Can someone explain to me why wilder is allowed to get away with ducking whyte?

[Robbie Barrett]

Now explain to us, ******, what kind of sense would either of those statements make if they were to mean an alternate should be suggested.

Why would the guy say, "you can make money in a factory", when in fact, he means "you can make money elsewhere, too?" Why mention the condition of the factory? It makes no sense, like most of the drivel that comes from your keyboard.

"If you go to the restaurant, you can eat..." But what I really mean, is that there's food in the pantry

So, Eddie Hearn is so full of sheit that we should look for an alternate meaning in anything he says. Is that what I should take away from this?

It's called making a suggestion. You don't have to work in a factory to make money. You don't have to go to the restaurant to eat. Wilder didn't have to fight Whyte to get a Joshua fight. DERP DERP DERP.

[GGG Gloveking]

Let's try one of the other definition instead of "if" in the statement you claim Hearn made.

"Supposing that Wilder (38-0, 37 KOs) were to beat Whyte (21-1, 16 KOs), who was knocked out by Joshua in December 2015, he could face Joshua

Where's the condition? Tard.

Definition 1.2 and 1.3 of "Suppose":

1.2Used to introduce a hypothesis and trace or ask about what follows from it.
‘suppose he had been murdered—what then?’
More example sentences
1.3(of a theory or argument) assume or require that something is the case as a precondition



Care to try to plug in any other definitions or words to alter Hearns meaning?

[Robbie Barrett]

Definition 1.2 and 1.3 of "Suppose":

1.2Used to introduce a hypothesis and trace or ask about what follows from it.
‘suppose he had been murdered—what then?’
More example sentences
1.3(of a theory or argument) assume or require that something is the case as a precondition



Care to try to plug in any other definitions or words to alter Hearns meaning?

So Hearn introduced a hypothesis? Thanks for confirming it. OMFG now you're helping my argument.

[champion4ever]

It's because he's the champ and he fights whomever he so shall damn please! He doesn't owe Dillian Whyte shit for ducking all of his Final eliminator bouts!

[Robbie Barrett]

Definition 1.2 and 1.3 of "Suppose":

1.2Used to introduce a hypothesis and trace or ask about what follows from it.
‘suppose he had been murdered—what then?’
More example sentences
1.3(of a theory or argument) assume or require that something is the case as a precondition



Care to try to plug in any other definitions or words to alter Hearns meaning?

****ing moron just destroyed his own argument and doesn't realise it.

[GGG Gloveking]

It's called making a suggestion. You don't have to work in a factory to make money. You don't have to go to the restaurant to eat. Wilder didn't have to fight Whyte to get a Joshua fight. DERP DERP DERP.

I love the verbal gymnastics here. There's no guarantee that you'll make money not working in the factory, but there is a guarantee that you will if you do.

Just like there's no guarantee that Wilder would get an AJ fight outside of fighting Whyte, but there is a guarantee that he would if he did.

[Robbie Barrett]

I love the verbal gymnastics here. There's no guarantee that you'll make money not working in the factory, but there is a guarantee that you will if you do.

Just like there's no guarantee that Wilder would get an AJ fight outside of fighting Whyte, but there is a guarantee that he would if he did.

But that hasn't been your argument. Your argument has been that Hearn said he had to fight Whyte to get Joshua. Are you flipping stance now?

[GGG Gloveking]

But that hasn't been your argument. Your argument has been that Hearn said he had to fight Whyte to get Joshua. Are you flipping stance now?

"My" argument, which actually was a statement made by another poster, was that Hearn was using Whyte as a road block. I have demonstrated that Hearn did place the condition of fighting Whyte as a precursor to fighting AJ.

"If he beats Whyte, then he fights AJ"

To me, that's very plain language. It doesn't take trying to insert another definition for the word if, and then only reading half of the definition for the newly implanted word, in an attempt to make it sound like something other than what it is.

[Robbie Barrett]

"My" argument, which actually was a statement made by another poster, was that Hearn was using Whyte as a road block. I have demonstrated that Hearn did place the condition of fighting Whyte as a precursor to fighting AJ.

"If he beats Whyte, then he fights AJ"

To me, that's very plain language. It doesn't take trying to insert another definition for the word if, and then only reading half of the definition for the newly implanted word, in an attempt to make it sound like something other than what it is.

Another definition? Some words have multiple meanings and the one i provided makes perfect sense "supposing that". You always change what was said. The quote you kept posting said he "could" fight Joshua. Make up your flip flopping mind.

Hearn didn't say he had to fight Whyte to get a Joshua fight. That's a fact. So stop lying in future.

[GGG Gloveking]

Another definition? Some words have multiple meanings and the one i provided makes perfect sense "supposing that". You always change what was said. The quote you kept posting said he "could" fight Joshua. Make up your flip flopping mind.

Hearn didn't say he had to fight Whyte to get a Joshua fight. That's a fact. So stop lying in future.

You're a lying piece of sheit. Shut the fuçk up with your lies, trying to change the damn meaning of words. One meaning of "if" is the same as a meaning of "suppose", both of which are logical and support the idea of a conditional. Instead, you try to twist the words, to make it a suggestion (and actually seem to say Eddie is suggesting something other than what he plainly ****ing says).

If he beats Whyte then he fights AJ.

It's really ****ing simple English. I'm sorry you're too fuçking ****** to understand it