You say that you're not bothered about Conor. Now, I'm going to quickly recap what transpired over the past few posts:
You've written hysterical responses and random musings about how good Conor was against fighter X and fighter y when it had nothing to do with the fight we are discussing (Khabib Vs Conor). When I discussed that fight, you dismissed it as "your Khabib love-in" while you insisted on talking about Conor's previous fights, for some odd reason, when they had absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
You then chose to accuse me of being another poster because whoever the other poster is shares the same view that I and most MMA fans have regarding the Khabib Vs Conor fight. I bet you reckon the vast majority of the 2000 Sherdog posters are all the same person since the almost unanimous consensus is that Conor's excuses are...
excuses.
You then divagate and choose to project, calling me a Khabib fan with a shrine (ironic given that you're evidently a overzealous Conor fan who feels the name to randomly right paragraphs of irrelavant text about Conor Vs Also, Conor Vs Alvarez and a million other things that have no relevance of the topic on hand).
I corrected your first silly, unfounded insinuation that I'm whatever "previous poster" also argued with you in the past. And the mods are free to run IP checks to corroborate what I'm saying.
I then corrected your projection that I'm a "Khabib fan with a shrine" which seems to be you getting defensive because someone criticized Conor.
-------------------
Now, I'll gladly address what you wanted me to address in your bullet points:
1-You asked whether I believe a fighter when he says he's trained more than every before a fight? Unless I have a reason to doubt that، why wouldn't i?
On the other hand, when a fighter has a vested interest in claiming that he wasn't prepared AFTER already losing a fight, why can't you entertain the possibility that those claims aren't true?
2- "I'm merely pointing out my original point was he seemed more motivated in previous fights looking from the outside in..../" can you concede that that might be the case"
The first sentence is subjective. That didn't appear to be the case to me and didn't appear to be the case to many others. It might have appeared to be the case to you (and others), which is fine. We were on the outside looking in.
2- Can i concede that Conor was lying about being focused and that despite saying that he was training harder than he had done since his younger years and as motivated as he had ever been (which he didn't say prior to the other fights you mentioned)?
Of course. I conceded that from the beginning. I told you you're allowed that opinion. You don't need to believe what I believe. And I definitely have no way of knowing whether a statement is true or not.
------------------
What are we discussing?
The discussion - and it's an extremely simple one - is whether the fact that Conor and his camp contradicted themselves and their earlier statements, lends credibility to their excuses or weakens them? To a lot of people, this a simple answer. It's a lot more likely that Conor was being truthfu before the fight but giving excuses afterwards because:
1- They had a vested interest in trotting excuses after the loss.
2- They weren't consistent with their statements. They were contradicting themselves at every turn.
You keep asking whether I can concede that the opposite (however unlikely) might be the case, as if the debate were centered around whether it's impossible that Conor was lying? It isn't. And you're shifting goalposts.
