Biggest "forums darlings"

This is completely made up. None of this happened, and it is you who "would pivot, move the goalposts" throughout.

There's not a single point you've made that i've avoided, you've avoided entire posts of mine, if you want to be particular about it. You must have posted me two or three times to explain why you're "disengaging" which apparently means talking to other people about me, rather than to me. Everyone of those posts contains detail on your position that you flat out ducked.

Your criteria was inconsistent and bizarre. It included a claim that by every objective metric Wladimir Klitschko should be ranked above George Foreman, something that was provably false within seconds.

You seem to make a lot of mistakes while posting - ManMachine is a racist, no he's not, Wlad above Foreman by all objective metrics, no he isn't, George Foreman only beat three good fighters, no he didn't, I mean you yourself have said these things then walked them back (presumably in some cases, directly in others) during discussion. Then you'll say "oh he's inconsistent" You're LITERALLY corrected as to the detail of what you've said, then claimed i'm wrong.

You should have a think about this, i'm serious, not admit it on here, that's obviously impossible, but have a think to yourself.

 

This isn't a serious answer, or a serious post. From the beginning - almost from our first interaction in this thread - you've been determined to change the meaning of what i've said to your advantage in debate. The very first thing you did was try to turn my statement about Wladimir's non-lineage status into an attack it just wasn't, and you strawmanned that for about three pages. Then, when you get upset, you start complaining about the honest of the person you are talking to. Here we see it again.

But even if this is an absolutely true accusation - even if you've been gaslit and bullied and lied about - you are not a teenage girl. I'm am not your older boyfriend. You aren't being isolated from your friends by a man who makes you feel like a sex-object. Even if you are being gaslit, your response is rather miserable, it's another duck.

But it's an accusation none the less, and like any false accusations it deserves some attention. I said that you've ignored complete posts of mine, and you've accused me of gaslighting.

You quote post 331 to tell me you're not engaging with that post. I've said that you quoted me to tell me that you're "disengaging". If this is objectively factually accurate, in what sense have you been gaslit? In this post I refute your bizarre accusation that "Your entire criteria is idealistic based on your subjective preference of certain wins over others based on your evaluation of how good it was". This is a real quote form a post you made. When I pointed out to you that this was ridiculous, because every poster, including you, does exactly that, you refused to respond - but essentially reposted the accusation in your non-answer to another poster trying to point out exactly the same thing to you. If this is objective fact, how can it be gaslighting?

In the end, what you're trying to say is that George Foreman being ranked anywhere near Wladimir Klitshko is silly or crazy or to be the subject of ridicule and dismissal. Meanwhile you pretty much do it yourself, ranking both with the top ten - and you fail to present any kind of supportive argument outside of an aggressive rundown of Foreman's resume.

Instead you've been reduced to one-line accusations that make no sense and cannot be substantiated. In aggressive forum debate, this is exactly what surrender looks like, and, being honest, having seen this I was prepared to leave you alone - but obviously if you start talking to other people about me you're going to receive the same kick up the backside you'll get talking too me.

You can call this "gaslighting" if you want, but I think that efforts to make of yourself a victim are rather pitiful, even if you were a victim, which you're clearly not.

 

You make zero distinguishment between straps and lineage? For example, to win the title George Foreman had one option, defeat Joe Frazier. Wladimir was able to match Chris Byrd for a strap while Lennox Lewis was the reigning world heavyweight champion. Foreman didn't have the Byrd route, he had to take on the ATG, and under more civilised governance, he would have had to have met Lewis to become the true champion.

But based on your post you seem to rank these two wins as equivalent in some respects?

 

You have to do it by year though.