Report: Calzaghe in negotiations for his next fight

Ok, let's update the scorecards here and make sure people understand what they've seen.

Here's what you originally -- and absolutely ignorantly and falsely -- said above that triggered my publicly humiliating you (post #32 of this thread, page 3):

Now here's your tortured attempt to twist what you said into something more potentially defensible (post # 74 of this thread, page 5):

You did NOT say that, as the original quote clearly shows. You may have thought it in your own head, but it is not what you wrote in any way whatsoever. You are attempting to wriggle out of your literary flogging at my hands, and that's not going to happen. I'm a champion debater, you're not getting any such sophistry attempts by me.

You mentioned neither the 24/7 nor the PPV. You only said you didn't think HBO would be putting its weight behind a Dawson-Calz fight.

And, as I immediately demonstrated, you don't know what you're talking about on the subject. But don't listen to me, listen to the HBO exec's words as reported in the article:

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/boxing/3832401.EXCLUSIVE__US_TV_giant_backs_Millennium_Stadium_finale_for_Calzaghe/

Now, I know you can read. Do you see the larger-sized words, "fully endorsed?" Not "we might do it," or "could be interesting." Not "endorsed."

FULLY endorsed. Like, all-the-way endorsed. Far more than a mere 'throw it's weight behind' endorsement, which is the standard you were seeking in your first words on the subject.

So, not only are you wrong as could be with what you originally said, the convolutions you subsequently made about just how committed and all-in HBO would be for such a bout ARE ANSWERED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

Seriously, stop now. This is easy for me, it's part of what I do for a living, parsing words, constructing and refuting arguments and literary backpedals and qualifications such as yours. There is no Jedi Mind Tricking with me. I know what you said, and what I said, and I can lay it all out very easily. You seem like a decent guy. Take the "L," learn from your mistakes and stop shoveling the hole under your feet.

 

Now, you said previously about how I react when "challenged." You are not a challenge, you're a nuisance. An annoyance. You are attempting to fool the readers and escape the culpability for your completely moronic and wholly ignorant statement made in post #32 of this thread. Again, not happening. You will be held to account for what you wrote, and all subsequent attempts to qualify what you wrote -- the only record myself and other readers have of what you were thinking at the time -- with face-saving statements will be ignored.

What you wrote in post #32, this:

...is the unfathomably stupid, completely uninformed gibberish which drew my immediate response that drew from the reportage on the words of an HBO exec himself. That article said this (see post #46 of the thread for the citation/link):

Again, your attempts to supposedly 'elaborate' on what you meant after you were utterly humiliated before the entire world via this forum are irrelevant. They are meaningless. We only know what you wrote at that time. Everything which comes after is necessarily affected by your being humiliated at my hands. In other words, you have motive to try to bend and shape your original, unambiguous statement to try to cover the ass of yours I just kicked.

Here is a helpful analogy regarding McGrain's tactics for the readers: A criminal steals $1000 dollars from a bank. Later on, he is caught by the police. When the thief first took the cash, he said to someone he was going to buy a new TV with the loot. Upon being caught and asked his reasoning for the crime, the perpetrator says that his sick mother needed help paying medical bills.

The story changes once you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar. McGrain got caught, got clowned with a huge red nose on his face and floppy red shoes like Ronald McDonald by me, and now he's trying to qualify and 'expound' on what he 'really meant' in his first post on the subject.

Let's look at that again:

As the article I cited after this remark clearly shows, not only is HBO willing to throw its weight behind Dawson-Calz, it is willing to do so fully, even though it wants to make fights in the USA and this fight would likely take part in Wales.

So, HBO's 100% on board, even though the event goes against their general business strategy. That is, they are making an exception for Calz even though the fight won't be in America.

Sound like they're committed to you?

Ha ha ha.

It's been fun. McGrain, I won't charge for this lesson. Work on your game, though. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you start typing, and save yourself the chuckles from keyboard jockeys around the globe dropping in on ESB.

 

Dude, I'll own you. You're not anywhere near my level.

Here's one tip: When you want to lay down your phony "challenges," try not to make yourself look stupid during the issuance.

You: conceded
Actual spelling: conceited

Like anyone is concerned with a dude who can't even lay his cards on the table straight. Shut up. It's like I tell a chick at the bar I'm going to bone her good and then get limp d*ck in bed.

It's cool, you chill with the guys you can hang with, the 22,000 posts guy and the rest. Just be lucky you get to read what I write, and take notes.