Langford says he floored Jack Johnson, and Johnson avoid purse offers

[travestyny]

No - that is not the same source - in fact that newspaper did exacutally what you did - it only took the second sentence if the quote and omitted the first line about the dysentery.

The quote I was working with is from the Saterday Evening Post (SEP) which is linked about by Shoukder Roll.

Also the SEP quote says that Jeffries made the statement some time after the fight - the paper you posted makes it sound as though he said it leaving the ring.

But either way look at the link Shoulder Roll posted (The SEP) - The second line is connected to the first line IMO -

As far as my apology goes yes I am sorry you used an incomplete source when Shoulder Roll went to all that trouble to get you the complete quote.

Sounds to me like you quoted some bias rag that already took the line out of context.

Read the SEP article.

Here's another one:

"I never could have whipped Johnson at my best," Jeffries said in the immediate aftermath of the fight. "I could not have reached him in 1,000 years." However, in his 1929 autobiography, Jeffries argued that he had been doped before the fight by a turncoat in his camp, but his story was discounted.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/James_J._Jeffries

Isn't it clear now that you have this wrong? How would a newspaper in 1910 get a quotation from 1935? It makes no sense.

[Willie Pep 229]

I looked at what Shoulder posted. You are interpreting it the wrong way.



It's clearly stating that he talked of dysentery in 1935, but not in "the days following the match."

It goes on to say, "THEN," meaning BACK THEN...as in "the days following the match," Jeffries said that he couldn't have beat Johnson at his best. He doesn't mean a continuation of Jeffries speaking in 1935 when he talked about dysentery, as you are interpreting it.


You clearly have this wrong, and yet you are still somehow trying to blame me.

What a dirty trick the diction plays on both of us.

It doesn't say 'back then' it only says "then" LOL

The antecedent for "then" could be a reference to the past or announcing a continuation of the current statement/quote.

You imposed the 'back' on to the narrative it is not there but it certainly could be implied, especially if your 1910 source is legit.

Now I am leaning your way, cause primary counts.

How come your sources never label themselves - I am not challenging your honesty - are you being told the source information or are you seeing it on the articles and then telling us. Again I am not challenging your integrity I just want to know if you are actually seeing newspaper masts or not.

Don't show me just tell me I will believe.

[travestyny]

What a dirty trick the diction plays on both of us.

It doesn't say 'back then' it only says "then" LOL

The antecedent for "then" could be a reference to the past or announcing a continuation of the current statement/quote.

You imposed the 'back' on to the narrative it is not there but it certainly could be implied, especially if your 1910 source is legit.

Now I am leaning your way, cause primary counts.

How come your sources never label themselves - I am not challenging your honesty - are you being told the source information or are you seeing it on the articles and then telling us. Again I am not challenging your integrity I just want to know if you are actually seeing newspaper masts or not.

Don't show me just tell me I will believe.

I'm not sure what you are asking for. If you are asking for the proof of the date, I will gladly show you. It kinda seems like you are saying you don't believe me but don't want to come out and say you don't believe me

--Edit--
Well actually I shouldn't take it that way. I think maybe you are simply asking me for proof of the date without being accusatory, and that's exactly what you should do. I can't fault you for that.

Check it out:

https://pdfhost.io/v/jQpqSz***_0251pdf.pdf

The relevant part is two columns over from the picture of JJohnson, where it says "Sporting affairs."

[Anthony342]

I'm not sure what you are asking for. If you are asking for the proof of the date, I will gladly show you. It kinda seems like you are saying you don't believe me but don't want to come out and say you don't believe me

--Edit--
Well actually I shouldn't take it that way. I think maybe you are simply asking me for proof of the date without being accusatory, and that's exactly what you should do. I can't fault you for that.

Check it out:

https://pdfhost.io/v/jQpqSz***_0251pdf.pdf

The relevant part is two columns over from the picture of JJohnson, where it says "Sporting affairs."

Hey, how are you able to still post emojis? I can't find them here on the forum anymore. Are you just typing them in now or are they still found on the message board here as a function somewhere?

[billeau2]

I agree. It works about as well as triangle theories.

Great analogy! You and Pep should be listened to!

[billeau2]

Hey, how are you able to still post emojis? I can't find them here on the forum anymore. Are you just typing them in now or are they still found on the message board here as a function somewhere?

Anthony

Look at the ruler top right. The emojees are toggled. You will see a smile button that can be hit when needed which then gives one the emojees.

[Anthony342]

Anthony

Look at the ruler top right. The emojees are toggled. You will see a smile button that can be hit when needed which then gives one the emojees.

Got it. It's on the bottom right for me.

[travestyny]

Got it. It's on the bottom right for me.

Yep, that's it. Bottom right!