Have the Klitsckos offered Haye a fight without options?

I've let you run with this, just to see how far you would take it. But your whole "theory" is built on you trusting the veracity of what Chef writes. Of course that's your choice, but it doesn't mean your opinion takes presidence of anyone else's.

 

How kind of you to let me run with this.

As I have conceded that Chef has a bias, I am able to compensate for that when I read his posts.

As you have not conceded to your own blatant bias, you are unable to do the same thing. Plus you have failed to address the fact that he is not ignorant and you are.

Only an idiot would take your opinion over Chef's.

Also, you will notice that you are now resorting to strawmen. I never said my opinion should take precedence. I stated that Chef's should take precedence over yours - in response to your attempt to attack his credibility.

Of course, when you argue so damn poorly as you do then there is no real point in trying to increase your own credibility, right? You really want to keep playing, child?

 

You silly whiner.

 

What bias? I want to see the best fighting the best.

Poor attempt to argue. It's like when people say "anyone who thinks Floyd isn't the GOAT is an idiot". Grow up.

The word is "presidence", precedence has a different contextual meaning. Sorry to play semantics but you, incorrectly, changed the word I used.

Stop all the "wanna keep playing, child" stuff. I know it's an attempt to patronise, but you're not in a position to do so.

Yes, this is all silly, but you seem to think you're "in the know" because you have a biased source. Best fighting the best is all I want to see, not cynical contract negotiations.

 

So, you still have not addressed your ignorance, your use of a strawman, or your clear bias (apart from a disingenuous denial).

People who have no ability to win an argument on merit deflect into semantics. Pathetic.

Child, I am certainly in a position to patronise you.

 

You're not, but you're welcome to keep angrily proclaiming otherwise.

 

And again, you have failed to address the main points. Because you cannot.

Here is a clue for you: if you resort to strawmen or find yourself attracted to the idea of discussing semantics, you have already lost the debate.

You are less than a child. A child still has the potential to learn. I will stop calling you child and start calling you fool.

 

People are well acquainted with the games you play, Rushman. You use initimidating prose in an attempt to belittle people who don't know better. Posters that know me, know that I don't post with an agenda. I've criticised Haye in the past and will do so again. My favourite fighters have, mainly, been foreign; I'm not too interested in partisan interests based on nationality.

When there are such polarising opinions on a subject such as this, I tend to feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe both parties want the fight, but there are smoke and mirrors, from both sides, with regards to the negotiations.

I don't believe Haye had a back injury when the Wlad fight fell through, I believe he pulled out because of the imminent collapse of Setanta - his only source of income for the fight. A cynical move, but a forgivable one given the circumstances.

That's all the past, and I prefer not to dwell on it. The current situation is that Haye is the WBA titleholder and brings some compelling elements to the table. I don't see why Wlad needs options on Haye if he's so confident he can win the fight and take his belt. Equally, Haye should not expect parity with payment as Wlad is the "true" champion.

 

These conditions sound pretty reasonable.

 

Oh yeah, I'm a real monster. :nut

I have exposed people for what they are though. I can understand if they didn't enjoy the experience, but they only have themselves to blame.

It looks like you also don't want to dwell on other things, such as your attacking Chef's credibility, your use of strawmen etc.

I understand you want to move on with a semblance of dignity intact. I'm ok with that, just as long as you realise you wont always be able to speak carelessly and condescendingly, someone smarter than you will pick you up and smack you down.

Class dismissed.

 

Wow, you really are infantile. Perhaps when you mature a little you'll really be in a position to dismiss people in a condescending manner. You've not attained that social status yet, you do display many traits pertaining to delusions of grandeur though.

I said I didn't trust, fully, the veracity of Chef's prose because of the vested interest he has. What further elaboration do you need? I venture you don't, and this is more about you having the final say and "winning" because this forum is very important to you. Go ahead, have the final say re-using the word "strawmen", you really don't have anything better.

 

Nice composure.

Oh wait, I'm the one who is the angry poster, right?

Quit while you are a mile behind. Then while you are licking your wounds go and look up your other logical fallacies, ad hominem and argumentum ad populum.

You didn't lose because you are not as smart as me. You lost because you are intellectually dishonest. I can't beat an honest person - that's all there is to it.

 

Tidy, but empty, rhetoric. I can see why it would impress some of the kids on the forum though. The part I highlighted is where you show your own lack of intelligence by using these generic phrases. "Class dismissed" is another - Jack Presscot used that one a lot.

 

Glad to see Dan-B is schooling Rushman. When will these ******ed General posters realise not to **** with the 'Elite' :yep

 

Wow, you are getting more and more pathetic. Someone using a cliche is your measure of their intelligence? Do you even know how ludicrous you sound? No. Because you are no longer even rational.

Let's mark today as the day your credibility has officially died.

Welcome to my ignore list, where all worthless people end up.

:hi: