comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

No they didn't.

That said it was unusual but valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I'm talking about the language used. A native simply wouldn't use the words Evra claimed.

''porque tu eres negro”

This is not how a native would speak. This is how somebody with broken Spanish would speak which shows Evra made it up. He was already shown to have lied when he claimed Suarez said the n word and about how many times it was. Did you ever read about the coin toss before the game? He had an argument with the referee claiming he said the colour that came down when both the referee and Gerrard knew he hadn't.

He was shown to be unreliable in a previous racism case with the FA. We find Mr Evra’s description exaggerated… There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra… Mr Evra’s suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick’s safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin’s pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick’s safety is ridiculous…We find Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified.

Simply, he lies and it has been proven but the only way they could find Suarez guilty was to paint him as credible despite the lies.

comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 47 minutes ago
No that’s cool if it’s the yellow tracksuit with the black stripes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was

dangerdog (U20986)

He obviously hasn't read the report or if he has, he thinks he can lie his way through.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
dangerdog (U20986)

He obviously hasn't read the report or if he has, he thinks he can lie his way through.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not gonna work, sorry.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

The report isn't worth the paper its written on for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. They went against the experts and had to paint one as credible and one not credible in order to make a guilty decision. Which is what they did.

I can do, if it will shut you up once and for all.

................

Good luck with that, Winston.

TOOR

I have not seen you answer this yet, you must have forgot.

Would you say to a black bar man, 'hey black man, give me a pint"?

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Right, let's do this then.

"This is not how a native would speak."

The experts said that it was unusual but valid. A small percentage of native people do use it and it is also possible that the time Suarez had spent in Europe could have influenced his choice of language when speaking with a non-native.

So, you're wrong.

"He was already shown to have lied when he claimed Suarez said the n word and about how many times it was."

Wrong. His account was consistent throughout.

You are referring to his interview with Canal+, where he used a well know French expression that when translated means literally ten times, but in France it is simply an expression when referring to lots of times / multiple times.

He always said the n word was said five times. That never changed.

So, you're wrong.

Actually, it is Suarez's account that changed. Not only did it change, but it also did not fit when the evidence that Comolli and Kuyt gave.

The unreliable evidence was given by Suarez, not Evra.

Wrong again.

I'm not interested in an unrelated case, I'll stick to the facts of this case, thanks.

You are making incorrect comments and I will continue to pick you up on them.

Everything I've said is in the report.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 5 seconds ago
TOOR

I have not seen you answer this yet, you must have forgot.

Would you say to a black bar man, 'hey black man, give me a pint"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have seen my answer it, years ago. You also said you remember my answer so I'm hoping you can clear up what I said as my answer has changed to something else according to others. Cheers.

Similarly would it be ok to go up to a black man and say "whats your problem, black?"

"They went against the experts"

Incorrect.

You clearly have not read the whole report and you've just taken extracts from a Liverpool site/forum.

Unfortunately for you, I have read it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Right, let's do this then.

"This is not how a native would speak."

The experts said that it was unusual but valid. A small percentage of native people do use it and it is also possible that the time Suarez had spent in Europe could have influenced his choice of language when speaking with a non-native.

So, you're wrong.

"He was already shown to have lied when he claimed Suarez said the n word and about how many times it was."

Wrong. His account was consistent throughout.

You are referring to his interview with Canal+, where he used a well know French expression that when translated means literally ten times, but in France it is simply an expression when referring to lots of times / multiple times.

He always said the n word was said five times. That never changed.

So, you're wrong.

Actually, it is Suarez's account that changed. Not only did it change, but it also did not fit when the evidence that Comolli and Kuyt gave.

The unreliable evidence was given by Suarez, not Evra.

Wrong again.

I'm not interested in an unrelated case, I'll stick to the facts of this case, thanks.

You are making incorrect comments and I will continue to pick you up on them.

Everything I've said is in the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Winston. I am not continuing with the rest of your post until I expose your lie in the first part. It is not in anyway valid. It does not make sense for a native to say those words, only somebody with broken Spanish would use them.

Award-winning Professor in Hispanic Studies at Brown University, Aldo Mazzuchelli: -

Mr Evra’s evidence was that, in response to his question “Why did you kick me?”, Mr Suarez replied “Porque tu eres negro”. Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean “Because you are a ******”. He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean “Because you are black”.”

I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are grammatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way.

You have seen my answer it, years ago.

............

Yes, indeed, you said it was OK.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
"They went against the experts"

Incorrect.

You clearly have not read the whole report and you've just taken extracts from a Liverpool site/forum.

Unfortunately for you, I have read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, again not gonna work. I've read it several times and parts of it on numerous occasions, it's why I am against it and have the evidence that backs me up.

Sorry.

Summary for all readers joining in

1. Spurs may win the FA Cup
2. Liverpool have an outside chance of winning CL
3. Every thinks Spurs have a better squad bar the Liverpool Fans
4. Suarez is racist
5. TOOR is a thick c*nt
6. TOOR is a lair
7. TOOR has been shown up at least 4 time in this thread

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Read the report.

What I have written is what the experts said.

It's on page number 48.

http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf

"It is not in anyway valid."

You are wrong and there is absolutely no escape for you.

Unlucky.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 seconds ago
You have seen my answer it, years ago.

............

Yes, indeed, you said it was OK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. So could it be you who started this lie?

I've finally found the culprit after all these years.

Now let me tell everybody what I really said.

It would not be OK and it's not something I would do but it wouldn't be racial abuse as no abuse has occurred so it's not even abuse.

I also went on to say later that using a discriptive of a person is just that a discriptive it doesn't have to refer to their whole race.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 seconds ago
You have seen my answer it, years ago.

............

Yes, indeed, you said it was OK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. So could it be you who started this lie?

I've finally found the culprit after all these years.

Now let me tell everybody what I really said.

It would not be OK and it's not something I would do but it wouldn't be racial abuse as no abuse has occurred so it's not even abuse.

I also went on to say later that using a discriptive of a person is just that a discriptive it doesn't have to refer to their whole race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See point 6 in the article summary

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Read the report.

What I have written is what the experts said.

It's on page number 48.

http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf

"It is not in anyway valid."

You are wrong and there is absolutely no escape for you.

Unlucky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No acknowledgment that Evra made Suarez' words up then?

You're just going to squirm out of it by claiming victory? Really? That'd what you're reduced to?

Are the Average White Band racist?

comment by dangerdog (U20986)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 seconds ago
You have seen my answer it, years ago.

............

Yes, indeed, you said it was OK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. So could it be you who started this lie?

I've finally found the culprit after all these years.

Now let me tell everybody what I really said.

It would not be OK and it's not something I would do but it wouldn't be racial abuse as no abuse has occurred so it's not even abuse.

I also went on to say later that using a discriptive of a person is just that a discriptive it doesn't have to refer to their whole race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See point 6 in the article summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I'm just ignoring you until you add something of worth. I hope you can understand.

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
Are the Average White Band racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Also Black Sabbath.

1. Spurs may win the FA Cup
2. Liverpool have an outside chance of winning CL
3. Every thinks Spurs have a better squad bar the Liverpool Fans
4. Suarez is racist
5. TOOR is a thick c*nt
6. TOOR is a lair
7. TOOR has been shown up at least 4 time in this thread
8. TOOR is ignorant

Winston has it in for Latin Americans

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I'm not squirming out of anything.

I took what you said, proved it to be wrong and showed you the exact page of the report where that is the case.

What don't you understand?

Using a colour in a descriptive word describing something is infinitely different to using it to label someone. This shouldn’t have to be explained.