Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

tommyhaas · 16-10-2011 08:11PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

But theres 45,000 people there, how could they not hear someone mutter something to someone else from far away while everyone else is shouting?

You just contradicted yourself. Suarez would have to have said it fairly loudly in order for Evra to hear

Mr Alan · 16-10-2011 08:11PM

#15 wrote: »

I agree, people are really naive to think that someone would openly shout a slur when they could just as easily mutter it undetected.

Oh it was muttered now was it? more than 10 times?

Evra doesn't seem to think so, otherwise why was he so confident it would be picked up on camera?

Surely he is not stupid enough to think that someone muttering something would be picked up on camera?

bucketybuck · 16-10-2011 08:13PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

But theres 45,000 people there, how could they not hear someone mutter something to someone else from far away while everyone else is shouting?

Its crazy isnt it.

I have played GAA junior games in front of two men and a dog, and the idea that people in the crowd could hear me if I muttered abuse to the man marking me is just moronic in the extreme.

The idea that anybody in a crowd of 45000 could hear it if Suarez pitched his voice low is beyond moronic, into completely retarded.

monkey9 · 16-10-2011 08:14PM

michael999999 wrote: »

According to lads in the United forum, the Liverpool fans were quiet all game. So there should have been no problem De gea and Kuyt hearing these supposed words!

Surprising seeing as it was our cup final!!

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:14PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

You just contradicted yourself. Suarez would have to have said it fairly loudly in order for Evra to hear

The whole idea of sounds travelling over distance is a new one to you, isnt it?

#15 · 16-10-2011 08:15PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Oh it was muttered now was it? more than 10 times?

Evra doesn't seem to think so, otherwise why was he so confident it would be picked up on camera? Surely he is not stupid enough to think that someone muttering something would be picked up on camera?

If you want to believe Suarez is stupid enough to shout a slur, fine. I think he'd be a bit more sly about it.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3GwpUIJ9vzy85rjqRUyntoCMWQva4dwQMWYKdfnotLhjgizJC

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3GwpUIJ9vzy85rjqRUyntoCMWQva4dwQMWYKdfnotLhjgizJC

bucketybuck · 16-10-2011 08:15PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Oh it was muttered now was it? more than 10 times?

Evra doesn't seem to think so, otherwise why was he so confident it would be picked up on camera? Surely he is not stupid enough to think that someone muttering something would be picked up on camera?

You are full of it.

You can try and imply that any abuse from Suarez would have been shouted at the top of his voice, but anybody with two brain cells knows damn well that IF Suarez said anything racist to Evra, that he would have said it to him from about a yard away and with his voice pitched low.

Any reasonable person knows this. Trolls wont know this.

Mr Alan · 16-10-2011 08:16PM

#15 wrote: »

If you want to believe Suarez is stupid enough to shout a slur, fine. I think he'd be a bit more sly about it.

If he muttered it, why would Evra be so adament that it would be picked up on camera?

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:16PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

If he muttered it, why would Evra be so adament that it would be picked up on camera?

A camera picks up Images Mr. Alan, not sounds. Thats what microphones are for...

Mr Alan · 16-10-2011 08:18PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are full of it.

You can try and imply that any abuse from Suarez would have been shouted at the top of his voice, but anybody with two brain cells knows damn well that IF Suarez said anything racist to Evra, that he would have said it to him from about a yard away and with his voice pitched low.

Any reasonable person knows this. Trolls wont know this.

This ain't complicated.

Evra is adament that the incident would be picked up on TV.

So adament was he that he proceeded to tell the he world that you could
clearly see it from the TV pics.

Now surely he wouldn't say that if it was merely muttered under Suarez's breath?

#15 · 16-10-2011 08:19PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

If he muttered it, why would Evra be so adament that it would be picked up on camera?

*sigh*

#15 wrote: »

What?

He gets abused.
Presumes it's on camera.
Says ''it's on camera''.
Turns out to be mistaken and it's not on camera.

That does not mean he didn't get abused. It means he made a mistake about the camera but was still abused.

What part of it are you not getting? Did you not learn anything from your discussion with Flah earlier?

Note: I'm not saying he was definitely abused. I'm saying that one possibility is that it's not on camera but that the abuse still took place.

Mr Alan · 16-10-2011 08:20PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

A camera picks up Images Mr. Alan, not sounds. Thats what microphones are for...

Ok.

I'm eagerly awaiting these tv images a la the Busquets/Marcello incident.

Be sure to PM me when they arrive in case I miss them :pac:

DOC09UNAM · 16-10-2011 08:22PM

Even if he is found guilty, it doesn't make him a racist tbh.

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:22PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ok.

I'm eagerly awaiting these tv images a la the Busquets/Marcello incident.

Be sure to PM me when they arrive in case I miss them :pac:

Ill be sure to Mr. Alan

I cant wait to see you try to worm out of the next argument with utterly moronic logic

Bodhisopha · 16-10-2011 08:24PM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Even if he is found guilty, it doesn't make him a racist tbh.

Good luck with that. I tried to explain that one on here before...

tommyhaas · 16-10-2011 08:29PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

The whole idea of sounds travelling over distance is a new one to you, isnt it?

Well I have me GMDSS ticket, so I would imagine that I understand the concept of the propagation of sound better then most. Also, there's no need to be condescending, you come across as an awful arsehole

My point was that there were many people in close proximity to Suarez. I find it difficult to believe that on each occasion, Suarez manages to speak at a level high enough to ensure Evra could hear him over the crowd, but low enough so that no one else could hear him

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:34PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Well I have me GMDSS ticket, so I would imagine that I understand the concept of the propagation of sound better then most. Also, there's no need to be condescending, you come across as an awful arsehole

My point was that there were many people in close proximity to Suarez. I find it difficult to believe that on each occasion, Suarez manages to speak at a level high enough to ensure Evra could hear him over the crowd, but low enough so that no one else could hear him

Are you really having such a hard time understanding the concept of someone talking at such a level that it can only heard by people beside them?

Its not a new concept, its been around for thousands of years. Sometimes called whispering, sometimes called muttering, sometimes called talking quietly.

Its a pity they didnt teach you any common sense when getting your GMDSS ticket

ilovelamp2000 · 16-10-2011 08:35PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

For the 1000th time....

""The cameras are there. You can see him say a certain word to me at least 10 times."

Now......if that footage does not exist he has clearly attempted to invent evidence against Suarez.

Perhaps intentionally for the trial by media in an effort to give his accusations more credibility, perhaps he was just mistaken & presumed it would be there.

Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

And there is nothing "trivial" about what he said.

He said he thinks it's on camera, if it is there is evidence.

If it isn't, there is no evidence.

he hasn't invented evidence.

He's either right or wrong in his comments.

bucketybuck · 16-10-2011 08:35PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that on each occasion, Suarez manages to speak at a level high enough to ensure Evra could hear him over the crowd, but low enough so that no one else could hear him

Thats your failing not his. Ever had a whispered conversation in a crowded bar?

Bodhisopha · 16-10-2011 08:36PM

Nothing will happen and we'll never know for sure, just like when Schmeichel was alleged to have racially abused Ian Wright.

tommyhaas · 16-10-2011 08:37PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Are you really having such a hard time understanding the concept of someone talking at such a level that it can only heard by people beside them?

That's my point. I would imagine it would have been heard by people, as oppose to a single person

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:37PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats your failing not his. Ever had a whispered conversation in a crowded bar?

Of course not, to him all conversation is audible to everyone everywhere no matter what the volumne, proximity or other noise in the place.

Fuhrer · 16-10-2011 08:39PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

That's my point. I would imagine it would have been heard by people, as oppose to a single person

Yet again, I bring you back to the simple concept of volume.

Seriously, its a fascinating subject, maybe you should read up on it. I learned about it when I was in primary school. Seems you skipped that.

tommyhaas · 16-10-2011 08:40PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats your failing not his. Ever had a whispered conversation in a crowded bar?

Of course, my point is though that it seems very unlikely that it wasn't noticed by anyone else, or by any camera's or mic's on each of the 10 occasions, either at the time, or retrospectively by lip readers. Evra also implied that it was fairly apparent when he suggested it would have been picked up by the camera's

tommyhaas · 16-10-2011 08:42PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yet again, I bring you back to the simple concept of volume.

Seriously, its a fascinating subject, maybe you should read up on it. I learned about it when I was in primary school. Seems you skipped that.

As I said in reply to bucketybuck;

tommyhaas wrote: »

Of course, my point is though that it seems very unlikely that it wasn't noticed by anyone else, or by any camera's or mic's on each of the 10 occasions, either at the time, or retrospectively by lip readers. Evra also implied that it was fairly apparent when he suggested it would have been picked up by the camera's

smokedeels · 16-10-2011 08:47PM

Why is the automatic assumption that Evra is lying?

Mr Alan · 16-10-2011 08:47PM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Even if he is found guilty, it doesn't make him a racist tbh.

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

He said he thinks it's on camera

No he didn't.

He said you can clearly see it on camera. No if, buts or maybes.

ilovelamp2000 wrote:

If it isn't, there is no evidence.

he hasn't invented evidence.

Ok, he will have lied to the media about evidence that may or may not exist.

That better?

smokedeels · 16-10-2011 08:49PM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Even if he is found guilty, it doesn't make him a racist tbh.

But, at the very least it makes him an ignorant fool.

efb · 16-10-2011 08:50PM

smokedeels wrote: »

Why is the automatic assumption that Evra is lying?

previous.

Oh, and the presumption of innocence thing...

ilovelamp2000 · 16-10-2011 08:50PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

No he didn't.

He said you can clearly see it on camera. No if, buts or maybes.

Ok, he will have lied to the media about evidence that may or may not exist.

That better?

Yes. But you're still absolutely miles away from what is actually important here.

Your absolute outright support of everything LFC to the point of ridiculousness is cute, but stupid. Much like a lot of the United heads to be fair.

Whether Evra is right about TV evidence isn't particularly important. The evidence itself is important.

Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

Comments