Page 7 of 7

Re: Edwin Valero vs Henry Armstrong

Posted: 18 Jun 2016, 12:38
by SaadOffTheDeck
BoxBuzz wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:
Kalan wrote: Barrera was getting beaten and stopped by soft chinned punching bag Amir Khan...
that fight went to the cards, because it was stopped due to a cut which caused by a headbut... you utter, utter, fucken moron, too stupid to realise when you are talking on grounds of utter ignorance. like when you said nobody ever stopped Michael Nun... and so on, you fucken clown.

May I caution us all, that simply because someone has a strange, unusual, perhaps unsupportable (linear/logically speaking) opinion, or even group of opinions, does not give us the right to spew expletives in their direction. Moron? Well that's a clinical term for a specific rating on the French authored IQ spectrum. So I'll allow it. And Clown is of course an entertainer...no problem.


However, whether said Moron's or Clown's are engaging in fornication, is none of our business.


Let's keep the language out of the gutter. French words of course, all always welcome.
Everyone has the right to call that loser a pussycunt on all of his accounts. fornicate that bitch.

Re: Edwin Valero vs Henry Armstrong

Posted: 18 Jun 2016, 13:01
by Kalan
BoxBuzz wrote: Some folks begin with opinions, and attempt to gather ONLY the facts that support that opinion, while their "plan" consists of fending off any/all other info that comes into their consciousness, in order to defend their sanctimonious opinion
That's why Hurricane Carter spent 20 years in prison and many other innocent people spent a good deal longer in prison at taxpayer expense.. The criminal justice system comes up with a can't miss theory of who murdered or raped who.. Everything outside of that, and anything that doesn't jive with their theory of the crime is often discarded, suppressed, destroyed, and lost.. Even when the innocent person is proven innocent beyond any doubt, and they interview the original prosecutors and detectives who worked on the case -- they always claim an innocent person is being let out on the streets. Technically they could be sued for defamation for saying that, but "the system" generally protects your right to have an "opinion" because of free speech and expression laws. However after a person has been proven innocent beyond any doubt, which is needed to reverse a murder conviction, and somebody says publicly states that person committed murder, they should be held liable, forced to issue a retraction and an apology, and pay an appropriate fine -- such as when Pacquiao won his lawsuit against Mayweather, De La Hoya, Goldenboy, etc.