HOW Exactly PARKER Beat WILDER - Best Film Studies

If you are going to go back to ten years ago or whenever I made those posts, you are doing way too much. I would think that it would be much easier to read posts made in this thread, within the past decade, and comment on those, but I guess that you enjoy the pro-bono message board attorney stuff. I think that it's disinginuous of you to dig into the archives for my posts, yet ignore essentially identical posts made in this very thread, in the year 2024. It's fake objectivity from an unwelcomed input source. I certianly didn't ask for your opinion, nor did I appreciate being characterized as bitter for logging on and making one minute message board posts.

If you want to play detective, you should tell the whole story and examine when my rhetoric in this thread changed. But you won't do that, because you aren't here to be objective, are you?

It's inappropriate to make personal comments about people. It may well be that some of these younger posters are at a similar place that I was ten years ago, but I now understand that it's a poor way of handling disagreements on message boards, and especially in the real world.

...Maybe it's a Brit vs. American thing or something, but I still do enjoy a little trash talking with my boxing discussion; I don't discuss sports over tea. I will make my scathing comments, but they will address someone's opinion and not anything beyond that.

More often than not, when you get personal with strangers, you are swinging in the dark and mostly striking out... which I believe has occurred in your case. There was never anything for me to be bitter about. I liked Wilder and rooted like hell for him to knock Fury's head off. That third fight turned me into a fan of Fury because I was that impressed and entertained by his performance.

The same would have been true of Parker if he'd beaten a similar version of Wilder in a wildly entertaining, enthralling, and replayable fight. I wasn't all that impressed with what I saw from either guy. That's my opinion.

...Color me bitter?

Well, you are incorrect and I have told that many times now. When you insisted that I was (for a reason which escapes me), I showed you how my life is okay. So you are wrong about me at just about every level.

If you prefer an echo chamber, I am not that guy. Even if I agree, I will generally not post in agreement just for the sake of eating up bandwidth. There's no fun in that, IMO. No disagreement, no real discussion.

Anyway, I'm sorta bored now.

Take care.

 

dunno man. That was peak Parker. A better Joe than we've ever seen.

 

He's only 30 so yeah he's definitely peak.

 

I just can't bear people mocking Deontay this way .... please Parker, give the bronze bomber a rematch and lay down this time. The bomb squad need our paychecks!

 

I don't think so.
You were preaching against "armchair psychology" in the forum.

You stated:

I took a look to check if you were a man who 'walked his talk,' a man who practised what he preached.

I did just that. It's not an either / or.
I read all of the posts in this thread, and commented on some of them.
And it was the posts in this thread that prompted me to look at previous posts.

You're getting a little melodramatic here. Folks on here check previous posts all the time. No attorney skills required, just the ability to read.

There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about reviewing a poster's previous posts to check for consistency, or for any other reason, for that matter. That is why the capability is available here, and widely used.

What does this bit even mean, Stevie ?

My comments are simply a testament to the fact that you have berated posters for engaging in a practice that you yourself have frequently done in the past. Neither "Fake" nor "objectivity" have any bearing here.

And

and

As you should well know from being on here a good while, a poster may give an opinion on a post without being asked for it.
That is, in fact, how nearly ALL opinions are presented.
If you want to avoid other posters opining on your posts, then best not post those opinions.
Once you post something, it is fair game for other posters to react to what you've posted.

That is how you came across.

And for the third time now, that was a small piece of the post that got you riled up. Most of the post was in praise of Wilder.

Leaving aside that it is not playing detective to review your earlier posts, why in the blue blazes should I need to do that ?

If you feel you have a case that you were wrongfully maligned, it's up to you to make that case.


In answer to when in this thread your rhetoric changed:

The first post you made in the thread that I found objectionable was the first of your posts to which I responded, post #66.
I took no exception to anything you said prior to that.

It was your reprimand of @It's Ovah for his (IMO, innocent) post that led me to take notice.

Then, just two posts later, you opined that @Brighton bomber might be clueless.

At that point, I posted that you appeared to be taking the loss more bitterly than Wilder himself was taking it.
I din't exactly call you a series of bad names, nor make any personal insults.
I simply made an observation.

OK. I would mostly agree with this.
In general, it is probably best to avoid making personal attacks on folks on account of their opinions.

But then, you could easily have said something to the effect that you were once wont to speculatively comment on people's personal lives, based on their opinions, but that you had since, on account of increased age and / or wisdom, eschewed the habit. This would have negated any impression of hypocrisy or inconsistency, and it would have made the tone less preachy. You would have come across as someone who was reflective and maturing.

Not sure how this relates to the discussion.
I'm neither American nor British.

Sometimes, I do to. I think nearly everybody does.

Me neither.

I strive for that level of civility as well, alas not always successfully.

I can't agree here Stevie. My post was in response to what you posted, and nothing personal to you. I don't believe my post was a personal attack. Me calling someone bitter based on how they appear to me, is a long way from me insulting them.

If I said Lomachenko was bitter (and he was !) about what he felt was an unjust decision from the judges in the Haney fight, that in no way, would be an example of me insulting Loma. It would just be an observation.

If I said that Nicole Brown's sister was bitter that OJ got acquitted, that would not be an example of me insulting Denise Brown.
It would just be an observation.

In fact, I even stated in a later post:

And in yet another post, I explained to someone who commented on your low "likes count" that that count was quite a lot higher than they had calculated.

/ continued...

 

/ continued...

Ah...so at last, some insight on that little piece about your wife, kids, salary etc.

Clearly, you interpreted me saying you were more bitter than Wilder was about the loss, as me somehow commenting on your overall life-state ?

As I have indicated above, that was not in my post AT ALL, and observing that someone is bitter about something is neither an insult, nor a general comprehensive summation of how their life is going overall.

But I now see how you interpreted it as a speculative comment on your life in general, hence the defensive combativeness and subsequent explanations of how well things are going in your life.

When Canelo was given the D (unjustly, IMO) in the GGG fight, I was bitter.
I was bitter for part of the evening.

From memory, that bitterness probably shone through any posts I made on here post-fight.

But as life in general was treating me pretty well (and still is), my bitterness related ONLY TO THE FIGHT RESULT and endured no longer than an hour or two.
(Maybe three.)

If someone had pointed out that I was bittern about the result, I would not have taken it as an insult, nor taken it that they felt I was in a bad place in my life.

Not sure what this bit means.

Definitely don't agree with this bit.
I often agree with other posts, especially if they make the point better than I did, or add something that I missed.

Although, I agree that I usually get more animated in disagreement than assent.

Well, I hope the boredom soon abates.
I think in general, boredom is even less preferable than suffering.

You too.