Pacquiao visited Tim Smith's office (email accuser), Smith was nowhere to be found?

[V.WEBB]

so you know nothing and are saying stuff outta your ***.

got it.

No, I'm not actually. I don't have the emails, but I have sense enough to know that there is a possibility of it being true (or false). But, I'm not going to pop off at the mouth AS IF I KNOW FOR A FACT THE EMAIL DOESN'T exist, like you.

Dude. If you paused to actually think for a while, WHO is Pac suing?

"Besides Mayweather, the defendants in the suit include the boxer's father, Floyd Sr., his trainer and uncle, Roger, as well as Mayweather Promotions. Also named are Golden Boy Promotions executives Richard Schaefer and Oscar De La Hoya."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2009/12/31/2009-12-31_boxer_manny_pacquiaos.html

those are pretty big names there. note that Pac didn't even bother suing Malagnaggi.

like i said before. Pac didn't bother suing those individuals cuz they just aren't worth the effort. If you can't see that, then its your loss.

Tim Smith just wasn't worth the effort? The whole email story was a HUGE development..but, yea..ok.

[solo20]

THREAD FAIL
WAHAHA you guys do know how to read right he was there with Pac and why has Pac not sued this guy

[AFighter4U]

No, I'm not actually. I don't have the emails, but I have sense enough to know that there is a possibility of it being true (or false). But, I'm not going to pop off at the mouth AS IF I KNOW FOR A FACT THE EMAIL DOESN'T exist, like you.

c'mon.

the truth comes out eventually and because of today's electronic age where every sentence, phrase and word you write can be saved and extracted, its nearly impossible to hide something as simple as an e-mail.

its simply too big as story to just disappear on its own, and the media to allow something that explosive to just go away.

we are living in an age where hundreds of thousands of pages of highly classified information can be easily stolen from the most powerful nation in the planet, and you are telling me that somehow NOBODY can retrieve a simple e-mail from a boxer who came from a third-world country?!?!?

if you want to ignore common sense and reality go ahead. i ain't stopping you.

Tim Smith just wasn't worth the effort? The whole email story was a HUGE development..but, yea..ok.

if it was such a HUGE development, then where is this supposedly HUGE development now?

what other news outlets picked up the story? How many articles about it were written? did it actually lead to anything worthwhile? Not even floyd sr brought it up. Or roger, Or Floyd. Or dela Hoya.

mountains out of mole hills man.

[IMDAZED]

c'mon.

the truth comes out eventually and because of today's electronic age where every sentence, phrase and word you write can be saved and extracted, its nearly impossible to hide something as simple as an e-mail.

its simply too big as story to just disappear on its own, and the media to allow something that explosive to just go away.

we are living in an age where hundreds of thousands of pages of highly classified information can be easily stolen from the most powerful nation in the planet, and you are telling me that somehow NOBODY can retrieve a simple e-mail from a boxer who came from a third-world country?!?!?

if you want to ignore common sense and reality go ahead. i ain't stopping you.



if it was such a HUGE development, then where is this supposedly HUGE development now?

what other news outlets picked up the story? How many articles about it were written? did it actually lead to anything worthwhile? Not even floyd sr brought it up. Or roger, Or Floyd. Or dela Hoya.

mountains out of mole hills man.

You sound shallow. What writer gives up his source? That's completely unethical. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. If it were false, Pacquiao would have done something. You mean to tell me it makes more sense to sue people who make a comment rather than a person who says he has proof to back his? Please shut up.

[Mr. Ryan]

Why isn't Manny suing Tim Smith along with Mayweather and everyone else named in the defamation suit. Surely a story getting coverage in a national coverage does at the very least as much harm (likely much mcuh more) than Mayweather running his mouth??

Because we live in a country where press is free, because as long as the media can cover it's tracks legally, it is free to print what it feels like. Mayweather can just spout whatever nonsense he wants, but Smith has to be able to back up his claims, or at the least prove that he wasn't aware of any incorrect statements he had made in his article.

[AFighter4U]

You sound shallow. What writer gives up his source? That's completely unethical. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. If it were false, Pacquiao would have done something. You mean to tell me it makes more sense to sue people who make a comment rather than a person who says he has proof to back his? Please shut up.

Let me explain this to you slowly. (cuz you might, you know, actually be DAZED)

I was simply explaining why its impossible for an email to exist and not be easily obtained by interested individuals. Kapish?

No where do i EVER say that a writer should give up his source. Read my posts AGAIN before saying anything that makes you look ****** man.

Like i said before, there is a difference between "source" and "proof".

for example, the person informing the newsman of an email regarding Manny is the "source". The e-mail in question is the "proof".

i don't give a flying **** who the man's source is. what i'm interested in is the e-mail, which is the "proof" i am demanding.

do you get it now? or do i have to use even shorter words for you to get it?

[Mr. Ryan]

Listen, you don't fight the media. Frank Sinatra learned that the hard way, because he couldn't take criticism.

I personally have lots of doubts about how damning the alleged evidence against Pacquiao was, but that doesn't mean I believe Smith is a dirty writer. Smith is a very honorable guy, someone that I'm proud to call a friend. I respect his work and if there was any inaccuracy there, it wasn't on his end.

[brick wall]

You sound shallow. What writer gives up his source? That's completely unethical. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. If it were false, Pacquiao would have done something. You mean to tell me it makes more sense to sue people who make a comment rather than a person who says he has proof to back his? Please shut up.

what a dumbass logic...burden of proof always lies with the accuser not the accused. and no, he doesn't need to name his source but he can definitely provide the subject of his article. his source told him there was an email...did he see it before he wrote his article? if he saw it he can provide it. or maybe he just relied completely on what his source told him...if that's what happened then that's what you can call unethical and irresponsible journalism.

[AFighter4U]

Listen, you don't fight the media. Frank Sinatra learned that the hard way, because he couldn't take criticism.

I personally have lots of doubts about how damning the alleged evidence against Pacquiao was, but that doesn't mean I believe Smith is a dirty writer. Smith is a very honorable guy, someone that I'm proud to call a friend. I respect his work and if there was any inaccuracy there, it wasn't on his end.

no one here is fighting the media. just expecting a certain degree of professionalism, that's all.

i'm sure Smith is a decent human being and a great writer to be working for such an illustrious outfit. It simply means the man slipped up this one time. Its only human.

[IMDAZED]

Let me explain this to you slowly. (cuz you might, you know, actually be DAZED)

I was simply explaining why its impossible for an email to exist and not be easily obtained by interested individuals. Kapish?

No where do i EVER say that a writer should give up his source. Read my posts AGAIN before saying anything that makes you look ****** man.

Like i said before, there is a difference between "source" and "proof".

for example, the person informing the newsman of an email regarding Manny is the "source". The e-mail in question is the "proof".

i don't give a flying **** who the man's source is. what i'm interested in is the e-mail, which is the "proof" i am demanding.

do you get it now? or do i have to use even shorter words for you to get it?

Oh I get it. I get that you can't refute anything I said. Thank you.