Comments Thread For: Jaron 'Boots' Ennis Files Lawsuit Against NOW Boxing, Seeking Release And Judgment In Excess Of $1,000,000

[IronDanHamza]

can you post links to the source that dictates how "claims" work? Just because YOU say thats how claims work, well you need to validate that statement with proof.......

Sure, I'll help you understand.

Burden of Proof;

"In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute"

This is not a legal matter of course, but the burden of proof still stands here and it's entirely on you, the claimant (person making the claim) to do so.

We then have the philosophical definition, which applies more and here despite the premise being the same;

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

Like I say it's just how claims work in life, if you make a claim, you have to provide evidence as to why that is true.

If I were to make the claim that you are gay for example, if you were to dispute that the burden of proof would be on me to prove why that claim is true, until then it's just my word which is essentially as good as meaningless without evidence.

That's not stopping people from taking my word for it, but again that would still just be no more than a baseless claim without being backed up with evidence.

So in short, you've made the claim here that Ennis has ducked Crawford, that is the claim, that claim has been challenged, and now the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, the justify that claim with evidence as to why it's true.

[OnePunch]

Sure, I'll help you understand.

Burden of Proof;

"In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute"

This is not a legal matter of course, but the burden of proof still stands here and it's entirely on you, the claimant (person making the claim) to do so.

We then have the philosophical definition, which applies more and here despite the premise being the same;

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

Like I say it's just how claims work in life, if you make a claim, you have to provide evidence as to why that is true.

If I were to make the claim that you are gay for example, if you were to dispute that the burden of proof would be on me to prove why that claim is true, until then it's just my word which is essentially as good as meaningless without evidence.

That's not stopping people from taking my word for it, but again that would still just be no more than a baseless claim without being backed up with evidence.

So in short, you've made the claim here that Ennis has ducked Crawford, that is the claim, that claim has been challenged, and now the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, the justify that claim with evidence as to why it's true.

Most reasonable people are quite capable of doing google searches to validate what they are reading. This is a casual forum, NOT a court of law. Its pointless to provide links, as my last response to Joseph will demonstrate. Because now that I have posted a link for him to verify what I said, his position will now change from "HE WAS NEVER OFFERED THE CRAWFORD FIGHT" to "HE TURNED DOWN THE FIGHT BECAUSE OF X, Y, OR Z". Or the typical "THATS A BOGUS WEBSITE"

So nothing is gained. It just starts a whole other debate, and is a complete waste of time. Thats why I typically wont post links. People can believe me or not, its up to them. I only posted one this time to show you what the response will be.....lol

[IronDanHamza]

Most reasonable people are quite capable of doing google searches to validate what they are reading. This is a casual forum, NOT a court of law. Its pointless to provide links, as my last response to Joseph will demonstrate. Because now that I have posted a link for him to verify what I said, his position will now change from "HE WAS NEVER OFFERED THE CRAWFORD FIGHT" to "HE TURNED DOWN THE FIGHT BECAUSE OF X, Y, OR Z". Or the typical "THATS A BOGUS WEBSITE"

So nothing is gained. It just starts a whole other debate, and is a complete waste of time. Thats why I typically wont post links. People can believe me or not, its up to them. I only posted one this time to show you what the response will be.....lol

Well, yeah, like I've just explained the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence as to why it's true.

Yes, as also explained it's not a legal matter, I gave you that on top of the philosophical definition, which I made clear is the one that applies, just to further offer clarity as clear as possible as to why the onus is on you to provide evidence for you claim as they interwind with one another.

You've provided a source now in attempt to justify your claim. So you're getting somewhere, that's good.

Now the next step would be to unpack the contents of the evidence provided.

[joseph5620]

this took about 10 seconds. I'm surprised nobody has taught you how to do google searches. They are easy, even for someone with the obvious "challenges" that you have.


https://3kingsboxing.com/team-ennis-...e-rejects-blk/


5 different excuses for Ennis pops turning it down in 3...... 2......1.......


but...but... but..... it was BLK.......

but..... but..... but....... showtime

but.....but.....but...... unreliable site.......

but..... but..... but.... loyalty doe

but.... but..... but..... that was his pops not him!!!......


you will now flip your position from "HE NEVER TURNED IT DOWN!!!" to "HE TURNED IT DOWN BECAUSE.........."


too predictable........

That's your evidence? Because Bozy Ennis wanted to work with Showtime and not BLK prime?


You would be better off just saying your lied at this point.

Whatever "challenges" you think I have are not nearly as challenging as what your lame, defunct, or non-existent boxing promotional company have. Bozy Ennis is clearly a lot smarter and successful than you've ever in the boxing business.

[OnePunch]

Well, yeah, like I've just explained the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence as to why it's true.

Yes, as also explained it's not a legal matter, I gave you that on top of the philosophical definition, which I made clear is the one that applies, just to further offer clarity as clear as possible as to why the onus is on you to provide evidence for you claim as they interwind with one another.

You've provided a source now in attempt to justify your claim. So you're getting somewhere, that's good.

Now the next step would be to unpack the contents of the evidence provided.

we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. YOU have chosen to apply a legal standard to basically informal conversation. Most people I suspect do not hold forums to that standard. I know I dont. Although now you will probably challenge me for a link to a study showing peoples opinions on sourcing forum comments. And I could challenge you to provide a source that says internet forums should be held to the legal standard of claims. And around and around we go. Not very enjoyable

Personally I think you are taking all this to seriously and applying a ridiculous standard to casual conversation. Would you treat dinner guests the same way, demanding proof of anything they say? It makes conversation a chore if one must validate every word they utter.

[OnePunch]

That's your evidence? Because Bozy Ennis wanted to work with Showtime and not BLK prime?


Your would be better off just saying your lied at this point.

Whatever "challenges" you think I have are not nearly as challenging as what your defunct or non existent boxing promotional company have.

and like clockwork, the denial continues.


Enjoy your evening. You have wasted enough of my time for one day.......

[IronDanHamza]

we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. YOU have chosen to apply a legal standard to basically informal conversation. Most people I suspect do not hold forums to that standard. I know I dont. Although now you will probably challenge me for a link to a study showing peoples opinions on sourcing forum comments. And I could challenge you to provide a source that says internet forums should be held to the legal standard of claims. And around and around we go. Not very enjoyable

Again, the legal definition was also provided to offer further clarity on what the burden of proof is and where it applies, it makes no difference as to where the burden of proof lies which is always with the claimaint. That goes for a court of law, an internet forum, or at a Barbeque. That's just how the burden of proof works.

Personally I think you are taking all this to seriously and applying a ridiculous standard to casual conversation. Would you treat dinner guests the same way, demanding proof of anything they say? It makes conversation a chore if one must validate every word they say.

Of course. That is standard practice and procedure.

If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence as to why it's true.

It's not a matter of demanding proof, it's simply just the burden of proof when making a claim.

[joseph5620]

and like clockwork, the denial continues.


Enjoy your evening. You have wasted enough of my time for one day.......

You have plenty of time considering your company hasn't been active since 2011.

[MulaKO]

Just remember not to tell any lies while I'm here. I'll expose and embarrass you anytime you do.

Your a fughin moron
The rankings don’t lie but your to ignorant to see it
The only thing you are exposing is your ignorance
Now please fugh off

[joseph5620]

Your a fughin moron
The rankings don’t lie but your to ignorant to see it
The only thing you are exposing is your ignorance
Now please fugh off

Triggered huh?