comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"No he didn't and I've shown this."
Yes he did.
Everything I wrote was true - his account stayed the same with every official account he gave.
The only time that changed was when he used an expression that means 'at least ten times' in a TV interview. Clearly he's exaggerating but it's not an official statement and it does not change the fact that his account of five times was consistently used from start to finish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he says it means that but Comolli said it doesn't and he isn't a proven liar so if it's all the same to you I'm gonna go with Comolli on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care what he says.
Even if you do take it literally, it's clear that he is just letting of steam and exaggerating in a TV interview. It wasn't an official account.
He'd already given his official account to the referee.
And that official account did not change.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This is laughable.
A direct quote where he actually says he was trying to defuse the situation with the pinch, and you still try to make out there's some sort of misunderstanding.
You will go to any lengths to defend Suarez yet the slightest inconsistency in something Evra says makes him a liar.
You look utterly ridiculous.
Just admit it:
- The experts at the hearing did not say it was impossible for Suarez to say what Evra accused him of.
- Suarez did claim that the pinch was part of him trying to defuse the situation.
These are two, cast iron points that you were wrong on.
Not admitting it just shows you as deluded and biased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no. That's as cast iron as you'll get.
The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said.
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ffs seriously take a break from being stupid.
"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"
This is from a statement carefully written by Suarez and his legal team.
Yet TOOR would have us believe that it mistakenly suggests that Suarez says he pinched Evra as part of him trying to diffuse the situation.
This proves that some people will argue absolutely anything.
Laughable stuff.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have shown, with quotes when he was asked about iut the pinch and he said no. I don't know what you want here but isn't pretty conclusive.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Yes you have.
So he changed his story.
Because his written statement 100% says that the pinch was part of trying to defuse the situation.
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ffs seriously take a break from being stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an actual fact. There's no room for debate here so if you think it's incorrect then you're the stupid one.
Sorry.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". 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.
Wanna know who the small percentage of people are as stated by an expert in the field? Firstly people on the opposite side of the country than Suarez. Secondly with a higher social class. No footballer from the country would use those words.
So they have basically said highly unlikely not impossible, which in this case, it is.
Also I believe the experts were experts of European, Mexican and Colombian Spanish if I remember correctly.
I've shown a professor from Uruguay now at an American University who is an expert in Hispanic language who said he would never have said those words.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So where do the experts say 'it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said"?
Come on.
That is what you claimed. Where do they actually say that?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So where do the experts say 'it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said"?
Come on.
That is what you claimed. Where do they actually say that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just shown you they don't, they say a small percentage. I've then shown you that an actual Uruguayan experts said its very few people indeed mostly from the other side of the country and exclusively to people in a higher social class. It's basically impossible Suarez would use those words but Evra thought he would as he knew European Spanish. It shows he made it up.
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 59 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I need to "read up on racism"? This from the man who groups people together at the drop of a hat and calls scousers a seperate species. I like you LQ but you're stupid and vociferous which is a heady mix.
A small percentage of people is not enough to decide somebody said something. In fact it would suggest the opposite.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You've not shown me where they said what you claimed.
You're just interpreting their conclusion from one part of their findings.
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Did they actually say this, or anything that sounds like this?
Just admit it. They didn't.
Then we can actually move on and discuss it. But you need to stop making claims that are false, as you are currently doing.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's include this:
'The experts stated it wasn't possible for Suarez to have used the words Evra claimed he did as they didn't make sense'.
Perhaps you can admit that the experts did not state this, or show where they did?
It's quite a simple request.
Time to put up or shut up.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You've not shown me where they said what you claimed.
You're just interpreting their conclusion from one part of their findings.
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Did they actually say this, or anything that sounds like this?
Just admit it. They didn't.
Then we can actually move on and discuss it. But you need to stop making claims that are false, as you are currently doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite.
They said a small percentage. The small percentage come from a higher social class.
Anyhow, moving on, do you think this is evidence for or against what Evra claimed was said?
And what would you say a small percentage is? 1%? 2%? 98% wouldn't say it? Basically a 98% chance he didn't say it?
I find it astonishing that Winston is involved in a protracted argument about semantics.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite. "
That is just not true.
You are currently taking one part of their evidence regarding this point and drawing a conclusion around it. You're ignoring the other points made by the experts.
But let's park that for a minute.
Can you just admit that when you've been running around these forums saying 'the experts stated this...', you were wrong?
That didn't state what you claim.
That's correct, yes?
comment by Robbing_Hoody - sometimes I jump into people and then charge them with assault (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I find it astonishing that Winston is involved in a protracted argument about semantics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is most definitely not semantics.
Sorry mate I posted on the wrong thread by accident
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite. "
That is just not true.
You are currently taking one part of their evidence regarding this point and drawing a conclusion around it. You're ignoring the other points made by the experts.
But let's park that for a minute.
Can you just admit that when you've been running around these forums saying 'the experts stated this...', you were wrong?
That didn't state what you claim.
That's correct, yes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can admit they didn't state it as a definite but stated that there's a very small percent chance that he did. Which means there's a very high percent chance that he didn't.
As I've said, taking all the evidence into account, you cannot find that Suarez said it, not even in probability. Therefore in order to find him guilty, you have to make Evra credible and Suarez not credible and therefore believe one over the other. They claimed to do this but they didn't. Evra changed his account on what was said, stating he did it because he didn't like to use the word, despite using it to Ferguson after he'd already told the referee and his teammates on the pitch that the word was black and then was found to openly use it, will a smile on his face in a public video website. He also changed his account on how many times it was said and claimed it was a figure of speech, which the other French person stated nobody would say that in France, with him not being a proven liar, you would surely believe him. The panel didn't. The experts then stated only a small percent would say the sentence he claimed was said, which does it a disservice according to a Uruguayan expert as he states only a very few, exclusively in the other side of the country and of a higher social status would. Its use would be in European Spanish, which shows Evra made it up based on the words he knew.
So my conclusion is and always has been that they found him guilty as they wanted to believe one over the other despite the evidence.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spurs or Liverpool
Page 22 of 38
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
posted on 28/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"No he didn't and I've shown this."
Yes he did.
Everything I wrote was true - his account stayed the same with every official account he gave.
The only time that changed was when he used an expression that means 'at least ten times' in a TV interview. Clearly he's exaggerating but it's not an official statement and it does not change the fact that his account of five times was consistently used from start to finish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he says it means that but Comolli said it doesn't and he isn't a proven liar so if it's all the same to you I'm gonna go with Comolli on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care what he says.
Even if you do take it literally, it's clear that he is just letting of steam and exaggerating in a TV interview. It wasn't an official account.
He'd already given his official account to the referee.
And that official account did not change.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This is laughable.
A direct quote where he actually says he was trying to defuse the situation with the pinch, and you still try to make out there's some sort of misunderstanding.
You will go to any lengths to defend Suarez yet the slightest inconsistency in something Evra says makes him a liar.
You look utterly ridiculous.
Just admit it:
- The experts at the hearing did not say it was impossible for Suarez to say what Evra accused him of.
- Suarez did claim that the pinch was part of him trying to defuse the situation.
These are two, cast iron points that you were wrong on.
Not admitting it just shows you as deluded and biased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no. That's as cast iron as you'll get.
The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
posted on 28/2/18
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ffs seriously take a break from being stupid.
posted on 28/2/18
"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"
This is from a statement carefully written by Suarez and his legal team.
Yet TOOR would have us believe that it mistakenly suggests that Suarez says he pinched Evra as part of him trying to diffuse the situation.
This proves that some people will argue absolutely anything.
Laughable stuff.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have shown, with quotes when he was asked about iut the pinch and he said no. I don't know what you want here but isn't pretty conclusive.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Yes you have.
So he changed his story.
Because his written statement 100% says that the pinch was part of trying to defuse the situation.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 seconds ago
It seems to me to be impossible to come to a fair decision as we cannot see into players minds, there will be exaggeration if not outright lies. What was clear is that Suarez was not passing the time of day, or saying pleasantries, but whether he was being racist we will probably never know. My guess is he meant to insult him, but may be not racially.
But that is just opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if not racialy though why reference skin colour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A discriptive word doesn't have to be about race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ffs seriously take a break from being stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an actual fact. There's no room for debate here so if you think it's incorrect then you're the stupid one.
Sorry.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
"He was asked outright if he was trying to defuse the situation and he said no."
He said that at a later date because he knew his original statement did not make sense when viewing the video.
You're actually proving he changed his story.
I am not incorrect.
I have given you the actual statement he made.
And you're still arguing?
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Liar.
Show in the report where they say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". 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.
Wanna know who the small percentage of people are as stated by an expert in the field? Firstly people on the opposite side of the country than Suarez. Secondly with a higher social class. No footballer from the country would use those words.
So they have basically said highly unlikely not impossible, which in this case, it is.
posted on 28/2/18
Also I believe the experts were experts of European, Mexican and Colombian Spanish if I remember correctly.
I've shown a professor from Uruguay now at an American University who is an expert in Hispanic language who said he would never have said those words.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So where do the experts say 'it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said"?
Come on.
That is what you claimed. Where do they actually say that?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
So where do the experts say 'it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said"?
Come on.
That is what you claimed. Where do they actually say that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just shown you they don't, they say a small percentage. I've then shown you that an actual Uruguayan experts said its very few people indeed mostly from the other side of the country and exclusively to people in a higher social class. It's basically impossible Suarez would use those words but Evra thought he would as he knew European Spanish. It shows he made it up.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 59 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I need to "read up on racism"? This from the man who groups people together at the drop of a hat and calls scousers a seperate species. I like you LQ but you're stupid and vociferous which is a heady mix.
posted on 28/2/18
A small percentage of people is not enough to decide somebody said something. In fact it would suggest the opposite.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You've not shown me where they said what you claimed.
You're just interpreting their conclusion from one part of their findings.
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Did they actually say this, or anything that sounds like this?
Just admit it. They didn't.
Then we can actually move on and discuss it. But you need to stop making claims that are false, as you are currently doing.
posted on 28/2/18
Oh, and while we're at it, let's include this:
'The experts stated it wasn't possible for Suarez to have used the words Evra claimed he did as they didn't make sense'.
Perhaps you can admit that the experts did not state this, or show where they did?
It's quite a simple request.
Time to put up or shut up.
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You've not shown me where they said what you claimed.
You're just interpreting their conclusion from one part of their findings.
"The experts said that it wouldn't make sense for Suarez to say the sentence Evra claimed he said."
Did they actually say this, or anything that sounds like this?
Just admit it. They didn't.
Then we can actually move on and discuss it. But you need to stop making claims that are false, as you are currently doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite.
They said a small percentage. The small percentage come from a higher social class.
Anyhow, moving on, do you think this is evidence for or against what Evra claimed was said?
posted on 28/2/18
And what would you say a small percentage is? 1%? 2%? 98% wouldn't say it? Basically a 98% chance he didn't say it?
posted on 28/2/18
I find it astonishing that Winston is involved in a protracted argument about semantics.
posted on 28/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite. "
That is just not true.
You are currently taking one part of their evidence regarding this point and drawing a conclusion around it. You're ignoring the other points made by the experts.
But let's park that for a minute.
Can you just admit that when you've been running around these forums saying 'the experts stated this...', you were wrong?
That didn't state what you claim.
That's correct, yes?
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Robbing_Hoody - sometimes I jump into people and then charge them with assault (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I find it astonishing that Winston is involved in a protracted argument about semantics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is most definitely not semantics.
posted on 28/2/18
Sorry mate I posted on the wrong thread by accident
posted on 28/2/18
Badum tish
posted on 28/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"Well they said as close to it as they can without it being definite. "
That is just not true.
You are currently taking one part of their evidence regarding this point and drawing a conclusion around it. You're ignoring the other points made by the experts.
But let's park that for a minute.
Can you just admit that when you've been running around these forums saying 'the experts stated this...', you were wrong?
That didn't state what you claim.
That's correct, yes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can admit they didn't state it as a definite but stated that there's a very small percent chance that he did. Which means there's a very high percent chance that he didn't.
As I've said, taking all the evidence into account, you cannot find that Suarez said it, not even in probability. Therefore in order to find him guilty, you have to make Evra credible and Suarez not credible and therefore believe one over the other. They claimed to do this but they didn't. Evra changed his account on what was said, stating he did it because he didn't like to use the word, despite using it to Ferguson after he'd already told the referee and his teammates on the pitch that the word was black and then was found to openly use it, will a smile on his face in a public video website. He also changed his account on how many times it was said and claimed it was a figure of speech, which the other French person stated nobody would say that in France, with him not being a proven liar, you would surely believe him. The panel didn't. The experts then stated only a small percent would say the sentence he claimed was said, which does it a disservice according to a Uruguayan expert as he states only a very few, exclusively in the other side of the country and of a higher social status would. Its use would be in European Spanish, which shows Evra made it up based on the words he knew.
So my conclusion is and always has been that they found him guilty as they wanted to believe one over the other despite the evidence.
Page 22 of 38
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27