I understand your point but my point is that there is nothing intellectually inconsistent about The Ring taking the position "we recognise official verdicts except in the highly unusual cases where it is known in advance that there is a very high chance that the official verdict will be overturned by the relevant boxing commission".
You used those analogies to imply that The Ring is being inconsistent, and I don't think they are.
You used those analogies to imply that The Ring is being inconsistent, and I don't think they are.
Comment