Im Getting Pig Sick Of Arseholes Derailing My Threads with Agenda Driven BS

[Ivich]

I can recommend using the forum feature of ‘ignore list’. That should help.

When your threads are being regularly hijacked that impacts materially on the responses you are trying to encourage ,and ignoring morons doesn't alter that
Two glaring examples of derailment from Z on my,"If Jeannette ,"thread emphatically illustrate this.

[GhostofDempsey]

You provide verified sources and I won't ignore or dismiss them. I have never had an alt, neither on here or any other forum.I've changed my user name on Classic once .I don't require anyone cheering me on.

I have Pollack's Vol 1 of Dempsey and will buy Vol2.
I also have both Vols of Johnson and his Jeffries and Fitzsimmons bios.
I take it personal when posters cannot back up their claims or are agenda driven arseholes like Z .The **** Z did on another forum is exactly what he is doing here,the difference is he is being allowed to get away with it here and he was banned for life for it on there.
As far as the posters here are concerned I think Queensbury Fool is a ******ed troll who contributes nothing. and Z is a 22 carat lying
arsehole.

I've no problem with anyone else There are some fine posters here, but most seem to be content to let somebody else make the posts and carry the load.
I'm getting a bit weary of that and,as I am on 3 sites,may take a back seat and watch how this forum evolves or alternatively doesn't.

At least you and I are managing to be civil to one another.

The nature of online forums allows anonymous posters to speak to people in a way they wouldn't speak to you face to face. It often brings out the worst in sports fan or any other topic of discussion. I believe that if any of us who so vehemently disagree with one another on this forum were to meet in person over a beer, we'd all be much more cordial and respectful. It's nice to have moderated forums but it's also good to have moderators who aren't too heavy handed. If we are tired of posters who insist on being belligerent or antagonistic, we can put them on ignore and not have to see their posts until someone quotes them. It makes life on the forums more tolerable and pleasant overall.

There is a quote from an old gangster that goes..."the loudest man in the room is also the weakest". I take that into account when I have to deal with attrition posters whose only goal is to stir up forum drama and get the last word. When you realize that the only reason a person quotes or mentions you is so that they can provoke you into a hundred pages of bickering and name-calling, it's time to put them on ignore and let them argue with someone else. I've had to put several on ignore which unclutters the threads and leaves them dying of thirst for the attention they crave.

[Rockin']

I had an alt once, I named it AnybodybutRockin' (or something like that). Gotta be slick about it, see?

Who'd have ever thought that it was me? Slick!

...................Rockin'

[BattlingNelson]

When your threads are being regularly hijacked that impacts materially on the responses you are trying to encourage ,and ignoring morons doesn't alter that
Two glaring examples of derailment from Z on my,"If Jeannette ,"thread emphatically illustrate this.

Well it’s the tool the forum provides. Unfortunately it doesn’t hinder the ignored poster from posting in your threads. That was a fine feature in the old forum. It does however filter out responses from the poster you ignored, so to me it still kinda enhances my enjoyment of reading the board without seeing posts by posters I despise.

[Ivich]

Well it’s the tool the forum provides. Unfortunately it doesn’t hinder the ignored poster from posting in your threads. That was a fine feature in the old forum. It does however filter out responses from the poster you ignored, so to me it still kinda enhances my enjoyment of reading the board without seeing posts by posters I despise.

But it does not prevent your thread from being derailed by some arsehole.

[Ivich]

The nature of online forums allows anonymous posters to speak to people in a way they wouldn't speak to you face to face. It often brings out the worst in sports fan or any other topic of discussion. I believe that if any of us who so vehemently disagree with one another on this forum were to meet in person over a beer, we'd all be much more cordial and respectful. It's nice to have moderated forums but it's also good to have moderators who aren't too heavy handed. If we are tired of posters who insist on being belligerent or antagonistic, we can put them on ignore and not have to see their posts until someone quotes them. It makes life on the forums more tolerable and pleasant overall.

There is a quote from an old gangster that goes..."the loudest man in the room is also the weakest". I take that into account when I have to deal with attrition posters whose only goal is to stir up forum drama and get the last word. When you realize that the only reason a person quotes or mentions you is so that they can provoke you into a hundred pages of bickering and name-calling, it's time to put them on ignore and let them argue with someone else. I've had to put several on ignore which unclutters the threads and leaves them dying of thirst for the attention they crave.

I wouldn't say anything online that I would not be prepared to repeat face to face ,though at nearly 75 ,my chances of doing so without being challenged physically are pretty slim! Treat others as you would wish to be treated,with courtesy and consideration,but then ,if they take the piss, punch the MF Granny out of them!

[Ivich]

I had an alt once, I named it AnybodybutRockin' (or something like that). Gotta be slick about it, see?

Who'd have ever thought that it was me? Slick!

...................Rockin'

Long Live The USA Anyway!

[travestyny]

You're cherry picking your outrage. Travesty turns every thread he posts on into a Dempsey hate thread, even if it's about Johnson or other fighters of the era. You've never raised a fuss because he largely agrees with you about Johnson. At least Johnson was part of the topic in your thread. He was open game for any criticism that came along. Non-Dempsey threads always get highjacked by one individual with an agenda, you don't seem the least bit phased by it. This has been going on for years.

Absolute bullshlt. Just because you guys can't handle the truth about Dempsey doesn't mean I'm hating on him. I backed up everything I said with sources in a thread that was about Dempsey, and I was responding to false information given. If that bothers you, tough

[Rockin']

Long Live The USA Anyway!

Long Live Donald Trump and America.............Rockin'

[travestyny]

I actually provide sources when criticizing Johnson, you guys just ignore them or dismiss them. His "primary" sources are usually anonymous news clippings without much if any context, or it was news on the date it was printed but more recent developments aren't printed or posted. We all know promoters and managers had access to the media to get articles they wanted run in the local papers. McKetrick was notorious for doing this.

I have not been on your case, you began our interactions with angry posts and name calling. You set the tone for our earliest communications, you even created an alt to cheer you on. That said, I could have done a better job at diffusing those back and forth disagreements rather than escalating them.

I've made posts to the contrary of Dr. Z's comments about Dempsey. As far as I'm concerned, the topic has been done to death and then some. No one will change anyone's mind on where they stand with Dempsey, Wills, Johnson, Ali or any other fighter often discussed on this forum. At some point I need to drop the rope and quit the endless tug-o-war battles that muck up the forum.

For anyone interested in this topic, both of Pollack's recent books on Dempsey is a must read for anyone who is a fan of him or hates him. Lots of context regarding the Wills saga that would dispel the Dempsey ducking myths. But some posters here would rather cherry pick sources from Google than actually read a well researched book or question the motives of their sources.

The problem here is when someone posts anything negative about a fighter, the defenders often insist it is out of hatred. I don't hate Jack Johnson. I have commended him in some of my posts for the climate in which he was champion and the challenges he faced as the first black HW champion. That said, I never thought he deserved all of the praise and adulation he receives and I honestly believe he drew the color line as champion. Jeannette, McVey and Langford who were there, also believe that. I also think his resume is overrated given the times in which he fought them where they were either novices or overmatched in size. That is my prerogative. I'm entitled to that opinion and I've supported it with valid sources.

If you understood some of the underlying resentment on this site, you would know that Travesty never showed any interest in Dempsey until I started posting on this site. He made it his personal agenda to attack Dempsey in a childish attempt at goading me into a drawn out debate with his often anonymous or out of context irrelevant sources. He purposely ignores sources presented to him and deflects. He hijacks every thread on the history forum and always finds a way to make it about Dempsey--go back and look at his post history. He plays the whataboutism game and refuses to take context into consideration. He makes allowances for Johnson's comments and choice of opponents, but takes Dempsey's out of context. It's a waste of time. By the way, this all began because I dared to criticize Mayweather years ago while he was arguing with a few posters on a Floyd/Manny thread where he went on for hundreds of pages and thousands of posts over the course of several years. Since then he has stalked me all over the forums hopelessly trying to prove me wrong and failing at every turn.

I don't have a personal beef with you. But when people disagree with you, you have a tendency to get prickly and take it personal. We all get ****** into heated arguments from time to time. We all get a little defensive and stubbornly hold our ground. If you are frustrated with a particular poster over a beef that has carried over from other forums, I understand the tone of your posts. I've engaged in arguments where I look back and think it would have been best to just disengage instead of taking the bait. We live and we learn.

Wasn't it you that brought up Jack Johnson out of nowhere in a thead about Dempsey?


Hypocrit much? The fact of the matter is you get upset when people tell the truth about Dempsey and you try desperately to retaliate by telling blatant lies about Jack Johnson. So how are you claiming that people ignore evidence when you still haven't come to terms with the fact that Jack Johnson signed to fight Jeannette for the championship?


You are by far the biggest hypocrit of this site, and also a very fragile little man who can't handle the truth.



Every time I turn around you are crying and lying about me to another poster. Yet I'm supposedly the one following you around trying to do what? Prove you wrong? LMAO. I've proven you wrong so many times that you are afraid to engage me. And I've never had to follow you around for that. I've in fact openly challenged you to formal debates on topics and you have always backed down. Now why do you think that is, yea?

Go look at the last thread we were all in and take note of who is discussing boxing and who begins crying and throwing insults around first.....but then claimis to be a victim. You guys are truly pathetic.