Can't believe this is still going!
MUDD
for the sake of clarity read this bit carefully.
Neither me or Mamba have said United fans defended Evans for spitting on Ciise.
We are saying United's fans defended Evans for spitting at Ciise. There were plenty of comments saying he wasn't spitting at Ciise, he was spitting on the pitch, can you honestly say that if he was compelled to spit he couldn't have done it away, or not in Ciise's direction?.
There were also plenty of fans saying he shouldn't get a ban. Why shouldn't he have been banned? (In the eyes of these fans). It's because they believe he didn't do anything wrong.
This isn't difficult. It's being made difficult by yourself, and others, fixating on the words 'spat on'.
What you are not getting mate is that, people saying he spat on the floor are not trying to defend Evans, they are stating what happened.
We all know what Evans did and agree completely he should be banned.
Just stating he spat on the floor and not on the player is a statement of fact, not a defence.
Why do you people not get this?
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 19 minutes ago
What you are not getting mate is that, people saying he spat on the floor are not trying to defend Evans, they are stating what happened.
We all know what Evans did and agree completely he should be banned.
Just stating he spat on the floor and not on the player is a statement of fact, not a defence.
Why do you people not get this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they're not. They're defending him and saying he didn't spit at Ciise. Saying they're just stating a fact is weak.
Quite a few don't know and think Evans shouldn't have been banned, there's an entire article dedicated to this subject.
There's thinking your fellow fans can do no wrong, and then there's this.
MUDD
URM here denied he even spat at Ciise. This was on the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban
"comment by UnitedRedMacca - time for Arab to change his name back. We'll deal with the imbeciles one by one (U2024)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
Macca
The way the FA will see it is that he spat in the direction of a player who had just swung his boot at him.
There really is no defence for that.
We all know the FA by now, apart from the OP, who, from his comments yesterday has no idea on how they work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vc
He still spat downwards. He didn't spit in his face
I think by the rules they couldn't ban him but if they do, I wouldn't complain.
It's the ones saying he spat at him that are doing my head in. If he have wanted to spit at him, he could have quite easily."
Look at the last paragraph. Is that stating a fact?
I really struggle to understand why you aren't getting this.
This guy must be wumming us Coutinho. I said he was deluded people thought I was just being abusive.
comment by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041)
posted 29 minutes ago
This guy must be wumming us Coutinho. I said he was deluded people thought I was just being abusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funniest thing is him going on about understanding the English language. He's been struggling with the difference between on and at for nearly a day now.
Read this bit;
"Vc
He still spat downwards. He didn't spit in his face
I think by the rules they couldn't ban him but if they do, I wouldn't complain."
In that sentence he acknowledges he would not complain if he was banned.
That is not consistent with defending a player.
Like I said, he did not spit on Cisse, that is a fact.
Saying it does not imply you are defending Evans, just stating a fact.
MUDD
There you go again obsessing over whether he spat on Ciise. Read the post before last. I'm bored of repeating it.
Yes URM wouldn't complain if he's banned. But more pertinent is this;
"It's the ones saying he spat at him that are doing my head in. If he have wanted to spit at him, he could have quite easily."
He clearly denies Evans spat at Ciise. Of course he's defending him in the above paragraph. He probably wouldn't complain about the ban because he sing a regular in the first 11.
You cannot take the statement of fact in isolation whilst ignoring he accepts it if he gets banned.
If he was defending him, why would he accept him getting banned?
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 52 seconds ago
You cannot take the statement of fact in isolation whilst ignoring he accepts it if he gets banned.
If he was defending him, why would he accept him getting banned?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained why URM accepted he gets a ban in my last comment. I'm getting bored of repeating myself so re read the comment.
The two things, denying he spat at Ciise and accepting the ban, are contradictory. Either way there's also plenty of United fans that thought he shouldn't get a ban. Do you think they weren't defending Evans?
What's Evans spitting got to do with Skrtel's offense anyway? He's been rightly banned for a stamp, if the ref had seen it he would have been offskies. This all seems a bit tít for tat and childish.
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
Elvis here thinks Evans didn't mean to spit at Ciise.
"Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
Evans will certainly be banned for at least six games.
The “defence” that he is somehow is unable to control his bodily functions has not done him any favours either.
--------------------------------
Who has claimed that he can't control his bodily functions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His manager.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31756582
--------------------------------
>>>Are you a bit dense? He said that Evans didn't mean to spit at Cisse. What has that got to do with not being able to control your bodily functions".<<< THIS BIT.
I suppose you think Elvis isn't defending him?
The mind boggles mate, boggles.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
What's Evans spitting got to do with Skrtel's offense anyway? He's been rightly banned for a stamp, if the ref had seen it he would have been offskies. This all seems a bit tít for tat and childish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing. This argument started after MUDD made a comment about us Liverpool fans printing T Shirts, despite us not defending Skrtel's actions.
I pointed out it's a bit rich coming from United fans, who defended Evans, and off we went.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
I think you've over reacted to a bit of banter poking fun at the way many Liverpool supporters have traditionally reacted to anything adverse about the club, no matter how justified. Evans got done for spitting, everyone has an opinion of his intention but he shouldn't have done it.
Who's printing the Skrtel t shirts anyway?
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 27 seconds ago
I think you've over reacted to a bit of banter poking fun at the way many Liverpool supporters have traditionally reacted to anything adverse about the club, no matter how justified. Evans got done for spitting, everyone has an opinion of his intention but he shouldn't have done it.
Who's printing the Skrtel t shirts anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No over reaction from me fella. I replied to a bit of banter with a bit of banter back. MUDD went off on one saying United's fans hadn't defended Evans. It spiralled from there.
Don't know who's printing T Shirts, that's what MUDD asked.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not nessecarily by you, can't be bothered to check who. But several comments have been pasted to show United fans defending Evans when all those comments said were that he spat on the floor...
Which is completely accurate.
Also Coutinho I would point out that that Elvis comment you copy pasted is actually a defence if what LVG said regarding Evans than it is of Evans himself.
Actually, this is what I said;
"He meant to do it and was unapologetic afterwards. Has to get banned.
Who is making the t Shirts?"
You then started talking about Evans, some may say, trying to deflect and defend Skrtel
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not nessecarily by you, can't be bothered to check who. But several comments have been pasted to show United fans defending Evans when all those comments said were that he spat on the floor...
Which is completely accurate.
Also Coutinho I would point out that that Elvis comment you copy pasted is actually a defence if what LVG said regarding Evans than it is of Evans himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
Ok, let's simplify things. There appears to be a struggle to distinguish between one two letter word and another.
Why were United's fans pointing out Evans spat on the floor? Was it?
A) To state the bleeding obvious?
Or
B) To claim he didn't spit at Ciise, defending him from the accusation he did?
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, this is what I said;
"He meant to do it and was unapologetic afterwards. Has to get banned.
Who is making the t Shirts?"
You then started talking about Evans, some may say, trying to deflect and defend Skrtel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me where I've defended Skrtel?
I'd be angry with Sktrel and Gerrard for potentially fecking up the run in for Liverpool rather than wasting my time trying to score points off United supporters.
Each to his own, I guess.
You talking about Evans could be interpreted as a means of deflecting from what Skrtel had done.
Some could call that an attempt at defending Skrtel through diversionary tactics
Well you say its to state the bleeding obvious but there were posters who did seem to think Evans had spat on Cisse at the time...
It's also a pretty damn important distinction to make, if for example I was going to court charged with Evans crime you can bet my bottom dollar I would be repeating that sentence non stop...
If it is a defence it is very much a legitimate one as Evans certainly did not spit on Cisse.
Quite frankly I am more than happy for anyone to be defended with the truth, if you want to say something factual about even the worlds biggest monsters I will more than happily hear it as accuracy to me is the most important thing.
Sign in if you want to comment
Frivolous appeal
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 26/3/15
Can't believe this is still going!
MUDD
for the sake of clarity read this bit carefully.
Neither me or Mamba have said United fans defended Evans for spitting on Ciise.
We are saying United's fans defended Evans for spitting at Ciise. There were plenty of comments saying he wasn't spitting at Ciise, he was spitting on the pitch, can you honestly say that if he was compelled to spit he couldn't have done it away, or not in Ciise's direction?.
There were also plenty of fans saying he shouldn't get a ban. Why shouldn't he have been banned? (In the eyes of these fans). It's because they believe he didn't do anything wrong.
This isn't difficult. It's being made difficult by yourself, and others, fixating on the words 'spat on'.
posted on 26/3/15
What you are not getting mate is that, people saying he spat on the floor are not trying to defend Evans, they are stating what happened.
We all know what Evans did and agree completely he should be banned.
Just stating he spat on the floor and not on the player is a statement of fact, not a defence.
Why do you people not get this?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 19 minutes ago
What you are not getting mate is that, people saying he spat on the floor are not trying to defend Evans, they are stating what happened.
We all know what Evans did and agree completely he should be banned.
Just stating he spat on the floor and not on the player is a statement of fact, not a defence.
Why do you people not get this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they're not. They're defending him and saying he didn't spit at Ciise. Saying they're just stating a fact is weak.
Quite a few don't know and think Evans shouldn't have been banned, there's an entire article dedicated to this subject.
There's thinking your fellow fans can do no wrong, and then there's this.
posted on 26/3/15
MUDD
URM here denied he even spat at Ciise. This was on the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban
"comment by UnitedRedMacca - time for Arab to change his name back. We'll deal with the imbeciles one by one (U2024)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
Macca
The way the FA will see it is that he spat in the direction of a player who had just swung his boot at him.
There really is no defence for that.
We all know the FA by now, apart from the OP, who, from his comments yesterday has no idea on how they work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vc
He still spat downwards. He didn't spit in his face
I think by the rules they couldn't ban him but if they do, I wouldn't complain.
It's the ones saying he spat at him that are doing my head in. If he have wanted to spit at him, he could have quite easily."
Look at the last paragraph. Is that stating a fact?
I really struggle to understand why you aren't getting this.
posted on 26/3/15
This guy must be wumming us Coutinho. I said he was deluded people thought I was just being abusive.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041)
posted 29 minutes ago
This guy must be wumming us Coutinho. I said he was deluded people thought I was just being abusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funniest thing is him going on about understanding the English language. He's been struggling with the difference between on and at for nearly a day now.
posted on 26/3/15
Read this bit;
"Vc
He still spat downwards. He didn't spit in his face
I think by the rules they couldn't ban him but if they do, I wouldn't complain."
In that sentence he acknowledges he would not complain if he was banned.
That is not consistent with defending a player.
Like I said, he did not spit on Cisse, that is a fact.
Saying it does not imply you are defending Evans, just stating a fact.
posted on 26/3/15
MUDD
There you go again obsessing over whether he spat on Ciise. Read the post before last. I'm bored of repeating it.
Yes URM wouldn't complain if he's banned. But more pertinent is this;
"It's the ones saying he spat at him that are doing my head in. If he have wanted to spit at him, he could have quite easily."
He clearly denies Evans spat at Ciise. Of course he's defending him in the above paragraph. He probably wouldn't complain about the ban because he sing a regular in the first 11.
posted on 26/3/15
You cannot take the statement of fact in isolation whilst ignoring he accepts it if he gets banned.
If he was defending him, why would he accept him getting banned?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 52 seconds ago
You cannot take the statement of fact in isolation whilst ignoring he accepts it if he gets banned.
If he was defending him, why would he accept him getting banned?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained why URM accepted he gets a ban in my last comment. I'm getting bored of repeating myself so re read the comment.
The two things, denying he spat at Ciise and accepting the ban, are contradictory. Either way there's also plenty of United fans that thought he shouldn't get a ban. Do you think they weren't defending Evans?
posted on 26/3/15
What's Evans spitting got to do with Skrtel's offense anyway? He's been rightly banned for a stamp, if the ref had seen it he would have been offskies. This all seems a bit tít for tat and childish.
posted on 26/3/15
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
posted on 26/3/15
Elvis here thinks Evans didn't mean to spit at Ciise.
"Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
Evans will certainly be banned for at least six games.
The “defence” that he is somehow is unable to control his bodily functions has not done him any favours either.
--------------------------------
Who has claimed that he can't control his bodily functions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His manager.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31756582
--------------------------------
>>>Are you a bit dense? He said that Evans didn't mean to spit at Cisse. What has that got to do with not being able to control your bodily functions".<<< THIS BIT.
I suppose you think Elvis isn't defending him?
posted on 26/3/15
The mind boggles mate, boggles.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
What's Evans spitting got to do with Skrtel's offense anyway? He's been rightly banned for a stamp, if the ref had seen it he would have been offskies. This all seems a bit tít for tat and childish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing. This argument started after MUDD made a comment about us Liverpool fans printing T Shirts, despite us not defending Skrtel's actions.
I pointed out it's a bit rich coming from United fans, who defended Evans, and off we went.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
posted on 26/3/15
I think you've over reacted to a bit of banter poking fun at the way many Liverpool supporters have traditionally reacted to anything adverse about the club, no matter how justified. Evans got done for spitting, everyone has an opinion of his intention but he shouldn't have done it.
Who's printing the Skrtel t shirts anyway?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 27 seconds ago
I think you've over reacted to a bit of banter poking fun at the way many Liverpool supporters have traditionally reacted to anything adverse about the club, no matter how justified. Evans got done for spitting, everyone has an opinion of his intention but he shouldn't have done it.
Who's printing the Skrtel t shirts anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No over reaction from me fella. I replied to a bit of banter with a bit of banter back. MUDD went off on one saying United's fans hadn't defended Evans. It spiralled from there.
Don't know who's printing T Shirts, that's what MUDD asked.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not nessecarily by you, can't be bothered to check who. But several comments have been pasted to show United fans defending Evans when all those comments said were that he spat on the floor...
Which is completely accurate.
Also Coutinho I would point out that that Elvis comment you copy pasted is actually a defence if what LVG said regarding Evans than it is of Evans himself.
posted on 26/3/15
Actually, this is what I said;
"He meant to do it and was unapologetic afterwards. Has to get banned.
Who is making the t Shirts?"
You then started talking about Evans, some may say, trying to deflect and defend Skrtel
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 5 minutes ago
It's no different from Liverpool fans saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea. A statement I am more than happy for Liverpool fans to make. Even though that statement defends Skrtel it is also 100% factual.
Evans spat on the floor.
Skrtel didn't punch De Gea in the face.
Gerrard didn't whip out a flamethrower and set the United fans on fire...
Ohh look now I am defending Gerrard and Skrtel as well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
No one's said Evans spat in Ciise. That was never in dispute, and I've never said United's fans defended this.
I've said United fans defended Evans spitting at (note the difference) Ciise. This includes the article saying Evans shouldn't get a ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not nessecarily by you, can't be bothered to check who. But several comments have been pasted to show United fans defending Evans when all those comments said were that he spat on the floor...
Which is completely accurate.
Also Coutinho I would point out that that Elvis comment you copy pasted is actually a defence if what LVG said regarding Evans than it is of Evans himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF
Ok, let's simplify things. There appears to be a struggle to distinguish between one two letter word and another.
Why were United's fans pointing out Evans spat on the floor? Was it?
A) To state the bleeding obvious?
Or
B) To claim he didn't spit at Ciise, defending him from the accusation he did?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually, this is what I said;
"He meant to do it and was unapologetic afterwards. Has to get banned.
Who is making the t Shirts?"
You then started talking about Evans, some may say, trying to deflect and defend Skrtel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me where I've defended Skrtel?
posted on 26/3/15
I'd be angry with Sktrel and Gerrard for potentially fecking up the run in for Liverpool rather than wasting my time trying to score points off United supporters.
Each to his own, I guess.
posted on 26/3/15
You talking about Evans could be interpreted as a means of deflecting from what Skrtel had done.
Some could call that an attempt at defending Skrtel through diversionary tactics
posted on 26/3/15
Well you say its to state the bleeding obvious but there were posters who did seem to think Evans had spat on Cisse at the time...
It's also a pretty damn important distinction to make, if for example I was going to court charged with Evans crime you can bet my bottom dollar I would be repeating that sentence non stop...
If it is a defence it is very much a legitimate one as Evans certainly did not spit on Cisse.
Quite frankly I am more than happy for anyone to be defended with the truth, if you want to say something factual about even the worlds biggest monsters I will more than happily hear it as accuracy to me is the most important thing.
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11