“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
Fack me, you need every single thing explained don’t you.
The law is subjective on this point. Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion.
That’s a fact.
The FA are not offering an opinion on whether it was a foul.
As I said. I don’t think it qualifies for retrospective action, so clearly the FA not doing so is not contradictory to my opinion.
It cannot be any clearer than that.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
Winston
“Like I said. I don’t think it qualifies for retrospective action, so clearly the FA not doing so is not contradictory to my opinion.”
What did you say taking action was earlier? That’s right it was ‘referring it to the independent panel’. So did the FA take action or not?
The FA did look into it but dismissed any punishment as they felt there wasn’t enough evidence that Salah dived.
“The FA are not offering an opinion on whether it was a foul.”
Think you mean a dive not foul there kiddo
“The law is subjective on this point. Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion”
We aren’t discussing whether it was a foul. Or whether the FA thought it was a foul. We are discussing whether it was a dive or not according to the FA. They couldn’t find enough evidence of this so dismissed any further action.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
The FA look at it to determine if there’s any case for retrospective action. In cases where it comes down to a matter of opinion, like this, it’ll never qualify for retrospective action.
I’ve been clear on that.
If I agree with the FA’s decision, how the feck can the FA’s decision contradict my opinion?
And no, we weren’t discussing whether it was a foul according to the FA. TOOR claimed the FA disagree with me and he was wrong. You took on the mantel and got it wrong as well.
Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, look;
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
You said this, in a discussion about Salah’s ‘dive’ against Newcastle, about 10 minutes ago
If ever proof was needed you’ve lost the debate;
“Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time”
Oh dear, sad.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, look;
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
You said this, in a discussion about Salah’s ‘dive’ against Newcastle, about 10 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
If ever proof was needed you’ve lost the debate;
“Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time”
Oh dear, sad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who can’t read basic sentences
Winston
“In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me”
So they went to the extent of the FA referring it to an independent panel, who reviewed it and then came to a decision on whether Salah “attempted to deceive the ref” (diving to you and me).
But they wouldn’t take action. That’s exactly what they did.
What was taking action again, refering it to the panel according to you.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Winston
“In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me”
So they went to the extent of the FA referring it to an independent panel, who reviewed it and then came to a decision on whether Salah “attempted to deceive the ref” (diving to you and me).
But they wouldn’t take action. That’s exactly what they did.
What was taking action again, refering it to the panel according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask again, can you actually read?
Look at what I’ve said ffs. This is getting boring.
You’ve dragged the debate into one specific area and you’re getting it so wrong that I think a child would pick it up quicker.
How many times:
I AGREE THAT THE INCIDENT ISNT WORTHY OF RETROSPECTIVE ACTION.
So pray do tell, how the feck is a lack of retrospective action contradicting my view?
Answers on a facking postcard.
Oh look Winston is moving the goal posts again.
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You also claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
If we go by your definition of ‘taking action’ then the FA clearly disagreed and referred it to the panel.
You keep contradicting yourself.
If you’re bored then go and find something else to do. No one is forcing you to be here.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh look Winston is moving the goal posts again.
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You also claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
If we go by your definition of ‘taking action’ then the FA clearly disagreed and referred it to the panel.
You keep contradicting yourself.
If you’re bored then go and find something else to do. No one is forcing you to be here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not moving anything, you are.
You’re trying to make this debate about what is meant by the word ‘action’ when it’s irrelevant.
The point was that you claim the FA’s stance contradicts my opinion about whether Salah dived.
But as I’ve said, I believe he dived but I disagree that it should face retrospective action.
Can that be written in any more basic English for you to realise you were wrong?
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s that got to do with the point?
The point was always whether the FA have contradicted my opinion, and they haven’t.
You’re desperately trying to move the goalposts. You’re desperately trying to find something you think I’ve got wrong.
Go on, admit it. Admit that what you’re desperately trying to prove was not what we were discussing.
Have you ever noticed you never admit you’re wrong and you just move from point to point, hoping something will stick?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s that got to do with the point?
The point was always whether the FA have contradicted my opinion, and they haven’t.
You’re desperately trying to move the goalposts. You’re desperately trying to find something you think I’ve got wrong.
Go on, admit it. Admit that what you’re desperately trying to prove was not what we were discussing.
Have you ever noticed you never admit you’re wrong and you just move from point to point, hoping something will stick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No answer then?
You can’t see the contradiction in the two comments.
By your definition of ‘taking action’ that’s exactly what the FA did
By your definition of ‘taking action’ the FA contradict your claim it didn’t warrant further action. It obviously did or they wouldn’t have referred it to the panel (took action according to you).
The rest is just rambling nonsense, par for the course in these long winded debates with you. To think you were crying about ‘personal comments’ earlier in the thread.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you were bored. I suggested doing something else.
What’s the problem?
You can’t answer, can you? You’re debating the meaning of a facking word.
Admit it, we were discussing whether the FA disagreed with me. Now you’re stuck on the meaning of the word ‘action’.
You’ve tried to move the goalposts and failed. You’re all over the place and you know it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
You can’t answer, can you? You’re debating the meaning of a facking word.
Admit it, we were discussing whether the FA disagreed with me. Now you’re stuck on the meaning of the word ‘action’.
You’ve tried to move the goalposts and failed. You’re all over the place and you know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a huge case of the pot calling the kettle. Dictionary definitions posted by Winston anyone?
Simple yes or no answers will do. Until then there’s nothing else to discuss.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you were bored. I suggested doing something else.
What’s the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to learn how to read.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypocritical media..
Page 7 of 25
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
posted on 21/4/19
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
posted on 21/4/19
Fack me, you need every single thing explained don’t you.
The law is subjective on this point. Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion.
That’s a fact.
The FA are not offering an opinion on whether it was a foul.
As I said. I don’t think it qualifies for retrospective action, so clearly the FA not doing so is not contradictory to my opinion.
It cannot be any clearer than that.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
“Like I said. I don’t think it qualifies for retrospective action, so clearly the FA not doing so is not contradictory to my opinion.”
What did you say taking action was earlier? That’s right it was ‘referring it to the independent panel’. So did the FA take action or not?
The FA did look into it but dismissed any punishment as they felt there wasn’t enough evidence that Salah dived.
“The FA are not offering an opinion on whether it was a foul.”
Think you mean a dive not foul there kiddo
“The law is subjective on this point. Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion”
We aren’t discussing whether it was a foul. Or whether the FA thought it was a foul. We are discussing whether it was a dive or not according to the FA. They couldn’t find enough evidence of this so dismissed any further action.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
posted on 21/4/19
The FA look at it to determine if there’s any case for retrospective action. In cases where it comes down to a matter of opinion, like this, it’ll never qualify for retrospective action.
I’ve been clear on that.
If I agree with the FA’s decision, how the feck can the FA’s decision contradict my opinion?
And no, we weren’t discussing whether it was a foul according to the FA. TOOR claimed the FA disagree with me and he was wrong. You took on the mantel and got it wrong as well.
Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, look;
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
You said this, in a discussion about Salah’s ‘dive’ against Newcastle, about 10 minutes ago
posted on 21/4/19
If ever proof was needed you’ve lost the debate;
“Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time”
Oh dear, sad.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
“not speculating anything, it’s a fact.”
No it’s not
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
Are you sure?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/18/football-association-introduce-retrospective-bans-diving-feigning-injury-next-season
When you spend months going on about how much you know the rules and then it turns out you don’t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I’m sure.
All this proves is that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed the FA don’t punish diving retrospectively.
There’s a whole article saying from the start of the 2018-19 season that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Anyway I’m bored of this now. No doubt you’ll tell yourself you were victorious and apply a revisionist version of events, then give yourself a pat on the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I claimed no such thing.
Can you actually read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, look;
“They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.”
You said this, in a discussion about Salah’s ‘dive’ against Newcastle, about 10 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
If ever proof was needed you’ve lost the debate;
“Go back to the original discussion if you like. Everything I’ve said is spot on and as normal, you hate it because you’re desperate for me to be wrong.
Better luck next time”
Oh dear, sad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who can’t read basic sentences
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
“In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me”
So they went to the extent of the FA referring it to an independent panel, who reviewed it and then came to a decision on whether Salah “attempted to deceive the ref” (diving to you and me).
But they wouldn’t take action. That’s exactly what they did.
What was taking action again, refering it to the panel according to you.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Winston
“In a case like this.
That doesn’t mean they won’t take retrospective action for diving.
Fack me”
So they went to the extent of the FA referring it to an independent panel, who reviewed it and then came to a decision on whether Salah “attempted to deceive the ref” (diving to you and me).
But they wouldn’t take action. That’s exactly what they did.
What was taking action again, refering it to the panel according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask again, can you actually read?
Look at what I’ve said ffs. This is getting boring.
You’ve dragged the debate into one specific area and you’re getting it so wrong that I think a child would pick it up quicker.
How many times:
I AGREE THAT THE INCIDENT ISNT WORTHY OF RETROSPECTIVE ACTION.
So pray do tell, how the feck is a lack of retrospective action contradicting my view?
Answers on a facking postcard.
posted on 21/4/19
Oh look Winston is moving the goal posts again.
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You also claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
If we go by your definition of ‘taking action’ then the FA clearly disagreed and referred it to the panel.
You keep contradicting yourself.
If you’re bored then go and find something else to do. No one is forcing you to be here.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh look Winston is moving the goal posts again.
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You also claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
If we go by your definition of ‘taking action’ then the FA clearly disagreed and referred it to the panel.
You keep contradicting yourself.
If you’re bored then go and find something else to do. No one is forcing you to be here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not moving anything, you are.
You’re trying to make this debate about what is meant by the word ‘action’ when it’s irrelevant.
The point was that you claim the FA’s stance contradicts my opinion about whether Salah dived.
But as I’ve said, I believe he dived but I disagree that it should face retrospective action.
Can that be written in any more basic English for you to realise you were wrong?
posted on 21/4/19
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
posted on 21/4/19
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s that got to do with the point?
The point was always whether the FA have contradicted my opinion, and they haven’t.
You’re desperately trying to move the goalposts. You’re desperately trying to find something you think I’ve got wrong.
Go on, admit it. Admit that what you’re desperately trying to prove was not what we were discussing.
Have you ever noticed you never admit you’re wrong and you just move from point to point, hoping something will stick?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Did you say the following:
You said in cases like the Salah one at Newcastle the FA wouldn’t take retrospective action.
Yes or no?
Well they looked at it to see whether any action was necessary, ie did Salah attempt to deceive the ref.
You claimed that ‘taking action’ was just referring it to the independent panel;
Yes or no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s that got to do with the point?
The point was always whether the FA have contradicted my opinion, and they haven’t.
You’re desperately trying to move the goalposts. You’re desperately trying to find something you think I’ve got wrong.
Go on, admit it. Admit that what you’re desperately trying to prove was not what we were discussing.
Have you ever noticed you never admit you’re wrong and you just move from point to point, hoping something will stick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No answer then?
You can’t see the contradiction in the two comments.
By your definition of ‘taking action’ that’s exactly what the FA did
By your definition of ‘taking action’ the FA contradict your claim it didn’t warrant further action. It obviously did or they wouldn’t have referred it to the panel (took action according to you).
The rest is just rambling nonsense, par for the course in these long winded debates with you. To think you were crying about ‘personal comments’ earlier in the thread.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you were bored. I suggested doing something else.
What’s the problem?
posted on 21/4/19
You can’t answer, can you? You’re debating the meaning of a facking word.
Admit it, we were discussing whether the FA disagreed with me. Now you’re stuck on the meaning of the word ‘action’.
You’ve tried to move the goalposts and failed. You’re all over the place and you know it.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
You can’t answer, can you? You’re debating the meaning of a facking word.
Admit it, we were discussing whether the FA disagreed with me. Now you’re stuck on the meaning of the word ‘action’.
You’ve tried to move the goalposts and failed. You’re all over the place and you know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a huge case of the pot calling the kettle. Dictionary definitions posted by Winston anyone?
Simple yes or no answers will do. Until then there’s nothing else to discuss.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
‘No one if forcing you to be here’
Says the guy who keeps telling everyone he’s leaving and then carries on posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no one is forcing me to come or go
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And no one is forcing me to be here, so why did you say it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you were bored. I suggested doing something else.
What’s the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to learn how to read.
Page 7 of 25
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12