As others have told you, your grammar is so mangled it is hard to comprehend what you mean to say. But from what I can divine, it is not merely a language problem-some of your thinking is not very evolved. 1) I did not tell you to "talk the same as everyone else", whatever that means. I am telling you not to be mean & call names. 2) I call out most anyone who is abusive. I am not on the general forum nearly as much, but I have called people on being cruel & childish many times over the years. 3) You excusing your conduct because you are not trolling is like if I claimed I did not mug anyone, so it is OK to rob them. Just because you practice another form of wrong does not excuse you. I could say "crack, fat & sugar free"-that would not make the drug good for you. 4) I did not say I personally got rid of all the bad folks. Neither is it logical to say "I kept" the trolls-I & many others report abusers over the years. I did not "keep" anyone, nor can anypne here control everything. 5) You credit yourself with "great logic & truth". That sounds egomanical-& you do not use any very detailed or sophisticated logic. Though I do agree with the substance of many of your comments. 6) It is the opposite of "great logic & truth" to pretend being "uncut" is a virtue. If I spewed personal hate or racist attacks, me being "honest" is not a virtue. 7) Words DO matter. Like you just used words to *change* & minimize what you do! I did not call you out on "using words like ridiculous or silly". Which IF in the context is respectful-& applies to arguments not calling names, might be O.K. But you call people things like dumb, & described something you said an insult! Your OWN logic is flawed in several ways above. Largely to make excuses for & minimize being demeaning. Now even IF you have a low IQ-& I do not know that this is the case at all-under your "logic" if I think you are not intelligent, or if you are not so rational---> It is fine to call YOU dumb because I am being sincere. Nah, it is contemptuous, causes conflict, loses YOU respect-& hurts the forum. Please stop trying to rationalize being juvenile & disdainful of people. Nobody is buying this brittle, senseless rationalization.
we know it all even though it can easily be seen on vid yea we do know what we see is not the same as it was before
Tyson boys always have an excuse in the holster. Holy was past his best too. He just struggled with Bobby freakin Cyze! Or however it's spelled and what did Douglas ever do befor or after. Give me a break. Never beat an elite near prime fighter never.
FACTS, not excuses. Not as much as Tyson. Holyfield had only lost a bit of speed and reflexes, but he was roided to the gills and stronger than ever. And most importantly, his skillset was at it's absolute best. Tyson had seriously declined in that last department. Douglas was incredible that night and more motivated than ever. That version of Douglas gives trouble to any HW that ever lived. I favor that Douglas to beat guys like Tunney, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Patterson. Almost all ATGs are in the same boat. Who does Ali have, apart from Foreman, whom he tricked ?!
Tyson was poor inside? Thats just a parrots opinion. . Tyson was just as good if not better than Dempsey on the inside. Mike Tyson's threw the best inside box punches in history - uppercuts , body and left hooks. . This content is protected
No just looking at it objectively. I don't play into the constant what if Tyson scenarios and excused. Most overhyped and excused fighter in history.
why couldnt you just call it pure stupid or acting of blindness easy to see jack would be destroyed fast
