I think I have an idea of how Greb operated based on his training film.

Your mistake was to tell lies about me. I can list all your lies because I have made it my business to keep them on file.From the one when you told the forum you asked for my e mail so we could arrange a fight, when actually you requested it concerning a query on Joe Choynski. I 've still got that pm,plus the pms I sent you asking which flight you were arriving in the UK on. these,along with your repeated statements about Burns having juandice and breaking Johnson's ribs and many, many more, Recent ones being your assertion that Jeffries kod Dunkhorst in the UK. Dunkhorst was never in the UK and Jeffries never ko'd him here, or anywhere else in the world.
I once said on this forum that I had seen Langford v Hague,I was mistaken it was in fact Langford v Lang,and I made a public admission of my mistake.
You claim to have seen the Langfrod v Hague fight ,you haven't,it does not exist, and hasn't for many , many years.

You keep repeating your lies and I'll keep exposing them.You've been challenged to produce all my incorrect statements ,and I have promised to provide three of yours for every one of mine you can find.

If you haven't the nuts to take the challenge, keep your lying mouth off of me.

 

Great commentary and thoughts as always Burt!

 

Thread gone over a cliff

 

All you showed this forum was a stupid book by an idiot who despite being a Canadian did not even know who Tommy Burns was.A fool who said Burns defended his title against a Red Indian and a Jew He did neither.
. A fool who said Burns broke Johnson's ribs .He did not . Burns had not jaundice when he fought Johnson, nor did he break or damage his ribs.Johnson was unmarked after the fight and went for a swim before attending victory party. Kevin Johnson never said Burns had jaundice. Thats three of your lies right there.




Many years ago as a present I bought a Blackhawk
.

Ring Classics film for a friend .I watched it then and when the subject came up on this forum I said I had seen Langford v Hague Klompton assured me I could not have done so I said I had and phoned my friend who eventually found the film and informed me it was Langford v Lang.I then came on here and admitted I was mistaken.

All this is easily proven by trawling my posts.

Here is another lie of yours.
You requested my e mail before we had the argument and in connection with Joe Choynski I said I was not comfortable with giving it to you.. If you had wanted to contact me to arrange a meet you could have easily done so by sending me a private message indicating when you would be arriving in the UK. you did not do so despite my sending you 2 private messages and1 public one headed FAO Mendoza ,asking when you would be arriving in the Uk and at which airport you would be landing?.These were sent by me and received by you before you left the US to travel to the UK .

When you were safely back in the States you inadvertedly admitted you had seen them , by justifying your failure to reply with the excuse "who wants trouble at an airport?" You sir are a lying coward . may you rot in hell.

PS for the hundredth time it is HAGUE NOT HAUGE.atsch

 

A thread made by a C*NT telling lies. ,once a lying C*nt, always a lying C*nt.

 

No worries, the forum will believe whom it wants to.
I am content to know I have never lied on this forum.