I caught with you a long time ago..
I don't have the time to argue endless semantics with you. The last time that happened, posters questioned your mental health.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
I'll start:
Made up fact number 1:
"Everybody apart from United fans who actually reads the evidence agrees with this".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my opinion not fact. Do I have to add a disclaimer to my opinions?
Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
You don't know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.
It's not semantics, it's not having sufficient intelligence for the debate.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Great.
So what basis do you make that claim on then?
Also, can you confirm how you've deduced that one of the panel on the Suarez hearing was Ferguson's mate?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Great.
So what basis do you make that claim on then?
Also, can you confirm how you've deduced that one of the panel on the Suarez hearing was Ferguson's mate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind. There's even an example on this thread.
Saying he was his mate was probably taking it a bit far but considering how well he treated his son and his claim in his autobiography that he helped save Ferguson's job we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind."
You've recorded every single person, have you?
Utterly ridiculous.
"we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion"
No, it's not a fact.
You obviously don't know how conflict of interest is defined and just telling people it is a conflict of interest does not mean it is.
Here we can see where your delusion comes from, though.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind."
You've recorded every single person, have you?
Utterly ridiculous.
"we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion"
No, it's not a fact.
You obviously don't know how conflict of interest is defined and just telling people it is a conflict of interest does not mean it is.
Here we can see where your delusion comes from, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say I recorded every person? I didn't state that part as a fact. I may have to write that disclaimer for you as you can't tell the difference.
Yes it is a fact that it's a conflict of interest and denying it doesn't make it any less correct, unfortunately for you. Telling people that there is no conflict if interest despite being presented with the facts showing it was just shows how deluded you really are.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No you didn't. I am mocking you because you have absolutely no idea what the average, neutral fan thinks. So stop using that as part of your argument - it makes you sound ridiculous.
It's not a fact that it is a conflict of interest. Can you even tell me the definition of a conflict of interest in a civil court?
Of course you can't. You've just decided in your head that it's a conflict of interest and therefore you use it as a point in your argument. Confirmation bias.
Seriously, do you think no one will notice these moronic things you say?
Or are you so stupid that you actually believe this stuff?
Just when you thought this thread couldn’t get any worse, Winston rears his ugly head.
comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 30 seconds ago
Just when you thought this thread couldn’t get any worse, Winston rears his ugly head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought he was doing it on purpose but now I just think he's stupid.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Said without a hint of irony.
Brilliant.
So Winston, you're called in from outside to a workplace to sit on a panel to decide if an employee of this particular work place racially abused another employee. You find out that the employee who is claiming racial abuse works for the department of the manager you helped saved the job of, he held him with such high regard that he made him his assistant and whose son not only worked for you but who you had such affinity for that you made him your assistant and raved about him in your autobiography. Is there a potential for that to cloud your judgement?
I don't know how the answer can be anything but yes here but let's say you decide it's a no and proceed.
The video evidence of the altercation is viewed, lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring. Language experts are brought in to go through what each person has claimed was said as they spoke in a foreign language. The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times. He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times. He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way. The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense. Therefore the alleged victim has changed his account about what was said and how many times it was said. Do you find the alleged victim credible?
Can you in anyway, with the evidence at hand, judge that racial abuse occurred, even on the basis of probability?
Also note Evra's previous.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Can you elaborate a little on how he helped to save his job? Genuine question, don't actually know.
Answer me this - if there is such a conflict of interest, why was the panel not challenged by Suarez and his legal team?
They were told a long time in advance and have the opportunity to complain. They didn't.
Could it be that you're talking nonsense?
As for your other points, where to start?
"lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring" - because most of the time what Suarez is saying is obscured.
" The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times." - Incorrect, he did not make this claim.
"He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times." - Incorrect - he uses the word 'black' as part of his initial complaint to the referee.
"He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way." The experts did not say 'it makes no sense'.
"The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense." - This is misleading. They say that it makes sense IF Suarez used the term in a conciliatory manner.
You'll find it was Suarez who had inconsistencies in what he claimed. What Comolli and Kuyt were on record as being told by Suarez was later changed - in effect, Suarez is saying that both individuals must have misheard him.
He also changed his mind about when he said what he said, in terms of the incident and where they were.
Evra's version of events remains consistent throughout.
You have obviously convinced yourself of the points you note. The question is, are you delusional or intentionally deceitful?
Either way, you're wrong and I will continue to pull apart your points.
Yet still this article continues.. ...
wow. its such a simple situation as well
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 58 minutes ago
Also note Evra's previous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes.
The classy Dalglish's first thought, when informed of the allegation, was to ask 'he's done this before'. The immediate assumption it's made up, because it's a Man Utd player vs a Liverpool player.
What a lovely man.
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why bother? That’s all I say.
Baz tromo (U19119)
Because he is basically trying to re-write history and I'm fed up of reading his nonsense.
It is a debate forum after all!
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Baz tromo (U19119)
Because he is basically trying to re-write history and I'm fed up of reading his nonsense.
It is a debate forum after all!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Each to their own Winston, if it makes you happy
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 58 minutes ago
Also note Evra's previous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes.
The classy Dalglish's first thought, when informed of the allegation, was to ask 'he's done this before'. The immediate assumption it's made up, because it's a Man Utd player vs a Liverpool player.
What a lovely man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evra has done it before though
... but that's only partly the reason he is viewed by some as a cvnt, it's because does at lot of cvntish things. Does it have a baring on the Suarez incident? Well think it certainly merits scrutiny, especially in light of the points spelled out by toor. More so when you factor in how Ferguson would have reacted to the FA's decision and following criticism of some of his players and backroom staff.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Can you elaborate a little on how he helped to save his job? Genuine question, don't actually know.
Answer me this - if there is such a conflict of interest, why was the panel not challenged by Suarez and his legal team?
They were told a long time in advance and have the opportunity to complain. They didn't.
Could it be that you're talking nonsense?
As for your other points, where to start?
"lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring" - because most of the time what Suarez is saying is obscured.
" The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times." - Incorrect, he did not make this claim.
"He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times." - Incorrect - he uses the word 'black' as part of his initial complaint to the referee.
"He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way." The experts did not say 'it makes no sense'.
"The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense." - This is misleading. They say that it makes sense IF Suarez used the term in a conciliatory manner.
You'll find it was Suarez who had inconsistencies in what he claimed. What Comolli and Kuyt were on record as being told by Suarez was later changed - in effect, Suarez is saying that both individuals must have misheard him.
He also changed his mind about when he said what he said, in terms of the incident and where they were.
Evra's version of events remains consistent throughout.
You have obviously convinced yourself of the points you note. The question is, are you delusional or intentionally deceitful?
Either way, you're wrong and I will continue to pull apart your points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute nonsense.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The more he comments on the matter, the more it seems like he hasn’t even read the report.
Evra
Page 22 of 23
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
posted on 26/2/18
I caught with you a long time ago..
I don't have the time to argue endless semantics with you. The last time that happened, posters questioned your mental health.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
I'll start:
Made up fact number 1:
"Everybody apart from United fans who actually reads the evidence agrees with this".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my opinion not fact. Do I have to add a disclaimer to my opinions?
posted on 26/2/18
Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
You don't know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.
It's not semantics, it's not having sufficient intelligence for the debate.
posted on 26/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Great.
So what basis do you make that claim on then?
Also, can you confirm how you've deduced that one of the panel on the Suarez hearing was Ferguson's mate?
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 44 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Great.
So what basis do you make that claim on then?
Also, can you confirm how you've deduced that one of the panel on the Suarez hearing was Ferguson's mate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind. There's even an example on this thread.
Saying he was his mate was probably taking it a bit far but considering how well he treated his son and his claim in his autobiography that he helped save Ferguson's job we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion.
posted on 26/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/2/18
"The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind."
You've recorded every single person, have you?
Utterly ridiculous.
"we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion"
No, it's not a fact.
You obviously don't know how conflict of interest is defined and just telling people it is a conflict of interest does not mean it is.
Here we can see where your delusion comes from, though.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The basis that everytime a non United fan has been prevented with the evidence of the experts, they have changed their mind."
You've recorded every single person, have you?
Utterly ridiculous.
"we can categorically say that there was a conflict of interest and that is a fact, not my opinion"
No, it's not a fact.
You obviously don't know how conflict of interest is defined and just telling people it is a conflict of interest does not mean it is.
Here we can see where your delusion comes from, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say I recorded every person? I didn't state that part as a fact. I may have to write that disclaimer for you as you can't tell the difference.
Yes it is a fact that it's a conflict of interest and denying it doesn't make it any less correct, unfortunately for you. Telling people that there is no conflict if interest despite being presented with the facts showing it was just shows how deluded you really are.
posted on 26/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No you didn't. I am mocking you because you have absolutely no idea what the average, neutral fan thinks. So stop using that as part of your argument - it makes you sound ridiculous.
It's not a fact that it is a conflict of interest. Can you even tell me the definition of a conflict of interest in a civil court?
Of course you can't. You've just decided in your head that it's a conflict of interest and therefore you use it as a point in your argument. Confirmation bias.
Seriously, do you think no one will notice these moronic things you say?
Or are you so stupid that you actually believe this stuff?
posted on 26/2/18
Just when you thought this thread couldn’t get any worse, Winston rears his ugly head.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 30 seconds ago
Just when you thought this thread couldn’t get any worse, Winston rears his ugly head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought he was doing it on purpose but now I just think he's stupid.
posted on 26/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Said without a hint of irony.
Brilliant.
posted on 26/2/18
So Winston, you're called in from outside to a workplace to sit on a panel to decide if an employee of this particular work place racially abused another employee. You find out that the employee who is claiming racial abuse works for the department of the manager you helped saved the job of, he held him with such high regard that he made him his assistant and whose son not only worked for you but who you had such affinity for that you made him your assistant and raved about him in your autobiography. Is there a potential for that to cloud your judgement?
I don't know how the answer can be anything but yes here but let's say you decide it's a no and proceed.
The video evidence of the altercation is viewed, lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring. Language experts are brought in to go through what each person has claimed was said as they spoke in a foreign language. The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times. He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times. He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way. The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense. Therefore the alleged victim has changed his account about what was said and how many times it was said. Do you find the alleged victim credible?
Can you in anyway, with the evidence at hand, judge that racial abuse occurred, even on the basis of probability?
posted on 26/2/18
Also note Evra's previous.
posted on 26/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Can you elaborate a little on how he helped to save his job? Genuine question, don't actually know.
Answer me this - if there is such a conflict of interest, why was the panel not challenged by Suarez and his legal team?
They were told a long time in advance and have the opportunity to complain. They didn't.
Could it be that you're talking nonsense?
As for your other points, where to start?
"lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring" - because most of the time what Suarez is saying is obscured.
" The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times." - Incorrect, he did not make this claim.
"He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times." - Incorrect - he uses the word 'black' as part of his initial complaint to the referee.
"He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way." The experts did not say 'it makes no sense'.
"The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense." - This is misleading. They say that it makes sense IF Suarez used the term in a conciliatory manner.
You'll find it was Suarez who had inconsistencies in what he claimed. What Comolli and Kuyt were on record as being told by Suarez was later changed - in effect, Suarez is saying that both individuals must have misheard him.
He also changed his mind about when he said what he said, in terms of the incident and where they were.
Evra's version of events remains consistent throughout.
You have obviously convinced yourself of the points you note. The question is, are you delusional or intentionally deceitful?
Either way, you're wrong and I will continue to pull apart your points.
posted on 26/2/18
Yet still this article continues.. ...
posted on 26/2/18
wow. its such a simple situation as well
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 58 minutes ago
Also note Evra's previous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes.
The classy Dalglish's first thought, when informed of the allegation, was to ask 'he's done this before'. The immediate assumption it's made up, because it's a Man Utd player vs a Liverpool player.
What a lovely man.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why bother? That’s all I say.
posted on 26/2/18
Baz tromo (U19119)
Because he is basically trying to re-write history and I'm fed up of reading his nonsense.
It is a debate forum after all!
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Baz tromo (U19119)
Because he is basically trying to re-write history and I'm fed up of reading his nonsense.
It is a debate forum after all!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Each to their own Winston, if it makes you happy
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 58 minutes ago
Also note Evra's previous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes.
The classy Dalglish's first thought, when informed of the allegation, was to ask 'he's done this before'. The immediate assumption it's made up, because it's a Man Utd player vs a Liverpool player.
What a lovely man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evra has done it before though
... but that's only partly the reason he is viewed by some as a cvnt, it's because does at lot of cvntish things. Does it have a baring on the Suarez incident? Well think it certainly merits scrutiny, especially in light of the points spelled out by toor. More so when you factor in how Ferguson would have reacted to the FA's decision and following criticism of some of his players and backroom staff.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Can you elaborate a little on how he helped to save his job? Genuine question, don't actually know.
Answer me this - if there is such a conflict of interest, why was the panel not challenged by Suarez and his legal team?
They were told a long time in advance and have the opportunity to complain. They didn't.
Could it be that you're talking nonsense?
As for your other points, where to start?
"lip reading experts are brought in and can't see any racial abuse occurring" - because most of the time what Suarez is saying is obscured.
" The person claiming racial abuse claims firstly that the n word was used and secondly it was used over ten times." - Incorrect, he did not make this claim.
"He later changes his story to the word 'black' was used and only a handful of times." - Incorrect - he uses the word 'black' as part of his initial complaint to the referee.
"He claims that the alleged abuser said because you are black but the language experts say it doesn't make sense for a native to speak in that way." The experts did not say 'it makes no sense'.
"The experts say that what the alleged abuser claims he said makes sense." - This is misleading. They say that it makes sense IF Suarez used the term in a conciliatory manner.
You'll find it was Suarez who had inconsistencies in what he claimed. What Comolli and Kuyt were on record as being told by Suarez was later changed - in effect, Suarez is saying that both individuals must have misheard him.
He also changed his mind about when he said what he said, in terms of the incident and where they were.
Evra's version of events remains consistent throughout.
You have obviously convinced yourself of the points you note. The question is, are you delusional or intentionally deceitful?
Either way, you're wrong and I will continue to pull apart your points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute nonsense.
posted on 26/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Baz tromo (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yet still this article continues.. ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have decided to take apart TOOR's lies once and for all. For too long he has been speaking about the expert's comments in a downright deceitful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The more he comments on the matter, the more it seems like he hasn’t even read the report.
Page 22 of 23
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23