English Español
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

  1. #11
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast View Post

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110766

    Where does it state that he has to?

    Check


    Checkmate


    That all said, we can always say that we agree to disagree. I'm willing to do that in the name of all that is holy.

    Attachment 528
    Is this it?

    Is this the best you can do?


    It's laughable.


    Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly) KB this answer of yours is evasive, inadequate, incorrect, and also in conflict with both;


    A) Your past (pre-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) posts; which pretty much is earmarked by your posts that preceded your below post #57's admission of defeat.


    B) Your current (post-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) posts; which pretty much is earmarked by your posts that succeeded your below post #57's admission of defeat.



    It shows you don't know what you're talking about.

    And, I will show you why in this post.



    Wow, more than 90 posts on this subject and you're still delivering incomplete, evasive, and incorrect responses; then pretending you're on the high moral ground because you want to stop (which is KB code for "run").

    Look . . . .

    If you really want to stop then just "cut to the chase", stop running, explain yourself, and show how the IBF rules work in the way you say.

    Right now the state of play is that we have only just got you to deliver a half baked version of the IBF rules, and deliver a few questionable responses.

    And you want to run?

    How does this "bury" me?



    Amongst other matters (despite me discussing this in previous posts) you clearly have (again) confused provisions for a violation as condoning it.

    OK, let's look at your latest round of incomplete, evasive, and incorrect responses . . .

    And I am sure once everybody reads this post of mine they will soon understand why you're now taking to pretending you're on the high moral ground because you want to stop (whoops, I mean "run").


    As shown by the conflict between your your below post #57 that admits defeat and that Lemiuex cheated, and your other below posts that (without proof) seem to claim otherwise (but not before you felt the bitter taste of defeat) . . . .

    Please remember Dr Consistency that you are the one (viewing the IBF rules in the alternative) that is asserting/stating that IBF mandated second and/or same day weigh ins, where + 10 pound rules and consequences for not attending actually (by way of even the rules you posted) do apply; supposedly don't apply in ways that somehow validate your below posts and their reversals of defeat-admission..


    So, (aside from the fact that this is but one of your many changing, flawed, and unproven bases for your interesting stance on this matter) you therefore have to conclusively prove;

    A) That (as per you below post #62) the IBF mandated second and/or same day weigh ins; don't apply for non-champions and Lemieux.

    Despite the fact you have already (post-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) stated (below post #62) that the IBF mandated second and/or same day weigh ins do apply for Jacobs on the flawed basis that Danny was a champion.


    B) That (as per you below post #62) the IBF mandated + 10 pound rules that are associated with IBF second and/or same day weigh in; don't apply for non-champions and Lemieux.

    Despite the fact you have already (post-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) stated (below post #62) that the IBF mandated + 10 pound rules that are associated with IBF second and/or same day weigh in do apply for Jacobs on the flawed basis that Danny was a champion.


    Aside from the fact that this shows that you have actually shot yourself in the hoof, proven you (and all your back flips) are desperately wrong, and proven my point; within your desperate and confused rush to assume that the IBF rules supported your back flip and subsequent claims, it seems that you have overlooked the fact that if Jacobs violated the rules (as you claim; post #62) - then so did Lemieux (as you originally claimed in your admission of defeat, but then tried to change).


    You see my Dr. of both Consistency and BackFlip, contrary to your flawed assertions, both boxers (Jacobs and Lemieux) went into their respective IBF bouts (that you have failed to properly understand) as non-champions.

    But you vehemently claim (below post #62) the IBF rules were flouted/violated when Jacobs failed to attend the second day weigh in; don't you?

    You vehemently claim (below post #62) Jacobs did something wrong when he failed to attend the second day weigh in; don't you?


    So, if (as you currently persist with and claim the IBF rules support you with the view that) Jacobs flouted/violated the rules - then so did Lemieux.

    Which destroys (and explains) your (incompletely defined) premise on the Lemieux back flip, as it's premise (below post #62) is your claim that Lemieux was not a world champion.

    Yet, (unsurprisingly) you have offered absolutely nothing by way of the IBF rules that supports this or any other questionable/other distinction that you may claim exists (within an IBF context) between Lemieux and Jacobs, as they headed into their respective fights.


    Furthermore, if you now back flip again (that would be, at least, the 3rd for you) on your (incompletely defined) claim that Jacobs flouted the rules, then that brings into question your assumption, premises, and claims pertaining to how the IBF supposedly supports the claims you make and the lies you tell.

    Either way it shows you are a liar, that you research topics of interest to you like no other PhD, and that you don't know how the IBF rules work.


    And, I am sorry to say Mr. Ring BHOF, but this is just the start of how flawed your IBF/other claims are.


    You see, since you are claiming (in the alternative) that something is true in a manner that is in direct conflict with what the IBF rules actually state and also call a FAILURE . . . .

    This means (in the context of law and contracts) you must do it via means other than omission due to the fact that the IBF rules explicitly provide for both boxers (champions or not) to attend the second day weigh in.

    "There shall be a second weigh-in between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the event, unless otherwise approved by the IBF/USBA. At this weigh-in, boxers cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit".



    Furthermore, they do so, so that compliance with their weight divisional rules can be assessed.

    This may come as a surprise to you; but the IBF do not mandate a second day weigh in and explicitly state that both boxers can't weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit at that weigh in, because boxers are compliant with the regulations if they don't attend that weigh in.


    And, (just in case you didn't know) a boxing sanction's weight divisional rules (and therefore weigh in [and and therefore second day weigh in {and therefore second day weigh in and also the +10 pound rule}) are the cornerstone of most sanction's entire policy, regulation, and contract.






    So, now we see why it took you almost 90 posts to even deliver what little you already have.

    Now we also see why you are so keen to run.



    To borrow a phrase from you that you used when you first lied to us about where you sourced the IBF rules; "let me refresh you . . . ."


    The IBF rules (even those you last posted) clearly stipulate that;

    A) Second and/or same day weigh ins.


    B) The + 10 pound rules.


    Both apply at the same time, and for non/champions.


    This impacts another yet another flawed premise of your flawed back flipping claims (below post #62) that you also questionably suggested/inferred the IBF rules supported you on.


    We will (below) get to the other IBF provisions and flaws within your below posts and other claims that absolutely destroy your stance on this matter; but for now the above alone makes a mockery of your below pasted claims that assert you will somehow supposedly "bury" me - just as neatly as they explain why it is so difficult to get you to meaningfully explain yourself and stop running.


    Moving on . . .

    As mentioned above; if fighters don't attend the second and/or same day weigh ins, it is deemed by the IBF rules as a "FAILURE".


    In those terms alone it is clear that what you said (pre-LastKB back flip on the IBF rules) in your below post #46 . . .

    "If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule."


    Was correct.


    However, that mean't you had to admit defeat and deal with questions; and we know you don't like that.

    Therefore, to circumvent doing that we have sadly witnessed and encountered all your episodic back flipping and evasive substance; which, in turn, gave rise to some of your below pasted posts and (and flawed) claims that (even now after ~90 posts) are still questionable and something that your'e still running from.


    Now since (below post #46) you know contracts . . . .

    You will also know that, if the above is not correct, then how does a fighter and IBF participant "FAIL" and at the same time also comply; so as to make your back flipping claims correct?

    That is akin to considering your original (and abjectly false) claim that you sourced the IBF rules from their website, as being true and successful; when we all know you sourced the information from a non-IBF website and that is why you were so evasive about it.




    Hey KB . . .

    I thought you said you knew contracts?

    I thought you said you were going to "bury" me?

    From the above (and I haven't even looked at all the below questionable posts of yours in detail) it is clear that all you are doing is proving me correct.



    If I am wrong then you will easily be able to show how;

    What the IBF terms as a "FAILURE" for circumstances where either a champion or a challenger does not attend the second day weigh in; actually means that failure with the second day weigh in constitutes compliance.

    Despite the fact you have already explicitly claimed and/or suggested that that the second day weigh in and also the +10 pound rule was mandatory/required for Jacobs, and that he was wrong and non compliant by not complying and failing to attend the second day weigh in.



    And, as we can all see . . .

    You have presented nothing that proves this.




    Within your below post #46 you said . . .

    "I know how contracts work".

    This was your response when I first realized you were lying about the source of your original IBF rules quote, and questioned how you view contracts/law.

    Just from the above alone; I am not sure you do know how contracts work.


    As you clearly don't know enough to even keep up with all the changing claims you make as your progress your eternally misconceived and poorly explained arguments.


    Not in the least as you seem to be confused about whether contractual/agreement clauses are implicit, explicit, implied, in the alternative, and what that all means for how they work and their limits.


    Furthermore, you have made many other wide sweeping claims about your stance and how the IBF rules supposedly support them; but you haven't proven them either.

    In fact, you still have proven nothing
    .


    I appreciate that now (after 80 posts within the other thread and only just when you have got to the point where you have begun to offer us anything that even remotely resembles the IBF rules that {even though you still have not provided a URL link for them} appears genuinely sourced from their website) you would (just as your run out of excuses to delay and we finally get you to discuss your claims) now like to provide the impression that you are on the high moral ground, and stop.

    Wouldn't that be nice?

    As, that would therefore, once again, circumvent your responsibility to explain and buy you more time.


    But the fact of the matter is that you have claimed that, on the basis of these posts . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #62

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110545

    "Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.'

    Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight.

    I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong.

    But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #68

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110624

    From #22"

    "A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required."

    What title would that be Storm? A world title? If so, I concede on the spot. If not, please apologize and break out the white flag.

    It's as simple as that. It really is. I could do this as a syllogism, but why bother? You would only send me a 10-page response.

    So can you end this NOW?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #74

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110662

    If Jacobs did not flout the rules (you said no), how could DL have flouted the rules. [/B]What part of brevity and logic don't you get?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #46

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110438

    I know how contracts work.

    Now then, let's assume that the IBF second-day weigh in involves a non-title fight. DL vs CS.

    If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule. But if the IBF does not penalize him by, for example, making him pay part of his purse to Stevens, then the so-called rule has no teeth in it. And if this is true, and a boxer like DL knows it ahead of time, why should he not take advantage of it and come in on the heavy side?

    Point: What good is a rule if not following it has no consequences?

    You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you.

    Cheers and all the best lad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ


    PS: Hopefully, you have noted that I am able to say in a few short paragraphs what you say in pages and pages.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #57

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110506

    *I concede. You win.

    I lose.


    DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat.

    Worse of all, he is a flouter
    .


    All your claims are true, the IBF supports you, and that you can "bury" me.

    How does this and/or your last evasive post "bury" me?


    Rather than running, offering half baked answers and being evasive, and then pretending you are not responsible for how drawn out and episodic this is . . . .

    You need to step up, explain yourself in the context of all your claims, and show how the IBF rules support all these assertions/posts of yours;


    1) From your post #62; how do the IBF rules and your last post support your stance that Jacobs was wrong - yet not Lemieux; even though your above post #57 conflicts with this view?

    How can Jacobs be wrong for not attending the IBF same day weigh in - when Lemieux (was originally said by you to be wrong for not attending, but then) was said by you to be not doing anything wrong by not attending?

    Please explain how the IBF rules you have quoted distinguish between Lemieux and Jacobs for these matters and still render your claims on this correct?


    2) Within your post #62 . . .

    Why are you (wasting time) asking;

    "Where in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule".


    When (even in your non-referenced IBF rule quote) it clearly states . . . .

    a) "There shall be a second weigh-in between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the event, unless otherwise approved by the IBF/USBA. At this weigh-in, boxer(s) cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit".



    Please note the plural instance of boxers.


    b) Please also note the sub clauses of the same "Timing of Second Day Weigh In" that you have cut/paste also provide for challengers and all contestants; where its states that any contestant is subject to the + 10 pound rule.


    Therefore, in response to your post #62's premise that underpins your entire flawed stance on this matter (and making a complete mockery out of your last post that assumes you have progressed this matter enough to even be in a checkmate position), and also in response to your post #62's claims/question . . .

    "Where in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule".


    Dr. Consistency, why the answer you seek, have not found, and that which deems you wrong, is actually within the very IBF rules that your yourself quote.

    That, is precisely where it states that a non-world champion must do the +10 pound rule.



    Genius.


    Furthermore, just to show how deeply conflicted and confused and flawed your claims on this matter really are, you clearly agree with this because your post #62 claims that you know Jacobs flouted the rules and was wrong.

    Jacobs was not an IBF champion in the Jacobs V Triple fight; as the champion was Triple.


    That destroys the presumption that your above posts #62 and #46 mistakenly have . . .

    KB post #62; "I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong. But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule."


    KB post #46; "I know how contracts work.".


    Just as much as it destroys your claims that you will bury me by substantiating yourself.



    So, as we can see . . . .

    Even without going into all your other questionable posts.

    Even without considering how poorly referenced your IBF rules are.

    Even without considering how it took you 80 posts within the other thread (and argument you started) to get to the point where you hesitatingly refrained from pretending to have the real IBF rules, and instead then remotely delivered us a shadow of the IBF rules . . .


    How could - even by your own accounts - Jacobs be considered to have violated the rules; and not Lemieux then?

    Enough to reverse your already back flipped admission (above post #57) that Lemieux cheated?



    Furthermore, how have you and/or your last (premature victory celebrating) post, proven yourself/anything?


    Particularly when many of the above pasted posts from you form the basis of all your back flipped claims (designed to reverse your above pasted admission of defeat) that also assert the IBF rules support your back flip?


    Not in the least, as (if you would have understood contracts, refrained from pasting the IBF rules from fake IBF websites, and bothered to properly look, you would have seen that) the very IBF rules that you now quote . . . actually both, answer and debunk your very own assertion about being correct.

    KB (above pasted) post #62 and premise of being correct with recent back flip of defeat admission;

    "Where in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule?"


    From the (above linked) IBF rules KB recently quoted;


    "There shall be a second weigh-in between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the event, unless otherwise approved by the IBF/USBA. At this weigh-in, boxer(s) cannot weigh more than ten (10) pounds over the weight limit".




    No wonder your last post wants to end it here; as there are still so many outstanding questions in your lap and none of them seem as if they will substantiate your ever changing views/claims on this matter?

    I wonder what it really takes to get you to explain as well as you evade, run, and both misinterpret the IBF rules and pretend they support your claims?


    Anyway, to keep things real simple for you, I will leave your other posts for now as I know just the above is enough for you.


    So, can you please cut to the chase and in the name of all that is holy explain yourself in the context of the IBF rules, your claims that predict my "burial", and just those few inconsistencies we have highlighted here in this post pertaining your recent and flawed claims that have brought us to this point?



    Cheers,

    Storm.


  2. #12
    Advanced Users
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    14,867

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    The IBF is a syet alphabet soup outfit which politically enforce it rule for a bigger sanctioning fee. Holla!

  3. #13
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Perhaps unsurprisingly . . .

    And after yet another premature victory celebration - itself straight off the heels of yet another questionable post (see KB's inset post pasted within the above post #8) that does absolutely nothing to remove ambiguity and/or add clarity to how KB can substantiate that the IBF rules supposedly support his claims and stance . . . .

    It now appears that (despite all the brave claims otherwise and almost ~90 posts in the thread that gave birth to this matter) KB is now unable and/or unwilling to meaningfully explain/answer all the issues/inconsistencies related to his IBF/other claims that have been highlighted within my above post #11.



    And, we were just at the point where we were all supposedly going to be enlightened about the IBF rules and how KB's immense understanding and grasp of them supposedly "buried" Storm.



    To date (in the context of even trying to prove his assumptions/claims) all KB has delivered us, is;

    A) One fake cut and paste job of the IBF rules that KB falsely claimed (see the above post #2) he sourced from an IBF website.

    From there he then avoided anything even remotely resembling a question about it.


    B) A second cut and paste job of the IBF rules that (despite repeated requests, KB has not referenced with a URL); that from my above post #11 it is abundantly clear that KB (despite numerously referencing how the IBF rules supposedly support his claims) abjectly failed to understand - perhaps almost as much as (contrary to KB's claims) the IBF rules themselves actually do not support him and his claims, at all.

    Naturally (just as with the above point "A") KB has also avoided anything even remotely resembling questions about this and what it means for all his hyperbolic arguments and claims.




    And, as we can see, just from the opening few paragraphs of my above post #11, it is clear that someone has had a far, far, weaker grasp of how;

    A) Sanctions.


    B) The IBF rules.


    C) Championship boxing.


    D) And, the matters in hand that they so confidently spoke of and started arguments with.


    Than, perhaps, they would prefer the forum to think.




    Therefore . . .


    Given;

    A) The sheer amount of flawed, wrong, evasive, forever changing, unproven, and incomplete answers/claims that KB has provided carriage to on this matter - which is one that he quite literally pushed warnings aside to start; only to then go on to progress it in it's utterly "doomed from the start" state - without ever adequately explaining himself.

    All, whilst at the same allowing himself to enter into fake victory celebrations that were replete with remarkable claims that (ultimately became as exposed as most of the claims KB wheeled out, such as) others (not himself) being (supposedly) responsible for the matter's continuity and also KB's own raw/exposed inability to prove his assertions, win, and "bury" opponents.


    B) That (despite a plethora of claims requesting such) KB has clearly found it beyond him to point anyone to where he has adequately explained himself; without issuing yet more flawed, wrong, and incomplete answers/claims.

    Out of a banana I could most likely carve a firmer backbone than has been displayed here by KB with his absent substantiation and consistent failures to follow through on his claims/promises to explain; how the IBF rules supposedly supported both, his original set of claims and also those that constantly changed as frequently as each of his assertions became debunked and exposed.


    C) Just how damaging - to his unproven assertions, flawed assumptions, and forever changing claims (including those pertaining to the IBF, the IBF's rules, Champions, Championships, Jacobs, and Lemieux; that are all touched upon in my above post #11) - that just the brief/limited set of inconsistencies detailed within my above post #11, are.




    I think it is fair to say that if this were a truly professional debate.


    And not just one where only one of the participants;

    a) Explains themselves and brings their claims, answers, and outstanding points, up to speed.

    b) Does all they can to avoid acknowledging the information that prevents them from experiencing public realizations falsehood.

    c) Does all they can to avoid explaining and answering questions about their claims.


    Then . . .


    Even if, in the unlikely event that Dr. Consistency didn't lose long ago at that point where it became crystal clear he simply could not explain himself and/or progress his arguments without changing the unproven basis that underpinned them - whilst constantly complaining about posts that tracked this evasive conduct.

    He surely would have been defined as the loser of the debate at the point of the above post #11.

    Which coincidentally arrived just after KB (again) prematurely claimed victory.



    If not . . .

    Then there is no reason why we should not receive a complete address of all the inconsistencies, oversights, and other issues (associated with KB's past and present claims) that the above post #11 exposes, discusses, and highlights.

    And, I should imagine, that in the very least, such an address should include a believable explanation;

    - Within the context of both, the IBF rules and KB's claims; about how the Jacobs and Lemieux (back flip) dilemmas that KB has created for himself, all fit together.


    - As to how any competitor (not just a champion as KB previously claimed) "FAILS" in terms of the nomenclature and clauses of the IBF rules pertaining to both, attending the 2nd day weigh in and also the associated +10 pound rule; whilst at the same time the same competitor somehow is also compliant with the IBF rules.


    - As to why KB has been supporting his claims with crowing/flawed assertions that suggest/infer that no IBF rule exists stipulating that non champions are subject to the +10 pound rule; when, in fact, even those IBF rules he loosely publishes/quotes (whether or not they are sourced from a fake IBF website) explicitly stipulate that non champions are subject to the +10 pound rule.

    Please see the above post #11 for more information.


    - As to why KB has been (as a means of progressing his flawed claims) claiming he knows how contract work, when (even aside from him being confused about who is an IBF/champion during what {Jacobs/Lemieux} fight) he clearly can't even read/comprehend the IBF rules that he himself loosely publishes/quotes.

    Please see the above post #11 for more information.






    Anyway, it's just round 3 as far as I am concerned; and I haven't even started to look at 30% of the total amount of his flawed claims on this matter.

    So lets give KB a little more time and see both, what answers he can muster up and also just how meaningful they are by way of addressing all the inconsistencies, oversights, and other issues associated with KB's past and present claims that are exposed and laid out bare within my above post #11.





    Cheers,

    Storm.








  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    459

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    I don't know the IBF rules and I don't care.

    These ABC orgs are irrelevant and redundant, a world unto themselves. But I do know one thing about the IBF. Their first official act was their best one. When they officially announced their own existence in 1985, I do believe they were smart enough to put their shiny new heavyweight title belt on the actual reigning heavyweight champion of the world Larry Holmes, rather than on Renaldo Snipes or on the winner of an unnecessary box-off for their new and wholly unnecessary belt. That was smart despite the stupidity of their existing at all. So, all ABC orgs should operate this way if they insist on existing. Get their world titles on the fighters who are the actual world champions. If the WBC for example, wanted to distance itself from their idiotic counterparts and makes some fans of their business dealings in boxing, they could declare that this is their new policy and go from there. Let's see them all compete for who can be the most accurate reflection of who the champs really are.

  5. #15
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Quote Originally Posted by KO Digest View Post
    I don't know the IBF rules and I don't care.

    These ABC orgs are irrelevant and redundant, a world unto themselves. But I do know one thing about the IBF. Their first official act was their best one. When they officially announced their own existence in 1985, I do believe they were smart enough to put their shiny new heavyweight title belt on the actual reigning heavyweight champion of the world Larry Holmes, rather than on Renaldo Snipes or on the winner of an unnecessary box-off for their new and wholly unnecessary belt. That was smart despite the stupidity of their existing at all. So, all ABC orgs should operate this way if they insist on existing. Get their world titles on the fighters who are the actual world champions. If the WBC for example, wanted to distance itself from their idiotic counterparts and makes some fans of their business dealings in boxing, they could declare that this is their new policy and go from there. Let's see them all compete for who can be the most accurate reflection of who the champs really are.
    Nice post KO.


    As you can see from the title of thread, this is a thread about the IBF rules that was created especially for KB to explain himself.

    As he previously claimed that the absence this kind of facility/mechanism were the (new) reasons why he couldn't explain himself and show how the IBF rules supposedly supported his claims and "buried" Storm.


    Your opening sentence (particularly the first 6 words) is that something that you and KB may well share in; given your open/honest admission.

    Honesty (as we can see from my above post #11) is something that is not always in abundance around here.



    That said, the intelligence you have shown to;


    A) Not beat your chest.

    B) Not harass and/or call others out.

    C) Not start senseless arguments (via sweeping to one side multiple warnings to slow down) that you can't even begin to explain; let alone prove.


    On the basis of the IBF rules . . .


    That (as we can see; just from the small set of KB oversights I decided to {take it easy on him, and} select to investigate) are both, not quite as straightforward as some think and also designed/written with a particular style that allows for;


    A) Violations; that don't necessarily impact the IBF and promoters revenue.

    It does so by provision of terms that exist within the IBF rules that specifically deal with violations, that, can themselves be misinterpreted (by those whom don't know contracts and the law) to wrongly mean that, because the violation has been considered, a fighter supposedly is therefore *still compliant with the rules if he violates them and simply reverts to the provisions that deal with the violation.

    Clearly this is a nonsense - just as it is but one of (many of) the mistakes KB has made; which occurred prior to his suspicious and failed back flip of defeat-admission.

    If it were that *simple when people break the law and/or breach contractual obligations, they then would supposedly be innocent too; so long as they followed the course of action prescribed for their violations.

    The 2nd day weigh in is explicitly mandated such that only with ~permission from the IBF can boxers not attend it; and this information was always within the very IBF rules that KB himself (poorly) quoted and also claimed it to be without - in order to keep pretending. Please see the above post #11 for more details on that and how exposed he is on that matter.

    That ~permission is not quite as easy to get as it may seem, and it is rarely associated with 1 boxer failing to attend the 2nd day weigh in whilst the other boxer and his team do not know; which was the very situation that existed for both Jacobs and Lemieux, that KB abjectly failed to understand properly - whilst still stupidly/vehemently claiming "he knew contracts" and that his supposed knowledge of the matter would "bury" Storm.

    In all other cases this violating conduct (when fighters do not attend the mandated 2nd day weigh in and/or weigh more than 10 pound when/if they do) is considered to be "FAILURE" under the terms that provide for it. These terms alone mean that (in the absence of approval from the IBF) the 2nd day weigh in is as compulsory as the +10 pound rule that is associated with it, and any boxer not attending the 2nd day weigh in violates the IBF rules; and both he and the incident that he creates with this FAILURE" to adhere to the rules and subsequent violation must then be treated in accordance with the appropriate IBF clauses/terms titled "FAILURE".



    B) Some, shall we say, sneaky "discretion" when, if, and how, the IBF decide to exercise it.

    Only a company/organisation that was estranged with the concept of profit would do otherwise.



    C) Only a view of the rules "in the alternative" to the specific and legal design of it, to be considered/mounted that (foolishly) suggests that non/champions FAILING to attend the second day weigh in, are somehow supposedly not violating the rules.

    And this is why we have seen KB's constantly changing arguments and the many brief and inconsistent/incomplete posts that carry them, offer absolutely nothing by way of meaningful discussion to explain his assertions, assumptions, claims, and points of view on the matter.

    Let alone prove them.


    Is certainly something you and KB do not share.




    In closing . . .

    I can't be sure, but I think I do remember (or perhaps read) something about the IBF awarding a belt to Holmes, rather than Snipes; when they first started and/or early in their history.

    As you suggest, most of the sanctions operate in ways that are eyebrow raising.

    I agree with that.


    I think also that, perhaps 10% - possibly 15%, of the flack they get may not be fair.

    As their rules and the circumstances within which they apply can sometimes be easy to misinterpret and misunderstand.

    Especially for the casual boxing fan that radiates the impression that they know more than they do.


    Anyway, none of that applies to you and I usually like your posts; so good stuff.



    Cheers,

    Storm.


  6. #16
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick . . . .

    Still waiting for KB to explain himself.


    Still waiting for KB to deliver his first complete meaningful/referenced post that substantiates how the IBF rules really work in ways that;

    A) Support all his previous bravado and claims; as per the below posts of his.


    B) Explain (just) the (condensed set of) issues we have identified with his claims and detailed within the above post #11.




    Given all the claims you previously made and how confident you were; I can't understand what the reason for delay is.


    Hey KB . . .

    Remember your below post #76?

    Well, we made this thread especially just for you; so you can explain (and "bury" me) and by doing so substantiate that you are more than just talk and empty claims/promises.


    Now your "presumed" *blocked ability (to explain and prove) is no longer blocked.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #76

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110683

    By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully *blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end.

    Adios amigo. I am done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #14

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110307

    "Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue.

    "Take away Lemieux’s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #57

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110506

    *I concede. You win.

    I lose.


    DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat.

    Worse of all, he is a flouter
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #21

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110327

    Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain from going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below) if necessary.

    Your call

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #34

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110388


    How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.

    Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.

    Taken from the IBF website.

    Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.

    Your move, matey

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #46

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110438

    I know how contracts work.

    Now then, let's assume that the IBF second-day weigh in involves a non-title fight. DL vs CS.

    If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule. But if the IBF does not penalize him by, for example, making him pay part of his purse to Stevens, then the so-called rule has no teeth in it. And if this is true, and a boxer like DL knows it ahead of time, why should he not take advantage of it and come in on the heavy side?

    Point: What good is a rue if not following it has no consequences?

    You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you.

    Cheers and all the best lad

    PS: Hopefully, you have noted that I am able to say in a few short paragraphs what you say in pages and pages.


    So . . . . .

    Here I am.

    Waiting for you to explain.

    Waiting to be "buried".



    Now, we all know that - to date - you have quite literally run from anything that even remotely resembles a pointed question about your claims.

    So, to make things a little easier for you . . . .

    Within the above post #13



    Where it is captured in red text that starts off . . . .

    "Then there is no reason why we should not receive a complete address of all the inconsistencies, oversights, and other issues (associated with KB's past and present claims) that the above post #11 exposes, discusses, and highlights".


    I have summarized and laid out a starting point for all your absent explanations and proof.

    In effect, it is your starting point to begin;

    A) Showing us all how all your (episodically conflicting/evasive) short posts on the IBF rules and all the related claims you made, hold together and were not just blown out of your azz and/or Palookaville.


    B) Showing us all how - as per all your posts that suggest such - you will bury Storm.


    As you can see, by creating this thread and summarising just a few (of many) inconsistencies/issues that exist with all your brash claims (that you appear to be quickly distancing yourself from now) I am helping you to prove and substantiate yourself.



    And perhaps unsurprisingly, as we can see, the difficulty involved in seeking to discuss/establish the facts (even those facts that their claimed Dr. Consistency owners suggest both, they possesses and will publish {if only the latest imaginary obstacle to doing so is removed}) simply cant be overestimated when it comes to those whom release hyperbolic claims far, far, easier than they explain them.



    Let's give you a few more days.





    Cheers,

    StormCentre







    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110782

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110804

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110812

  7. #17
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick . . . .

    Still waiting for KB to explain himself.


    Still waiting for KB to deliver his first complete meaningful/referenced post that substantiates how the IBF rules really work in ways that;

    A) Support all his previous bravado and claims; as per the below posts of his.


    B) Explain (just) the (condensed set of) issues we have identified with his claims and detailed within the above post #11.




    Given all the claims you previously made and how confident you were; I can't understand what the reason for delay is.


    Hey KB . . .

    Remember your below post #76?

    Well, we made this thread especially just for you; so you can explain (and "bury" me) and by doing so substantiate that you are more than just talk and empty claims/promises.


    Now your "presumed" *blocked ability (to explain and prove) is no longer blocked.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #76

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110683

    By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully *blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end.

    Adios amigo. I am done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #14

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110307

    "Stevens seems to have slipped more than Lemieux." Oh, DL has slipped? Huh? 37-3 with 33 KOs. Some slippage. The playing field WAS level. If Steven did not want to take advantage iof that, that's his issue.

    "Take away Lemieux’s power and strength and what have you got" Arghh. That's like saying take away Mike Tyson's hand speed and power, and what have you got. DL uses his strenths to his advantage and has never been called a "cheat" in his career which I have closely followed. Shame on you Storm..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #57

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110506

    *I concede. You win.

    I lose.


    DL is a cheating, no account, slime ball, scumbag, rumpswab, deceptive rat.

    Worse of all, he is a flouter
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #21

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110327

    Why do you insist on being wrong on this one? As long as a fighter (warrior in this case) DL complies with the rules and is not fined, then it is what it is. If DL rehydrates to 210 pounds, that's just fine given the way the weigh-in is set up. Same-day weigh-ins would mitigate this, but until that becomes mandatory, smart (not cheating) fighters and their teams will do what they can to get every edge. It's not like DL is doing PEDs or drinking Ariza Shakes. Perhaps if you agree, I'll refrain from going for the close, as I have already stunned you with this zinger and am now ready for the final stalk see below) if necessary.

    Your call

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #34

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110388


    How did he refuse to comply? And don't give me this "breach of conduct" nonsense. Otherwise, half of Trump's cabinet would need to resign.

    Look. Do you even know what the IBF rules are? Let me refresh you.

    Taken from the IBF website.

    Basically you have to weigh in for a second time on the morning of the fight and cannot weigh more than 10lbs over the contracted weight limit.

    Your move, matey

    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #46

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110438

    I know how contracts work.

    Now then, let's assume that the IBF second-day weigh in involves a non-title fight. DL vs CS.

    If DL doesn't show up for the second day weigh-in, he presumably has violated the provision of the IBF's rule. But if the IBF does not penalize him by, for example, making him pay part of his purse to Stevens, then the so-called rule has no teeth in it. And if this is true, and a boxer like DL knows it ahead of time, why should he not take advantage of it and come in on the heavy side?

    Point: What good is a rue if not following it has no consequences?

    You move and I now dedicate this old goody just to you.

    Cheers and all the best lad

    PS: Hopefully, you have noted that I am able to say in a few short paragraphs what you say in pages and pages.


    So . . . . .

    Here I am.

    Waiting for you to explain.

    Waiting to be "buried".



    Now, we all know that - to date - you have quite literally run from anything that even remotely resembles a pointed question about your claims.

    So, to make things a little easier for you . . . .

    Within the above post #13



    Where it is captured in red text that starts off . . . .

    "Then there is no reason why we should not receive a complete address of all the inconsistencies, oversights, and other issues (associated with KB's past and present claims) that the above post #11 exposes, discusses, and highlights".


    I have summarized and laid out a starting point for all your absent explanations and proof.

    In effect, it is your starting point to begin;

    A) Showing us all how all your (episodically conflicting/evasive) short posts on the IBF rules and all the related claims you made, hold together and were not just blown out of your azz and/or Palookaville.


    B) Showing us all how - as per all your posts that suggest such - you will bury Storm.


    As you can see, by creating this thread and summarising just a few (of many) inconsistencies/issues that exist with all your brash claims (that you appear to be quickly distancing yourself from now) I am helping you to prove and substantiate yourself.



    And perhaps unsurprisingly, as we can see, the difficulty involved in seeking to discuss/establish the facts (even those facts that their claimed Dr. Consistency owners suggest both, they possesses and will publish {if only the latest imaginary obstacle to doing so is removed}) simply cant be overestimated when it comes to those whom release hyperbolic claims far, far, easier than they explain them.



    Let's give you a few more days.





    Cheers,

    StormCentre







    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110782

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110804

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110812

  8. #18
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    Alrighty . . .



    Not sure whether anyone else has noticed not; but the <800+ read count that this thread has suggests they have.


    Now that it’s clear “Dr. Consistency’s” idea of debating (his own non dilemmas; that are effectively a direct function/product of his own ignorance, inexperience, and misapprehension) seems to be a Donkey derived and circular one.

    Where, aside from sweeping to one side multiple warnings to slow down before rushing in, to instead opt for using what is surely best described (in the very least) as an “interesting” education to commence debates that he knows nothing of - it’s now clear that "Dr. Consistency’s" main debating efforts revolve around a few repetitive traits, that include; lying, pretending, running, guessing, and complaining about anything that questions and/or asks him to explain.

    And, then - of course - just as all the excuses to substantiate/explain that were previously wheeled out, are exhausted . . . .

    More running and pretending.




    Hmmmn . . . .

    I would have thought that if the subject/answer were worth starting a debate over, fighting for, and representative of all the bravado we all witnessed . . .

    Then answers to substantiate all the effort and claims would have surely been delivered by now.


    Instead, what we have seen in place of the answers and supposedly powerful IBF knowledge (that was claimed to be capable of instantly manufacturing a "burial" chamber) is a cluster of red flags; where each of them is clearly symbolic of Donkey excuses and extremely questionable claims



    Ah . . .

    Where have we seen this Donkey approach before you may ask?


    Yes, the academy of Donkey debating is truly alive and well.

    "Hee haw".


    Only, this time, we have identified and proven that it exists it within a TSS writer; rather than just a forum member.







    So;


    A) Now that it is clear “Dr. Consistency” has picked a fight that no-one (including his own boundless inability to explain himself) could tell him to avoid.


    B) Taken a serious beating for it.


    C) Done very little other than; pretend, run, guess, provide questionable IBF quotes/claims, and complain about anything that questions and/or asks him to explain.


    D) And, fallen and/or impaled himself upon his very own Donkey sword.



    Perhaps, all that remains is the victory celebration.


    A real one.


    None of this pretend stuff that we have seen of late.


    A real “rootin” - “tootin” - azz kicking, one.




    That, surely, must be my next responsibility to this matter, then.


    And, it must be so; if for no other reason than, for; the love of all that is holy - cutting to the chase - and being consistent.





    Cheers,

    StormCentre











    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110782

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110804

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110812

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110865

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,260

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    I am taking the high road in your imagined duel. You want to take the low road, I can't stop you. But personal insults have their limits.

  10. #20
    Senior Member stormcentre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: The IBF Rules & Whom Really Knows Them

    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 . . .


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Consistency; post #76

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110683

    By not being able to agree to a simple request, you have successfully *blocked my ability to bury you and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end.

    Adios amigo. I am done.


    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".


    Such principles.

    Such genius.



    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.

    Real clever/special.



    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.




    Love it.

    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.






    Cheers,

    Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •