Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Conor Benn targets 147lbs champions but happy to go through Chris Eubank first

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #61
    Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

    "look hes all happy face now, just like he was when he found out about the jurisdiction loophole"

    There you go.
    yeah if there was a loophole he may well have been happy about it, im not definitely saying he won his case on a loophole where did i say that?

    Comment

      #62
      Originally posted by Smash View Post

      how can i assert something as TRUTH when we have not been given the reasons, its cant be the truth, it has to be an opinion lol
      Right exactly, You can't do that, but yet you did, which was a lie.

      You're starting to catch on it seems.

      Comment

        #63
        Originally posted by Smash View Post

        yeah if there was a loophole he may well have been happy about it, im not definitely saying he won his case on a loophole where did i say that?
        You said he was happy because of the jurisdiction loophole.

        When there is no jurisdiction loophole that we know of.

        That's where you lied.

        Comment

          #64
          Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

          You said he was happy because of the jurisdiction loophole.

          When there is no jurisdiction loophole that we know of.

          That's where you lied.
          there were reports of a loophole at that time

          Comment

            #65
            Originally posted by Smash View Post

            there were reports of a loophole at that time
            No, there wasn't. I've already explained this to you as well.

            There was a newspaper report that baselessly speculated there was one with no source.

            There is no jurisdiction loophole that we know of, that's a fact.

            You saying Benn was happy because of a jurisdiction loophole was an outright lie, basless newspaper report or not. Just accept that you lied about it and move on.

            Comment

              #66
              Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

              Right exactly, You can't do that, but yet you did, which was a lie.

              You're starting to catch on it seems.
              no because what i said could have been true & the reason for that is that we dont have the true reasons for benn getting off, if we dont have the correct factual reasons then possible reasons are not lies, they are speculation, talk, chatter, trash talk whatever u want to call it

              Comment

                #67
                Originally posted by Smash View Post

                no because what i said could have been true & the reason for that is that we dont have the true reasons for benn getting off, if we dont have the correct factual reasons then possible reasons are not lies, they are speculation, talk, chatter, trash talk whatever u want to call it
                Ok now you are regressing again. You were making progress with understanding the words but now you're going backwards.

                You can't make a claim or statement about something and pass it off as truth on the basis it "could be" true. That's intellectually dishonest. That opens the door to say whatever you want on the basis it "could be true" such as "The poster Smash on boxingscene is a rapist" it could be true but it would be dishonest for me to say that because I have no evidence to support that claim.

                Now you can speculate that was the reason but that's not what you did, you lied, and said it was the reason (he was happy).

                Comment

                  #68
                  Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

                  Just accept that you lied about it and move on.
                  u are not a mind reader, u have no idea about the intention of what i was saying, try reading my sentence u quoted in a jokey type of mind set for example, in that case it would be me slagging off benn for being a twat like he is, now if i know 100% for certain that the tests were faulty then that would be a lie for example

                  Comment

                    #69
                    Originally posted by Smash View Post

                    u are not a mind reader, u have no idea about the intention of what i was saying, try reading my sentence u quoted in a jokey type of mind set for example, in that case it would be me slagging off benn for being a twat like he is, now if i know 100% for certain that the tests were faulty then that would be a lie for example
                    The intention is not what's important or in any way relevant. It's the content of what you said that matters.

                    What you did was claim Benn was happy because he found out about a jurisdiction loophole. Which is objectively a lie.

                    Comment

                      #70
                      Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

                      The intention is not what's important or in any way relevant. It's the content of what you said that matters.

                      What you did was claim Benn was happy because he found out about a jurisdiction loophole. Which is objectively a lie.
                      or is it a joke? or is it something else, until i find out what the reasons for ukad appealing and failing and all the stuff that has gone on then anything is on the table and nothing if off the table, thats the bottom line

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP