I think Holyfield gets under Ali's skin and exploits his mistakes

He gets under his head as in head positioning that's for dang sure!

 

That's chicken feed. Ali would get way more than that from Holyfield.

Like, it was the overhand right that flushed Tyson down the toilet.

 

"they told me you can headbutt".

 

You shouldn't projection on all the things that you are guilty of like drinking heavily for example. I don't care much what you think. Tell me something, who are you to tell me anything? I am not your friend. Are you upset because I told off your best friend or something? Mind your own business and butt out, you don't like it, report me if it's that important. Personally, I do not like you telling me anything, maybe it's you who has the problem. And don't pretend to like me you lousy creep. No more taking it from people like you, so butt out, we went through this before. And don't try any guilt trips on me. I don't need you to lecture me. That guy was a freaking returning troll and you don't like that I was right. You are nobody's owner here, you are so entitled and full of it. Be man enough to admit you were wrong or else just stay clear of me.

 

This makes no sense on several levels my f(r)iend.
Pardon the parentheses, I cannot resist at least my own puckish puns-but it is just a gentle jest.
You have not been unbalanced until recently.

1) Your grammar is mixed up right out of the gate, but why would you assume I drink heavily?
I mean anyone might-but first off, I wondered IF that was the case, since you went berseker.
Someone pointed out you admitted the person was harmless, & were extreme & cruel in attacking him even when he shut up.

2) I was drunk once in my life, as a teenager, & forever have averaged a full drink at a sitting-something under once a year. I never cared for alcohol much, & besides tastes sometimes, am nearly a teetotaler.

3) I do not recall a conflict with you in the past, but if so maybe you flipped before, I dunno that I over-credited you with being very nice & polite, but that is all I remember.

4) There is neither fact nor anythig but personal abuse from anonymous distance in comments like "lousy creep".

5) It is not at all "entitled" nor full of anything OR being an owner to call *anyone* on being repeatedly vicious.

6) Someone actually wrote me that you are embarrassing yourself here, & said it was "behavior I would expect from an infant".
I am sure he would not mind me anonymously revealing what many must think.

7) There is no tangible case made that you are right.
IF the other person was at fault, I'd be a hypocrite to say do not call him on it.
But do not bring down the forum with personal attacks & malicious, childish denigration.

8) "Guilt trips"? One

This content is protected

feel guilty for being abusive.
Appealing to your conscience, if I am correct, is a mature, ethical way to handle things.

9) Why burn your bridges?
Either in creating conflict or issuing ultimatums with me, or the seemingly absurd threat-again-to never return here.
There was a humorous & good-natured response to that here...

10) Which showed restraint & tolerance, even those who think you done went temporarily...Oh, what is the technical term for the reaction-formation...
Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs did not act in (un)kind to you.
Or wish you gone!


Now play nice, unless you want another ten (10) point deconstruction of these factual & temperamental issues!
Or if worse than I thought, a whole subscription.

 

It is sad that you have no tangible rebuttal to any of of my logical points about your cruelty & infantile reactions.

1) See I am describing what you said & did-not describing you in man ways OR summing you up as only what you seem to have regressed to.

2) So I did not diagnose you as a whole person; but what you have done/become recently is unhealthy: please ask others here, confidentially if you like...
Thus it does not make sense-& you have no actual reasoning behind it-to say I need a shrink.
I hope you do not; maybe you are just going through some personal problems & taking it out upon others.

3) I did not whine.
I was calm as a lake, rational...
And YOU are alluding to sexist insults, after dropping a virtual F bomb.

4) One thing you are not-& doing so from secure anonymity screams this-is a tough guy.
So why use the language of an abusive adolescent who has insecurities so must use stereotypical insults to feel...what, good about yourself?

5) Just admit you went Cuckjoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Then laugh it off.

6) Oh that is not childISH.
You are also old enough to understand it is a jesting reference to a crazy cartoon bird who loves a chocolate cereal.
That was a gentle, childLIKE way to inject humor & trigger only...A sheepish admission of becoming beneath your usual standards of Maturity + Decorum.

Consider it beneficent that i only gave you six (6) relentlessly sensible, restrained logical correctives!

 

While not making light of Rich's behaviour you really need to take a good hard look at what your interventions do. He's told you in no uncertain terms to get lost and you've typed two posts of hundreds of words right back at him. It's blatantly obvious he's not going respond well but you just keep going and he keeps getting angrier.

I told you weeks ago you are just throwing fuel on the fire. You're strike rate for success would be lucky to be 1 in 20 i reckon. The other 19 times people arc up further and it just flows on, like now, and the post before, and the post before.

People don't like being spoken down to even if disguised via "polite intentions". Probably more so really.

You're just fresh off a ban and one not very long prior to it. You've just divulged PM contents which is an immediately bannable offense as someone got banned for it recently. Chastising via supposed PM conversation will only infuriate more and make him paranoid.

I'd rather someone give me a gobful and be prepared to receive one than the likes of the above. It'd probably be over quicker

It's just not a macrame or garden forum.

 

If I told you to get lost & got abusive I would *also* be wrong.
You would not be wrong to call me or anyone out if abusive.
Sometimes when the first approach fails, humor & consideration + sincere praise for past civility...
It is still useful to condemn abuse; not remain silent just because more pathology is headed your way.

I revealed nothing if I do not divulge the source & it is only reacting to what was said, not unknown details about someone. So while I did not know what you describe is "bannable", I do not see an ethical problem with it-assuming the critique was fair.
It is not fair to say "supposed"-do you have any reason to think I did, or would lie about this sort of thing?
Also is it not in the same biased vein to say I "disguised" my legitimate critique as polite intentions.
I WAS decent about it & have been relentlessly honest.
How can you presume to critique me yet assume multiple lies or bad intentions NOT in evidence?

Was there not an incident of hypocrisy where I was called out for supposedly being indiscrete at saying something publicly...Yet there was no counter to my argument of then why is it not a contradiction & irratant not to tell ME by private message?

I also see no reason to believe I have a 5% success rate, far from it.
You notice the times when someone continues vicious personal attacks.
Not when the chiding is accepted-as it has been several times recently, AND I praised that manful admission-look back at my posts if you again must prejudicially assume something like dishonesty.

Yet more common than that is when an offender stays quiet/does not continue the verbal assault upon me or someone else.
That counts as a deterrence that is useful for the forum.
Which has gotten dramatically better over the years.
In at least some part due to self-policing by some.

Now if'n you want to continue talking publicly, I will not violate my precept/principles of civility.
But do not blame me for responding to disagree or correct factual errors or unjust negative conclusions about even my motivations or intentions.

 

A couple things I did not think to mention until now.
I gave several reasons why it was not sensible or fair to assume negative or false intentions by me.
A structural irony & analogy: you mentioned a couple bans, recently & I believe the other one I "earned" by justification of "stop posting off-topic political crap". Which I assume my antagonists also saw when they (I assume) were also banned.

But when you mention bans in the context of standing up against vicious name calling, do you see how I could have-but did not-also unfairly assumed you were being disingenuous for not providing the stated-or following the conversation that would normally be assumed as the reason, since I was not being abusive-for said bans?

However I severely doubt you would or secretly did disagree with my arguments, which involved responding to off-topic posts supporting or denying actual fascist, nation & ethnicity destroying actions & wars.
So it is a reasonable judgement call: the good of publicly OPPOSING said Monstrous justifications outweighed the personal hit of being punished-which is fine, since we did go on at length off-topic...Certainly if it stopped the gratuitous propaganda for Monsters-which unfortunately are resurgent globally.

Lastly another indication that my success rate is waaaaaaay north of the rate you postulate (which is the best ever reputable stat for keeping off weight lost)...
Besides the recent public admissions & apologies, admittedly UNCOMMON & dang impressive...
Besides those that never tangle/fight about it & thus abuse stops & future bad actions from the party are dramatically less likely...

Let's sing the Praises of someone who has taken a bunch of hits, justifiably, for extreme Foreman bashing!
No Neck has actually been really good at not being malicious to his many critics, although the hate for the man continues.
AND he has never complained about what I have made explicit is just teasing, re: my parodies of his voice such as say picking Jerry Lewis-Stephen Hawking like competition against Big George.
But No Neck HAS been good at not getting crazy or nasty at his critics-or teasing.

Edit: so add up the couple of good reactions/public apologies fairly recently, & the more frequent good or neutral reactions of No Neck...
That makes anything remotely similar to a mere 5% or 10% or 20%...Success rate untenable.

So while vocal & spiteful resistance to being called out non-abusively is very visible + a predictable Ego-Defense for many...
It both may still be the best thing to make them or at least others less likely to act in (un)kind...
And much less notable or credited are the times a Tune Up works or does not cause animosity.
Like you have done with me; I'm not gonna Freak Out on you.
Or assume you are acting with ill-intent or lying; although unconscious bias & mistakes are reasonable & responsible to point out!

 

I'd respect it a whole lot more and it would come to a rapid conclusion vs a long drawn out boring saga the vast majority of the forum cringes at.

There was a ban for it recently. It's a technicality i believe. Did said "supposed" posters give you permission to divulge content or did you just think they'd be ok with it? I've had any amount of PM's from multiple people about a certain poster over many months but i'd likely be banned if i revealed a name or further content. I'd also not betray possible confidences. I will say it wasn't about Richard.

It's completely fair to say supposed. I never said you lied and i never said you didn't. I don't know you from a bar of soap really. I'm speaking for people as a whole. I'll guarantee you there will be posters in here that simply don't believe you or think you may have exaggerated. I haven't seen the PM's and nor has anyone else. I wouldn't want to - they are private.

I say disguised because i think this stuff is what floats your boat. I think it's more self serving than anything else and you like to get on the soap box. Multiple times you have threatened people to apologise or you will report them. That's manipulative, patronising and demanding behavior. There's actually a term for it. It starts with N.

Explained above. Also didn't you include "potential" assumptions about Rich drinking? Was that in evidence?

I didn't call you out i simply stated facts. I have no wish to PM....it might become public anyway....

You are 0 from 3 just in this thread.

The forum ebbs and flows. Your "self policing" IMO has been more negative than positive.

Every ban you've had you've blamed the other party.....every single one. "Antagonists, "interlocutors" etc.

You can call me disingenuous if you feel that way, all good. I've explained things to a tee above.

I didn't read them. At any rate you broke forum rules and were banned. It's just a forum.

He's a disingenuous troll and delights in irritating people so no i won't be singing his praises and you likely won't find anyone else singing unless they hate Foreman.

It's predictable because they don't like being talked down to and manipulated. There's plenty of clashes on here and we all sort ourselves out way way or another without too much interference. The mods and report button are where it's at for people that feel the need.

I'm not going to go back and forth for huge post after huge post as nothing irritates and bores the forum more particularly given it's not boxing related.

 

No, Hoylfield wouldn't have gotten under Ali's skin. Not with trash talk, nor with dirty tactics. If Hoylfield decided to use headbutts, clinches, and elbows, Ali would respond with slaps, guillotine chokes, rabbit punches, and eye thumbing. That's a war Holyfield would not be prepared for and his head would be ringing with major swelling and bleeding. The ref might just whistle while twittling his thumbs.

Ali might be able to annoy Holyfield with some pre fight trash talk. I could see him saying:

They call him the real deal
But his fate is sealed.
If he makes it past nine,
He'll run out of time,
As I dodge and counter while turning on a dime.
If Evander makes it rough,
I'll call his bluff.
He'll use his head like a ram
But I'll give his noggin a slam
With a combination that will put him in a jam.


Hoylfield wouldn't loose his cool, but he might become incredulous with the accusations of dirty fighting.

 

Good Post.

 

Underrated comment I feel.

It seems obvious that Ali might bestow the name The Nanny (goat) upon Holyfield.

I wonder if Evander (as Chuvalo did, dressing as a Washer Woman) would play along and wear horns to the presser?

Ali would bellow “I am THE GOAT…you are just A GOAT!”

Ali might even present Holyfield with a bell collar - to alert Muhammad to any potential, incoming head butts.

 

Float Like A Butterfly, Sting Like A Goat? Ha Ha.