Come on TOOR.

You told me I was lying. Where is my lie? What have I said that is not in the report?

Or is your whole argument falling apart in front of our eyes?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't. You told me to read the report and then claimed that proved me wrong, it didn't.

The report doesn't state that no native Spanish speaker would say the words Evra claimed. They had to show Evra was credible so why would it?

The experts said that if Suarez said what he claimed he said then it wouldn't be deemed racially abusive.

Since he couldn't have said what Evra claimed he said as it doesn't make sense for a native speaker to speak in that way, how can they find Evra credible, especially with his previous and even the coin toss incident when he lied also?

The only way they could find Suarez guilty, with the evidence they had, including lip reading experts, video evidence and language experts was to believe Evra's version, which didn't make sense and this is exactly what they did.

How this means you've proven me wrong is beyond me.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't. You told me to read the report and then claimed that proved me wrong, it didn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It did tho

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

It does prove you wrong.

"Since he couldn't have said what Evra claimed he said as it doesn't make sense for a native speaker to speak in that way"

This is incorrect.

I have literally just explained this to you.

" Nevertheless, a small percentage
of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is
rarely used) or even a mixture of both."

"Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is possible that his use of
Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European contexts."

You are wrong.

You claimed it was not possible that Suarez could have used the words that Evra claimed.

The experts did not say this. Either you're lying or you can't read.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
Come on TOOR.

You told me I was lying. Where is my lie? What have I said that is not in the report?

Or is your whole argument falling apart in front of our eyes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I don't know just the part when you claimed the experts said that it's valid Suarez could have said “Porque tu eres negro”. This is patently untrue and a lie as no native Spanish speaker could claim this as I pointed out to you above with quotes from an award winning professional of Hispanic language.

I back myself up with evidence, you claim things, I show them to be a lie, then you claim victory and refer me to the report, whilst telling me I haven't read it. That simply isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

Sorry.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I've literally just copied the extract from the experts that say it is valid.

What don't you understand?

The experts said it was unusual.

You claimed they said it was not possible. You lied. You've been caught out.

This is the crucial part from the report: -

“It is important to grasp that the word “negro” is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America. The word “negro” is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as “el negro/la negra such-and-such”.

The experts concluded that if the panel believed Evra’s version of events, they could assume the word “negro” was used in a racially offensive way. However, they say of Suarez’s version of events:

“The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez’s account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word “negro” as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America.”

Now since Suarez couldn't have said what Evra claimed as it wouldn't make sense for a native, then you cannot believe he said it.

However they did, and the only way? Decide that Evra is credible despite him changing his account on what was said and how many times it was said as well as the words he claimed were used not making sense. They went ahead and did it anyhow and that's how they decided upon guilt.

An absolute farce.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 22 minutes 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.

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

Is that not what you said? Macca was very sure it was.

TOOR says 'no native Spanish speaker could claim this'.

The experts say:

"Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in
Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used
in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an
insulting way"

Oh dear.

TOOR's whole argument is disappearing.

"Now since Suarez couldn't have said what Evra claimed as it wouldn't make sense for a native"

Read above.

You are wrong.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 22 minutes 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.

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

Is that not what you said? Macca was very sure it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so it was Macca. Well that's nice.

I can't find it but I'm sure Admin can if you ask him. He'll have the tools needed. Go ahead.

It would not be OK and it's not something I would do

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


Why not?
................

but it wouldn't be racial abuse as no abuse has occurred so it's not even abuse.

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

I see you have added the word abuse here. Why?

What it would be is you using someones skin colour when talking to them. And if you were white, the black bar man would be offended by it. This is why you wouldn't do it.

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

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.

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

Jesus wept, you really are ret@rded.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
"Now since Suarez couldn't have said what Evra claimed as it wouldn't make sense for a native"

Read above.

You are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh that's great, you disagree with experts in Spanish language despite not speaking Spanish yourself.

Typical Winston.

I can't find it but I'm sure Admin can if you ask him. He'll have the tools needed. Go ahead.

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

I don't care, you seem to though.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Nope.

I gave you a quote from the experts.

The same experts that you claim told us that a native wouldn't say what Evra claimed.

You were wrong.

Rather amusingly, it is now clear you're not actually going to admit it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Nope.

I gave you a quote from the experts.

The same experts that you claim told us that a native wouldn't say what Evra claimed.

You were wrong.

Rather amusingly, it is now clear you're not actually going to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You gave me a quote which means nothing.

I told you that Suarez couldn't have said the words Evra claimed and provided a quote from experts backing that up.

You're now trying to squirm out of it by claiming you know more than experts if the Spanish language.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

How can the quote mean nothing?

The quote is your experts clearly saying that the phrase can and is used by native speakers.

Please tell me why you feel you can disregard that?

You have reverted to using some outside source because it would seem the experts you've leant on, at the hearing, were not saying what you'd claimed.

You are squirming because you've been absolutely ruined. And you know it.

No.

The quote is not saying ''porque tu eres negro” can be used by native speakers.

You've lied again. How can it be when experts say it is impossible and it doesn't make sense?

It seems to me that Evra got this phrase from the European Spanish he knows and that's how he tried to make up what Suarez said.

Also why did Evra claim he said the n word ten times? Why did he then change the word and the amount of times it was used? Want to know why? Its because he told the referee the word black was used. When questioned on why he said black to the referee and then changed to the n word he said its because he doest like to say that word which is hilarious considering there's a YouTube video of him happily saying the word. He then conceded that it was the word black. On numerous occasions he was shown not to be credible, changing his account, making up the words used and of course his history of being found not to be cridible.

I've backed up everything I've said with evidence. You've lied and tried to claim victory. It's not working, for me.

Sorry.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

The quote says that is is used by a minority of native speakers.

It also says that it is possible Suarez used this phrase as he was speaking with a European and had lived in Europe for several years.

It also says that this phrase would be used as an offensive comment to natives.

Those three things mean you're wrong.

"Also why did Evra claim he said the n word ten times?"

He didn't.

Yet again you're wrong. But let's stick with the crux of your argument for a minute.

You claimed that the experts had said it was impossible that Suarez had said what Evra claimed.

They didn't.

That means you were wrong.

Let me know how you wish to try and get out of it.

"On numerous occasions he was shown not to be credible, changing his account, making up the words used"

Lies, lies, lies.

And I will be proving every single one wrong.

And you know what? I'm really going to enjoy this.

This bit never gets old.

Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation

"Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type of movement. This all happened very quickly.

I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul. Under no
circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin."

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 seconds ago
"On numerous occasions he was shown not to be credible, changing his account, making up the words used"

Lies, lies, lies.

And I will be proving every single one wrong.

And you know what? I'm really going to enjoy this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No its OK. I'll do it for you.

In Points 90 to 95, Evra initially accused Suarez of saying “n**ger” rather than “negro”. Liverpool and their management and Suarez are then informed that Suarez has been accused of using the word “n**ger”, seen in Points 135, 144 and 150. This is even the wording used in Andre Marriner’s match report, in Point 153.

So Evra’s initial accusation was that Suarez had referred to him as a n**ger.

Evra later withdraws saying that he thought negro meant n**ger, not black. (Point 271 – 272) But Point 271 also raises another flaw in the testimony and the Panel’s line of thought:

271. When, shortly after the match, he went to see the referee with the manager, Mr Evra complained that Mr Suarez had said "I don't talk to you because you n**gers". Mr Evra told us that he believed, from the moment he heard Mr Suarez use the word “negro”, that this meant n**ger. The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called n**ger, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "n**gers", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.

The Panel wanted to know why Evra had accused Suarez of saying n**ger after the match, but black during the match when speaking to the referee. Evra stated that it was because he did not like using the word “n**ger”. However see in Point 128 that he has no problem saying it in front of Mr Ferguson, and there is also a Youtube video that shows that Evra is more than comfortable using the word. The clip was broadcast nationally in France, highlighting Evra’s comfort with using the word in front of cameras.

Vidicschin (U3584)

Yes, TOOR has the audacity to claim that Evra's story was unreliable and changed.

Actually, the only person changing their story and making ridiculous assertions was Suarez.

But we will get to that.

First of all, TOOR needs to explain why he lied about what the experts had said.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I'll address what Evra claimed once you have admitted that you lied about what the experts said.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
This bit never gets old.

Mr Suarez's claim that the pinching was an attempt to defuse the situation

"Evra did not back off and Dirk Kuyt was approaching us to stand between us. At this point I touched PE's left arm in a pinching type of movement. This all happened very quickly.

I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul. Under no
circumstances was this action intended to be offensive and most certainly not racially offensive. It was not in any way a reference to the colour of PE's skin."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what the experts said: -

Mr Evra stated that Mr Suarez touched his arm at this stage, "indicating my skin". Mr Suarez's action is difficult to interpret; it looks like a pinch, intended perhaps to annoy or provoke. The experts were not aware of any River Plate-specific meaning attached to this gesture. It was by no means clear to the experts that this was a reference to skin colour, but it might have been.

He didn't say the pitch was trying to defuse the situation he said events before that he was trying to defuse the situation. About the pinch he said: -

I was not trying to calm down the situation, but trying to explain to Evra why I was doing this foul, and when - then he replied, "I'm going to hit you", and I was trying to show him that he was not untouchable, not in the foul and not by the gesture that I did with the - by the pinch I was doing to his arm, that he wasn't untouchable."

So he actually said he wasn't so how they turn it into he said he was in the report is beyond me.