Fury launches another foul mouthed attack

First topic message reminder :

Good marketing tool or is the man completely insane ?

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/09/tyson-fury-in-astonishing-foul-mouthed-and-homophobic-twitter-rant-at-david-haye-lennox-lewis-and-wladimir-klitschko-4141152/

I dont think Fury is capable of dodging much

Rowley wrote:Can we ease up (read stop) with the word pikey. Lifestyle choice or not it is a term that can cause offence and as such has no place on here. Cheers

I'm warning you! If you say "Pikey" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?

Hibbz wrote:

Rowley wrote:Can we ease up (read stop) with the word pikey. Lifestyle choice or not it is a term that can cause offence and as such has no place on here. Cheers

I'm warning you! If you say "Pikey" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?

Well, you did say Jehovah...

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

Is this aimed at me?  Rest assured that I will respond fully when using a pc as opposed to the phone.  What you write is quite clearly a load of bollox.

We're all looking forward to seeing you get owned by Gentleman now, thanks....

That is never going to happen.

I see you avoided my previous response to you. Have you turned into a coward? 

Scottrf wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

Not exactly the same. You don't choose your race or sex.

You don't choose your sexuality either. You are either born a shirt lifter or a skirt puller. Quite what the Scots do with blokes in kilts is another matter.

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

Is this aimed at me?  Rest assured that I will respond fully when using a pc as opposed to the phone.  What you write is quite clearly a load of bollox.

We're all looking forward to seeing you get owned by Gentleman now, thanks....

That is never going to happen.

I see you avoided my previous response to you. Have you turned into a coward? 

If you re-read it you'll note there's nothing for me to respond to as your reply was utter gobble-di-gook. I'll put your miscomprehension down to reading it on the phone.

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

The bottom line If we are honest Is.. if someone is a scumbag you like him..........

Which is fair enough..........

Not exactly Truss. I am no fan of Broner.

@top hat
So you think because Fury (may or may not, I dont know) refers to himself as a pikey, you can do the same. Does that apply to snoop Lion who has a very liberal use of the N word? Please answer.

I'm not getting into semantics.........I'm just cutting the BS and stating the obvious Mate.......

Like I said it's fairplay.......

i like boxers with natural charisma. Floyd, Del, Fury etc have it. Broner seems contrived. K2 couldn't buy it if it were on a BOGOF deal.

Chisora has charisma ???..........

Sadly he does. His interviews are never boring and his unpredictability is good viewing. Well its my opinion anyway. Listening to some boxers being interviewed is like listening to a leaking pipe.

Charisma is in the eye of the beholder...........

I think he's a monotone, boring, vile, wife beating, hooligan that needs a good career ending knockout...........

but that's just me..........As others like him on here.........It's not a done-deal-opinion..

If we applied those terms accros the board to all boxers, there would very few we would actually like or support.

azania wrote:Not exactly Truss. I am no fan of Broner.

@top hat
So you think because Fury (may or may not, I dont know) refers to himself as a pikey, you can do the same. Does that apply to snoop Lion who has a very liberal use of the N word? Please answer.

I wouldn't use the n word as I consider it unpleasant and distasteful in the extreme, whether others use it or not. Pikey, however, I do not, particularly as it refers to a set of characteristics all within one's gift to choose. The fact Fury uses the word simply makes me care even less that I use it.

Now can you answer my question?

If Fury was racist rather than homophobic, dropping the n-bomb, degrading black boxers due to their African heritage etc, would you be so forgiving and light-hearted about what he says?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:Not exactly Truss. I am no fan of Broner.

@top hat
So you think because Fury (may or may not, I dont know) refers to himself as a pikey, you can do the same. Does that apply to snoop Lion who has a very liberal use of the N word? Please answer.

I wouldn't use the n word as I consider it unpleasant and distasteful in the extreme, whether others use it or not.  Pikey, however, I do not, particularly as it refers to a set of characteristics all within one's gift to choose. The fact Fury uses the word simply makes me care even less that I use it.

Now can you answer my question?

If Fury was racist rather than homophobic, dropping the n-bomb, degrading black boxers due to their African heritage etc, would you be so forgiving and light-hearted about what he says?

It answers the question and proves you're a hypocrite. 

As for someone being racist? Well Garcia's dad was very liberal with the N word. Someone posted a You Tube vid of him using it on here and started a thread about it. Have you read me post anything negative about him? In fact quite the opposite. The guy is hilarious.

Try again.  

ANyway, nevermind. I'd going to kick back and watch Engerland play Monte......!

azania wrote:ANyway, nevermind. I'd going to kick back and watch Engerland play Monte......!

Come on Monte

ShahenshahG wrote:Does Tyson Fury dodge tax?

Council tax probably.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Does Tyson Fury dodge tax?

Council tax probably.

I think he lives in a posh area so he probably pays that as well. He has Gypsy heritage but I don't think he lives the traveller lifestyle.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Does Tyson Fury dodge tax?

Council tax probably.

I think he lives in a posh area so he probably pays that as well. He has Gypsy heritage but I don't think he lives the traveller lifestyle.

What is gypo heritage? All your uncles living in a caravan on an illegal site, making the lives of others a misery?

Do you talk like some of those thick sounding idiots on geordie shore?

azania wrote:Do you talk like some of those thick sounding idiots on geordie shore?

Yes...

Do you have a race issue like a lot of South Africans?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:Do you talk like some of those thick sounding idiots on geordie shore?

Yes...

Do you have a race issue like a lot of South Africans?

Do you really want to go down there again Einstein?

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

to be fair I dont even think Fury is a homophobic, I think he is just trying to create upsets to get talked about, His use of the word is more ignorant (as if all homosexuals are feminine) rather than offensive...

tunes666 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

to be fair I dont even think Fury is a homophobic, I think he is just trying to create upsets to get talked about, His use of the word is more ignorant (as if all homosexuals are feminine) rather than offensive...

Bigotry and prejudices are born out of ignorance. If Fury is being ignorant then he is being homophobic. The only way to cure that is through education. A few here can learn to overcome their inherent bigotry through educating themselves. I name no names but you know who you are jack.  

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

Fury is a boxer not a social commentator? What a strange argument. I'm not sure what exactly a 'social commentator' is, by your definition (journalists, politicians, public intellectuals / academics)? Either way, the majority of people are not 'social commentators'. By this logic, racism / homophobia / sexism is not be opposed unless it is espoused by a person who conforms to your ambiguous and abstract definition of a 'social commentator'?

Why not? I don't think Fury is a bad person, or even necessarily homophobic. However, unlike yourself, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to take exception to his comments. It is hardly a hysterical, anti-fury reaction. I would expect a similar level of negativity if Price had said such things. The fact that he rarely does is likely the real reason people like him more than Fury.

I know you are not in agreement with Fury. At no point did I say you were. I merely pointed out that you obviously are not offended by his remarks, which I consider to be hypocrtical of you, seeing as I know that in the past you have denounced people for bigotry (Ironically, you actually do so in the above post). Not only that, but you suggest that anyone whose opinion of Fury is lowered following his remarks, are being overly sensitive and/or have an irrational hatred for Tyson Fury. If someone consistently makes offensive comments then it is not irrational to dislike them.

You defend him as defending Fury is part of your 606 raison d'etre. That is, to argue the case for unappreciated / unpopular fighters. It's perfectly possible to defend Fury without supporting everything he says and without claiming anyone who criticises him is doing so based purely on an irrational dislike of the guy.

I see you have decided to use logic and reason to argue with Az. Good luck with that Gentleman.

Gentleman01 wrote:

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

Fury is a boxer not a social commentator? What a strange argument. I'm not sure what exactly a 'social commentator' is, by your definition (journalists, politicians, public intellectuals / academics)? Either way, the majority of people are not 'social commentators'. By this logic, racism / homophobia / sexism is not be opposed unless it is espoused by a person who conforms to your ambiguous and abstract definition of a 'social commentator'?

Why not? I don't think Fury is a bad person, or even necessarily homophobic. However, unlike yourself, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to take exception to his comments. It is hardly a hysterical, anti-fury reaction. I would expect a similar level of negativity if Price had said such things. The fact that he rarely does is likely the real reason people like him more than Fury.

I know you are not in agreement with Fury. At no point did I say you were. I merely pointed out that you obviously are not offended by his remarks, which I consider to be hypocrtical of you, seeing as I know that in the past you have denounced people for bigotry (Ironically, you actually do so in the above post). Not only that, but you suggest that anyone whose opinion of Fury is lowered following his remarks, are being overly sensitive and/or have an irrational hatred for Tyson Fury. If someone consistently makes offensive comments then it is not irrational to dislike them.

You defend him as defending Fury is part of your 606 raison d'etre. That is, to argue the case for unappreciated / unpopular fighters. It's perfectly possible to defend Fury without supporting everything he says and without claiming anyone who criticises him is doing so based purely on an irrational dislike of the guy.

 

Azania.....owned.

He's not owned until he says he's owned!! Never under estimate the power of tunnel vision.

Very true bhb.

Azania is never owned.....

bhb001 wrote:He's not owned until he says he's owned!! Never under estimate the power of tunnel vision.

More like Chucklevision...

I heard that tunnel vision is chinny.

Gentleman01 wrote:

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

Fury is a boxer not a social commentator? What a strange argument. I'm not sure what exactly a 'social commentator' is, by your definition (journalists, politicians, public intellectuals / academics)? Either way, the majority of people are not 'social commentators'. By this logic, racism / homophobia / sexism is not be opposed unless it is espoused by a person who conforms to your ambiguous and abstract definition of a 'social commentator'?

Why not? I don't think Fury is a bad person, or even necessarily homophobic. However, unlike yourself, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to take exception to his comments. It is hardly a hysterical, anti-fury reaction. I would expect a similar level of negativity if Price had said such things. The fact that he rarely does is likely the real reason people like him more than Fury.

I know you are not in agreement with Fury. At no point did I say you were. I merely pointed out that you obviously are not offended by his remarks, which I consider to be hypocrtical of you, seeing as I know that in the past you have denounced people for bigotry (Ironically, you actually do so in the above post). Not only that, but you suggest that anyone whose opinion of Fury is lowered following his remarks, are being overly sensitive and/or have an irrational hatred for Tyson Fury. If someone consistently makes offensive comments then it is not irrational to dislike them.

You defend him as defending Fury is part of your 606 raison d'etre. That is, to argue the case for unappreciated / unpopular fighters. It's perfectly possible to defend Fury without supporting everything he says and without claiming anyone who criticises him is doing so based purely on an irrational dislike of the guy.

Haha this is excellent. Gentleman unpicks the warped strands of Az's tangled logic and lays them bare. I wonder if there will be a response?

The most intellectual response he will probably muster is:

"Yea gentleman, thats what your missus said last night"

Owned? Far from it. Can't respond fully right now but I will do later this evening.

Your argument has been torn to shreds, you can't get uppity with LJ for racism when you yourself are condoning homophobia.

Gentleman01 wrote:

azania wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Azania is not homosexual and, as such, cares not that Fury hurls homophobic insults around. For him it is all justified in the name of self-promotion and he tolerates it, in fact embraces it, as he himself is not offended by such insults.

It's not a position I agree with, however everyone is entitled to view Fury's latest ramblings however they see fit.

In the name of balance, however, I assume Azania would take a similarly positive position were Fury to ascribe such pejorative connotations to other human characteristics such as having darker skin, or being a woman, for example.

I assume this as, as we all know, Azania is someone for whom maintaining balance in a stated position is clearly important...

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite.

01, the bottom line is that he is a boxer and not a social commentator. Furthermore from my post I presume you are commenting, you will note that I made no comment as to whether I am in agreement with Fury or not. But I did take issue with some think Northern plank referring to him as a racist by using a racist term to describe Fury. I should expect nothing from that plank seeing as he once said we should bomb a country with nukes to stop a nuclear war when said country was already armed with nuclear weapons.

Fury is a boxer not a social commentator? What a strange argument. I'm not sure what exactly a 'social commentator' is, by your definition (journalists, politicians, public intellectuals / academics)? Either way, the majority of people are not 'social commentators'. By this logic, racism / homophobia / sexism is not be opposed unless it is espoused by a person who conforms to your ambiguous and abstract definition of a 'social commentator'?

Why not? I don't think Fury is a bad person, or even necessarily homophobic. However, unlike yourself, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to take exception to his comments. It is hardly a hysterical, anti-fury reaction. I would expect a similar level of negativity if Price had said such things. The fact that he rarely does is likely the real reason people like him more than Fury.

I know you are not in agreement with Fury. At no point did I say you were. I merely pointed out that you obviously are not offended by his remarks, which I consider to be hypocrtical of you, seeing as I know that in the past you have denounced people for bigotry (Ironically, you actually do so in the above post). Not only that, but you suggest that anyone whose opinion of Fury is lowered following his remarks, are being overly sensitive and/or have an irrational hatred for Tyson Fury. If someone consistently makes offensive comments then it is not irrational to dislike them.

You defend him as defending Fury is part of your 606 raison d'etre. That is, to argue the case for unappreciated / unpopular fighters. It's perfectly possible to defend Fury without supporting everything he says and without claiming anyone who criticises him is doing so based purely on an irrational dislike of the guy.

Fury is a boxer. Plain and simple. He is trying to garner interest in himself and therefore his upcoming fight with Haye. He will say anything, however silly to sell the PPV. As you rightfully state, it is something I do not agree with. I also said in a previous post on this thread that Angel Garcia made some racist comments prior to Garcia fighting Judah. In fact he used the N word. I didn't criticise him for it and took it for what it was; trying to sell a fight and get under the skin of Judah. Of course I don't approve of either comment but one has to look at who is saying it and take it from there.

If it was someone with a little more intelligence then I would have an issue with it. I am defending Fury because he comes in for some ridiculous criticism and is subjected to mush stereotypical abuse due to many factors including what he says and how he says it but in particular because of his heritage. Many boxers have been mouthy in the past but do not get the criticism Fury gets. He is called "tarmaccer", "pikey" and many other adjectives which people here find funny, yet take issue with his homophobia. I reckon a mirror is required fr them to look at.

If Fury were to make comments about Haye's ethnicity it still wouldn't offend me. I recall Bowe calling Lewis a "faggot" on many occasions. Rahman also called Lewis that. When discussing those fighters which we have done many times, that doesn't register an iota. But Fury says it and people wet themselves. Is it not equally offensive when Bowe and Rahman say it? Or it the moral hand wringing reserved for Fury. Or is it a case of "that was then and this is now" or the lovely canard of 2 wrongs don't make a right and we should all NOW be offended?

Hypocrites.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your argument has been torn to shreds, you can't get uppity with LJ for racism when you yourself are condoning homophobia.

Care to point out where and how I condoned homophobia? Even 01 agreed that I do not agree with Fury's sentiments.

There are too many semi intelligent people here.

I find it all a bit queer the way people are acting on here about Furys comments

Anyway il be back now just popping outside for a fag

bhb001 wrote:He's not owned until he says he's owned!! Never under estimate the power of tunnel vision.

Actually I have admitted to that with Windy, manos, Oxring (once) and one or two others. Only people who know their boxing and adequate social commentators.

Re: Angel Garcia going overboard 'this time'
Post by azania on Sat 27 Apr 2013, 10:52 am

Judah is going to lose anyway. But there is no place in society for what Garcia did. It is not just name calling. I wonder how black fighters who share the same gym would feel when they walk into the gym.

This could affect Jnr's career badly.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: Re: Angel Garcia going overboard 'this time'
Post by azania on Sat 27 Apr 2013, 10:52 am

Judah is going to lose anyway. But there is no place in society for what Garcia did. It is not just name calling. I wonder how black fighters who share the same gym would feel when they walk into the gym.

This could affect Jnr's career badly.

Yes, now don't you think that is tame compared to what many assume I would say? As I said on this thread, Fury was wrong to make those comments. My post was about people's reaction here. All the moral handwringing and then we let a fellow poster make a comment about how the Gay boxer wouldn't mind it if his body was covered in vaseline.

Hypocrites.

You also said 'he should have been arrested and rightfully so', you're being a hypocrite so just give up the ghost before you end up looking more of a fool than you already do.

To many double standards don't you think.

From you yes.

If you say so.

I see the point is; many boxers can make choice remarks and are ignored. Fury makes same remarks and gets dragged through the mud for it. Poster makes choice remark about a gay boxer and it goes ignored.

Move along guv.