comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

I'll address what Evra claimed once you have admitted that you lied about what the experts said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're seriously gonna accuse me of lying after proven you have lied with quotes from the experts which corroborate what I said? Really? Come on Winston you can do better than that.

TOOR:

"He didn't say the pitch was trying to defuse the situation he said events before that he was trying to defuse the situation."

Direct extract from the report - i.e. what Suarez said:

"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 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."


Seriously TOOR, you need to stop using Liverpool forums to try and prove your points - you're making yourself look ridiculous.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)

Where did I lie?

Everything I have said is exactly what was said in the report.

You claimed the experts said it is impossible that Suarez could have said what Evra claimed.

They did not say that.

What are you struggling with?

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.

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

What has this to do with what Suarez actually said about pinching Evra, you idiot.

Vidicschin (U3584)

My post above is about as conclusive as you can possibly get. Can he admit he was wrong, even on that single point?

TOOR actually believes this.

What is more significant, in our judgment, is the substance of Mr Suarez's evidence that
his use of the word "negro" with Mr Evra "was intended as an attempt at conciliation" and
"was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way".

Anyway my son is awake so I'll have to go. You keep claiming victory but the evidence has been provided that you lied, I've provided quotes from the experts showing it.

I've also shown with evidence how Evra changed his account on what was said, how may times it was said, claiming he changed it as he didn't like to use the word despite evidence showing that he's fine using it. I've shown that experts say Suarez couldn't have used the words Evra claimed. I've shown how Evra stated he said ten times initially as a figure of speech something Comolli was asked about as a native speaker of French and said that it wouldn't make sense to use it that way. I've shown that Evra had lied about why he changed his account and about why he changed how many times it was said and also his previous of lying and being found to have exaggerated.

All backed up with evidence.

If you still believe what you do after all of that then we're at an impasse. Enjoy claiming victory.

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.

"the evidence has been provided that you lied"



God loves a tryer.

Apparently I have lied by taking direct quotes from the report.

Reports from the experts that, up until today, TOOR has been relying on to back up his points.

Not a great day for TOOR. I am starting to feel sorry for the guy.

Winston

Stop gloating. TOOR is a very special case.

He really does believe Suarez was being friendly.

Suarez claim that "it was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way" is about as believable as a puppy sitting next to a pile of pooh, with a big grin on his face and saying "it wasn't me".

Vidicschin (U3584)

I still can't work out if he's lying or deluded.

He keeps saying things that are blatantly not true.

It's funny, so many debates on this forum are subjective and so really speaking, no one is right or wrong.

But this is a case where there is a report that anyone can refer to and it clearly does not say what he is claiming.

Amazing that he persist with this.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 24 minutes ago
Winston

Stop gloating. TOOR is a very special case.

He really does believe Suarez was being friendly.

Suarez claim that "it was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way" is about as believable as a puppy sitting next to a pile of pooh, with a big grin on his face and saying "it wasn't me".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh he’s special alright he’s a blinking idiot.

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.

Winston

TOOR has what is known as 'Robb syndrome', where he has to be liberal with the truth to try to fit it into his agenda.

This TOOR guy is comedy gold

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.

The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.

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

Did he write another after he bit Ivanovic? Or had he given up by then.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 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’s such a wierd ongoing argument born of some liverpool fans inability to admit he’s been done bang to rights and the club looked incredibly stupid afterwards.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
The expert that toor is quoting is a Uruguayan that also wrote an impassioned defence of Suárez after he bit Chiellini.

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

Did he write another after he bit Ivanovic? Or had he given up by then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What could you possible say to defend a second bitting incident?

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.

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.

TOOR still with this Suarez bullshiiiiiit all these years later.

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".

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
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.

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

What has this to do with what Suarez actually said about pinching Evra, you idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that's not what he said about pinching him. When they were questioning him they were questioning him about the whole thing in general. He stated about the phrase he used he was defusing the situation which the experts stated was possible using the language he did in his home country. Then he was asked about the pinch, if that was trying to defuse the situation. He replied ''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."

The report grouped this together as one and wrote that he stated he was trying to defuse the situation with the pinch, despite him clearly stating he was not.

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.