Battle of the Williams, Carl The Truth Williams vs Cleveland Big Cat Williams.

More false narratives and meandering off point which I’ve addressed before.

Your overviews are skewed.

I have point blank illustrated multiple times that your definitions are wrong and out of context. You cannot honestly say that is incorrect.

Attesting to the direct sighting of a listing (viz “I saw…”) is NOT hearsay. Claiming that a listing exists ONLY by someone else testimony of their having directly seen said listing IS hearsay. It’s very simple. Your saying Liston was listed as 79” was misleading - no, it’s not “reasonable” to interpret that you “meant” as per another poster’s claimed sighting of said listing - and even moving from your “modified” platform - you were then merely imparting hearsay - and moving from that, the alleged source for your heresay hasn’t even been produced also.

The veracity of the listing and claiming that to be heresay anyway was irrelevant and deflecting from the obvious bone of contention - the sighting and actual existence of the 79” listing - it doesn’t exist -
- BUT it was introduced by you with not only conviction but also challenge, speaks for your flawed sense of authentication and incorrect interpretation and expression of the “evidence” you confidently put forward - “evidence “‘which so happened to lend itself to your “belief” that Liston did not possess an 84” reach.

You can’t give yourself more credit for not being triggered, as I am not triggered at all but you have been.

Everything I’ve stated has been accurate and well supported - including my refutation of the following:-

Ironically you continually cannot comprehend that I DID comprehend from the start that you were not claiming Liston had an 86" wingspan.
I believe I said it was implausible, NOT that it was not listed as such. I am amenable to cut & paste to prove the matter, but you are mistaken that I ever confused what you meant.
[/QUOTE]

Now instead of holding/advertising an inflated sense of indignance and exercising false moralising, both of which you are heavily hung up on and prone to (put away your little waving finger - LOL), you could’ve at least addressed my refutation of your above statement/claim/accusation, I mean, since you bothered to reply - otherwise I would’ve been happy that you simply understood yet another error on your part without your replying.

You can go out with a bang and prove your quoted claim in so far as what you’re suggesting I said that indicated my lack of “comprehension” - the proof of same will be as elusive as this 79” listing.

 

1) You showed nothing that was "off-point"-I was not. Differing does not introduce any specifics of things that are irrelevant.

2) You continually avoid answering my direct points about the multiple times that for no rational cause you indicated or implied I was not HONEST in my claims. Instead of assuming like I did about you that I was mistaken about definitions or details you baselessly & repeatedly suggest I am being dishonest. Doing it a few times & then called on it a few times, & given your obvious intelligence & attention to detail, it is highly implausible that this was not intentional. Which though omission ironically IS a form of dishonesty.
Therefor this is not Good Faith debate, & is morally wrong/in violation of The Golden Rule. You earned this again:

3) I said several things about hearsay, & you like me should know enough about psychology to know better than assume dishonesty before being mistaken, having a mental block, etc.
After a WHILE it was clear that you meant the mere fact of a listing existing-not the veracity itself-is hearsay.
You think I conflate things; you missed basic facts or reasoned wrongly.
For example, I fully admitted that I saw it second hand: but that does not show it does not exist.
It MAY not exist. But neither of us doing a thorough study of it, or even all of his fights to see if & where it may have been recorded-I cannot insist what I read was seen correctly or accurate, nor can you know if I saw that & there was *cause* for that to be said, i.e., a listing.

4) I am not saying that you should have known I meant it came from someone else's post.
Only that someone saying they saw the listing may well mean they saw it indirectly.
You can fairly say it is second hand, that even that is not yet produced-not that everyone who uses this language intends to say-or speaks so exactingly-they saw an original source.
Also anyway in a basic sense if we were not there for the measurment or when it was recorded, the listing itself is certainly second (or 7,586 hand or thereabouts).

5) You have provided precisely NO evidence for me being upset or triggered.
Speculating that if someone praises both our equanimity somehow must mean they are about to lose it is NOT at all logical.

In fact it is so off-base as valid reasoning that combined with endlessly, ostentatiously ignoring my pointing out how you unjustly keep accusing me of dishonestly that I must wonder IF you are triggered.
Note if I was just ego-bound or likely triggered I would claim you were: but again logic provides that only as one very possible interpretation for such avoidant behavior.
But that I am manifestly not freakin' out-& know that since I am as calm as Anthony Hopkins dining al fresco on personally harvested body parts-that this is just one good possibility.

6) Another cause for at least suspicion is that you keep saying you are done, yet debating.
Far be it from me to critique or even mind that, it would be a hypocracy.
One can & I do enjoy or not mind or feel compelled to endlessly straighten out someone & make a case...

But when one keeps insisting they are done yet goes on, seemingly since they cannot resist even though they wanted to stop-much of it simple reiteration-then yeah emotional causes are very plausible.

7) I invited YOU to cut & paste a response re; the 86" listing.
Me missing a single point you mentioned once, when more detailed & thorough than you & never frequently ignoring such a matter of basic feelings & terms of understanding as being called out on saying I am dishonest...
Does not reflect any of your avoidance.

What I moralized about, certainly when a sensitive issue is constantly ignored, is valid & *better* to do.
My indignation was restrained.
None is justified on your part if a single point is once missed.
But since I have done more writing, some searching for past notes, even to another member (clearly stating BC8 was not the source of the post originally cited-I do not feel like doing a lot of combing when I said you are free to do the same.

8) 79" as a listing would not prove what I said is unlikely, that Liston did not have an 84" wingspan.
You are wrong in that simple claim about what I said: never that he did not have it, but that it was likely overstated-& I expained why if so, not likely by more than 2".

9) But this shows that you hold me & likely others to a much more precise standard of accuracy as you do yourself.
An example of me doing the same would me be showing that you are often wrong when you describe any of these measurments banied about here as anything other than wingspan: never "reach".

But that would be a trivial gotchya-because I can charitably assume that you know that.
But even if not, the mistake you made in indicating the length a single arm extends does *not* belie any ambiguity about what what we both know you intended.

This would be as misguided as to assume that you seguing into no fond disclaimers or joking around means you must be emotionally triggered.
Like the rationale above it may be an effect...But this is not convincing evidence that you are upset.

So in summary: Me Big Smart & Good, you Bad.

Not really, but one of us is routinely avoiding owning or answering to cynical baseless mistrust of the other.
And admirably precise in critical analyses-right or wrong-but not when it is less convenient.

 

Another rambling post with no relevant content - including repetition of false moralising and an over inflated sense of self and associated indignance - which comprises more of your posts on this subject than any actual useful content.

You like to try and correct (fail) but don’t like being corrected - that is clear - ego getting in the way - and you will try your utmost to mitigate the highlighting of those errors via word mincing, backtracking and trying to revise what you clearly meant and stated in the first instance. It’s painfully obvious and hardly compelling.

I said you were triggered - because you obviously were/are - your response to same being “no, that’s what you are”. Wow, really? A denial of the truth and then trying to boomerang that truth onto me. LOL.

I have to guess the “would be” authoritative little finger wave harkens back to constant admonishments you received as a child also - LOL,

I have corrected you many times across the discussion - putting you straight- which is now a phrasing you’re trying to mirror back - the type of argument/reply one would expect from one of primary school age.

Your denying that you have had to be corrected (a number of times in this case) and in the areas I’ve cited is you being dishonest.

You even previously said that I said you mentioned 77” for Liston - I said nothing of the sort, I CLEARLY said a poster on another forum threw up that fig. - which I believed was 77/78” to be precise - had to correct you on that also. You’re clearly not so pedantic or precise as you claim and you did constantly pervert the discussion with a number of similar such misstatements.

Example of word mincing, implication and withdrawal - mentioning reach (accepted boxing parlance) vs wingspan but then suggesting you’re not so trivial as to make any issue of it - LOL, “reach”’is fine, you have tried to raise it AS IF it’s an error - false and dishonest. Your comment is no compensator for your clear misuse of the term “listing” and other definition twists - like I said, you don’t like being corrected.

So arms can substitute for “wings”’ but “reach” is technically incorrect - Big Smart? Hmm. Actually, if I had to hold on to an anchor point and then reach out with my other arm, full stretch (similar form to a reach measurement) , to save someone - that would call in the length of both arms, hands and shoulder width - effective “reach” - so it can be applicable - but then if my arms are apparently wings, I’d just fly over and get them. Sweet Baby Jesus, LOL.

You can try and falsely “advertise” the disassociated calm of Lecter (me thinketh you dotheth protesteth too mucheth) while bemoaning this, that and the other based on your own personal issues and obvious insecurities - (T-Square vs your own shoulder design, really??). Enjoy those Fava beans and human bits washed down with Chianti……and remember, don’t hunch and say Hi to Clarice for me.

I have been precise and I don’t have the propensity to avail myself of the luxury of falsely calling out other posters as being incorrect and/or likely so based on a false submission/evidence - show me the money, the listing, the heresay…anything…but of course, you had nothing…79” could exist?…LOL, just read yourself.

Like, if someone told me they saw SANTA, so, based on just that, I circulate that SANTA exists. I float that if you think NOT, you’re likely incorrect - but I’m not saying you do think NOT, I just availed myself of saying you’d be likely incorrect if you did - because I just like to call people out as incorrect. LOL. Word mincing. . How so someone asks, you obviously saw him, right? Well, no, not actually, someone told me he saw him, if I only I could remember who said that ?? - otherwise I might have to provide direct proof of SANTA to you…let’s see….still nothing…but it doesn’t mean he DOESN’T exist. Then I cry that you’ve completely misunderstood me and what I meant. Now that is, absolute denial.

Now to excuse your errs, you’re falsely claiming dual expectations of standards - previously claiming anal and pedantic treatment for yourself - but no so much when you’re proven wrong, eh? Got it.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy on my part.

I gave you a clear opportunity to go out with a bang - show me the statement you claimed I made (see your quotes worded in my last post) in regards to any comments you made re my provision of an article re Liston v Machen that included a statement that Liston’s reach was 86” -

The ONUS was/is on you to provide same and you’ve clearly side stepped providing YOUR required proof AGAIN - but are still compelled to post mis-truths, try to morally pontificate otherwise (Wholly unfounded and hypocritical GOD complex, much? LOL) and bury your inability to provide simple evidence yet again, instead, waxing on all manner of other unrelated stuff.

As to the above, YOU made a Strawman argument. You’re refuting a comment(s) I didn’t make. I know EXACTLY what you’re confusing - but how many times have I straightened you out already? Point me to what you claim I said - you can’t.

Excuse me that it’s becoming more and more difficult (nigh impossible) to take anything seriously that you have to say on the subject - it’s been stripped down to mere and futile defence of your wounded ego… and your feeling small, dumb and not so logical is a major corruption to discussion. . LOL

The Funny Farm, in house emergency transport vehicle, is on its way right now, for you …vrrooomm!!

 

The idea I provided no relevant content-instead of responsive stuff you differ with is an absurd insult.
We are both being repetitious-but you just repeat general claims like I am indignant & moralizing without specifics.
Worse is your inability to address your baseless claims that I am essentially dishonest.

This ITSELF is not intellectually honest.

Now it seems you are actually getting MEAN.
Did not think I would see that.
You saying I feel "small, dumb & not so logical" is both the same kind of insistence on me being upset-which YOU invented, you said essentially "no you are" when I reserved judgement about you since I had no definitive evidence & I do not want to just repeat baseless claims...

But when you not only make unfounded claims that my ego is wounded-assuming something without evidence...
And insisting I FEEL small, dumb, illogical...

Because this is merely a personal attack, I gotta say you are frustrated we disagree.
AND you are finally clearly betraying a huge loss of equanimity, good will-& are really triggered.

Insisting I am wrong absent being nasty is FINE.
Assigning me all kinds of bad intentions re: honesty & saying I feel so bad when i am POLITE...
This coupled with you ditching neutral humor, intended clever wordplay in favor of what reads like MOCKERY....

Shows me you have lost it.
I am fine with a "funny farm" assigning absurdity joke, as you presumably are with me asking when you stopped beating your wife...
But you have gotten MEAN Pugguy.
And it must be galling that I not only refuse to agree with you-we should not mind this...
But I hold up this mirror to you WITHOUT taunting you.
In other words, not upset & becoming malicious.


Pugguy me not *agreeing* with what you think are your legitimate corrections is NOT being dishonest.
Anymore than you differing with me does not prove this at all.
But I know you are well aware you are triggered when you say I received finger wagging admonishments as a child?
To put it clinically, that is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
I know your better self knows that you cannot possibly know if I got this treatment as a child-I did not-& you cannot help but attempt to belittle me.

Show me I said that you mentioned 77/78" as a listing for Liston as opposed to that you cited someone else mentioning it-because I never thought you believed there was a listing discovered in the 70's-& I will say my mistake, sorry.
But this is trivial compared to getting malicious.
If *either* of us s merely mistaken or confused, that does not imply dishonesty.
Nor justify personal attacks.

Actually "reach" never properly means what wingspan is.
And I was not remotely false in claiming I was not critiquing you: my point is that it-like many using the term wrongly-is trivial & immaterial.
Also because everyone understands what others mean.
But if you insist I cannot even use listing the way many do-often just seeing it noted by others, & that correction is fine, but never should have been a big deal-then you cannot object to my making the comparison.

But again you without evidence try to hang on me the stigma of not being HONEST.
When ironically UNTIL you kept doing this to me and many times ignored my protests that you had no reason to assume this smear...

When you never even *addressed* that complaint--->That glaring ommission needs to be called out as dishonest.
I will spare you the finger wagging, because you cannot handle it.
As in you get triggered.

It should not be upsetting that we debate about something as emotionally neutral as "reach".
Of course reaching to save someone effectively measures reach-just as in the correct context knows it is fine to use a colorful term "wing" for arms.
Me showing that the Da Vinci pose is not technically reach but wingspan showed what would be a pointless (but accurate) correction.
No, it was no actual complaint about you using the term. But making an analogy to a just technically true correction of yours.
Anyhow, really know reason to use such colorful terms, name calling-including invoking the innocent Christ-child.

In other words, again you were not dispassionate, incorrectly assumed you were being provoked, abandoned all amity & Goodwill, absurdist jesting...
Triggered.

I wish your riffing on my Silence of the Lambs allusion WAS good-natured-as you have virtually always been-until recently.
Again you have no cause to believe I am lying-& no denigrating statements like your own to be dismayed by.

One example of you PERSONALIZING things as in baseless claims such as I am showing insecurity is henceforth what shall be known in perpetuity as "shouldergate".
It should have been clear I really just inquired as to WHY you felt T-Square shoulders were more aesthetically pleasing.
Or any indication that this is a cultural bias.
I mean it could be, even if mild-& I missed it.

But you really thinking me being curious about your belief-it did not seem like dry humor but if you said so I would have accepted that-somehow means I am actually insecure because my shoulders angle down...
Makes no sense whatsoever.
If you truly believe I remotely feel this way I only can say that it is laughable to even suspect it, untrue...
An a sign of being triggered.

I was not at *all* upset when you asked if I saw 79", persisted in (continually) & correctly saying I could not find it.
Me saying it very well could exist (or my memory could be wrong, or I believe more likely the poster who said it may well not be correct about that listing before a fight...
None of this should have been upsetting to you.
Even when i say I was wrong or repeat I used the wrong term technically, you are dissatisfied.
And need to personally impugn me honesty & now make a few references to presumed insecurity & trauma in my early life.
These are absurd & unfair statements-whether you are right or wrong on the facts, this behavior & getting nasty shows you are...
Triggered.

The Santa analogy is invalid because belief in this is easily shown to be a nice fairy tale.
Me saying a source claimed it & conflating this with it being "listed" somewhere because in this case I saw the *claim* second hand is both a valid correction on my term-& pretty small potatoes.
I accepted that, *you* do not like to be corrected such as about reach/wingspan.
But unlike the Santa issue being clearly known & a true/false binary, a small difference in opinion about likely wingspan should be nothing at all to be discomfited by.
Especially since we have a whole 1/2" difference in what we think is very possibly the best figure for it (you adding it may be 84", me just thinking this unlikely), in any event honest enough to admit how my feelings about what is most *likely* have shifted by a small degree over time...
Unless you are emotionally triggered.

Because I do not agree that I am proven wrong-as you believe about yourself-does not show either of us is not anal or pedantic.
In this case though it was a self-deprecating observation about myself-in this context where we choose to recreationally subject each other to this examination it is FINE.
Unlike personal attacks, insulting & uncaused assumptions about the other's past, or small-minded taunting.
As opposed to your usualgood-natured ribbing.
Since you are likely triggered by my use & illustrations of being triggered, I will avoid another deploying another firearms icon.
But these have been submitted to wake you up!

Not to humiliate-which you do know you did to me because you felt threatened.
Your past statements about "if it helps read it in ____voice"....
Ironically was a similar, benignly & even kindly attempt to be peaceful & ensure we got along.
EXCEPT you started unraveling when you insisted absent evidence that me pre-emptively doing this must mean I was in danger of, then you said i was, getting upset.

Nope, the personal content & toxic assumptions about my past shows only you were triggered.

I did not sidestep anything.
before you gave me said "opportunity" to prove my point re: 86", I had asked-without what has currently became your trademark acrimony-to cut & paste any evidence about what I said.
I did not even get mad & say you sidestepped this.
But after all this effort, me not wanting to do that work-& having combed through Al Liston/wingspan related threads I could find-is perfectly fine.
Just like it would have been O.K. & I never taunted you for wanting to bow out-a few times-from further debate.

But you have continued, although in a manner & tone that shows you are emotionally triggered.

This is a conservative statement supported by the available evidence at your increasingly brittle & upset M.O.
How come I do not get so angry & at all demeaning when only *you* keep saying outrageous speculations about personal deficiencies & even upbringing?
Why do you not follow your Better Angels (since you are very intelligent, hopefully you shall not find a way to be insulted by that lol!)
So that instead of just seeing we disagree, phrase things wrongly (in both senses)...Not that you just insist I am incorrect-fine-but I am "compelled to state mis-truths".

Like we cannot just disagree without being disagreeable-even about the others intent.
This, like throwing around extreme unsupported statements that if I call you on being personally denigrating & assuming pathology means I have a "God Complex"...

When you cannot honestly debate what you have morphed into here...
But feel compelled to act like I must be a Putin/Trump/Modi megalomaniac...

Shows you are really strongly triggered.

And really I do not think you feel good about temporarily devolving or perhaps regressing this way.
NOTICE I do not uncharitably assume anything nasty about your general, real life decency.


So let us just drop it.

 

@Entaowed


Another ridiculously long post from you, particularly relative to the lack of any meat.

I say false moralising, inflated sense of self and indignance literally. That does not entail malice -unless you think those in related medical professions diagnosing same are just being MEAN all the time - LOL.

I said you were/are triggered in the first instance - and that is correct. I’m not triggered (you’re merely repeating back at me) and if you actually read properly - you will see my posts contain always contain points that are actually specific and relevant to the subject - your replies do not - they’re completely emotionally slanted - and the specific proof I requested has not been accommodated -which given your conduct in debate and actually backing your claims is none too surprising.

Terms such as “devolved”, “regressed”, “your better self”, “humiliated”, “trademark acrimony”, “morphed into”, “nasty” etc. are those you would bemoan no end if directed at yourself - not I.

I’ve noticed you’ve accused other posters of being biased, dishonest and MEAN before - hypocrisy much ? and it seems to be very much an inherent “thing” for you, the old God complex - false moralising, inflated sense of self, dignity, righteousness and pontifications IN LIEU of merely and materially debating the subject at hand and simply being on point in reply.

I’ve correctly called you out on such bluster right here, in this discussion. I see through it.

BTW, the SANTA analogy is perfect - that you say it isn’t is wrong - but it’s par for the course - a default, rejection reply before anything else - to save face re the similarly false introduction and ultimately unproven 79” listing.

Shoulders. You advertised your own sensitivities re same - replete with denial of it being a concern to you - when no so such concern or deficiency was assigned to you prior to you aforementioned comments.

I’ll squash right now your accusation re the ref. I provided re Liston’s 86” reach - ref. in article re the Liston v Machen fight - I linked the related article - you commented on that, and I recall you prob said “implausible” - I didn’t comment on that. In this thread, I had previously reminded you of another thread in which I provided proof of an 86” listing for Cleveland Williams - to which you replied that I was wrong - treating it AS IF I was vouching for the listing when I was merely presenting a listing - I reminded you of this to illustrate your history of miscomprehension on such matters.

Now, in this thread you’ve conflated my ref. to Liston’s 86” reach with a ref. Williams’ listing of 86” to FURTHER compound your errors - and added a false accusation atop that - but you claim you’re not bothered to check back and uphold yourself even on that one simple point…….because you know you’re wrong……very much reflective of our how you roll in general.

It’s only been myself who has HAD to go back and illustrate your errors - you’ve not done so because the errors, contradictions and backtracking aren’t applicable to me.

You either lack or pretend to lack self awareness - form left field, you introduced the suggestion of domestic violence - wife/partner beating - did I write reams and reams reflecting my being emotionally overwrought due to same - as you are prone to do? - no I didn’t.

Yet my clever comment re the finger waving emoji is beyond the pale and “nasty”? LOL, c’mon, open both eyes.

I will pontificate that you need to take a long look at yourself and your dually applied perception of sensitivities - and your being hard done by - suffice to say, your preoccupation with same, in lieu of actual facts often overrides an otherwise simple discussion. There’s no reason for me to feel bad about anything….that’s just your God complex talking….

All this simply because you have been proven wrong….

So yeah, DROP it - move on to other threads and fresh subjects…..which I think I suggested previously ….see how you go…but for the need to correct you…...it’s not at all compelling discussing this with you further….which I think I also already made clear…..

The dancing banana - a-peeling to all and non offensive - even to the most acutely and unevenly sensitive…..

 

Anyone can research what we wrote & see that you did not say drop it.
You repeatedly said that you were done. But have continued to reply many more times since.
Even though you claimed it is not compelling to reply-you have done so many more times. Which seems compulsive man.
I do not begrudge you debating anything at any length. But getting mean & personal & making crazy diagnoses about me & my past...

These are among many proofs that you are triggered.
This is something you must squash.
And I peacefully said "let's" drop it, not in CAPS ordering you to do so like you do, not so nice...This will never fly.
Perhaps you can examine this as another indication of the unhappy, toxic & unfriendly latent tendencies you are in denial about possessing. Coming out when you do not get your way when you are convinced others must change their mind to suit your opinion.

1) Both of us make long posts, but I cannot tell if you believe the absurd comment that my last one lacks "meat".
There are a bunch of specifics, you even addressed some-so that is illogical.

2) We both have said the other is upset, my word was "triggered".
But only you assumed against all reason that if I wrote praising us & encouraging it to continue I must be close to losing equanimity.
But you HAVE been personal, insulting & nasty.
Do you need me to tell you again about unsupported assumptions of personal pathology & belittling terms, including but not limited to saying I feel stupid, small-& insecure? This & other comments were either mocking-or intended to belittle.

3) I have been fairly accused of sometimes being naive. I tend to assume more positive intentions & characteristic about people.
But neither me nor I believe anyone reviewing your comments & the context will conclude that you intended the comment about my parents must have done this to me etc...Was meant as a joke.
It is possible you have fooled yourself into thinking that, since your self-image (& I will bet usually this is the case) says "I am a decent, not malicious person". I will not follow your "triggered" lead & respond in unkind, claiming the facts not in evidence about your psychology...

So the best i can say is you may very well not be lying, but about this matter deluded.
And studies support that people very often construct Ego-supporting rationales after the fact, shaping the facts & their intent to fit a story they need to believe.

4) Among the meat I supplied was explaining that after I first asked YOU to cut & paste the Williams claim/quotes in question.
I already have explained how I have checked a bunch of threads to accommodate your questioning of a source-it is up to you to supply this if you still want to discuss it. Which is fine-but I have done enough digging. And had a few things ignored many times: most prominently it took a bunch of notes for you to stop ignoring your turning somewhat petty & abusive.

5) You are showing mucho pomposity in insisting you are correct.
But only I have admitted making any mistakes-repeating it when unacknowledged, at least using "listing" wrongly-not in the way I intended.
It begs credulity this is because you are always right lol!

6) I could say nobody agrees with you, but that may be so for both of us, since likely everyone stopped listening a while back.
I have shown significant humility, such as I keep open that everyone will always agree with me-they may differ or agree on points.
IF I had any God-complex, I would not even say, fuhgettibout believe it.

7) But I am convinced that anyone who was prevailed upon to read enough of our exchanges would conclude two (2) related things:
A) You started being baselessly cynical about assuming my FEELINGS when i was being gracious & crediting you re: us being, & encouraging a continuation of, equanimity.
B) The statements cited above were taunting or denigrating-in fact & intent.

8) And I am not talking about reacting to statements saying I was completely wrong.
I mean that only YOU make personal, insulting, pathologizing assumptions about me, my upbringing, who I am & why I make claims.

9) Part of the problem is you cannot tolerate me not "admitting" you are correct.
I have noted prior to these exchanges that you also have an edge.
Nobody "likes" being wrong.
But your frustration that I will not cede the ground you like bespeaks a problem.

A thought experiment: for the sake of argument assume I did not admit the world was round.
Or gave trivial objections like that it is slightly oblong, a bit bumpy via mountains...
Now if you were so irrational as to claim this, I would not get angry or make ad hominem attacks.
So whoever is correct about what, if folks are non-abusive, everybody should be secure enough not to get triggered.

10) But I gotta give myself credit for not being triggered even in the face of what will seem to any reasonable person malignant personal attacks. Not the worst ever, not Trumpian in scale & severity, but pretty bad.

CONTINUED...

 

Pugguy. Whether you again respond after continually insisting you will not, hopefully you shall have the courage to examine this & your less savory habits with *care*. That is, not just skim!


11) Another example of "meat" you ignored-should I accuse you of being a lightweight? No, you just are disinclined to handle arguments & supporting details you cannot deal with...

Is the puzzling, ridiculous claim that I am essentially insecure about my shoulder structure.
That was a facepalm indeed-& not something you can even pretend to yourself was meant as a "joke".
I was really wondering why you said straighter shoulders are more aesthetically pleasing.
Or failing that any indication that this was a cultural preference or bias...
But you took a NON-contentious, neutral musing which *should* have been used as an olive branch...
And acted like (worse if you actually believed it?) that I was somehow insecure about my deltoid angle & build, lol!
So it will look to objective observers that either you were insecure, or just stuck in a negativity festival & clueless to the peaceful intent...
In any case it looks like you were triggered.

12) I thought you would say something like I would complain if you said about me that I had " “devolved”, “regressed”, “your better self”, “humiliated”, “trademark acrimony”, “morphed into”, “nasty”.
There are two (2) things that are objections & differences that you legitimately do not see:
A) I only referred to you undeniable comments & conduct in this thread.
Meaning these were not insane extrapolations about your general life conduct, absurd assumptions about why you believe something that amount to character assassination-even acting like you know some childhood influence or trauma that shaped my dispassionate thoughts..
B) Those words are supported by individual comments, the tone & content of your notes *greatly* morphing or devolving: in other words not mean-spirited speculation trying & failing to pathologize you---> But referring to specific statements & what i said is True.

13) You are well aware that it is routine for us humans to have more or less bias-you included.
And everyone knows that some here are not only dishonest-you likely are referring to things like some folks-common with those accused of using alts-doing things like fudging weights to exaggerate facts to support biases such as always favoring the larger more modern guys.
Others have the opposite bias...

You also KNOW that there are literally numerous posts-& so many posters-who have been MEAN & worse.
Cursing, attacking every aspect of an intercoluter's competence, manhood, mocking, hateful, even threatening.

So IF you are honest *with yourself*, you will see I am correct that while I am doubtless unusual on how frequently & directly I condemn abusive & CRUEL folks on this forum-which has helped a bit to clean it up, & sets a good example for others, as you generally have when not triggered...

14) Those responses & my reactions when you recently got nasty is not "false moralising, inflated sense of self, dignity, ..."...Except I am pontificating, & am doing the righteous thing.
Everybody knows I can show endless examples of people being Monstrous, flaming, trolling...And that I am often a scold about it lol!
But it is neither rational nor fair-nor will folks agree with you-that me non-abusively but firmly condemning pathological Internet hate is in itself somehow indicating I have a problem lol!

An indication of this is I cannot recall anyone ever objecting to me opposing abusers-& some "like" my comments-not hate on me opposing hate speech.

15) You did not even bother to, or cannot argue with me re: the Santa analogy.
See it is foolish to assume I reflexively disagree-either you are doing this without a case, or you assume this INSTEAD of the more rational, charitable conviction that someone just happens to have a different opinion.

16) Here is a challenge to you, since it is really easy to find my first comment-& only one on this forum re: "shouldergate".
You said:
Shoulders. You advertised your own sensitivities re same - replete with denial of it being a concern to you - when no so such concern or deficiency was assigned to you prior to you aforementioned comments.

I doubt you will cut & paste my words, but IF this is another thing you avoid but address the issue incorrectly yet again, I will do so.
If you fail to so this, it is quite possible you assume I do not wanna do a bunch of digging when I first challenged you to show me the quotes because you are PROJECTING your own tendencies upon me.
Because there is nothing I wrote that betrays any "sensitivity" about anything related to shoulders-let alone feeling my own are inadequate lol!

17) I always acknowledged that 79" is unproven as a listing beyond what someone cited. I have endlessly explained how the term for something seen second hand is as routine as folks like you using reach for wingspan. Technically wrong, but no big deal. And I was fine with your initial correction & me being able to clarify.

BUT if you mean to say that my 79" listing is claimed "falsely" as in I LIED...
No I would never do that. I do not object if you wonder if I was mistaken about the number or claim-or if the original source I saw did not have a listing himself.
But if you feel or suspect I invented it-or would even if we had controversy or conflict as later...
This is neither how I act In Real Life---> or what you can see anywhere on this website.

18) I have gone back-but less than you when you think I am wrong. I have betrayed no general reluctance to do so, but once when i asked you first to show me something when you keep insisting I am wrong-that burden is not upon me.
If you have no reluctance about doing so yourself, you certainly will cut & paste the brief shoulder statement that betrays not one iota of "sensitivity".

19) Thinking I am possibly inauthentic "pretending"-is as wrong as musing that I lack self-awareness.
I realize this is an honest error, but I REALLY thought it was clear that my wife-beating "accusation" was a surreal absurdity-actually a joke where I am if anything joshing to leaven things up here.
It is in the same vein as your frequent absurd, often very clever (occ. hard to parse), extreme crazy & *healthy* narratives & roughhouse ribbings. That is why I never complain about those-& sometimes praised their creativity & construction.
Which is very distinct from the crabbed, personally threatened & angry tone (complete with personal attacks & demeaning "diagnoses") of your recent replies.

20) Coincidentally I end with this round #.
From your comment we are very likely both born & conceived of not only during the first Reign of Ali, but conceived & born when LBJ was President.
At our relatively advanced age, we should have some marked strengths-& at least be self-aware of deficiencies-& be willing to examine our own possible travels up river denial.

I presented & replied to many facts. Actually you sometimes ignore, miss or somehow skip mine.
This is one of many things I clearly do not have *sensitivities* about.
You have been the one initiating & pushing how you believe I am wrong.
I have never minded any of this, or even been thin skinned.

I submit that there are two (2) related phenomena you do not care to look at.

A) You got repeatedly & demonstrably personal, extrapolating widely & wildly about me in crazy pathologizing ways even about my fictionalized past, demeaning-in sum insulting & at least a bit abusive.

B) And there is no other likely interpretation than you were initially triggered about not being able to get me to agree with you-unlike me, when it was my own claims being addressed I never minded it...

So that inability to tolerate dissent had you assigning all kinds of hateful things to me-including dishonesty when nothing supports this.
In fact the evidence shows that i am painfully, pedantically, sincere.

Would-be physician, heal thyself.

 

Williams, I've got Williams! Or am i in the wrong thread

I could see Cleve cracking a chin here but i can also see Williams, big, fast and reasonably powerful with a great jab dishing out plenty of grief too.

Go with your favorite fighter.

 

How dare you bring this thread back to it’s original topic?!

 

I feel kinda dirty Swag!!!!

 

That is alright we will get over it. Or better, thanx for bringing things around to the proposed pugilistic performance.
You gentleman are good-natured about our continual bickering, keeping alive a crepe-paper thin thread of credibility that we are relevant here by sprinkling in references to one of the Williams apropos of comparing his arms to Liston...

No that life support system of justification already expired.

I could see it either way also.
The Big Cat lost a fair amount at the top level, but The Truth could get blitzed, the question is can he avoid getting bludgeoned?
They are actually both quite athletic, could be interesting.
Either way, I do not think it ends in a close decision.

 

All good. I wasn't going to stick my nose far in rest assured. You guys probably got to where there was no-where else to go on this one. It happens.

 

It looks like the time he fought Mike Weaver

 

It really annoys me when people have clearly failed to properly read and/or remain faithful to the thread subject which CLEARLY states....err,...ah, oh, I see, - well fair play to you guys.

I think perhaps I submitted my Williams v Williams pick eons ago - at least it seems like a very long time ago, I wonder why that is? I even made a comment or two otherwise "on" the subject. Let's see, have I changed my mind since? Nah. .....

 

A thread isn't a thread unless it goes a bit off track.

Did we work out if Sonny has an 84" reach?

Only one word answers will suffice!!!