Mayweather-Hatton Conference Thread

[Hydro]

...And we're such perfect little saints.

Hypocrisy at its best.

You are aware that these athletes are human beings, right?

I don't know about the rest of ya, but I shed out my money to watch these guys fight in the ring...not what they do behind closed doors.

That was exactly my point. Try reading it carefully.

As I stated in that post of mine you quoted, I rarely let a fighter being an ******* or annoying affect how much I like them as fighters. Those guys are all among my favorites of all-time.

[Wiley Hyena]

of course he trying to sell the fight... he only does that when the cameras are on.... he prolly shakes his hand.. and said sorry backstage HA

Is that your guess, or do you know? I saw Hatton's interview after the press conference and it did not appear anything like that happened.

[DIOS DOMINICANO]

All of you Floyd fans must also be fans of Cory Spinks then. They are both gutless track stars that constantly produce boring fights. I am really tired right now but I can't seem to go to sleep. Hey, I have an idea, I'm gonna watch Mayweather vs Baldomir or any other of Floyd's fights and I will be asleep in no time.

THE EXCITING RICKY HATTON:

[Amir K Shareef]

Is that your guess, or do you know? I saw Hatton's interview after the press conference and it did not appear anything like that happened.

sarcasim.....

[Chief Vash]

But u dont get any of that thang, that the douche goes into..haha

Oh yeah! Total Ownage! LOLLORCOASTERS!!

You're an idiot. I assume that's your only plan of attack, huh? Once you fail to come up with something even semi-intelligent, you just make the most immature, childish attack you can think of, huh? Then you top it off with your 4th grade grammar, and spelling mistasks, and presto. Congratulations, no one likes you.

[Amir K Shareef]

THE EXCITING RICKY HATTON:

^ cant go more then 5 secs with out a hug

[Amir K Shareef]

Oh yeah! Total Ownage! LOLLORCOASTERS!!

You're an idiot. I assume that's your only plan of attack, huh? Once you fail to come up with something even semi-intelligent, you just make the most immature, childish attack you can think of, huh? Then you top it off with your 4th grade grammar, and spelling mistasks, and presto. Congratulations, no one likes you.

lol.. naw, i do it to get a reaction out of people.. and HEY im getting it

[Chief Vash]

lol.. naw, i do it to get a reaction out of people.. and HEY im getting it

Well then, way drop your overall position to that lower than a human. You're not a thinking poster, you're just a meaningless, lonely little troll.

Have fun.

[sonofisis]

Ok then. I too, can fervently dig through the depths of good ol' wikipedia and pick and choose "evidence" as a rebuttal to your arguments. You see, my friend, as Easton stated earlier, anyone can misconstrue scholarly HYPOTHESES to distort and lend credence to their own agenda.

For example. If you're going to quote from wikipedia next time, please include ALL of the direct evidence (because that is what we are dealing with here, aren't we?) and include our old friends;

Strabo (c. 64 BC – AD 24):

As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in colour, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Aegyptians.[30]
Arrian (c. 86 - 146 AD) (Indica 6.9):

The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.[31]
The above writings of Strabo and Arrian were drawn from the earlier accounts of Nearchus (c. 360 - 300 BC), Megasthenes (c. 350 - 290 BC) and Eratosthenes (276 - 195 BC).[32]

It is important to note however, that phenotypes differ among populations and skin color varies and is highly adaptive, therefore alone, they're not good indicators of any concept of 'race'.[33] In some cases, ancient textual sources can be extremely reliable, however, in cases like these bioanthropologist Shomarka Keita warns us that interpretation is highly dependent on stereotyped thinking, and in his words, "the ancient writers were not doing population biology", and given that as a result, all of this should be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

And there you have it. As with your (sketchy) DNA evidence, most of your "findings" are hypothetical in outlook and in context as Easton said so earlier.

Citing wikipedia is absurd and I'll tell you how.. Check the history of that article and look at the name of the person who contributed mostly on that page. His name is Taharqa and guess what?


THAT IS ME!!!!

I literally wrote all of that and used S.O.Y. Keita as an anthropological source to balance it all out since neutrality is a rule encouraged by editors on wikipedia. You're an idiot. He disregards everything else I've shown and explained to him, then tries to rebut me with my own research. What an idiot!! Hahaha! You must feel like an ass. Did you even read that article? It shows definitely that the AE were indigenous NorthEast Africans.. I omitted the references to the contradictory "Indian" statements because they are irrelevant, as Keita explains. Nor do they describe complexion. Also, the descriptions are from hearsay ("The above writings of Strabo and Arrian were drawn from the earlier accounts of Nearchus (c. 360 - 300 BC), Megasthenes (c. 350 - 290 BC) and Eratosthenes (276 - 195 BC).") and were not eye witness accounts. In addition, Northern Indians tend to be dark and sometimes exceedingly black as well, so that may not even be a contradiction to the earlier accounts, all of which described the mass population as "blacks"..

Keita and Boyce also says this in reference to this issue:

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Ku****es and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

So at the end of the day, none of these relative and subjective statements matter.. Nuff said on that...

As with your (sketchy) DNA evidence, most of your "findings" are hypothetical in outlook and in context as Easton said so earlier.

Please, your ignorance is overwhelming and you obviously don't understand the implications. Mtdna shows a definite ancestral connection with Ethiopia, period. Just how DNA would show that I descend from Africa by way of genetic markers; it isn't a damn hypothesis you quack. Also, Y-Chromosome samples show that Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the PN2 Clade and Yap+, which is a clade that arose in Africa before the last glaciation but after the exodus of modern humans, and has nothing to do with non-Africans..
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/No...n_analysis.pdf
http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ha...s_in_egypt.pdf


I'm also still baffled about how cowardly you avoid the skeletal data which proves emphatically that the people studied were Africans.. But your selective bias is apparent..

[Amir K Shareef]

Well then, way drop your overall position to that lower than a human. You're not a thinking poster, you're just a meaningless, lonely little troll.

Have fun.

k *****