comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am angry with both. I've said they both deserve the bans they've recieved. I've never defended them.
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah didn't think you would show me.
See you won't find me defending Skrtel. Unlike United's fans with Evans, it's there in black & white. No perception needed.
Again we are back at the same point that has been explained, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Stating Evans spat on the floor is not a defence of what happened.
He spat on the floor.
Did he not spit on the floor?
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again getting confused between spat on, and spat at. Never have two double letter words caused so much confusion.
I saw rival fans, on the 'should Evans receive a ban' thread talking about Evans spitting AT Ciise, not ON Ciise.
"comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
Without doubt, he will be charged.
Like Elvis though I don't feel he spat at cisse, if he wanted to he would have.
Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share"
Is that conclusive enough?
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 33 seconds ago
Again we are back at the same point that has been explained, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Stating Evans spat on the floor is not a defence of what happened.
He spat on the floor.
Did he not spit on the floor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he spat AT Ciise. Doesn't matter if he spat on the floor. That's being used to defend him, and say he didn't spit AT Ciise.
Jesus wept.
omment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
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'.
-----------------------
My personal opinion is that he spat at Cisse's feet as a show of disrespect. I don't believe that he tried to spit on Cisse. Ergo, he spat in Cisse's direction not AT him. Very easy to understand.
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 weeks ago
The more I watch it the more I think this is all over nothing.
Players often spit at a break in play.
Well that's pretty factual as well, depending on what he meant regarding all over nothing as that could be interpreted as a defence of Cisse as well....
comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 3 weeks ago
He did not spit at the player and the cannot prove he intended to. If the club appeal they should win.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 14 seconds ago
omment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
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'.
-----------------------
My personal opinion is that he spat at Cisse's feet as a show of disrespect. I don't believe that he tried to spit on Cisse. Ergo, he spat in Cisse's direction not AT him. Very easy to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So spitting in someone's direction, particularly someone you're standing over, is not spitting at someone? Of course it is.
So, one one hand we have fans, like yourself, that don't think Evans spat at Ciise, but accept the ban (which is a contradiction considering he was charge with spitting at another player)
Then you have other fans who don't think he deserves a ban.
But you're not defending him. Seriously lads, this is getting daft now.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 3 minutes ago
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United fans that think he didn't deserve a ban were not defending him?
Share
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 Nemanja's Body Count
posted 17 hours, 10 minutes ago
You're still not getting this. He can't remember the incident because footballers spit all the time.
Mamba
The more comments you dig up the more they deny it. It's fackin funny.
Well tbh I do think its a bit strange that he got a ban for spitting on the floor but obviously he did it far to close to Cisse whilst looking at him.
The main thing I had a problem with was them both getting the same ban as if there was some equivalency in what they did.
If someone spat on the floor in front of me I'd probably look at them a bit confused, if someone grabbed me and spat on the side of my face I would be tempted to get a little violent...
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 3 minutes ago
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United fans that think he didn't deserve a ban were not defending him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They certainly were.
Macca saying footballers spit all the time is not a defence of Evans, or even if it is is actually a factual one...
Tbh the two of you are starting to get quite silly now. This is really simple English. Stating a fact regarding the incident is perfectly acceptable...
Just as someone saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea is perfectly acceptable.
How do I make this any easier to understand?
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 32 seconds ago
Well tbh I do think its a bit strange that he got a ban for spitting on the floor but obviously he did it far to close to Cisse whilst looking at him.
The main thing I had a problem with was them both getting the same ban as if there was some equivalency in what they did.
If someone spat on the floor in front of me I'd probably look at them a bit confused, if someone grabbed me and spat on the side of my face I would be tempted to get a little violent...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this not the definition of spitting AT someone;
Spitting on the floor whilst standing over someone.
I'd say they got the same length of ban because Ciise would not have spat ON Evans had Evans not spat AT Ciise, there was provocation. Plus whether you spit AT or ON someone. Both are equally disgusting.
I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?
If he'd tried to spit at him from a distance away and failed I could understand it but quite frankly a child could have spat at someone and hit them from that distance....
If anything, if your not turning your head away you'd struggle to miss someone from that distance...
At least if you were trying to spit at them...
SAF
I think it's you that needs this simplifying, so here goes.
He didn't spit at Ciise because;
"You're still not getting this. He can't remember the incident because footballers spit all the time."
"They cannot prove he intended to. If the club appeal they should win".
"The more I watch it the more I think this is all over nothing.
Players often spit at a break in play."
All clearly defending Evans, not stating a fact.
I don't know, like I said if someone spat on the floor in front of me I would just look at them a bit confused...
Spitting isn't exactly a nice thing in general but playing sport and running around you'd expect them to spit, is just be confused why he did it on the floor next to me.
Spitting in someone's face is certainly disgusting, surprised Evans didn't react more tbh...
SAF
"I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?"
Really? Surely spitting and actually hitting them would be spitting ON someone. Spitting in a persons direction. Especially when you are close to, or even standing over someone, is spitting AT someone.
Why is this so difficult?
Cout
Footballers do spit all the time, he may well not remember the incident, that isn't a defence of Evans actions it's a comment on footballers spitting, which they do all the time (Evans especially) and Evans memory.
Given the charge wasn't based on whether Evans remembered spitting or not that isn't really a defence of him!
They also cannot prove Evans intent, that is actually a fact.
They can decide on the basis of the evidence that there was intent, but given out lack of mind reading abilities intent is impossible to prove or disprove!
Saying the club should win an appeal is inaccurate obviously but is not a defence of Evans, it's an inaccurate forecast of the outcome of an appeal.
It's really not that difficult, I really don't understand the problem you are having here?!
There's loads and loads of instances Evans was defended. Many are hidden in context and cannot be copy pasted. Denying this even in the face of overwhelming evidence is delusion and blinkeredness at catastrophic proportions.
I cant be bothered digging up facts as it feels like I'm getting wummed.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF
"I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?"
Really? Surely spitting and actually hitting them would be spitting ON someone. Spitting in a persons direction. Especially when you are close to, or even standing over someone, is spitting AT someone.
Why is this so difficult?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's rely rather simple, you just intentionally seem to be trying to make it difficult.
If you spit at someone, and hit them you've spat on them.
If you are a foot or two away from someone and spat at them, you will generally spit on them, as unless you have some kind if problem with your mouth were you are unable to spit properly then you will hit them.
Quite frankly if Evans had spat at Cisse he would have spat on him, given the distance it would have been very difficult to miss!!!
Mamba the only thing your being wummed on is your poor understanding of English...
Sign in if you want to comment
Frivolous appeal
Page 7 of 21
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 26/3/15
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am angry with both. I've said they both deserve the bans they've recieved. I've never defended them.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah didn't think you would show me.
See you won't find me defending Skrtel. Unlike United's fans with Evans, it's there in black & white. No perception needed.
posted on 26/3/15
Again we are back at the same point that has been explained, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Stating Evans spat on the floor is not a defence of what happened.
He spat on the floor.
Did he not spit on the floor?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again getting confused between spat on, and spat at. Never have two double letter words caused so much confusion.
I saw rival fans, on the 'should Evans receive a ban' thread talking about Evans spitting AT Ciise, not ON Ciise.
"comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago
Without doubt, he will be charged.
Like Elvis though I don't feel he spat at cisse, if he wanted to he would have.
Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share"
Is that conclusive enough?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 33 seconds ago
Again we are back at the same point that has been explained, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Stating Evans spat on the floor is not a defence of what happened.
He spat on the floor.
Did he not spit on the floor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he spat AT Ciise. Doesn't matter if he spat on the floor. That's being used to defend him, and say he didn't spit AT Ciise.
Jesus wept.
posted on 26/3/15
omment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
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'.
-----------------------
My personal opinion is that he spat at Cisse's feet as a show of disrespect. I don't believe that he tried to spit on Cisse. Ergo, he spat in Cisse's direction not AT him. Very easy to understand.
posted on 26/3/15
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 weeks ago
The more I watch it the more I think this is all over nothing.
Players often spit at a break in play.
posted on 26/3/15
Well that's pretty factual as well, depending on what he meant regarding all over nothing as that could be interpreted as a defence of Cisse as well....
posted on 26/3/15
comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 3 weeks ago
He did not spit at the player and the cannot prove he intended to. If the club appeal they should win.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 14 seconds ago
omment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
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'.
-----------------------
My personal opinion is that he spat at Cisse's feet as a show of disrespect. I don't believe that he tried to spit on Cisse. Ergo, he spat in Cisse's direction not AT him. Very easy to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So spitting in someone's direction, particularly someone you're standing over, is not spitting at someone? Of course it is.
So, one one hand we have fans, like yourself, that don't think Evans spat at Ciise, but accept the ban (which is a contradiction considering he was charge with spitting at another player)
Then you have other fans who don't think he deserves a ban.
But you're not defending him. Seriously lads, this is getting daft now.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 3 minutes ago
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United fans that think he didn't deserve a ban were not defending him?
posted on 26/3/15
Share
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 Nemanja's Body Count
posted 17 hours, 10 minutes ago
You're still not getting this. He can't remember the incident because footballers spit all the time.
posted on 26/3/15
Mamba
The more comments you dig up the more they deny it. It's fackin funny.
posted on 26/3/15
Well tbh I do think its a bit strange that he got a ban for spitting on the floor but obviously he did it far to close to Cisse whilst looking at him.
The main thing I had a problem with was them both getting the same ban as if there was some equivalency in what they did.
If someone spat on the floor in front of me I'd probably look at them a bit confused, if someone grabbed me and spat on the side of my face I would be tempted to get a little violent...
posted on 26/3/15
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 3 minutes ago
That is actually a defence of Evans spitting at Cisse!
Well done!
I am guessing you have finally grasped the difference between the comments now?
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Evans spat on the floor, that part is 100% fact. His intent on the other hand is up for question and by questioning that it could certainly be considered a defence of Evans...
Or to put it another way, a defence of Evans that we can't confirm as 100% fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United fans that think he didn't deserve a ban were not defending him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They certainly were.
Macca saying footballers spit all the time is not a defence of Evans, or even if it is is actually a factual one...
Tbh the two of you are starting to get quite silly now. This is really simple English. Stating a fact regarding the incident is perfectly acceptable...
Just as someone saying Skrtel didn't punch De Gea is perfectly acceptable.
How do I make this any easier to understand?
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 32 seconds ago
Well tbh I do think its a bit strange that he got a ban for spitting on the floor but obviously he did it far to close to Cisse whilst looking at him.
The main thing I had a problem with was them both getting the same ban as if there was some equivalency in what they did.
If someone spat on the floor in front of me I'd probably look at them a bit confused, if someone grabbed me and spat on the side of my face I would be tempted to get a little violent...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this not the definition of spitting AT someone;
Spitting on the floor whilst standing over someone.
I'd say they got the same length of ban because Ciise would not have spat ON Evans had Evans not spat AT Ciise, there was provocation. Plus whether you spit AT or ON someone. Both are equally disgusting.
posted on 26/3/15
I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?
If he'd tried to spit at him from a distance away and failed I could understand it but quite frankly a child could have spat at someone and hit them from that distance....
If anything, if your not turning your head away you'd struggle to miss someone from that distance...
At least if you were trying to spit at them...
posted on 26/3/15
SAF
I think it's you that needs this simplifying, so here goes.
He didn't spit at Ciise because;
"You're still not getting this. He can't remember the incident because footballers spit all the time."
"They cannot prove he intended to. If the club appeal they should win".
"The more I watch it the more I think this is all over nothing.
Players often spit at a break in play."
All clearly defending Evans, not stating a fact.
posted on 26/3/15
I don't know, like I said if someone spat on the floor in front of me I would just look at them a bit confused...
Spitting isn't exactly a nice thing in general but playing sport and running around you'd expect them to spit, is just be confused why he did it on the floor next to me.
Spitting in someone's face is certainly disgusting, surprised Evans didn't react more tbh...
posted on 26/3/15
SAF
"I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?"
Really? Surely spitting and actually hitting them would be spitting ON someone. Spitting in a persons direction. Especially when you are close to, or even standing over someone, is spitting AT someone.
Why is this so difficult?
posted on 26/3/15
Cout
Footballers do spit all the time, he may well not remember the incident, that isn't a defence of Evans actions it's a comment on footballers spitting, which they do all the time (Evans especially) and Evans memory.
Given the charge wasn't based on whether Evans remembered spitting or not that isn't really a defence of him!
They also cannot prove Evans intent, that is actually a fact.
They can decide on the basis of the evidence that there was intent, but given out lack of mind reading abilities intent is impossible to prove or disprove!
Saying the club should win an appeal is inaccurate obviously but is not a defence of Evans, it's an inaccurate forecast of the outcome of an appeal.
It's really not that difficult, I really don't understand the problem you are having here?!
posted on 26/3/15
There's loads and loads of instances Evans was defended. Many are hidden in context and cannot be copy pasted. Denying this even in the face of overwhelming evidence is delusion and blinkeredness at catastrophic proportions.
I cant be bothered digging up facts as it feels like I'm getting wummed.
posted on 26/3/15
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
SAF
"I don't know, surely a pretty important part of spitting at someone is actually hitting them, especially from such a close distance away?"
Really? Surely spitting and actually hitting them would be spitting ON someone. Spitting in a persons direction. Especially when you are close to, or even standing over someone, is spitting AT someone.
Why is this so difficult?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's rely rather simple, you just intentionally seem to be trying to make it difficult.
If you spit at someone, and hit them you've spat on them.
If you are a foot or two away from someone and spat at them, you will generally spit on them, as unless you have some kind if problem with your mouth were you are unable to spit properly then you will hit them.
Quite frankly if Evans had spat at Cisse he would have spat on him, given the distance it would have been very difficult to miss!!!
posted on 26/3/15
Mamba the only thing your being wummed on is your poor understanding of English...
Page 7 of 21
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12