you do know what i was referring to right?
you not playing with my words there?

cos ''15th of march 1892'' has said the most outrageous rubbish, i've ever read.

comment by Siempre Rojo aka tenemos diecinueve (U1560)


posted 23 minutes ago

Dalglish was forced to apologise on Sunday, Fergie never had to apologise to anyone.
I can't believe people are still going on in Suarez's defence, scousers are just not good at letting anything lie.
===================================================

OP writer is a Man City fan, no doubt on a "Pro-Suarez is anti-United" wumtard effort.

Whole thing makes mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

StringerBell - yes, I was agreeing with I wrote, "well at least we agree on something." No sarcasm intended. 15th March 1892 is a pillock, even worse than newWAYNEorder x

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

X

No, nobody is worse than newWAYNEorder the internet crayon man.

Maybe he prints them out and they're put on the fridge?

could say the same about your comment,

was there a point to it, did it add anything to the article?, answer as always like most of your posts is NO!

Think 1892 has raised a good point, but you go on about the OP being pro Suarez anti Utd yet all your comments are no dif in being anti Liverpool!

get a grip and actually have an opinion on something rather than the childish smilies you normally come up with.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz indeed!

Fred, the


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



I get from bitter people like you, cos I can do something that NONE of you can, well, it says a lot about some of the people on here.


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

I'm going to put that up on the fridge, right here so EVERYBODY can see it!

Here, have a cookie and go play outside with the normal kids your age.

wayne, i have no issue with you, and i don't think we have ever had any kind of run-in with you, but people do not envy you 'being able to' produce those pictures.

absolutely anyone could do it if they had the inclination, and the time on their hands. it's not like copy/paste from a text file is difficult.

personally the reason i don't do it is because they look terrible and i have far better things to do.

I have no issue with you posting them, but please don't think people are envious of your 'ability' to do them. it's more likely they'd pity you for having nothing better to do than produce them in the first place.

Victor, obviously once I create them I save them for use again.

But I bet you that many on here, the abusive ones like Fred here, get like that because they wouldnt have a clue even how to start making one.

Hence they lash out with their hilarious crayon, child, etc. comments.

They hate it that I can stand out like that while their posts get lost in the mire.

nWo

You really are an attention seeking little child aren't you!

Posts from most of us intend to create debate, yours just look pretty. On a forum designed for debate, I know which is more important.

nWo cracks me up

Let's give the

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...)
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...


....to the internet crayon guy.

get like that because they wouldnt have a clue even how to start making one.
----------------------------------------
do you seriously think it's some mysteriously great talent? it's several steps down from something as simple as ascii art - it's really not difficult - just time consuming. anyone with 2 braincells to rub together could do it if they were so inclined - it's just they're not.

paisley

I don't mind nWo when he's not showing his incredible anti-LFC bitter streak; he's an alright poster. I just wish he'd stop posting his crayon art on serious debates.

TOOR

Interestingly, Ravel Morrison has today been charged with the same thing as Suarez, due to his homophobic comment on Twitter. He has in the past dished out abuse on Twitter, with no comeback. However, as soon as he has dished some out with an 'aggravating factor' the FA have acted. I think it demonstrates their willingness to accept that abuse does occur in the football world both on and off the field and is part of the game. But once a player crosses what they deem to be acceptable then they will strike.

It may well be that Suarez is not guilty of intentionally insulting Evra with his reference to skin colour. I am completely open to that. But he did overstep the line of what the FA think is acceptable and he gave that evidence for that from his own mouth. Thus he was rightfully found guilty.

Looking at the rules as we did yesterday, I really don't think that there is any debate what-so-ever over whether he was guilty of the charges leveled against him. That said, he may well have been unfairly hammered by the press, for what could have been a lack of understanding of the culture/rules. I do still think that he was very silly to not shake hands though.

Paisleys:

1, That is someone elses creation, not yours

2, How rude!!

Funny you say that, Fred, I dont mind you when you're not showing your incredibly bitter anti-nWo streak.

I am not a WUM at heart, but once I realised that my unique talent really got up the nose of a certain type of person, well it was all the more motivation for me.

Victor, there lies the problem for them, finding that second braincell

"Not really mate. The reality is you dont get any ban for abusing a player. You do get any 8 game ban for mentioning skin colour. Ergo, there is a big difference in the FAs eyes. Nice try though!

Good evening."
------------------------------------------------
You should though, as explained in the rules you posted and as Suarez got four games for. In the same hearing, Evra admitted falling foul of E3(1) but escaped unpunished, whilst Suarez wasn't proven to have fallen foul of E3(1) but was punished and banned for four games. He was then further banned, without evidence for another four games for racial abuse.

You should though, as explained in the rules you posted and as Suarez got four games for. In the same hearing, Evra admitted falling foul of E3(1) but escaped unpunished, whilst Suarez wasn't proven to have fallen foul of E3(1) but was punished and banned for four games. He was then further banned, without evidence for another four games for racial abuse.

----------------------------------
as has already been explained, it's rare for someone to be hauled up for 3(1) unless they have fallen foul of 3(2) - because if they did then players would be banned every week.

also, there is no penalty for 3(2) - the punishment for that is, in the first instance, a doubling of the penalty handed out for 3(1) - ergo you cannot be done for 3(2) without having first been done for 3(1).

it was also explained several times why what was said was deemed to be racist.

"as has already been explained, it's rare for someone to be hauled up for 3(1) unless they have fallen foul of 3(2) - because if they did then players would be banned every week."

I don't give a fiddlers whether it is rare or not. I care that by Evra's own admission, he fell foul of E3(1) whereas there was no evidence that Suarez did fall foul of it and he was punished and banned for four games.


also, there is no penalty for 3(2) - the punishment for that is, in the first instance, a doubling of the penalty handed out for 3(1) - ergo you cannot be done for 3(2) without having first been done for 3(1).

Doubling four games to eight games is a punishment.
I know you cannot get the second without the first. I never said you could and in fact thanked Elvis for explaining that.

It was also said several times that asking, "why, black?" is not even abuse, nevermind racial abuse. The FA didn't ban Suarez on what he admitted, which is what i'm trying to get into your heads(the people who blindly follow the media propaganda) without engaging their own minds, they banned him on the word of Evra.

I'd like you to read the following article and tell me what your opinion is after you have read it:-

http://newsframes.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/media-on-racism-churnalism/

Victor I guess you're still biting to TOORON's gibberish?

Explaining things to him 100 times makes no difference, the contrary mary will argue with you to get more attention.

TOORON + WUMFI =

TOOR

It was also said several times that asking, "why, black?" is not even abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
--------------------------------------

Do you not think that in the context of an ongoing battle it can be used in an abusive manner?

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
TOOR

It was also said several times that asking, "why, black?" is not even abuse, nevermind racial abuse.
--------------------------------------

Do you not think that in the context of an ongoing battle it can be used in an abusive manner?
---------------------------------------------------
No. How can something which is not abusive be used to be abusive? It's a question and a descriptive of the colour of Evra's skin, which happens to be black. How is this abusive?

The thing you all can't get into your heads is that Suarez wasn't banned for this, he was banned on the word of Evra.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)


No. How can something which is not abusive be used to be abusive? It's a question and a descriptive of the colour of Evra's skin, which happens to be black. How is this abusive?

The thing you all can't get into your heads is that Suarez wasn't banned for this, he was banned on the word of Evra.
------------------------------------------

So if I was having an argument with a bloke in the street and sneered at him and called him black, or blackie, you don't think that is abusive? I have to disagree there, and so did the FA.

Also, Suarez was found guilty because the FA decided that his use of the word was done in an abusive manner. A word that he admitted to using of his own free will.

Evra's evidence on the number of times he said the word may have impacted on the seriousness of the punishment. However, he was found guilty because h admitted to saying it.