BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 04:48 PM

BTNG, I can't believe how pleased you are with yourself. What would you consider someone who held up a sign saying "Here I am doing this." to CCTV camera? Would you also consider yourself clever for having caught that person? I'm making a point about insulting people obliquely.

All you are doing is demonstrating that you don't know what is going on. But by all means carry on if you want. All opinions are equal on this thread, no matter how poorly founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:04 PM

Gnu,

You think John didn't mean to insult anyone.
I believe that he did mean it.

Solution is simple. John can settle it. He can say that he didn't mean to insult anyone. Because he certainly has not said that to date. Or he can explain how the "stone age" reference was not an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: gnu
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:07 PM

You talkin ta me?

Why? What part of....

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:13 PM

Gnu,

I like you when you are feisty!

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cOh deruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:35 PM

I know exactly what's going and the reason you don't think so is I won't agree with you statement that you weren't insulting anyone...sorry that ain't ever going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:57 PM

I obviously don't care whether you agree or not. I was making a rhetorical point.   It was you acting as if you had caught me at something that confused me.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 06:10 PM

Oh we're falling back on the old it was a rhetorical point excuse are...oh for f**ksake give it up, I'm simply laughing my face off at this point, and even harder now, I realise just how easy it is to confuse you...mind you...oh never mind, this thread really has gone on way passed its best before date.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 06:14 PM

I am happy to have amused you.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: kendall
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:29 PM

You guys just keep proving my point. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 19 Nov 11 - 08:04 PM

always glad to oblige, "kendall"

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:14 AM

"No one can really say that another persons opinion is wrong." (Kendall)

The only reason that that isn't the most sensible thing anyone has said is because

"I don't know whether boxing is cruel, primitive, and nauseating, but the bickering on this thread sure is."

That probably is. And yes, I contributed to it.

Mr MacKenzie - I will apologise to you if you feel my direct response to you was over the top. However, I and others feel that your opening post was considerably worse than that. "You are your DEMONSTRATED behaviour". Not what you think you meant, but what other people heard (so I'm an argumentative bastard then! ;-) ). Several people, not just myself, think the tone of your post was way out of line, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that it was made in the immediate wake of the death of a man who was a fine competitor in his CHOSEN sport. Maybe it was just bad timing on your part. But do you see, why some 'catters think you should be challenged?

Jack - give up on the prissy Brit point. You're in the wrong on that one. And yes, I am a Brit, but that has nothing to do with it. That was ad hominem and nothing else.

BTNG - you add nothing to this discussion except petrol. You're not discussing; you're just stirring.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:18 PM

Raedwulf, We all create our own reality. And that is a fact.
It follows that we each decide what is cruel, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:00 PM

"prissy Brit."
I certainly didn't mean that to be the devastating insult it has been taken to be. Or is "Brit" an insult? I thought it was just a short way to say someone from Britain. "Prissy", I think is a very good description of John Mackenzie's behaviour on this thread. I also think "prissy Brit" is accurate for another reason, I can't imagine a male who is not from Britain who would think about cruelty in terms of a contact sport, who would think of primitive as necessarily a bad think, (it is a synonym for primal) or who would use the word nauseating in anything but a clinical sense.

All that said, I am sorry, to have upset anyone. Since I have no emotional attachment to any of the issues, it was pretty dumb of me to continue. Sorry folks, especially to Gnu. You are a good man with a good heart. I am sorry for winding you up.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM

Man, this topic is more polarizing than a British Folkie discussion on the relative merit of Lady Isabel and the Elf Night as a parable for the Crucifixion!
Personally, I think those of you who want to call each other names and insult one another ought to engage in fisticuffs, put the video on Youtube, and let the rest of us choose whether we think the spectacle is, in fact "cruel, primitive,& nauseating".
I can assure you, I'd watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:18 PM

I guess within the definition of the word we decide what is cruel Kendall. I always considered cruelty to be something one person or group had to impose on another. Interestingly according to the definition I just looked up, I guess, if you considered "boxing" to be an entity with free will and decision making power. Then you could say "boxing is cruel" but from the point of view of the boxer, having a disregard for the opponent, is next to impossible. Even boxing as a teenager in my own back yard, taking a couple of punches in the nose gives one empathy for anyone anywhere who has ever taken a punch.

By this definition, especially the second one, are some of the fans cruel? Are the promoters and managers sometimes cruel? Did some boxers, especially Mike Tyson sometimes seem cruel? I would have to admit that the answer is yes.



Adjective:        

    Causing pain or suffering: "I can't stand people who are cruel to animals".
    Having or showing a sadistic disregard for the pain or suffering of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:20 PM

I will admit that I was trying to make a "boxing match" out of this thread. Sadly the "refs" kept stepping in.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:54 PM

kendall - of course we do, but I don't see what point you're trying to make to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 03:44 PM

To shut the silly little old woman,Raedwulf enters and does the very thing she accuses others of doing.

Personally I could care less one way or the other about boxing or any of the so-called martial arts, they are boring and they don't interest me, and nor do the personalities involved interest me.

The reality (Good God reality!!)is that boxing and other forms of fighting, professional and amateur are here to stay and they're not going away in a hurry, so why bitch and complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: gnu
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 05:11 PM

Ya needn't bother talkin at John. I know him. When he says he is gone, he is gone. He won't post and he won't even open the thread to read any of it again.

Me, I might say gnightgnu but I still reserve the right to read and post if I feel my words have been twisted... unless it's a known troll that twisted my words, at which point I know the readers with a brain don't pay attention to their crap.

And there's a lot of crap on this thread.

BTW, no more PMs about this thread please... positive or negative. I said my piece. Got no more to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 05:40 PM

So what was the point of you commenting at all then, BTNG? Oh, another internet warrior who bravely hides behind his keyboard. Yet more ad hominem, attempts at personal insults? Please, if you can't make them better than feeble, at least make them coherent. Yes, you really express yourself like that in real life, I can see that...

Gnu - pretty sure we've posted views in the same threads before; pretty sure we haven't always been on opposite sides. Not sure why you're being so hostile this time, unless it's because I've talked back to someone you personally know?

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 05:55 PM

I never have added hominy to attempts OR to insults.   It goes good with eggs though......Bacon, hominy eggs, cheese.......makes one helluva' fine breakfast. Or do you do this hominy adding as grits? Those are really damn good and especially with cheese and green chili peppers!

Personally though, I think posting on these threads can be cruel, primitive, and nauseating, but sometimes you learn something. The thing I'd like to learn here is what the hell kind of hominy is "hominem?" Is that made with a special corn or what?

And by the way you Dumbasses........there are two d's in add............



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM

there are two d's in add.

Not in "had hominy."

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Megan L
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:21 PM

The only way boxing could ever be considered even remotely interesting was if it was carried out by blindfolded naked men in a mud pit. Even then they wid hiv tae make sure there were good adverts tae keep fowk amused

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:28 PM

ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person")

short for argumentum ad hominem

note: single "d" it's Latin not English

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: gnu
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:23 PM

Megan... cool. Yer a wise woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:36 PM

We all create our own reality. Period. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:38 PM

I would argue the case of boxing being "primitive". Wasn't boxing in fact one of the Olympic contests practiced by the ancient Greeks, a culture which practiced true democracy, lived in harmony with the earth, and made a religion of beauty and truth? You can't tell me their culture wasn't superior in most aspects to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:59 PM

You do realize that the ancient economy ran on slave labor and slaves did not have a vote?

Also, while they did have wrestling, I believe that what we call boxing was invented by a prissy Brit known as the Marquis of Queensbury.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:44 PM

Yes, indeed, I agree, boxing is dying, and few people in the world find it interesting to watch.


But, wait a minute, there are many boxers and many of them make millions of dollars in their career, which is only a fraction of the money taken in from the matches globally. I know, the facts make it difficult for those disconnected who blew the big bubble to propose that it is a dying sport,(and not even interesting enough to watch).

One recent reminder that it is indeed not dead is Manny Pacquiao:


""In 2008 Manny Pacquiao received 15 to 30 million dollars (share of the pay-per-view), plus a guaranteed amount. Tickets reportedly sold out just hours after they went on sale. Moreover, the total gate revenue for the fight was said to be nearly 17 million dollars, making it the second largest gate revenue in boxing history.""

""In 2009 a Pacquiano title fight Miguel Cotto generated 1.25 million buys and $70 million in domestic pay-per-view revenue, making it the most watched boxing event of 2009. Pacquiao earned around $22 million for his part in the fight, whilst Cotto earned around $12 million. Pacquiao–Cotto also generated a live gate of $8,847,550 from an official crowd of 15,930.""

""In 2010, Pacquiao defeated Clottey at the Cowboys Stadium in Texas with paid crowd of 36,371 and a gate of $6,359,985. Counting complimentary tickets delivered to sponsors, media outlets and others, the Dallas fight attracted 41,843, an epic number for boxing. In addition, the bout drew 700,000 pay-per-view buys and earned $35.3 million in domestic revenue.""

""(Manny) Pacquiao has been included by Time Magazine as one of the world's most influential people for the year 2009, for his exploits in boxing and his influence among the Filipino people. Pacquiao also graced the cover of Time Magazine Asia for their November 16, 2009 issue. Pacquiao was also included by Forbes Magazine in its annual Celebrity 100 list for the year 2009, joining Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie and fellow athletes Tiger Woods and Bryant.[139] Forbes also listed Pacquiao as the World's 6th Highest Paid Athlete, with a total of 40 Million Dollars from the second half of 2008 to the first half of 2009. Tied with him on the sixth spot was the NBA player LeBron James and golfer Phil Mickelson. Pacquiao was again included in Forbes' list of Highest Paid Athletes from the second half of 2009 to the first half of 2010; he was ranked 8th with an income of $42 million. Pacquiao had also won the 2009 ESPY Awards for the Best Fighter category, beating fellow boxer Shane Mosley and Brazilian mixed martial arts fighters Lyoto Machida and Anderson Silva. More recently, ESPN Magazine reported that Pacquiao is one of the two top earning athletes for 2010, alongside American Major League baseball player Alex Rodriguez. According to the magazine's annual salary report of athletes, Pacquiao earned $32 million for his two 2010 boxing matches against Clottey and Margarito"".

Richest boxers

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:47 PM

The 9th Marquess of Queensberry was a Scottish nobleman, remembered for lending his name and patronage to the "Marquess of Queensberry rules" that formed the basis of modern boxing, among other things.

Boxing: An Overview

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM

Oh yea, blame it on the defenseless and much defeated Scottish. A tricky manoeuvre indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:59 PM

If the Macdondalds and Campbells had only agreed to a boxing match Queensberry rules,instead of more deadly tactics, the world would be a better place today.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:03 PM

Look it up on the net or go to your local library

A Wee History of the Marquess of Queensberry title

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:24 PM

Anybody named Marquis HAS to learn to box.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:45 PM

John Sholto Douglas, (ya know, the 9th Marquess of Queensberry) was also an outspoken atheist prone to violence, abused his wife and contributed to the downfall of author and playwright Oscar Wilde.

He seems to have been a disgusting fellow:
Marquis of Queensbury

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:54 PM

We're talking about the boxing rules that bear his title and nothing else

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:04 PM

Well, at a minimum, you are talking about that:)

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:10 PM

Exactly, and that's what this thread is about

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:13 PM

The title says nothing of the sort, no Boxing rules nor your Gordon fellow rules are mentioned. Sounds more to me like some type of tread rules you are trying to make up?.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: BTNG
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:49 PM

absolute rubbish, but think as you will
actually Oscar Wilde isn't mention ed either (thank god)

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Nov 11 - 11:47 PM

According to the author, the only purpose of this thread was to express his opinion of boxing. Everything else is gravy.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 02:53 AM

BTNG must be kinda' off or something.....He posted this:

"ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person")
short for argumentum ad hominem
note: single "d" it's Latin not English"

Does he mean men eat hominy or what? That's the only way a guy can get hominy inside him so adding hominy must be the answer. Or does he mean giving somebody a can of hominy. If so, I'd like some canned spinach too......and some eggs....but no eggs in a can. Just add the fresh eggs to the canned hominy and then you have a meal! One thing sure, you won't get no "argumentum" from me even if you can't spell that right either. The word is "argument."

This ain't no Latin forum but if some Latin type wants to post here like Antonio Banderas or Rita Moreno then I would expect them to also use the proper English spelling. Are you, BTNG, of Latin heritage? If so, I guess it will be okay to "ad" hominy if you want. Just bring eggs and I won't have any argumentum with that..


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 06:14 AM

As Oscar Wilde pointed out, it is important to be earnest.;)

The thread content has had very little to do about boxing, but was mostly crap-talk. But, it is what it is, and there is no sense of trying to make it more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 07:33 AM

Millions of dollars to beat another man senseless. Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Midchuck
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 07:54 AM

In my opinion, a lot of people are arguing the wrong question. As they are with respect to alcohol, tobacco, and mara...mari...weed.

"Is it good or bad?" is the wrong question. The right question is "Assuming it's bad, will passing laws against it help the situation, or merely drive it underground and thereby make it worse?"

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:27 AM

Millions of dollars to beat another man senseless.

Kinda like millions of dollars to mangle someone on the football field. Or to throw a basketball around.

But ain't that America. Priorities seriously fooked.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:02 AM

Or millions of dollars, or any money at all, to sing and play music.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:28 AM

""Millions of dollars to beat another man senseless""

Yes, and, it's called football and hockey.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:38 AM

Or the Republic debates. Though there is evidence that some of them show up senseless. Even the "sane" one forgot how long he had been married.

Subject: RE: BS: Boxing; cruel, primitive & nauseating
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:39 AM

200 !!!!

200 posts about nothing Bwahahahaha!!!