask ‘Who started WW2’ because it isn’t a black & white scenario with only one possible answer. Similarly, a quiz show would also never just ask ‘Did Stevenson duck Kovalev?’, for the same reason.

Great job explicating his little game, mate, but you're wasting your time.

He does it fvcking deliberately. Disingenuous to a fault & a wind-up merchant. Not worth bothering with.

[boxing_rocks]

Calm down. Was just giving you a platform/opportunity to explain yourself.

No you weren't.

Someone made a fictional claim.

I supplied evidence that disproved it.

There is no "grey" area. No scope to "read between the lines" in regards to a claim that bears no relation to reality.

I don't have to justify anything other than the objective truths of reality... and I had already done just that.

"Lateral thinking" (in the context of this particular discussion) is a phrase that shouldn't be used to support a notion that cannot possibly exist. It's simply an excuse used by those that realise that what they've written is wrong, but they don't want to admit to making a mistake, so they misuse this phrase as a weak attempt to save face.

If you ever go on a quiz show and answer a question incorrectly, are you going to pretend you were "right" about your factually incorrect response, by arguing that "lateral thinking" cannot be deemed as being "wrong"?

Let me give you an example of what I meant, as it appears you’re struggling to understand. If you were to look at a simplified timeline of the beginning of WW2 from Wiki, it would appear as follows (the bold is mine):

1939
September 1: Germany invades Poland
September 3: Britain and France warns Germany to move all soldiers out of Poland or there will be war. Germany doesn't follow. The two declares war on Germany.

Someone without sufficient grasp of the full context surrounding these events could start a thread stating ‘Britain and France started WW2! They declared war before anyone else! The facts are indisputable! The timeline proves it!’. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, this wouldn’t be an accurate representation of what really happened before, during and after this period.

Does that help? Do you see why simply laying out timelines does not necessarily give the full story? Of course, a quiz show would never just ask ‘Who started WW2’ because it isn’t a black & white scenario with only one possible answer. Similarly, a quiz show would also never just ask ‘Did Stevenson duck Kovalev?’, for the same reason.

You just don't understand! EO loves the facts, and the fact is: Britain and France started WW2 and poor Nazi had to defend themselves like earlier Germany and Soviet Union had to split Poland because it was aggressive. They SAID SO and EO can show you the source!

[squiggy]

You're trying to read between the lines without even seeing the lines! I love that line.

[Evander]

After watching Stevenson Jack I would favour Kovalev to beat him.
The fight still has a window of opportunity but it gets smaller as every month goes by.
With Bivol, Browne, Alvarez and maybe even Anthony Yarde as potential opponents out there Stevenson may want to act fast as it's hardly like Kovalev will have a lack of options.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

THIS FIGHT HAS LOST ALL ITS GLOSS IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED YESTERDAY...……...TOMORROW TO LATE SH.T FIGHT

[Enlightened-One]

Honestly I think using a quiz show as an example is poor. It’s unlikely that a quiz show would have a question with multiple correct answers and multiple ways you could argue for and or against. Generally a quiz show would have a yes or no type answer, but life is not all black and white...some of the time there are greys areas which require this lateral thinking.

Explain what the so-called "grey areas" are in the context to what has been discussed?

If you know what you're talking about, you'd be able to list them with ease.

Are you aware that the context of what we are discussing is you? We are discussing you.

Absolute fûckîng bôllôcks. Anyone that read our conversation in this thread would surely realise that you're talking shît.

[lazboy]

Explain what the so-called "grey areas" are in the context to what has been discussed?

If you know what you're talking about, you'd be able to list them with ease.

Are you aware that the context of what we are discussing is you? We are discussing you.

Absolute fûckîng bôllôcks. Anyone that read our conversation in this thread would surely realise that you're talking shît.

It’s ok to be different. I have a different sense of humour myself. Boxbettle provided a great example of how you operate, even linking it back to the original argument. It’s persuassive......coupled with my own opinion. I mean you’re hard not to notice (intentional?). You’re a regular poster, you probably hold the highest word count annually maybe ruthless is 1 because of his news sharing.

Anyway...in relation to your swearing. How about no Scott. As I put my little pinky to the corner of my mouth.