Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.
Herein lies the genesis of the issue. I slapped you and you felt it was because of your boyfriend and so you're mad. So let me clear this up. I don't care about GSP. I mean that in the literal sense. If you say his name to my face, I shrug. I could take him or leave him. Don't hate him. By all accounts he's a cool duder. I've met him briefly and he was nice enough.
All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.
His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.
If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.
I'm not interested in anything but your faulty logic.
There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog.
Your Innocent Until Guilty in a court of law. A court of law this is not... but we're not worried about his guilt or innocence we're worried about where this all started and why I picked up on you and you got flustered.
So only in law should i adopt the mantra that if a man that hasn't be proven guilty should be considered innocent? That is some interesting logic. Again, giving the benefit the doubt to someone who has never been proven otherwise, is not foolish.
I think you are relating the nature of the world to the individual. There is a problem with a the whole so there is reason to question the individual; that sir, is also foolish.
If you were black living in Chicago - is it reasonable to assume you have shot someone?
If you were white living in the antebellum - is it reasonable to assume you are racist?
If you are Miles from Ottawa, Canada - Is it reasonable to assume you know Steve from Toronto?
All that said, none of it plays into any of his clean/unclean issue. You got rustled by someone saying something that you misunderstood to begin with. Hyper-defensive to start, which made you an incredibly easy target if I was targeting, but quite frankly I wasn't. I just saw some poor logic and pointed it out.
His "willingness to test himself" is the entire foundation of your feigned outrage is based upon the notion that clears him of any cocked-brow at the concept of him having a clean career. THAT..... is foolish. And by "foolish" I mean the logic of a fool. The fool in this case being you, but only because you used this logic. I am sure there are plenty of times where you are not a fool.
What exactly did i misconstrued? I was merely stating that A, he has never been caught and B, he is only person to volunteer to go above and beyond. From there, i personally feel that there is no reason to doubt this.
Now, hypothetically speaking, lets say you were talented at something athletic. People claim you were on PED's but you never failed a test. How would you try to prove your claims of being clean? If you did everything the organization asked, as well as the commission (and you have been tested by several different commissions) and always come up clean - you should have doubt because others have been found guilty? From there, you decide to go a mile above what was required and take it upon yourself to do further testing - and still come clean' would you, yourself not feel that you have done enough to earn the right to be considered truthful in your claims?
If I want to look innocent while also avoiding being caught, I find myself a system that catches almost all things. But me, being the one who wishes to not be caught while still looking innocent, would surely want a system that catches much without catching me. That's just basic logic. I get both things, looking clean, sounding innocent as I am adamant that others are so very in the wrong, while not having to defend myself for the results prove me righteous. --PLEASE NOTE-- I am not claiming that is what GSP did. I am simply saying to your supposed genesis of truth... therein lies your folly.
Are you saying GSP could of found a system that would catch everyone but himself? Seriously you are reaching with the word "logic: with that thought process.
There's been enough posted about me and what I do that it is clear why I won't be naming names and sources. That may frustrate you and it may give you an out to cry folly. And that's all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that when you speak to those in the industry and close to the source you hear quite a different story than the fervent fans on Sherdog
I have no idea what you do - i was just responding to your claims of knowing people in the know - thus hearing whatever suspicions or claims from them.
However, i dont pay any credence to someone who says "i heard from a source" without providing the source.