Comments Thread For: 100 Days: The New York Times and Boxing

[SamuraiSam]

You talk about TMT fanboys but you are a Hauser ****rider? Hauser doesn't investigate, he just **** ride on rumors and make speculations, I never seen him make a reference of any significance in boxing. Everyone he picked against or wrote against, has proven him wrong.

Leave it to a Floydiot to be obsessed with "**** riding" versus acknowledgment of a scholarly search for truth. So you're not only a Floydiot, but also the typical F10m0, parroting TBE's pathetically limited vocabulary for ********** insults. LOL...clowns like you crack me up.

It's not surprising that you're unable to distinguish the painstaking research, taken over 100 days of analysis compiling statistical data to determine how few boxing related articles that the NY Times produced, as being "investigative." So to your deficient intellect it's not "investigative" but just "rumors and speculations" that the NY Times haven't written **** about boxing, as Hauser details in the article, since Greg Bishop left. But your limited intellect doesn't comprehend that. Oh, I forgot...birds of a feather can't read together. Yeah, that's a sympathetic excuse.

The ultimate irony, exposing the dizzying height of your Floydiocy, is your claim to have "never seen him make a reference of any significance in boxing" when this exact article is on the exact subject of boxing and his effort to change the editorial policy of the NY Times to provide more coverage of this sport that true boxing fans love. But you're obviously not a true boxing fan...just another TMT fluffer. Maybe you're like Pigeons, who is "happy that the New York Times ignores boxing," because if they did write more coverage on boxing their articles would most probably provide additional negative exposure of Floyd getting owned by his own karma, as we've recently been seeing. We know that's what TMT tries so embarrassingly hard to deflect or keep hidden and buried in the dark.

Why don't you provide us with links to evidence that will provide credibility for your claim that, "Everyone he picked against or wrote against, has proven him wrong." Let's start with this article and/or the last article on Al Haymon as I've already linked above. How has he been proven wrong?

Keep in mind that I'll need two links from you: the first link showing what Hauser said, and the second link proving him wrong. I bet you can't even back up your ****, and you'll prove you're just mindlessly spouting off like the typical Floydiot, willfully denying truth, with farts in the wind emanating from that fluffer hole.

So, until you can come back with credible evidence, why don't you sit your no-reading-comprehension, ignorant ass back down in your short yellow bus for the long ride back to Floydiot Town.

'Nuff said.