BoxRec

Bobbyptsd wrote:I'm not being obtuse, you're being obtuse, and here's a quote proving it.

DMA1987 wrote:

crusader wrote:
You agreed with the position expressed in those quotes, and I've never claimed that you were their source, so I don't see what's wrong with posting them in responses to you.

The issue was that I initially misinterpreted what DD meant, leading to disagreement. He clarified what he meant, I agreed with him, and I stopped replying until you responded with 'Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.'

I expressed agreement with the initial point intended by you and DD, addressed the other points, and then DD started denying that his comments explicitly suggested that Khan's chin's could be a deciding factor. The argument thereafter is about semantics--which we disagree about--not something we agree on.

No mate, you gave me a smartly worded answer which claimed I was backtracking. Which brought about my response.

But do you know what, I do not care anymore, seriously. I get your stance, I don't really appreciate it, your just being obtuse, but I can accept it. And vice versa.

columbo wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:I'm not being obtuse, you're being obtuse, and here's a quote proving it.

you calling me obese? ;;-)

crusader wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

crusader wrote:
You agreed with the position expressed in those quotes, and I've never claimed that you were their source, so I don't see what's wrong with posting them in responses to you.

The issue was that I initially misinterpreted what DD meant, leading to disagreement. He clarified what he meant, I agreed with him, and I stopped replying until you responded with 'Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.'

I expressed agreement with the initial point intended by you and DD, addressed the other points, and then DD started denying that his comments explicitly suggested that Khan's chin's could be a deciding factor. The argument thereafter is about semantics--which we disagree about--not something we agree on.

No mate, you gave me a smartly worded answer which claimed I was backtracking. Which brought about my response.

But do you know what, I do not care anymore, seriously. I get your stance, I don't really appreciate it, your just being obtuse, but I can accept it. And vice versa.

I never claimed you were backtracking, and I'm not sure what basis there is for thinking that; you've been consistent in your position. I expressed agreement with you and DD that loss to a puncher doesn't suggesting a bad chin and I explained why I misunderstood his claims disagreed with them as I understood them. I'm not sure how that's being obtuse, and I'm not sure how arguing about semantics (which I demonstrably enjoy) is obtuse.