Any Pac fans disagree with the law suit ?

[Bacatit]

**** yeah i do.

Just take the goddamned test mo****er. Then you can shove the results up Sr.'s crack dealing ass.

Thank you for answering the question and since I like your answer I'll request you as a friend.

[MaD RoBoT]

Pac started the mess by refusing to submit to testing, thats what caused the controversy. Accusations mean nothing, refusing to test mean everything.

Pac agreed with the blood tests, not by Floyd's conditions though

Accusations mean nothing? so lets say you're a priest then i go to Vatican to start an allegation accusing you bein a child ******er, is that ok with you?

[Bacatit]

I disagree with the lawsuit because I fundamentally disagree with taking someone to court (or laws themselves) about defamation.

I don't know if I'm a "true Pac fan" as I've only been a fan of the sport of boxing for a couple years but I've always liked Pac, but this lawsuit bothers me.

I like this guy.

A few of you are actually answering the question at hand without bias....cool ****

[cherokee]

I'm all for the lawsuit

whether pac will win or not is another matter

what matters is that he stood his ground! I admire him for that. I know it is a ***** move but what do you expect him to do when even bigger bitches have joined together to throw mud at him.

[Kevin Malone]

Pac agreed with the blood tests, not by Floyd's conditions though

Accusations mean nothing? so lets say you're a priest then i go to Vatican to start an allegation accusing you bein a child ******er, is that ok with you?

He is a priest and child ******er though so he'd probably be ok with the allegation.

[Lead Cenobite]

I disagree with the lawsuit because I fundamentally disagree with taking someone to court (or laws themselves) about defamation.

I don't know if I'm a "true Pac fan" as I've only been a fan of the sport of boxing for a couple years but I've always liked Pac, but this lawsuit bothers me.

I'm a Pac fan. I disagre with all defamation suits. But I don't care about this one frankly EXCEPT that Pac is doing this instead of fighting. If he did this and still fought, I wouldn't care.

[Bacatit]

Pac agreed with the blood tests, not by Floyd's conditions though

Accusations mean nothing? so lets say you're a priest then i go to Vatican to start an allegation accusing you bein a child ******er, is that ok with you?

Yes because the priest were guilty

[deuce_drop]

i agree with the lawsuit, as a matter of fact, if you read any of my earlier post about this, before the lawsuit i was saying manny and top rank should sue.

we can't have a world where you blame and accuse someone with no evidence to what you're accusing them of and have laws and rules changed to apply to this one person, when there is no evidence.

it's like accusing someone of murder with no evidence, and having them go through the motions to defend themselves when there is no evidence for them to defend against. all the while the accusers get off scott free with no consequence to there action of false accusation while the accused has to deal with damage control and might not ever recover from such false accusations.

i repeat, you can not accuse someone with no proof, publicly, which hurts and damages his career, his character, and his livelihood, without consequence!!!!!

if that were to be the way it was, it would be complete anarchy............

[Bacatit]

I'm all for the ***** move but what do you expect him to do .

At least your being honest.

No more **** talking in boxing would suck.

How can you back this ***** move when you talk **** about Floyd and his father all day ?

Somewhat hypocritical

[Bacatit]

i agree with the lawsuit, as a matter of fact, if you read any of my earlier post about this, before the lawsuit i was saying manny and top rank should sue.

we can't have a world where you blame and accuse someone with no evidence to what you're accusing them of and have laws and rules changed to apply to this one person, when there is no evidence.

it's like accusing someone of murder with no evidence, and having them go through the motions to defend themselves when there is no evidence for them to defend against. all the while the accusers get off scott free with no consequence to there action of false accusation while the accused has to deal with damage control and might not ever recover from such false accusations.

i repeat, you can not accuse someone with no proof, publicly, which hurts and damages his career, his character, and his livelihood, without consequence!!!!!

if that were to be the way it was, it would be complete anarchy............

What about freedom of thought and speech ?