Miguel Cotto VS Floyd Mayweather: The Whole Story

[COACH WEBB]

yo Queen, go to post #113 and highlight the whole post, then you will see who Cotto could have fought instead of the top ten Welter, Gomez....

[KING •]

yo Queen, go to post #113 and highlight the whole post, then you will see who Cotto could have fought instead of the top ten Welter, Gomez....

carlton i thought you quit...?

[Ray*]

So in your opinion how should we determine who the best welterweight is?
Please do...

Am replying to what you call a fact which isnt, Saying its a fact that Cotto can KO Mayweather and Mayweather couldnt do the same is an opinion not a fact.

[bsrizpac]

Am replying to what you call a fact which isnt, Saying its a fact that Cotto can KO Mayweather and Mayweather couldnt do the same is an opinion not a fact.

I tried to explain that to him but:



is not his forte.

[Sin City]

Am replying to what you call a fact which isnt, Saying its a fact that Cotto can KO Mayweather and Mayweather couldnt do the same is an opinion not a fact.

I know.. dummy.
That's not what I asked you though, I asked you.. how do YOU determine the best welter?

And what I meant by fact is that you beat the best to be the best and Cotto has beat more top ten ranked welters then Mayweather.. so by those standards it is fact.

[Sin City]

I tried to explain that to him but:

is not his forte.

you a fool..

[KING •]

to summarize this entire thread for those who don't wish to read...

miguel cotto > floyd mayweather

in terms of everything.

[Sin City]

The facts are there Cotto is a better welterweight and no way in hell Mayweather is knocking his ass out.. Mayweather has a better chance of him being knocked out then Cotto does.

In red:Based on how most people judge who the best is.. that is fact.

In blue: It is an opinion but where in the post did I say it was fact, when I said fact I was referring to the better welterweight.

[bsrizpac]

In red:Based on how most people judge who the best is.. that is fact.

In blue: It is an opinion but where in the post did I say it was fact, when I said fact I was referring to the better welterweight.

Do you understand conditionals? Probably not. I'll give you a quick tutorial:

the word AND in logic and in English means both. It is a conjunction in English. This means it conjoins two thoughts usually of an equal value (correlative).That means both the condition before and after must be true. That means you were including the second part as a FACT because you referred to the first condition as a fact.

Now if you had used....AND with "I think" or stopped the sentence with a period and began a new thought, well then we wouldn't be jumping the gun here would we?

[Sin City]

Do you understand conditionals? Probably not. I'll give you a quick tutorial:

the word AND in logic and in English means both. It is a conjunction in English. This means it conjoins two thoughts usually of an equal value (correlative).That means both the condition before and after must be true. That means you were including the second part as a FACT because you referred to the first condition as a fact.

Now if you had used....AND with "I think" or stopped the sentence with a period and began a new thought, well then we wouldn't be jumping the gun here would we?

I find it funny how you can't argue with the subject at hand so you have to divert the conversation to things which are irrelevant to what we are speaking of..
Anyway, since you cant stay on the subject there is no reason for me to talk to you.
Good day, Sir.