Just ordered these books..Any others recommended?

Where did I say you were referring to wire reports when you posted: "I’d take that over someone who pumps up accounts of Greb’s fights from the friendly hometown Pittsburgh press (oh, because they are unbiased and reliable lol) and ignores or slams every eye-witness, first-hand account from anyone from New York with a flippant, unsubstantiated claim that the entire New York sporting press corps banded together to besmirch Greb’s legacy because he wouldn’t pay them to bend the truth to favor him." I didnt. Nor did I ever slam every eye-witness account or allege that the entire press corps of New York state (As you allege) or even New York city "banded together" against Greb. Hyperbole much?

Im glad you understood what I was saying without me having to further explain it to you.

Was I unclear? You are arguing apples and oranges in conflating two different eras in your discussion with Flea. It was YOU who brought the Greb era into the discussion. That line of argument began with YOU. So dont sit here and try to pretend that after opening that can of worms you understood where it was leading you.

Maybe you should go back and review my comments, since Im "on record" and refresh your memory. You might realize that New York is a city in the state of New York. You might, once again, try to conflate two different things (in this case New York CITY newspapers with ALL newspapers originating in the STATE of New York) but a cursory examination of my comments would quickly set you straight. A large portion of the New York CITY press was against Greb for various reasons. Whether they were biased against non-New Yorkers (often the case), paid off by powerful local managers like Rickard and Billy Gibson (often the case), or had a personal agenda because Greb wasnt dolling out payments (a common practice) is neither here nor there. It amounts to a bias against Greb for reasons beyond what he showcased in the ring. It really doesnt matter to me whether you believe it or not. There are fairly strong reasons why its more than likely. In my book I laid them all out without ever stating categorically one way or the other what my OPINION was. Had you read it before popping off like an armchair expert youd know that.

You can believe what you want. Im not trying to convince one person (you) unfamiliar with the times or situations we are discussing. Between you and me I have no doubt Ive done more research into the era and the subject specifically than you could do in a lifetime. So Im not really concerned about a guy who clearly hasnt read ANY of this before he sat his fat ass down in his computer chair and started typing with his cheeto fingers. One thing I am on record as stating, and I think its a much easier case to prove than the very simple FACT that the New York CITY press was hostile to Greb (an eminently provable fact) is that it would have been financially ruinous (and impossible) for Greb to have paid off ALL of the press ALL OVER THE COUNTRY (as his reputation was hardly built simply off of the strength of the word of Pittsburgh newspapers... had you read my book instead of speaking from a point of ignorance youd know that because my book cites THOUSANDS of sources, the mahority of which come from outside of Pittsburgh) who awarded him DOMINANT wins and wrote about him in GLOWING terms.

Next time you try to take a dig at me or my work try familiarizing yourself with it before speaking so you dont make a fool of yourself.

 

So instead of having a discussion you want to hurl insults. Typical of you. That’s why I’d never read any book you write — your whole self-important schtick any time someone disagrees with you is “I WROTE A BOOK” and “I HAVE FIGHT FILMS YOU DON’T HAVE.”

It’s a fallacy of logic to equate a more informed opinion (which you clearly have on some matters and think you have on others, perhaps all from what I’ve seen) to be automatically right or correct, when a person who has done more research (or seen a fight not available on YouTube) can come to the wrong conclusion. Tell me I’m wrong on that.

Your opinion is just that — an opinion — and doesn’t make it more valid or more correct than someone else’s — you literally recently gave someone hell challenging that they couldn’t possibly have seen a fight because you have a rare copy ... when they saw it on TV. And when he pointed out it, instead of doing the decent thing and conceding that yes, people saw televised fights and it was arrogant for you to assume he hadn’t seen it, you just doubled down on how much more you (think you) know.

You (incorrectly) stated that I didn’t know how wire service reports work when I clearly did — you even conceded that the ones on Charles were verifiable, and I only cited those in relation to Charles.

My original response citing your work was answering someone (one of your buddies on here) who mocked a book because it cited newspaper reports ... but your own book does the same. You basically challenge the validity of some Greb-era reports by saying some managers (and others) used to phone in accounts that would circulate widely, but that’s a generalization — to say it was done in a particular case without supporting that this person absolutely called that wire service with a misleading account and here’s proof of it is just conjecture because you don’t like the report.

Same with the ‘New York CITY’ press. Maybe the guys who wrote less than glowing things about Greb did so because they found him less impressive than some, and you dismiss it as a conspiracy. You say they didn’t like out-of-town guys ... but they obviously liked some of them; you say maybe they weren’t getting paid off (which assumes others were) or some promoter didn’t like them and had sway with writers to make them write bad things about them — but you fail to substantiate any of that with hard fact. Which is what an even-handed account would seek to do before stating it as if it was written on a stone tablet handed down from a mountain by God himself.

It’s entirely possible — but not provable fact, just like your conclusions — that the writers who saw a Greb who was (I’m sure even you would agree) prone to dirty tactics/roughhousing and not a big puncher and didn’t rate him as some of his Pittsburgh press buddies did. I’m equally sure you’ve found accounts outside of NYC of some of his fights where he wasn’t lavished with praise. And NYC press had seen far more top-tier fighters by which to compare than those in hick cities.

If you didn’t always try to come off as Mr. Peabody who knows more than everyone else and how dare they have a different opinion, your historic accounts would be more palatable. It’s easy (and more kind) to say ‘I disagree — I’ve done a lot of research in this area and here’s what I’ve found ...’ but you seem to prefer ‘Don’t you know who I am???!!!!??? Your opinion means less than mine because I WROTE A BOOK AND I HAVE FIGHT FILMS YOU DON’T HAVE!!!’

I’m sure you see the difference. As far as not caring about my opinion, wow, you sure did spend a lot of time addressing my post for a guy who doesn’t care.

 

Sorry, after taking a dig at me personally in a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with me you dont get to take the high road on this. You could pretend you werent talking about me and my book specifically but then you could have easily shut me down by simply stating that. Continuing to argue proved the point. The fact that you admit right now that youve never read my book while criticizing its comments is exactly I why I spoke up in the first place. So please, save it.

But its not a fallacy of logic to attribute certain argumentative points to a book youve never read? Ooooookay. And yet you want to sit here and argue that just because you may not know as much about the subject doesnt mean you are wrong? Again, the more you talk about the less you know the stupider you look.

I never said any such thing. Its not me offering an OPINION on a book Ive never read and making specific claims about it to bolster that opinion.

What specifically are you referring to? If you are referring to the discussion about Loi-Ortiz, then yes I call bull**** because the fight in question was never shown on US television. The scene he described to attempt to back up his point was briefly shown in a documentary about Loi's life. Nevermind that his point had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It may irk you that I know what Im talking about but it doesnt change the fact. If Ive seen a fight in its entirety and can speak on it from a first hand perspective then the opinion of someone arguing with me who has read an AP report and seen a five second clip on a documentary means dick to me and should mean dick to anyone else. If he wants to prove me wrong and describe in detail some of the incidents from the film or "television broadcast" he supposedly watched that arent readily available in AP reports then by all means we can revisit that and he's welcome to. He wont. I know it and so does he.

Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth in an attempt to shift the discussion. Not going to happen. It was YOU who drew Greb's era (and my book) into a discussion about Charles' era thereby comparing the two and trying to use the reliability of those reports in Charles era to defame my book (which you admit you havent read). Go back and read your post if you cant remember. Comparing wire reports in Greb's era to those in Charles era is comparing apples and oranges and shows a gross lack of knowledge on the subject of how wire reports were used across the two eras. That was my point and it isnt shifting.

My original response citing your work was answering someone (one of your buddies on here) who mocked a book because it cited newspaper reports ... but your own book does the same. You basically challenge the validity of some Greb-era reports by saying some managers (and others) used to phone in accounts that would circulate widely, but that’s a generalization — to say it was done in a particular case without supporting that this person absolutely called that wire service with a misleading account and here’s proof of it is just conjecture because you don’t like the report.

And again, if you had read my book before pontificating on it youd know I never did that. However there are several things incorrect about your statement here above and beyond my characterization of the New York press. The New York press was New York specifically, and East Coast generally, centric. Thats not a debatable topic. Anyone who knows anything about them and studied them can tell you that. Theyd have to tell you because you obviously havent read about or studied them despite your continued arguing from a foundation made of sand. Its also undeniable that the New York press was on the doll to guys like Rickard and Billy Gibson. Thats a very well established fact. Not an opinion a fact. It was admitted in sworn testimony during Tunney's trial that they made common practice of bribing newspaper reporters in the City to write favorable copy about him. There are several accounts of the regular lines of reporters at Rickards Madison Square Garden office to accept their weekly/monthly bribes. Why was the New York press so much more important to bribe than spreading the love all over the country? Because the New York City press featured more nationally syndicated columnists BY FAR than any other city or group of cities. It wasnt even close. So the New York City press had a lot of power in terms of spreading what was essentially propaganda for certain fighters. And of course they would be New York/East Coast centric, the bribes they were being paid came from promoters and managers who had an interest in consolidating the power and money centrally in New York City. Its no coincidence that when Nat Fleischer founded Ring, the supposed "Bible of Boxing" he did so with seed money from Rickard and operated out of an office given to him by Rickard in Madison Square Garden. The first ratings Ring published were Rickard's ratings. Sound like a free, fair, balanced and independent press? Most of the writers that came along to contribute to The Ring were old New York newspaper writers who had been on the take. These same guys wrote what would become boxing lore in the United States for next 50 years. None of this is opinion and none of it disputable if you actually know what you are talking about. It doesnt have to be a conspiracy for the slant to be there.

Again, you are arguing apples and oranges. I never made any such argument that there werent people who had a legitimate distaste for Greb and I never suppressed their voice in my work. If youd read it instead of just arguing for arguments sake youd know that.

 

I have a big issue with this comment. I didnt just look for "accounts outside of NYC of some of his fights" that lavished praise on him. Greb fought 300 fights. He fought in New York about 15 times, most of which came later in his career. Would it be responsible of me to throw a great deal of weight of the opinion of Greb's ability on New York City newspapers or would it have been a more professional approach to gain a consensus of opinion on the man from EVERY town and city he fought in throughout his career to give a reliable impression of his career and allow the reader to weigh opinions against each other? I chose the latter approach. Youd know that if you read it. I didnt simply try to find reports that wrote glowingly of Greb and discard other reports that didnt. I utilized EVERY report that could be found from every town and its surrounding area for EVERY fight Greb had. This process took about 12 years to compile. If you think anyone has ever done a more thorough approach to a book be my guest and post it. Ive never seen one. Furthermore, the idea that New York writers were the be all and end all of boxing experts is asinine. Its almost not worth addressing but fear not, I'll address it. You do realize that fighters didnt stay in one place in that era. They fought all over the country. Those supposed hick town writers (and its laughable to call places like St. Louis, the Twin Cities, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Memphis, Los Angeles, Dallas, Detroit, etc "hick cities") often had far deeper experience in the sport their New York counterparts. Id take the word of a guy like George Barton, who had been a boxer, trainer (of Mike Gibbons no less), referee, writer, head of the NBA, etc over the word of someone like Fleischer any day of the week. Some of the greatest boxing writers have been forgotten to history but they were no less versed in the sport and saw all of the big names that were seen in New York and more. So your point about the reliability of New York writers vs those from "hick cities" is entirely lost on me and also, again, shows your lack of study when it comes to this era. It might shock and amaze you to find out that there were some great writers and great minds outside of those that you can easily find by cracking open an old Ring magazine you bought on ebay and suddenly thought you were an expert.

You opened this can of worms by opening your big mouth. Dont talk about a subject you admit youve never read and then get mad when the guy who wrote the ****ing book sounds like he knows more than you and isnt afraid to point it out. You are literally sitting here saying "I insulted your work, Ive never read it, my insults have no basis in fact or reality, but Im going to keep arguing with you." If I have to continually point out how stupid that is and you are by extension then dont shoot the messenger.

No, I dont care about your opinion. I care about the opinions of people who might read your tripe and not know better. Hopefully this was illustrative to them.

 

You’ve just posted your third book-length diatribe in response to me. Way to show you don’t care. And you literally just responded twice to one post.

Again, you speak in generalities — you have said the NYC (now East Coast) press was biased against Greb to the point of conspiracy (contradicting your earlier refutation that the accounts from Syracuse don’t matter because they weren’t NYC press, lol), but that doesn’t mean they were paid to write negative about Greb. You have yet to offer any proof of this, just ‘they were dirty + some of them did not praise Greb = they just have been influenced to dare to write something negative’ about your boy.

I’ve explained my reasons for not reading your book. It’s your Mr. Peabody I-know-more-than-anyone attitude that you express on here. But I have gleamed a lot about your book from posts on this forum, chiefly from you — again, you have posted many times about how Greb wasn’t liked by the NY press (I guess now it’s the East Coast press as you’ve expanded the conspiracy) because he wouldn’t pay them. Your words, not mine. So are we to assume that every positive write-up of a fighter or fighter from the NY/East Coast press was paid to lavish praise and everyone who didn’t pay these writers was panned because of that? That’s a lot of fighters on both sides. Merely researching to say some writers were influenced by taking pay does not lead to the conclusion that all who wrote negatively about Greb had some kind of grudge over this — you’d need proof of that. And you’ve never cited any.

It’s clear you think highly of yourself as a writer and researcher. Earlier you’ve said you’ve done more research on this than I could do in a lifetime — how can one be so arrogant to think that if I started researching at, say, age 20 and lived to age 70 and spent every working minute researching this subject that it couldn’t equal what you did in far fewer years. That’s so over-the-top as to be preposterous. And you’re also claiming that no book in the history of books is more well-researched than yours — yet there are Nobel and Pulitzer Prize-winning historical tomes that have dug much more deeply into their topics for a much longer period of time than you have for your Greb book. Are you so full of yourself to think you better researched Greb than the book on the Manhattan Project that uncovered never-before-published material from Einstein and Oppenheimer, among others? Really?

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you praise a boxing book that you didn’t write. I think you are very threatened by the fact that there are other boxing writers who have done work as good or better than yours and it bothers you that some people prefer their work. At least that’s how you project.

For the third (and final) time, I never mentioned wire service reports in relation to Greb. I mentioned them in relation to Charles, specifically in a book that was being discussed. You then jumped in to say I have no understanding of how wire reports work — then in the same breath conceded that in Ezzard Charles’ era that’s exactly how it worked. I never made a claim about wire service reports in Greb’s era but since you wrote a book about him and were feeling slighted by my comment, you tried to stretch what I said to include wire reports from Greb fights. It’s as if I posted something about WWII aircraft and you jumped in to tell me I don’t understand a thing about aviation because that’s not how it worked in WWI. SMFH.

I certainly haven’t seen everything you’ve ever posted on here and have no desire to look them all up, but do you deny that your general tone is nearly always ‘I know more than you because I wrote a book and collect fight films thus my opinion is more correct?’ I criticized you for something you’ve repeatedly posted (the NY press was against Greb because he wouldn’t pay them) yet never backed up with fact (just because some writer or writers were paid by some promoters or fighters to write positive things does not mean those who wrote ill of Greb did so because they weren’t paid to do the opposite, that’s not proof of your specific claim) ... and you respond with the most childish and lazy insults you can find (that I’m fat, a neckbeard and my fingers are covered with cheese curl residue). You surely see the difference — I criticized your own words and claims and your instinct was to hurl insults.

There’s a better way, Mr. Klompton. We can disagree and still have a discussion without insults or arrogance.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

'HARD LUCK' Jerry Quarry
PS-Because I'm in it.

 

When did I ever say EAST COAST press was against Greb? When? When did I ever say accounts from Syracuse dont matter? When did I ever say "they were dirty + some of them did not praise Greb" You are creating strawman arguments I never made in order to continue an argument about a book youve never read. Its pathetic.

I couldnt care less if you read my book. It wasnt written for people like you. You like your boxing written small and without any solid research behind it. You want to live in the echo chamber of old boxing stories you were raised on that may or may not be true. You dont want to hear anything that might upset that tiny minded worldview. So please. Dont read my book. Its not for you. However, if you are going to come on here and trash it then you damn well better know what you are talking about or I will continue to illustrate how little you actually do know. You may not like me, you may not like my posts, and thats fine. I dont give a ****. But if you want to trash the details of a book youve never read and have no idea about then be prepared to get your ass handed to you. Simple as that.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Go re-read my post. I said the New York press was EAST COAST-centric in general and New York-centric in particular. Apparently in addition to arguing about a book youve never read, reading comprehension is also a major issue for you. But more to the point you havent gleaned **** about my book from my posts here because you are talking about two completely different forums and methods of communication. I took an academic approach to my book making sure to keep my opinions from dictating the story. I have no such compunction on a ****ing boxing forum. Thats my right. I cant give my opinions all day long. When someone posts a question about whether an authors book deals with a certain subject I can post that a future book I am writing will deal entirely and specifically with that subject and thats my ****ing right. And I LOVE that it pisses you off. Its hilarious to me. Your tears taste delicious. Finally, you wouldnt know what Ive cited because youve never read my book. So dont sit here and tell me what I have and havent cited. Pretty simple concept isnt it? Familiarize yourself with the material before opening your mouth dumbass.

You are half right. I dont think highly of myself as a writer. Ive been very open about that. I do however KNOW that I am a very good researcher. Why should I deny that if I believe it and know it to be true. Some of us went to college for it, some of us have degrees in it, and some of us are very good at it. Some people didnt wake up one morning and decide after reading a ring magazine and buying a subscription to Newspapers.com that they were historians. Again, pretty simple concept right? If you woke up one day, watched Rocky, and spent the afternoon hitting the heavybag would you call yourself a boxer? Its the same thing whether you believe it or not. Its not a hobby, its a vocation despite what some on here think.

Lets just say Im pretty confident that if you get this upset over a book youve never read and spend this much time arguing about the details of a book youve never read I feel pretty confident that Ive got a good head start on you and that given your already well established lazy ass deficient approach to whatever you think "research" is that I will win that race. LOL.

Uhhh no. Thats not what I said. Once again, for the umpteenth time you are either putting words in my mouth in order to create an argument I never made or you have a real problem with comprehension. I said my book was more researched than any boxing book and I stand by that. If you disagree then go find some examples. I have a fairly large collection of boxing books, biographies in particular, and the vast majority are extremely poorly researched. Even the well researched boxing biographies are pretty thinly researched. I have never, in 35 years of reading and collecting boxing biographies, seen one that was as researched as mine nor as heavily cited with first hand eye-witness accounts and interviews as mine was. If you think Im wrong have at it. But first you might want to actually crack the spine on mine to see what you are up against rather than just jousting at windmills.

 

So youve followed me around the internet for years and cataloged every comment Ive ever made on boxing books? No, then what the **** are you talking about? I have a large collection of boxing books. A great many of them I adore. Would you like a reading list? Is that what you are asking for? Lets keep this discussion framed for what it is and how it began: Flea complained about a book. You didnt like his complaint and for some reason attacked my book, which you havent read. I saw it and explained in detail why you are wrong and stupid for doing so. But Im the bad guy. I should have just let you insult a book youve never read and make broad generalizations, assumptions, and insults about a subject you are woefully ignorant of. That sums it up. Thats not going to happen. If you dont like being talked down to or treated the way I treat you then refrain from talking **** about me or my book at least until youve actually ****ing read it and actually know what you are referring to.

This is total bull**** and you know it and you know Im not going to let it slide. You got your ass slapped over this, it hurt, your feelings are hurt, and this is the best you can do to retract. Too late for that. These were your exact words: "I’d take that over someone who pumps up accounts of Greb’s fights from the friendly hometown Pittsburgh press (oh, because they are unbiased and reliable lol) and ignores or slams every eye-witness, first-hand account from anyone from New York with a flippant, unsubstantiated claim that the entire New York sporting press corps banded together to besmirch Greb’s legacy because he wouldn’t pay them to bend the truth to favor him." Now what was that again???

Oh well thats a relief because you give the impression that you have in fact seen everything I post. And you give the impression that youve read my book, despite having never read it. You seem to want to give the impression that you know a lot more about what you are talking about when really you are like a child who enjoys arguing for arguings sake. You will rarely see me comment on a post I know nothing about. If I comment about something its something I happen to know a lot about. If its a film or a fight Ive seen a film of that most havent and I can add a new dimension to the discussion thats being missed by people who havent I will comment. If its about an era, subject etc that I am well versed in I will comment. Its why you will rarely see comment on say, Jeff Chandler for example. Or Pone Kingpetch. Or Kaosi Galaxy. I dont open my mouth about subjects Im not well versed in as you did here. So if I strike you as being arrogant sounding its because I just might know more about that subject than for example some punk ass ***** on the internet who talks **** about books he hasnt read. If you here me disagree with you about Mickey Walker-Dave Shade. Its because Ive seen the ****ing fight and know what Im talking about and dont have to listen to some dumbass like you who read a magazine article about it written in 2010 by a guy who never saw the fight. If I criticize some ******* on here for acting like he knows everything about Loi-Ortiz because he saw a 20 second clip on a documentary about Loi and Ive seen the entire fight. You might want to sit down and watch how this plays out rather than wade in because you dont like my tone because I'll deal with your ignorance the same way I dealt with his. If thats arrogant then so be it.

I never called you a neckbeard, whatever that is, if the shoe fits... obviously somebody has called you that. However, once again, you dont know that Ive never backed up my opinion on the matter. As you admit youve never read all of my posts here and youve never read my book. You began your criticism about me by saying I pump up Greb by using his hometown papers. I didnt and dont. Didnt need to. I dont even need to worry all of that much about what the New York press said. Greb's reputation doesnt live or die by either the New York press which saw him in less than 10% of his fights or his hometown press. Greb's reputation and my opinion of him lives and dies by the totality of opinions of him during his life by people who bore witness to his ability. My work in giving voice to ALL of those opinions, positive and negative, is well cited if you took the time to familiarize yourself with it before opening that gaping hole above your neckbeard (now you can get mad at me for saying that). As I said, it was you who chose this fight. You chose to criticize something youve never read. Now you tell me, does that make you look intelligent? Are you speaking from a position of knowledge or ignorance? One thing anyone who likes or hates me can tell you without hesitation is that I do not suffer fools lightly. By criticizing a book youve never read you paint yourself the fool.

No, here is a better way: reserve your comments about books to books youve actually read. Dont put words in my mouth. Then we can agree to disagree. Insult me, my book (without having read it), or put words in my mouth and I will absolutely continue to insult you and illustrate in the most blunt terms how stupid I find you. If you want to read my book cover to cover and then come on here and criticize some of the facts you find in it I welcome that debate. But your criticisms here have no basis in fact in my book. If you think that I only used sources that wrote favorably on Greb in my book I would challenge you to go look at both the content of my book, and the source citations. You would immediately be proven wrong. I can give you examples: Just cracking the book open to the first page I come to brings me to the recounting of his hird fight with Tommy Gibbons. That fight is largely accepted and forgotten as a win for Greb, as it should be, I outlined how ever newspaper covered that fight. Six were present. Four voted for Greb, two for Gibbons although one of the two who voted for Gibbons actually credited Greb with winning more rounds in their final tally, and the other paper admitted that many people would disagree with his opinion that Gibbons had won. Thats just one fight. I could recount dozens where I gave voice to the minority opinions. So dont sit here and pretend Im being out of line when I defend my work against criticisms from someone who hasnt read it. At least do your ****ing home work before you start a fight you cant win.

 

Do you even read your own posts or just forget them as soon as you hit the ‘post reply’ tab?

Did you not post this earlier: “This process took about 12 years to compile. If you think anyone has ever done a more thorough approach to a book be my guest and post it. Ive never seen one.”

You clearly said yours was the most well-researched book in the history of books. You did not say boxing book. You did not imply that you meant boxing book. You just arrogantly posted like you usually do.

I don’t know why you think I’m upset. I posted a comment and since then all I’ve been doing is replying to you. You’re the guy who has posted two replies to my single posts more than once. You’re the guy who says he doesn’t care what I think but keeps posting ridiculously long replies to me. You’re the guy who has repeatedly hurled insults rather than just discussing the subject.

Go back and look how much time you’ve spent on this, how many words you’ve frantically typed.

You keep going back to ‘you can’t criticize my book if you don’t read it.’ I’m not sure that I have criticized your book. I’ve criticized what you’ve said about your book and about your biases — you decide for yourself that if someone from New York wrote something less than flattering about Greb then that person must have had a grudge because of geography (apparently skipping the fact that Pennsylvania is considered East Coast, even if Pittsburgh is on the other side of it from Philly) or, as you have stated repeatedly on this forum, because Greb refused to pay them off to write nice things about him.

Yes, you have the right to post whatever you wish on a message board. You just expose yourself when you do so. Like when you absolutely cannot resist going on a thread asking about another author’s next book and post ‘Hey I’m working on another book!!!! Look at me, look at me!’ It’s rude and arrogant and self-centered — you didn’t even have the courtesy to acknowledge the other author.

I don’t see where I’ve insulted you anywhere. That’s your thing. I’ve pointed out your own words and behavior with no insults or hostility. I hope you’ll find a way to deal with your anger and have real conversations. As I said, there is a better way and I hope you discover it.

 

And Ill say again, before typing because you got your panties in a twist that I answered someones post because I thought they might be interested in it (you know, the way a public forum works) and try to insult me, at least do your ****ing homework first. If you dont have anything to add beyond crying that I post here, collect films, and write, then move on. You dont like me, fine. Put me on ignore and you wont have to deal with me. You dont like that I wrote a book (which you e never read) fine dont buy it. Problem solved. But if you think you are the forum police, or the Greb police, or the book police and you just want to argue, so be it. Anyone here can tell you I dont shy away from arguments.

 

Nothing I posted was in any way out of line — which can’t be said of your personal insults. That’s the thing — you don’t discuss or even argue, you sling personal attacks. It just underscores that you are threatened by criticism and can’t discuss issues on their merit.

It’s too bad, really. You might have something to offer if you didn’t approach everything from the perspective of how much more you (think you) know than everyone else and how your opinions are all right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

You seem like a very hostile, agitated and angry person. I hope you find some peace.

 

Yap yap yap

“Let me insult your book which Ive never read” “Let me put words in your mouth for the sake of my argument.” “Nothing personal.” Lol. ****ing idiot.

 

@klompton sorry, but I didn’t see any of this exchange because I have that guy blocked. He seems to be completely unsure of what a primary source is.

Given that Senya showed that only one source was used for certain fights, my point stands: a shoddily researched book. Seems similar to Otty’s book on Burley in that interviews with one person are deemed sufficient enough research.

Fact is, all of those reports are just the ones that are available on newspaperarchive dot com. So, just a web service.

My criticisms stand.