Oh, you're taking the high road eh?
Of course you are.
Isn’t that convenient?
Not going to "bury" me now, eh?
Ha ha ha ha.
Just when all your claims are exposed and you have run out of excuses not to explain; now you're taking the high road.
I would have thought that your (running) version of what the "high road" is would have had more value at the start of this matter.
A matter that you commenced without regard to all the warnings I provided you; to realze that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Dr. Consistency I don't know whether you have noticed or not, but the entire basis of your (IBF/other) many, varied, and unsubstantiated claims (both previous to your admissions of defeat back flip and post your admissions of defeat back flip) change almost as frequently as I show they are in need of repair.
That's a real coincidence, eh?
It works like this . . . .
I expose your claims and show how you're lying, and, in turn, you then coincidentally offer up another excuse for not explaining.
So the debate effectively becomes an athletic carnival as you cant stand still and be counted.
Remember . . .
Initially (but not before we busted you for lying about the IBF rules and where you sourced them from) your excuse for not explaining yourself as promised, was . . .
Originally Posted by Dr. Consistency; post #76
That was back then.
Back when your last lame excuse for not explaining was, laughably, because I would not engage you.
But then we created this thread especially for you.
And, clearly from your above post #76 you didn’t expect that lame excuse (to not explain) that it contained to be so easily dealt with, by this thread.
As, to date all you provided, is . . .
No real explanations.
No real proof.
Nothing to back yourself up.
Just more lies, excuses, and running.
So, now you need another excuse to not explain, eh?
And, this is where your supposed "high road" excuse comes in; doesn't it PhDNumpty?
If you had perhaps meaningfully explained and proven yourself, then yes, perhaps then failing to provide closure to the matter and pretending/assuming to "take the high road" may then have some merit and value.
But you have not done that; as, to date, all you have done is run and lie.
In fact, you may remember that even when you were finally forced to deliver the IBF rules from a non-fake IBF website, even then, your immediate response was to try and run off.
Very un-PhD like, that trait.
But (even) at that point, all we had really achieved from you was proof that you lied about your previous source of the IBF rules and also your (failed) knowledge of them.
So, that then meant that when you were finally forced to deliver the IBF rules from a non-fake IBF website, that was actually the point where you should have started to explain yourself.
But - instead - and in true "Dr. Consistency" form - you simply saw that juncture in the debate (you hopelessly started) as (yet) an(other) opportunity to "run" . . . . .
Or, to use your new term for running "take the high road" and high tail your (kicked) azz out of there.
"Dr. Consistency", you, your false claims, and your inability to explain yourself, really bring the standard of this website down.
So much bravado and so many unfulfilled claims.
If only you explained half as good as you run and lie
Add to it (out of a thread with more than 80 posts in it that contains tens of questionable posts/claims from you) to date you are yet to offer 1 single post . . .
Not even 1 . . .
That delivers a complete explanation for all your goal post changes, back flips and outstanding questions/issues.
No surprise it is then that (inherent within your IBF claim oversights) you associated compliance failure of the IBF rules, with compliance; then is it?
As you clearly associate failure to explain yourself - with winning.
And you clearly clearly associate lying, running, and abject failure to explain yourself - with "the high road".
A little lesson for you "Dr. Consistency".
By releasing so many lies and questionable claims, and then simply running - just as all your excuses run out of fuel; you're not taking the high road “Dr. Consistency”.
We’re not that foolish.
Sure, you can pull yourself off and pretend that you're “taking the high road”.
We all know you can both, do that and pretend, real well.
But please, don’t mistake the readers here for fools that believe all your unfulfilled claims and lies.
As, you're not taking the high road “Dr. Consistency”.
What you're doing is lying.
For your information . . . . .
And I appreciate it may come as a shock to you.
However, the real high road (not the pretend one) is - just as it is in boxing and the real world - to stand up and be counted, substantiate yourself, explain your arguments, and prove your points.
“Dr. Consistency”, the real high road is not running from your own lies, and then further lying to yourself that the actual act of running/lying is actually "the high road" if the falsehood sounds plausible to you.
That's just lying, pretending, and running.
From all this and all your failures . . .
It's clear to me that (even without all your radical assumptions, forever changing claims, and endless ability to introduce far more flawed assertions and silly questions into the debate; and then run from anything that remotely resembles a situation where you have to properly explain them and/or yourself) the matter that your mouth got yourself into is simply far too complex for you.
You simply don't understand it in the ways you pretended to.
It's a classic case of mouth writes cheque that fat azz can't cash, and then laughably runs to the hills and (and with an endless contempt for the forum's collective intelligence stupidly) calls it taking the "high road".
This is why, you would prefer to continue lying and pretending that you're not exposed, rather than accept the reality of the situation and be forced to explain yourself.
You don't understand the IBF rules that you claimed to know.
You simply don't understand contracts and the law.
And, you simply don't understand your own limitations; which raises questions about that PhD.
Instead, your preferred approach is (rather than properly research, fact check, and be truthful) to blunder in and make wide sweeping guesses and assumptions about the IBF rules, contracts, and the law; that supposedly/somehow favor your claims - even though you can't explain how.
Very un-PhD like, that trait.
You not only see no reason to bring all your outstanding points/claims up to speed and substantiated - but you actually misinterpret that all encompassing and major inability for victory; which, also, is very, very un-PhD like.
Additionally, your grasp of how the various sanctions work is also (to say the least) very limited and disappointing.
From, just from how much you quite literally bungled Lemieux and Jacob’s championships and how they (according to you and all your many back-flips) supposedly applied to the matter - but, despite it all, still stupidly saw fit to attempt to mount/progress your forever changing arguments on those gross sanction/championship related oversights (without even hinting at correcting them even when it was all pointed out to you); it’s obvious that you are;
A) Unclear who is champion and when, and whom is not.
B) Unclear how the IBF rules work.
C) Easily confused about your own knowledge; particularly when it comes to doing a knowledge stock check and/or refraining from entering debates and arguments.
D) Prone to escalating debates and arguments (that, despite being completely unable to explain yourself in, you are unable to refrain from entering) to such an extent that - once the stakes are raised by the combination of your boundless stupidity, false claims, and embarrassing inability to understand the limits of your own knowledge - all you can then do is offer up more (burial) threats, lies, and excuses.
And - of course - run and (by assuming we're all as easily fooled as you) call it "taking the high ground".
E) A Numpty.
There is absolutely no doubt you're a Numpty.
Therefore (as proven by all the above posts in this thread - all your questionable claims - all your lies - all the answers you are running from - all your mistakes - and your latest pathetic “high road” excuse that supposedly serves as your latest excuse to not explain yourself) it is impossible for you to do anything other than pretend and guess at what rules apply; as you continue to lie to us about why you can't and never have explained yourself.
It's a very sad level of performance for a supposed PhD.
Furthermore, the conflicts between your own claims and counterclaims (as we can see from your last post and to’s laughable “high road” excuse to not explain yourself) grow by the post and/or hour; and they never ever get reconciled.
And on top of it all, your lack of standards somehow still allow you to offer us more lies that supposedly (yet again) relieve you of your obligation to explain; the "high (running) road".
Never mind the amount of times you have already been busted lying; will you?
That wouldn't be the real reason for your new "high (running) road" excuse to not explain; would it?
In fact I would go as far as to say that - on this subject - someone that is an undergraduate and/or immature would have a better chance of explaining themselves; than you.
Furthermore, the confidence you have shown with respect to releasing all of your initial and over inflated claims exhibits such a huge disparity between it and how you approach substantiation and explanation, that it means there is no doubt that, out of a banana I could most likely carve a firmer backbone than that you have displayed proving your point and explaining yourself.
As, after more than 90 posts I simply cant find a post of yours where you actually sit down, decide to follow through, and clear/concisely explain yourself; let alone substantiate.
And, as we see from your last post - it is more of the same.
Yet another excuse to run.
Then we have the incredible fact that when, on the odd occasion when it seems that you have exhausted all of your own (seemingly limitless) ability to evade and pretend, and it appears that you have then finally run out of excuses not to explain; even then (rather than explain how the argument you started is based on fact) you will - even then - resort to *blaming your opponent (Dr. Consistency’s above pasted post #76) for *your own inability to explain.
It's a very sad level of performance for a supposed PhD.
And, even after that *ruse is served up and exposed, and in true "Dr Consistency" form, you simply go straight ahead, blunder in, and simply prove that with your blame of others for your own inability to explain you were - even then - lying.
As this is proven, via the delivery of a series of incomplete responses (including your last above/post) within this/the very thread that you yourself claimed ("Dr. Consistency’s" above pasted post #76) the absence of supposedly restricted your ability to explain yourself.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we set out to deceive.
"Dr Consistency" has released so many lies and excuse he just can't keep up with them all.
"Dr Consistency" long forgot that the truth is the easiest thing to remember.
Your hypocrisy is as astonishing as the PhD that supposedly drives it.
And, even though the debate in question is one that you yourself aggressively swept aside warnings and offers to slow down, to engage in, to rush to, and to start; nothing is clearer than the fact that you're preferred activity in the debate is releasing questionable claims and running/pretending.
Finally, from all the above it's clear to me that you simply don't understand the complexity of the arguments you started and have found yourself in; yet your stupidity and lack of understanding is offered up as, not just an excuse for losing - but also justification for thinking you have won.
Which is the definition of a Numpty.
And on top of all that, you expect us all to believe that now, just;
A) When we create a thread for you to remove your last excuse not to explain.
B) When it's clear that you don't how the IBF rules work.
C) When it's obvious that you're confused about your own knowledge; particularly when it comes to refraining from entering debates and arguments.
D) When it's obvious that you're hopelessly prone to escalating the debates and arguments (that, despite being completely unable to explain yourself in, you are unable to refrain from entering) to such an extent that, once the stakes are raised by the combination of your boundless stupidity, false claims, and embarrassing inability to understand the limits of your own knowledge, all you can do then is offer up more (burial) threats, lies, and excuses.
E) When the full extent of all your wild/idiotic claims are laid bare and await your explanation
F) When you run out of excuses not to explain.
You're now supposedly taking "the high road".
Which is a road that supposedly provides you with a "special" ability, to . . . . .
Wait for it folks . . . .
As . . . .
This "high road" is a real genius and never before used move by "Dr Consistency".
As, surprise, surprise, "the high road" conveniently provides "Dr Consistency" with the "special" ability, to . . . . ..
Not explain himself.
Wow, isn't that a real change of tact for "Dr Consistency"?
Oh, "Dr Consistency" you're a genius.
Ah . . . "Dr Consistency" you've done it again.
You have managed to lie to yourself and convince yourself lies are the truth.
No wonder non-compliance and failure of the IBF rules were seen as compliance and success for you and your ever changing but (never proven, and) failed arguments.
See the similarity?
Failure is actually considered to be compliance and success for "Dr Consistency".
Who would have thought that?
In fact, it appears that the only thing that is actually consistent with "Dr Consistency" is that he fails, doesn't know, and can't explain.
Ha ha ha.
And, that's a real special Donkey trait "Dr Consistency" has right there.
If this were a truly professional debate (where both participants explained themselves, rather than "Dr Consistency" always lying/running) "Dr Consistency" would have lost long ago.
He would have lost at that point where it became clear "Dr Consistency" could not explain himself and/or progress any of his arguments without changing the unproven basis that underpinned them.
And that is why all "Dr Consistency's" last post has done is further confirm the above and that it was game over a long time ago.
Whom would have ever thought that this would end with "Dr Consistency" failing to explain himself, running, and offering more excuses for his failures and inability to explain?
That's a real Donkey surprise right there folks.
OK . . .
"Dr of Consistency & BackFlip", you run off now and continue to fool, play with, and not explain, yourself.
The fact of the matter is that at this point your participation is actually not required for the loser of the debate to be established.
You lost long ago (if not when you first overlooked your own limitations on the matter you chose to pretend you were knowledgeable about, then) when you started lying, became exposed for it, failed to explain yourself, and then immediately opted to commit all your remaining resources to further pretending and running.