*** The Mafaufau Sita aka David "Tuaman" Tua champ-by-40 Express!!! ***

If Arreola beats Vitali, i will give Tua a great chance to beat Arreola by knockout.

 

Couldn't get it to work. Sorry.

 

In short you are a fool but keep using emoticons like it means anything BTW this is the Tua express not the impotent ***** who feels like a **** express sure you know what your talking about ...exept you dont and what is your point to begin with oh yeah you dont have one WTF is your point your an idiot your point is either you feel a shell of Tua wouldn't destroy 70% of the heavyweight out there or your simply a flat out ****ing idiot the more likely case do you have anything to say that is meaningful or do you just feel like if your a big enough sandy vagina the boxing gods you believe in will listen to you?

 

Can we just get back to discussing the Tua prospects now??

 

1. You don't know what you're talking about.
2. You didn't even seriously read the conversation.
3. I have nothing against Tua, but I do have something against delusional fans like yourself.
4. You need to learn how to use punctuation.

 

OK, OK - enough already.

 

I wish I could get that 30 min clip working - but sadly not

Is there a chance it might appear on Youtube?

 

That's a great video

Thanks for the links - awesome - appreciate it

 

I'm really worried now.

The use of paragraphs would have made this easier to read. When you say that a 70% Tua can beat everyone except the Klitschkos, that is a definite statement. He definitely CAN do so if he's at 70%. I was disagreeing with you because I don't think at even 70% he could beat everyone but the Klitschkos. After you said this, you backed off from your claim, and you added maybes next to the names of certain fighters. That goes against what you said before. That means you think there are fighters who could beat Tua at 70% of his best. That means you really do have doubts (even though you say you don't) about Tua beating everyone but the Klitschkos. You're not sure about the claim you made that Tua can beat everyone except the Klitschkos. Maybe a 70% Tua can't do it.

You're basically saying that he can do it unless he can't do it. That's why I wrote that I could beat a grizzly bear unless I couldn't do it. It's a completely meaningless argument.

That supports what I was saying.

Read through your posts again, you'll see that I'm right.

 

Are you getting angry ? Don't bother posting what I actually wrote, then you would have to use your brain to prove me wrong.

Some positive degree of maybe ? So you did have doubts about your definite statement that he could beat them at 70%, just like I said in my last post, right ?

This content is protected

That would be true except after that you contradicted what you had said.

I'm starting to see that you didn't even bother to read my last post. Look at it again, and maybe then you'll understand.

 

atsch Good way to avoid every other argument I've made about the things you've said. I was disagreeing with you saying that at 70% he can beat everyone but the Klitschkos. I don't think at 70% he can beat everyone but the Klitschkos. You have your doubts about that too (which you tried to deny) because you put maybes next to fighters' names after. So you doubt that he CAN do this. When I say "I can beat a grizzly bear in a fight," it's a definite statement. I am able to do this. When you say David Tua at 70% CAN beat everyone except the Klitschkos, that's a definite statement. He has the ability to do that. After that you contradicted yourself by adding those maybes. That means you contradicted your statement that David Tua could beat everyone but the Klitschkos at 70%. Maybe he can't do it. If it's not a definite statement you might as well just say he can do it unless he can't do it.

Do you understand this yet ?