Comments Thread For: Conor Benn targets 147lbs champions but happy to go through Chris Eubank first
Collapse
-
Comment
-
When there is no jurisdiction loophole that we know of.
That's where you lied.Comment
-
Comment
-
No, there wasn't. I've already explained this to you as well.
There was a newspaper report that baselessly speculated there was one with no source.
There is no jurisdiction loophole that we know of, that's a fact.
You saying Benn was happy because of a jurisdiction loophole was an outright lie, basless newspaper report or not. Just accept that you lied about it and move on.Comment
-
no because what i said could have been true & the reason for that is that we dont have the true reasons for benn getting off, if we dont have the correct factual reasons then possible reasons are not lies, they are speculation, talk, chatter, trash talk whatever u want to call itComment
-
no because what i said could have been true & the reason for that is that we dont have the true reasons for benn getting off, if we dont have the correct factual reasons then possible reasons are not lies, they are speculation, talk, chatter, trash talk whatever u want to call it
You can't make a claim or statement about something and pass it off as truth on the basis it "could be" true. That's intellectually dishonest. That opens the door to say whatever you want on the basis it "could be true" such as "The poster Smash on boxingscene is a rapist" it could be true but it would be dishonest for me to say that because I have no evidence to support that claim.
Now you can speculate that was the reason but that's not what you did, you lied, and said it was the reason (he was happy).Comment
-
u are not a mind reader, u have no idea about the intention of what i was saying, try reading my sentence u quoted in a jokey type of mind set for example, in that case it would be me slagging off benn for being a twat like he is, now if i know 100% for certain that the tests were faulty then that would be a lie for example
Comment
-
u are not a mind reader, u have no idea about the intention of what i was saying, try reading my sentence u quoted in a jokey type of mind set for example, in that case it would be me slagging off benn for being a twat like he is, now if i know 100% for certain that the tests were faulty then that would be a lie for example
What you did was claim Benn was happy because he found out about a jurisdiction loophole. Which is objectively a lie.Comment
-
or is it a joke? or is it something else, until i find out what the reasons for ukad appealing and failing and all the stuff that has gone on then anything is on the table and nothing if off the table, thats the bottom lineComment
Comment