BoxRec

Il Duce, what is the point of parts of this thread that are imaginative?

Are you being deceptive with your links for the purpose of winding up readers?

Which is the definition of trolling, and clearly within my purview to respond accordingly....should I see it in my subjective opinion as a form of trolling.

Like Klompton, I see that your link has no connection to support your quote, or your premise.

Please offer up a clear and concise response as to why I should not consider your deception as trolling.


I'll give you 24 hours, if I have not heard a good defense, then trolling it is.

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce, what is the point of parts of this thread that are imaginative?

Are you being deceptive with your links for the purpose of winding up readers?

Which is the definition of trolling, and clearly within my purview to respond accordingly....should I see it in my subjective opinion as a form of trolling.

Like Klompton, I see that your link has no connection to support your quote, or your premise.

Please offer up a clear and concise response as to why I should not consider your deception as trolling.


I'll give you 24 hours, if I have not heard a good defense, then trolling it is.

Well done Buzz...I will be interested in the outcome. I would like to know that if Il Duce was contributing to the records of Boxers for which Boxrec is reknown for then how seriously would his 'facts' be taken then?

During the early part of 1927, the Los Angeles Athletic Club assumed control of the Olympic Auditorium. Shortly afterwards, Jack Doyle, the promoter of boxing cards at the Vernon Arena and well as the owner of the facility, signed a lease which resulted in Doyle staging boxing cards at the Olympic Auditorium and shutting down the Vernon Arena.

The Los Angeles Athletic Club accomplished quite a bit by leasing the Olympic to Doyle. It got the premier Los Angeles boxing promoter of the time to stage bouts at their arena. A competing arena was shut down. Boxing cards could be staged at the Olympic Auditorium every week instead of every other week. Later in 1927, the new version of the Vernon Arena was destroyed in a fire.

- Chuck Johnston

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce, what is the point of parts of this thread that are imaginative?

Are you being deceptive with your links for the purpose of winding up readers?

Which is the definition of trolling, and clearly within my purview to respond accordingly....should I see it in my subjective opinion as a form of trolling.

Like Klompton, I see that your link has no connection to support your quote, or your premise.

Please offer up a clear and concise response as to why I should not consider your deception as trolling.


I'll give you 24 hours, if I have not heard a good defense, then trolling it is.

Shouldn't Klompton be forced to offer up proof that I rush to Il Duce's defense every time he is criticized? That's as big of a lie as anything Duce has ever said and equal trolling.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce, what is the point of parts of this thread that are imaginative?

Are you being deceptive with your links for the purpose of winding up readers?

Which is the definition of trolling, and clearly within my purview to respond accordingly....should I see it in my subjective opinion as a form of trolling.

Like Klompton, I see that your link has no connection to support your quote, or your premise.

Please offer up a clear and concise response as to why I should not consider your deception as trolling.


I'll give you 24 hours, if I have not heard a good defense, then trolling it is.

Shouldn't Klompton be forced to offer up proof that I rush to Il Duce's defense every time he is criticized? That's as big of a lie as anything Duce has ever said and equal trolling.

Get back underneath that bridge!!! Back! Back I say unto thee!

klompton wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Il Duce, what is the point of parts of this thread that are imaginative?

Are you being deceptive with your links for the purpose of winding up readers?

Which is the definition of trolling, and clearly within my purview to respond accordingly....should I see it in my subjective opinion as a form of trolling.

Like Klompton, I see that your link has no connection to support your quote, or your premise.

Please offer up a clear and concise response as to why I should not consider your deception as trolling.


I'll give you 24 hours, if I have not heard a good defense, then trolling it is.

Shouldn't Klompton be forced to offer up proof that I rush to Il Duce's defense every time he is criticized? That's as big of a lie as anything Duce has ever said and equal trolling.

Get back underneath that bridge!!! Back! Back I say unto thee!

Il Duce wrote:SAAD

I'm not sure why 'Kid Klompton' has to be so negative.

There are many incorrect passages in his Book, and nobody brings that up.

We all accept it as,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,massaging the truth.

It's a message board, it doesn't have to be about truth. He has an internet crush on me, it's ok, but with his take on 'lying' he should be banned from the forum.

Well lying is one thing.....believe it or not...you can lie all you want. Fictionalizing is not an offense.

However....what I am sensing is a "lie with a planned intent" designed to wonk up one or a number of people.

For me, when you make a statement, followed by a hyperlink which is there to support a statement....I look for relevance/context. When it's not there, I just laugh and say...."boy that Il Duce almost had me there"....and I suffer no more pain. In fact I find it entertaining. Like a game of "fact or crap".

With that said, other "types" can be more reactive, and set off. And thus "trolling" occurs. Trolling can only occur when a recipient is ramped up by an ill intended contributor. And trolling is not allowed. So once someone is ramped up....I need to be available to "moderate".

So once again. Il Duce......please explain why you are "playing" in this manner. Is it that you just don't understand linear logic processing? And thus are innocent on the "intent" to troll? In other words you do not recognize that there is no relative info in the hyperlink which backs up your statement?

OR are you fully aware and know that someone (not myself or Saad) will be unhappy with your "bate and switch" antics? (They are ramped up because they seek truth, or some sort of explanation which contributes to some sort or credibility in your claims.)

Now as for libel (written word version of slander) you can not libel a deceased person. Only those who are living....and in the U.S. typically only those who are not celebrity class. English law is more narrow and protects celebrity status folks as well.

Il Duce....Please respond.

BoxBuzz wrote:
However....what I am sensing is a "lie with a planned intent" designed to wonk up one or a number of people.

That's exactly what Klompton is doing. I don't understand the difference between a fight and a living and breathing member of the forum. I don't have a problem with either of them, but fair is fair.

Saad when i posted some made up facts for fun way back when you bashed me on the head big time...made me feel like a jerk off, which i am not. Now a guy does this continually and incessantly and you seem to befriend him? I have no beef with you btw fellah!

evrenb wrote:Saad when i posted some made up facts for fun way back when you bashed me on the head big time...made me feel like a jerk off, which i am not. Now a guy does this continually and incessantly and you seem to befriend him? I have no beef with you btw fellah!

I don't recall what you're talking about. Again, just because I ignore 99% of Il Duce's threads and say that I don't think he should be banned makes us 'friends'? LOL, that's yet another exaggeration. It takes two to tango, if his posts are so useless than I don't get why people need to dance with him for 8 pages. I guarantee you if they didn't those threads would disappear.

For the record, you'll never find a post I've made that says there is anything wrong with slamming misinformation. I just find it laughable as a reason to ban a poster.

.....trolling is somewhat subjective......so I'm the decider.

However, better than taking the trolls out of the gene pool, I would prefer to inoculate and recommend everyone live the "non reactive life".

When everyone is capable of smiling and saying....."ahh yes...I recognize bullshit and I recognize this as bullshit........NICE TRY FELLA now go try that out on someone who's willing to fall for it"....is the day we all live peaceful lives.

BoxBuzz wrote:.....trolling is somewhat subjective......so I'm the decider.

However, better than taking the trolls out of the gene pool, I would prefer to inoculate and recommend everyone live the "non reactive life".

When everyone is capable of smiling and saying....."ahh yes...I recognize bullshit and I recognize this as bullshit........NICE TRY FELLA now go try that out on someone who's willing to fall for it"....is the day we all live peaceful lives.

Whatever the reason, it's nice to see a thread involving Tiger Flowers.

no argument from me....at least a few will get a chance to post some reality....even Il Duce does on occasion.

BoxBuzz wrote:no argument from me....at least a few will get a chance to post some reality....even Il Duce does on occasion.

Chuck made some excellent posts, as did Klompton when he wasn't following around Duce or I like a rabid poodle.

The Live Fast, Die Young biography by Steve Compton is vastly superior to the Fearless Harry Greb one by Bill Paxton in just about every way. Compton did an incredible amount of research to find the facts about Greb to produce such a massive biography of the great fighter. In comparison to Compton, Paxton appears to have done only a fraction of such research. As a result, I learned far more about Greb, his family and opponents from Compton's biography than Paxton's.

- Chuck Johnston

I was looking forward to it, he's just too much of a dick for me to give money.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was looking forward to it, he's just too much of a dick for me to give money.

Judge a man by his posts eh...bit of a hipocrite aren't you! Or do you know Steve personally? Joker you are.

evrenb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was looking forward to it, he's just too much of a dick for me to give money.

Judge a man by his posts eh...bit of a hipocrite aren't you! Or do you know Steve personally? Joker you are.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are calling a decent bloke a dick!? Why?? Do you
Know him then? Or are you saying that based on what is written on this forum??

evrenb wrote:You are calling a decent bloke a dick!? Why?? Do you
Know him then? Or are you saying that based on what is written on this forum??

You are calling me a joker? Why? Do you know me then? Or are you saying that based on what is written on the forum?

As far as the tag "bit of a hypocrite" goes. Yours is looking like a large one.

We don't like each other on a message board, big deal. You're taking it far more personally than he would. I'm sure he'll sleep like a baby. And when I produce links to blogs, if I ever decide to do anymore, I'm sure he won't click on them. Boo-hoo for evrenb.

I never said I didn't like you...I find it Hipocritical that you would call a decent, erudite fellah a 'dick' yet you
Like to lick Douche's crack dry...