BoxRec

My original claim, which you repeatedly challenged, relates to the steady decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate between 2009 and 2015. I even supplied information that supported this theory… and so did you!

No, this was not your original claim. This was...

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

I challenged you on this by stating that 4 out of the 5 most grossing PPVs happened recently which would indicate a drastic contrast to your original statement. And then that is when you added a time frame to support your original statement. I was just merely correcting you. And now you are going through great lengths to defend your original post. Let's not get off track.

Rover never admits he's wrong, just ignore the fool.

Impractical Poster wrote:

My original claim, which you repeatedly challenged, relates to the steady decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate between 2009 and 2015. I even supplied information that supported this theory… and so did you!

No, this was not your original claim. This was...

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

I provided evidence to support my theory, which was based on an article highlighting the declining PPV buy-rate trend between 2009 and 2015 that you refuted, but then inadvertently supported when you posted your own stats. I made the same claim multiple times.

Impractical Poster wrote:I challenged you on this by stating that 4 out of the 5 most grossing PPVs happened recently which would indicate a drastic contrast to your original statement. And then that is when you added a time frame to support your original statement. I was just merely correcting you. And now you are going through great lengths to defend your original post. Let's not get off track.

You can attempt to challenge me on all sorts of things, but I’ll only comment on matters related to my posts.

My theory was related to the long-term underlying declining PPV buy-rate trend of the UFC between 2009 and 2015, not recent phenomenon. If you'd read the article that I based my opinion on, this would have clarified things for you.

I didn’t really go to great lengths to defend my stance, since all I’ve done is repeat the same claims over-and-over again.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Rover never admits he's wrong, just ignore the fool.

So in simple terms, even when the stats are irrefutable, you’d expect me to concede that I’m wrong, when the actual numbers suggest otherwise?

Was that a keyboard Tourette’s syndrome moment or did you just type that comment with sincerity?

One shouldn't argue with fergus/enlightened. As wise people say, "Don't step into sh*t if you don't want it to stink".

boxing_rocks wrote:One shouldn't argue with fergus/enlightened. As wise people say, "Don't step into sh*t if you don't want it to stink".

Have you ever monitored the behaviour of a person who you’ve had a heated argument with, one that they knew they lost badly, but subsequently refused to concede their own wrongdoing?

They become a tad gun-shy by avoiding future arguments... and they usually revert to using insults as their sole means to undermine your credibility.

So instead of being offended by your insults, I regard them as an admission of defeat. When someone resorts to insults, it's often a sign they've lost the argument. So if you say something that’s supposed to annoy me, I’ve trained my brain to hear the phrase "you win."

Impractical Poster wrote:

You should put him on ignore bro, even if he thinks that means he 'won'.

He asked a mod to delete his last account after he found it too tough in here, so hopefully he'll make the same request soon.

Enlightened-One wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:One shouldn't argue with fergus/enlightened. As wise people say, "Don't step into sh*t if you don't want it to stink".

Have you ever monitored the behaviour of a person who you’ve had a heated argument with, one that they knew they lost badly, but subsequently refused to concede their own wrongdoing?

They become a tad gun-shy by avoiding future arguments... and they usually revert to using insults as their sole means to undermine your credibility.

So instead of being offended by your insults, I regard them as an admission of defeat. When someone resorts to insults, it's often a sign they've lost the argument. So if you say something that’s supposed to annoy me, I’ve trained my brain to hear the phrase "you win."

It's hard to say briefly why rover/Ferg/enlightened is so irritating, but it's the rambling on trying to sound intelligent, and annoying responses in general. His responses are at least 3 or 4 paragraphs of bs. I challenge him to respond to any post in 1 sentence, or be banned. Less bs is better.

There's a clique of like-minded individuals that frequent this forum, who choose to ride the same abusive bandwagon, whenever their commonly-held misconceptions are challenged in a powerfully-compelling manner, which compels them to always resort to insults as their only means to defend their beliefs.

It's a badge of honour for me to frustrate you guys so much and you're also dumb enough to allow me to take the moral high-ground, because you are always the first to initiate the attacks, whilst also being the first to concede "defeat", when you abandon your stance and resort to using insults.

A bunch of morons and the only hope of this forum, our Galileo/Kopernik -- rover/fergus/enlightened.

Maybe he is really Galileo from a ward in a mental institution ? Ferg, how is Napoleon doing? Say hi to him.