There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I posted the actual quote. Here it is again:
"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."
Can you actually read what is being posted?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 42 minutes ago
This debate happened about three years ago (and admittedly every month after as well).
The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.
You might as well quote Suarez’s Mum as an expert, she might even show a little less bias about the subject...
I’m not sure (and am really not bothered) whose account is correct. If the FAs independent experts advice is being dismissed though, at least quote a credible alternative rather than one with actual obvious bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gets even worse for TOOR.
He's now arguing against the experts at the hearing. The same ones that he initial said backed up his point.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I haven't claimed any victory.
I have said I've proven you wrong - because I have. More than once.
Your claim about what the experts (at the hearing) said was wrong. That is a fact.
Your claim about what Suarez said about trying to defuse the situation was wrong. That is also a fact.
Evra did not change his account re: the number of times the word was said. You are wrong again.
Every single point you've claimed so far has been incorrect and the most embarrassing part of all of this is that you don't have the maturity to admit it.
This is great fun - do hurry back to be destroyed a little more, won't you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't proven me wrong. I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed. You stated the experts said he could, you then quoted something which isn't backing that up but claimed it was. Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used, they even asked him why and he claimed it was just a figure of speech to say ten times. They asked Comolli about it and he said that it wouldn't be used as a figure of speech in French. Another lie from you which is strange as you claim to have read the report and yet accuse me of not reading it.
You keep denying things despite me providing transcripts of the report and experts proving it.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I have proven you wrong.
"I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed."
The experts at the hearing did not say that.
"Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used"
No, he didn't.
It was a figure of speech (the phrase he used in French), this was verified at the hearing. Comolli basically said Evra should have been more specific - he didn't disagree with the meaning of the phrase.
You are all over the place - several people know more about this than you do and your inaccuracies are being exposed.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney (U1005)
posted 55 minutes ago
I like that the report suddenly isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as soon as people start calling TOOR out on his lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? That's what people have been saying from the very moment it came out when they went against the experts and decided Evra was credible despite him changing his account of what was said and the number of times it was said and saying that if Suarez said what he claims he did it wouldn't be seen as racially abusive. As well as the words Evra claiming Suarez said not existing in Uruguayan Spanish. It shows he made them up.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
'the experts'
There were two experts at the hearing.
The panel did not go against what they said.
But then what would you know? You keep accusing Evra of changing his account, when he didn't.
The he can’t be racist his grandad is black argument is the stupidest thing I hear said.
=======================================================
Strange that, because the FA used it themselves, when they were making the point that… er….they don’t think he’s racist, and that that’s not what he was charged with.
“this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist”
“Mr Suarez is himself of mixed heritage, it seems clear that he has experienced the diversity of life and it is plain from the materials submitted on his behalf that he has done good work in the field of community relations. Moreover, even Mr Evra says in his witness statement: ‘I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist’".
So, Patrice Evra himself doesn’t think Suarez is racist, but what does he know?
Was that FA report right or wrong?....it seems to switch between the two, depending on what case is being argued.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I posted the actual quote. Here it is again:
"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."
Can you actually read what is being posted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see where the quote ends? That's one part. You see when you then start the part about the pinch? That's another part. They grouped it together as one, in the report. But when he was asked about the pitch 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."
They asked him outright if the pitch was trying to diffuse the situation and he said no. What part of this is difficult to understand?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 42 minutes ago
This debate happened about three years ago (and admittedly every month after as well).
The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.
You might as well quote Suarez’s Mum as an expert, she might even show a little less bias about the subject...
I’m not sure (and am really not bothered) whose account is correct. If the FAs independent experts advice is being dismissed though, at least quote a credible alternative rather than one with actual obvious bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gets even worse for TOOR.
He's now arguing against the experts at the hearing. The same ones that he initial said backed up his point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I'm not but at least you're trying a new angle. It's you arguing against the experts.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"It's you arguing against the experts."
Wrong.
I have quoted the experts from the report.
You have claimed they said something that they did not say.
comment by Robbing_Hoody - sometimes I jump into people and then charge them with assault (U6374)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
It’s the hypocrisy of dismissing one side of the argument but then willingly accepting an alternative without admitting it’s even less credible that gets me. At least be honest that that may be utter rubbish too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The he can’t be racist his grandad is black argument is the stupidest thing I hear said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be fairly weit'd to be racist against your own race.
I've said it before - if people think Luis Suarez feels he is part of a superior race they're idiots. Normally the same idiots who group other people by location by saying things like "scousers".
---------------------------------------------------------------------you clearly need to read up on intra racism, you really don’t have a clue so educate yourself.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I have proven you wrong.
"I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed."
The experts at the hearing did not say that.
"Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used"
No, he didn't.
It was a figure of speech (the phrase he used in French), this was verified at the hearing. Comolli basically said Evra should have been more specific - he didn't disagree with the meaning of the phrase.
You are all over the place - several people know more about this than you do and your inaccuracies are being exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. He did change his account. And no Comolli didn't say that. He completely disagreed with it. You are lying again and it seems its becoming very easy for you to lie about this as people are backing you up but I have the transcripts so at least I know you're lying.
160. When Mr Comolli gave evidence, Mr McCormick asked him whether that evidence from Mr Evra about the phrase ten times accorded with Mr Comolli's knowledge as a Frenchman of the French language and French behaviour. His answer was: not in these circumstances. He said that if his daughter asked him for a toy for Christmas and she says it five, six, seven times, he might say "You already told me ten times". But, in those circumstances (referring to Mr Evra giving an interview after the game), nobody in the French language will say that (ie ten times).
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
They asked him outright if the pitch was trying to diffuse the situation
=============================================================
By turning the sprinklers on?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is not a lie. Evra did not change his account. He said five times all along.
Comolli talks about context. Ultimately he agrees that the phrase Evra used does not literally mean 10 times.
The hearing actually discuss this in their summing up.
The problem you have is that you pick bits of the report without reading the whole thing.
Evra did not change his account with reference to the number of times that it was said.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world are you talking about now?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No paragraph, it turns out.
How do you plan to squirm out of that one?
Suarez changed his story later on. I believe that is the part you're referring to.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world are you talking about now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite clear.
The direct quote shows that in his statement, he says the pinch was trying to diffuse the situation.
Keep up.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is not a lie. Evra did not change his account. He said five times all along.
Comolli talks about context. Ultimately he agrees that the phrase Evra used does not literally mean 10 times.
The hearing actually discuss this in their summing up.
The problem you have is that you pick bits of the report without reading the whole thing.
Evra did not change his account with reference to the number of times that it was said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
So they asked him why he said ten times when he said it was five times in his statement. This shows he changed his account, it's not even debatable which is why he had to event an excuse and when Comolli was asked he said and I quote 'nobody in French would say that'.
How in the world is that Comolli agreeing?
Is there something actually wrong with you?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
The 'ten times' thing was an expression. He actually said 'you can see he says it at least 10 times'. Clearly that is not a specific figure being used. He never actually claimed the word had been said 10 times.
This was the panel's review of that:
"We
understood Mr Comolli to say broadly the same thing, though he thought that Mr Evra
should have been more precise when giving evidence on such a serious matter on
television. "
Tell me, why have you ignored the request for proof that at the hearing the experts claimed it was impossible for Suarez to have said what Evra claimed.
Is it because they did not say that and you don't wish to admit it?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No paragraph, it turns out.
How do you plan to squirm out of that one?
Suarez changed his story later on. I believe that is the part you're referring to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying they grouped the whole thing together in the report, to include the pinch when talking about Suarez trying to defuse the situation when in actual fact they asked him about the pitch at the end, after he said he was trying to defuse the situation, he replied he was not.
Yet the report groups the questioning and answer together as one as if Suarez said he was trying to defuse the situation with the pinch.
Please try to understand
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No.
The comment about diffusing the situation is about the pinch.
It's there in black and white, you moron.
It was in his original statement.
You are referring to later in the report when he is asked about it at his interview.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
The 'ten times' thing was an expression. He actually said 'you can see he says it at least 10 times'. Clearly that is not a specific figure being used. He never actually claimed the word had been said 10 times.
This was the panel's review of that:
"We
understood Mr Comolli to say broadly the same thing, though he thought that Mr Evra
should have been more precise when giving evidence on such a serious matter on
television. "
Tell me, why have you ignored the request for proof that at the hearing the experts claimed it was impossible for Suarez to have said what Evra claimed.
Is it because they did not say that and you don't wish to admit it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe it was Winston, I don't speak French but the one person they asked about it who isn't a proven liar said nobody would say that in French so I'm gonna go with him. It would be interesting if a French speaker with no connection to either club could tell us. If you somehow make that happen and the person agrees with Evra, I'll concede on this point.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spurs or Liverpool
Page 20 of 38
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I posted the actual quote. Here it is again:
"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."
Can you actually read what is being posted?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 42 minutes ago
This debate happened about three years ago (and admittedly every month after as well).
The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.
You might as well quote Suarez’s Mum as an expert, she might even show a little less bias about the subject...
I’m not sure (and am really not bothered) whose account is correct. If the FAs independent experts advice is being dismissed though, at least quote a credible alternative rather than one with actual obvious bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gets even worse for TOOR.
He's now arguing against the experts at the hearing. The same ones that he initial said backed up his point.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I haven't claimed any victory.
I have said I've proven you wrong - because I have. More than once.
Your claim about what the experts (at the hearing) said was wrong. That is a fact.
Your claim about what Suarez said about trying to defuse the situation was wrong. That is also a fact.
Evra did not change his account re: the number of times the word was said. You are wrong again.
Every single point you've claimed so far has been incorrect and the most embarrassing part of all of this is that you don't have the maturity to admit it.
This is great fun - do hurry back to be destroyed a little more, won't you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't proven me wrong. I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed. You stated the experts said he could, you then quoted something which isn't backing that up but claimed it was. Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used, they even asked him why and he claimed it was just a figure of speech to say ten times. They asked Comolli about it and he said that it wouldn't be used as a figure of speech in French. Another lie from you which is strange as you claim to have read the report and yet accuse me of not reading it.
You keep denying things despite me providing transcripts of the report and experts proving it.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I have proven you wrong.
"I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed."
The experts at the hearing did not say that.
"Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used"
No, he didn't.
It was a figure of speech (the phrase he used in French), this was verified at the hearing. Comolli basically said Evra should have been more specific - he didn't disagree with the meaning of the phrase.
You are all over the place - several people know more about this than you do and your inaccuracies are being exposed.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney (U1005)
posted 55 minutes ago
I like that the report suddenly isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as soon as people start calling TOOR out on his lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? That's what people have been saying from the very moment it came out when they went against the experts and decided Evra was credible despite him changing his account of what was said and the number of times it was said and saying that if Suarez said what he claims he did it wouldn't be seen as racially abusive. As well as the words Evra claiming Suarez said not existing in Uruguayan Spanish. It shows he made them up.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
'the experts'
There were two experts at the hearing.
The panel did not go against what they said.
But then what would you know? You keep accusing Evra of changing his account, when he didn't.
posted on 28/2/18
The he can’t be racist his grandad is black argument is the stupidest thing I hear said.
=======================================================
Strange that, because the FA used it themselves, when they were making the point that… er….they don’t think he’s racist, and that that’s not what he was charged with.
“this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist”
“Mr Suarez is himself of mixed heritage, it seems clear that he has experienced the diversity of life and it is plain from the materials submitted on his behalf that he has done good work in the field of community relations. Moreover, even Mr Evra says in his witness statement: ‘I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist’".
So, Patrice Evra himself doesn’t think Suarez is racist, but what does he know?
Was that FA report right or wrong?....it seems to switch between the two, depending on what case is being argued.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I posted the actual quote. Here it is again:
"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."
Can you actually read what is being posted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see where the quote ends? That's one part. You see when you then start the part about the pinch? That's another part. They grouped it together as one, in the report. But when he was asked about the pitch 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."
They asked him outright if the pitch was trying to diffuse the situation and he said no. What part of this is difficult to understand?
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 42 minutes ago
This debate happened about three years ago (and admittedly every month after as well).
The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.
You might as well quote Suarez’s Mum as an expert, she might even show a little less bias about the subject...
I’m not sure (and am really not bothered) whose account is correct. If the FAs independent experts advice is being dismissed though, at least quote a credible alternative rather than one with actual obvious bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gets even worse for TOOR.
He's now arguing against the experts at the hearing. The same ones that he initial said backed up his point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I'm not but at least you're trying a new angle. It's you arguing against the experts.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"It's you arguing against the experts."
Wrong.
I have quoted the experts from the report.
You have claimed they said something that they did not say.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Robbing_Hoody - sometimes I jump into people and then charge them with assault (U6374)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
It’s the hypocrisy of dismissing one side of the argument but then willingly accepting an alternative without admitting it’s even less credible that gets me. At least be honest that that may be utter rubbish too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The he can’t be racist his grandad is black argument is the stupidest thing I hear said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be fairly weit'd to be racist against your own race.
I've said it before - if people think Luis Suarez feels he is part of a superior race they're idiots. Normally the same idiots who group other people by location by saying things like "scousers".
---------------------------------------------------------------------you clearly need to read up on intra racism, you really don’t have a clue so educate yourself.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I have proven you wrong.
"I showed that experts say that he couldn't have said the phrase Evra claimed."
The experts at the hearing did not say that.
"Evra did change his account of the number of times the word was used"
No, he didn't.
It was a figure of speech (the phrase he used in French), this was verified at the hearing. Comolli basically said Evra should have been more specific - he didn't disagree with the meaning of the phrase.
You are all over the place - several people know more about this than you do and your inaccuracies are being exposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lie. He did change his account. And no Comolli didn't say that. He completely disagreed with it. You are lying again and it seems its becoming very easy for you to lie about this as people are backing you up but I have the transcripts so at least I know you're lying.
160. When Mr Comolli gave evidence, Mr McCormick asked him whether that evidence from Mr Evra about the phrase ten times accorded with Mr Comolli's knowledge as a Frenchman of the French language and French behaviour. His answer was: not in these circumstances. He said that if his daughter asked him for a toy for Christmas and she says it five, six, seven times, he might say "You already told me ten times". But, in those circumstances (referring to Mr Evra giving an interview after the game), nobody in the French language will say that (ie ten times).
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
posted on 28/2/18
They asked him outright if the pitch was trying to diffuse the situation
=============================================================
By turning the sprinklers on?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is not a lie. Evra did not change his account. He said five times all along.
Comolli talks about context. Ultimately he agrees that the phrase Evra used does not literally mean 10 times.
The hearing actually discuss this in their summing up.
The problem you have is that you pick bits of the report without reading the whole thing.
Evra did not change his account with reference to the number of times that it was said.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world are you talking about now?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No paragraph, it turns out.
How do you plan to squirm out of that one?
Suarez changed his story later on. I believe that is the part you're referring to.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just checked.
There is no paragraph on the report, that is just how it has copied.
Page 28.
http://www.furd.org/resources/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.pdf
Absolute proof that you're making this up as you go along.
You're done. That is conclusive proof you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world are you talking about now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite clear.
The direct quote shows that in his statement, he says the pinch was trying to diffuse the situation.
Keep up.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is not a lie. Evra did not change his account. He said five times all along.
Comolli talks about context. Ultimately he agrees that the phrase Evra used does not literally mean 10 times.
The hearing actually discuss this in their summing up.
The problem you have is that you pick bits of the report without reading the whole thing.
Evra did not change his account with reference to the number of times that it was said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
So they asked him why he said ten times when he said it was five times in his statement. This shows he changed his account, it's not even debatable which is why he had to event an excuse and when Comolli was asked he said and I quote 'nobody in French would say that'.
How in the world is that Comolli agreeing?
Is there something actually wrong with you?
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
The 'ten times' thing was an expression. He actually said 'you can see he says it at least 10 times'. Clearly that is not a specific figure being used. He never actually claimed the word had been said 10 times.
This was the panel's review of that:
"We
understood Mr Comolli to say broadly the same thing, though he thought that Mr Evra
should have been more precise when giving evidence on such a serious matter on
television. "
Tell me, why have you ignored the request for proof that at the hearing the experts claimed it was impossible for Suarez to have said what Evra claimed.
Is it because they did not say that and you don't wish to admit it?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It doesn't end. It's a paragraph.
Where is your evidence that these two comments were said at separate times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a paragraph in the report. However when questioning Suarez, the pinching was brought up at the end when Suarez has said he was attempting to defuse the situation. Which the experts said was possible. He was asked was the pinch trying to defuse the situation. He said no. He then went on to say what the pinch was about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No paragraph, it turns out.
How do you plan to squirm out of that one?
Suarez changed his story later on. I believe that is the part you're referring to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying they grouped the whole thing together in the report, to include the pinch when talking about Suarez trying to defuse the situation when in actual fact they asked him about the pitch at the end, after he said he was trying to defuse the situation, he replied he was not.
Yet the report groups the questioning and answer together as one as if Suarez said he was trying to defuse the situation with the pinch.
Please try to understand
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No.
The comment about diffusing the situation is about the pinch.
It's there in black and white, you moron.
It was in his original statement.
You are referring to later in the report when he is asked about it at his interview.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
The 'ten times' thing was an expression. He actually said 'you can see he says it at least 10 times'. Clearly that is not a specific figure being used. He never actually claimed the word had been said 10 times.
This was the panel's review of that:
"We
understood Mr Comolli to say broadly the same thing, though he thought that Mr Evra
should have been more precise when giving evidence on such a serious matter on
television. "
Tell me, why have you ignored the request for proof that at the hearing the experts claimed it was impossible for Suarez to have said what Evra claimed.
Is it because they did not say that and you don't wish to admit it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe it was Winston, I don't speak French but the one person they asked about it who isn't a proven liar said nobody would say that in French so I'm gonna go with him. It would be interesting if a French speaker with no connection to either club could tell us. If you somehow make that happen and the person agrees with Evra, I'll concede on this point.
Page 20 of 38
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25