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

manual_man · 01-01-2012 04:01PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

They absolutely don't mean the same thing. Ask on a law forum if you don't believe me

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 04:04PM

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

They absolutely don't mean the same thing. Ask on a law forum if you don't believe me

It was used innocuously.
It's like me saying my dinner was simply delicious as opposed to plain old delicious.

homerjay2005 · 01-01-2012 04:06PM

i really hope evra takes liverpool and some "writers" like john aldridge and ronnie whelan to court over the false accusations and lies they have written over the previous claims nonsense.

he should sue the f*ck out of them.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 04:06PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

They absolutely don't mean the same thing. Ask on a law forum if you don't believe me

It was used innocuously.
It's like me saying my dinner was simply delicious as opposed to plain old delicious.

You're absolutely wrong. Words are vital in a legal context, and are constructed very carefully

The_Kew_Tour · 01-01-2012 04:08PM

lol stop the lights.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 04:10PM

manual_man wrote: »

You're absolutely wrong. Words are vital in a legal context, and are constructed very carefully

And interpreted wrongly by you then ?

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 04:11PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i really hope evra takes liverpool and some "writers" like john aldridge and ronnie whelan to court over the false accusations and lies they have written over the previous claims nonsense.

he should sue the f*ck out of them.

If Ronnie Whelan could be sued for the bull**** he comes out with, he'd have been bankrupt a long time ago. As for Aldridge, well he makes Phil Thompson seem capable of putting forward an unbiased opinion

Turtyturd · 01-01-2012 04:15PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

If Ronnie Whelan could be sued for the bull**** he comes out with, he'd have been bankrupt a long time ago. As for Aldridge, well he makes Phil Thompson seem capable of putting forward an unbiased opinion

I'm actually surprised Aldridge stopped writing about Torres long enough to comment on this.

MANUTD99 · 01-01-2012 04:17PM

Lads do you reckon Evra will get dogs abuse from Liverpool fans from now on. I think he will be subjected to boo chants etc at Anfield from a minority for sure which will be unfair.He felt he was racially abused and reported it.

Any decent fan should not abuse someone for reporting racial abuse. He didn't give the 8 game ban out, he just reported to incident

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 04:17PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

I'm actually surprised Aldridge stopped writing about Torres long enough to comment on this.

I hate listening to him when he's commentating on reserve games. Its no different to fanzone on Sky

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 04:18PM

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

They absolutely don't mean the same thing. Ask on a law forum if you don't believe me

It was used innocuously.
It's like me saying my dinner was simply delicious as opposed to plain old delicious.

You're absolutely wrong. Words are vital in a legal context, and are constructed very carefully

Yea but in this instance the word simply has no bearing on anything,if you don't see that don't bother replying to this.

carlcon · 01-01-2012 04:26PM

PHB wrote: »

The phrase "liverpool fans" appears over 360 times in this thread. I think it's really impressively absurd that it continues to be used. There is clearly a diversity of opinion within liverpool fans, to suggest otherwise is just absurd. Please stop using this phrase.

If anyone is to blame for an "attack Liverpool" mentality, it's the club itself for the preposterous statement they released, followed by by the Suarez tees the next match day.

I 100% accept that some Liverpool fans have washed their hands of Suarez and accepted the ban... but where are they now? It's not like fans from popular clubs like Liverpool to be quiet... yet *almost* every post being made by a 'pool fan here is either blindly defending Suarez, or suggesting the very explicit report isn't reliable.

I know the "good ones" exist, because I know plenty of them... but on this forum it's mostly a disgraceful showing from their fans. Fair enough, you expect that on the internet... but if you want the talk of "Liverpool fans" to stop, you better get more of them to speak up against their player more vocally.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 04:36PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

They absolutely don't mean the same thing. Ask on a law forum if you don't believe me

It was used innocuously.
It's like me saying my dinner was simply delicious as opposed to plain old delicious.

You're absolutely wrong. Words are vital in a legal context, and are constructed very carefully

Yea but in this instance the word simply has no bearing on anything,if you don't see that don't bother replying to this.

Continue to be childish, if you like.

I study linguistics. My flatmate studies law. I get the feeling you're seeing it how you want to see it, not how it is. Legal observation requires impartiality.

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 04:43PM

manual_man wrote: »

Continue to be childish, if you like.

I study linguistics. My flatmate studies law. I get the feeling you're seeing it how you want to see it, not how it is. Legal observation requires impartiality.

Oh for jaysus sake,I don't give a flying **** what you study.
You're looking for something that's not there,you don't have to break down and examine every sentence.
It's clearly in this instance innocuous.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 01-01-2012 04:45PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Oh for jaysus sake,I don't give a flying **** what you study.
You're looking for something that's not there,you don't have to break down and examine every sentence.
It's clearly in this instance innocuous.

If it was clear then there would not be such a discussion about it.

01-01-2012 04:46PM

MANUTD99 wrote: »

Lads do you reckon Evra will get dogs abuse from Liverpool fans from now on. I think he will be subjected to boo chants etc at Anfield from a minority for sure which will be unfair.He felt he was racially abused and reported it.

Any decent fan should not abuse someone for reporting racial abuse. He didn't give the 8 game ban out, he just reported to incident

Have you ever been to a match?

Well......players get booed all the time, it's part and parcel. No big deal.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 04:46PM

It is very clear.

Some people don't want to see it though.

01-01-2012 04:49PM

PHB wrote: »

The phrase "liverpool fans" appears over 360 times in this thread. I think it's really impressively absurd that it continues to be used. There is clearly a diversity of opinion within liverpool fans, to suggest otherwise is just absurd. Please stop using this phrase.

Well said PHB

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 04:49PM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Oh for jaysus sake,I don't give a flying **** what you study.
You're looking for something that's not there,you don't have to break down and examine every sentence.
It's clearly in this instance innocuous.

If it was clear then there would not be such a discussion about it.

Here's the quote again:

It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.

What difference does the word "simply" in there make as opposed to it being left out.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 04:56PM

carlcon wrote: »

PHB wrote: »

The phrase "liverpool fans" appears over 360 times in this thread. I think it's really impressively absurd that it continues to be used. There is clearly a diversity of opinion within liverpool fans, to suggest otherwise is just absurd. Please stop using this phrase.

If anyone is to blame for an "attack Liverpool" mentality, it's the club itself for the preposterous statement they released, followed by by the Suarez tees the next match day.

I 100% accept that some Liverpool fans have washed their hands of Suarez and accepted the ban... but where are they now? It's not like fans from popular clubs like Liverpool to be quiet... yet *almost* every post being made by a 'pool fan here is either blindly defending Suarez, or suggesting the very explicit report isn't reliable.

I know the "good ones" exist, because I know plenty of them... but on this forum it's mostly a disgraceful showing from their fans. Fair enough, you expect that on the internet... but if you want the talk of "Liverpool fans" to stop, you better get more of them to speak up against their player more vocally.

To say that is provoking animosity. Not the first time i've seen you take a jibe at Liverpool fans on boards, mind you. There are some 'Pool fans who, yes, have come out with unwholesome comments on here, but for the most part 'Pool fans are demanding some kind of solid evidence before they damn their own player. Not unreasonable, i should think. I have read the entire report, and it is still unclear to me whether Suarez is guilty or not. The FA are basing their judgement almost entirely on the basis of one man's word over another, without any factual evidence of the words that were exchanged, and this for me shows gross negligence on the part of the FA in respect to the right to fair trial, in what is extremely important to all the parties involved. Most Liverpool fans are demanding transparency, which we have absolutely not got, and how any fan, no matter what club they support, can condemn Suarez based on the paperthin evidence that was supplied via the Commission, is well and truly beyond me. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. People might do well to remember that.

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:03PM

People continue to come out with rubbish like:

*) Liverpool fans are blindly defending Suarez
*) Stop "embarrassing" yourselves by arguing about it
*) Liverpool's fans posts are "disgraceful"/"disgusting"

I find those posts embarrassing actually. They scream to me "I don't have the ability to put together a reasoned and cohesive argument on the subject, so instead I will mount my high horse and throw out a few superior sounding statements on the issue. After all, we are in the right, aren't we? Why don't those Liverpool fans just get back in their box and take their medicine?".

Thankfully we live in a society where we have the freedom to question, and the freedom to debate. Anyone who wishes to debate the report should do so. You are not embarrassing yourself. You are not embarrassing the club. You are not blindly supporting.

The issue at hand for most Liverpool fans posting here from what I can see has gone beyond the issue of whether Suarez racially abused Evra (because I think people on both sides will agree that it is not possible to say that definitively and without doubt?), but the process by which his guilt was judged and his sentence handed out.

The issue goes beyond Suarez Vs Evra, and calls into question the entire basis upon which FA disciplinary proceedings are run. There are another set of posters on here who have also stated that Liverpool or people on here attempting to debate the issue have no recourse to debate, because these are the FA rules that Liverpool signed up to, end of story. How short sighted. It is only through the questioning of processes that they are changed for the better. The posters who say we cannot question the FA's processes say so in such a way as to give the impression they are experts on FA procedure. That this is the last in a long line of FA disciplinary procedures they have followed closely and examined, and that the Liverpool fans on here questioning it should know better, if only they were familiar with FA procedures. For most Liverpool fans this is our first exposure to this particular process and the types of evidence which are accepted. I would be willing to wager that for almost everyone posting suggesting that that's the end of the story it is also their first exposure, however it suits their argument to lecture as if it is not.

There are certain countries where a woman can be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. They are the rules, end of story. Is this a process that should not be questioned? Or is there a particular line that should be drawn? At what point should one not be allowed to question process?

The FA procedures on matters like this are appalling. This is the first time I have ever come across them, and whatever about judging whether an elbow in the face was intentional or not, to judge an accusation which in theory could actually merit criminal proceedings (racial abuse is illegal in the UK) using the procedures as followed in the Suarez Evra case is simply incredulous as far as I am concerned.

The guilty verdict is subjective, and based on circumstancial evidence. Perhaps the FA panel involved were correct to find him guilty based on the procedures as laid down. However I don't think I can make clear enough that what is being called into question here are those procedures in and of themselves.

I hope that those posters arguing that those procedures seem fair never find a player from their club on the receiving end of a similar judgment based on similar procedures. I find it hard to imagine they would let it lie as they expect those here to.

carlcon · 01-01-2012 05:03PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Here's the quote again:

It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.

What difference does the word "simply" in there make as opposed to it being left out.

Technically speaking, removing "simply" would categorically state that it was not at all a case of one word against another (ie, one person's word was irrelevant). Having "simply" in there may suggest that although there was also other evidence, their "words" were actually considered.

So there is a difference.

However, neither version is a defence of Suarez or a criticism of the report. It's the language they have to use in these things. They can rarely state "this is definitely true", simply because they're not allowed and leave themselves open to ridicule from credible sources... unless they're quoting.

Just like how they don't/can't say "Suarez is a liar and a racist".... so they instead gave quotes and evidence that show Suarez to be a liar and a racist. It's all part and parcel of these types of official reports meant for the public eye.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 05:04PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Oh for jaysus sake,I don't give a flying **** what you study.
You're looking for something that's not there,you don't have to break down and examine every sentence.
It's clearly in this instance innocuous.

If it was clear then there would not be such a discussion about it.

Here's the quote again:

It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.

What difference does the word "simply" in there make as opposed to it being left out.

It means not just, as opposed to not

Basically saying that it's not the only factor, that there's more to it

However, if it had been said 'simply not', it would have an entirely different connotation, just to confuse everyone even more

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:06PM

I pointed out about 100 pages ago that Liverpool and Kenny Dalglish have a lot to be sheepish about in this matter. Yesterday's report completely confirms that. The investigation had the benefit of tv footage that we havent seen. They've said this. The fact that some are still defending this is laughable. And all for a guy that will be gone inside 2 years. Funny

carlcon · 01-01-2012 05:07PM

manual_man wrote: »

To say that is provoking animosity. Not the first time i've seen you take a jibe at Liverpool fans on boards, mind you. There are some 'Pool fans who, yes, have come out with unwholesome comments on here, but for the most part 'Pool fans are demanding some kind of solid evidence before they damn their own player. Not unreasonable, i should think. I have read the entire report, and it is still unclear to me whether Suarez is guilty or not. The FA are basing their judgement almost entirely on the basis of one man's word over another, without any factual evidence of the words that were exchanged, and this for me shows gross negligence on the part of the FA in respect to the right to fair trial, in what is extremely important to all the parties involved. Most Liverpool fans are demanding transparency, which we have absolutely not got, and how any fan, no matter what club they support, can condemn Suarez based on the paperthin evidence that was supplied via the Commission, is well and truly beyond me. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. People might do well to remember that.

The bold part shows that you either a) Did not read the report, or b) Did not understand the report. For either of those reasons, along with your history of childishness in the FF forum, I won't be taking the time to show how unbelievably wrong you are.

SoulTrader · 01-01-2012 05:09PM

manual_man wrote: »

That what you suggested was admitted was in fact not admitted. It was simply an admission by both parties that there was more to the case than just one person's word v the other. If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

That's exactly my point.

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:09PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I pointed out about 100 pages ago that Liverpool and Kenny Dalglish have a lot to be sheepish about in this matter. Yesterday's report completely confirms that. And all for a guy that will be gone inside 2 years. Funny

Can you please provide some more information about what in the report tallies with any issue you pointed out that Kenny Dalglish and LFC have to be "sheepish" about? Specific references would be of some help.

Can you also please provide some more concrete information that you have at your disposal to suggest that a particular "guy" will be "gone inside 2 years"?

Can you also please provide any evidence whatsoever that anybody reading your post found it in any way humourous (i.e. "Funny", as you refer to at the end)?

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:10PM

spockety wrote: »

People continue to come out with rubbish like:

*) Liverpool fans are blindly defending Suarez
*) Stop "embarrassing" yourselves by arguing about it
*) Liverpool's fans posts are "disgraceful"/"disgusting"

I find those posts embarrassing actually. They scream to me "I don't have the ability to put together a reasoned and cohesive argument on the subject, so instead I will mount my high horse and throw out a few superior sounding statements on the issue. After all, we are in the right, aren't we? Why don't those Liverpool fans just get back in their box and take their medicine?".

Thankfully we live in a society where we have the freedom to question, and the freedom to debate. Anyone who wishes to debate the report should do so. You are not embarrassing yourself. You are not embarrassing the club. You are not blindly supporting.

The issue at hand for most Liverpool fans posting here from what I can see has gone beyond the issue of whether Suarez racially abused Evra (because I think people on both sides will agree that it is not possible to say that definitively and without doubt?), but the process by which his guilt was judged and his sentence handed out.

The issue goes beyond Suarez Vs Evra, and calls into question the entire basis upon which FA disciplinary proceedings are run. There are another set of posters on here who have also stated that Liverpool or people on here attempting to debate the issue have no recourse to debate, because these are the FA rules that Liverpool signed up to, end of story. How short sighted. It is only through the questioning of processes that they are changed for the better. The posters who say we cannot question the FA's processes say so in such a way as to give the impression they are experts on FA procedure. That this is the last in a long line of FA disciplinary procedures they have followed closely and examined, and that the Liverpool fans on here questioning it should know better, if only they were familiar with FA procedures. For most Liverpool fans this is our first exposure to this particular process and the types of evidence which are accepted. I would be willing to wager that for almost everyone posting suggesting that that's the end of the story it is also their first exposure, however it suits their argument to lecture as if it is not.

There are certain countries where a woman can be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. They are the rules, end of story. Is this a process that should not be questioned? Or is there a particular line that should be drawn? At what point should one not be allowed to question process?

The FA procedures on matters like this are appalling. This is the first time I have ever come across them, and whatever about judging whether an elbow in the face was intentional or not, to judge an accusation which in theory could actually merit criminal proceedings (racial abuse is illegal in the UK) using the procedures as followed in the Suarez Evra case is simply incredulous as far as I am concerned.

The guilty verdict is subjective, and based on circumstancial evidence. Perhaps the FA panel involved were correct to find him guilty based on the procedures as laid down. However I don't think I can make clear enough that what is being called into question here are those procedures in and of themselves.

I hope that those posters arguing that those procedures seem fair never find a player from their club on the receiving end of a similar judgment based on similar procedures. I find it hard to imagine they would let it lie as they expect those here to.

I think most fans would accept any punishment their player got if he had done what Suarez has now been found to have done. The Liverpool club, player and fan response has been a joke. Yesterday confirmed that

spockety · 01-01-2012 05:12PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I think most fans would accept any punishment their player got if he had done what Suarez has now been found to have done. The Liverpool club, player and fan response has been a joke. Yesterday confirmed that

This is quite an amazing post.

It manages to capture in only three sentences, and summarize entirely everything that is wrong about most of the posts here supporting the judgment.

I have to say, hats off.

It's also noteworthy because it manages to completely and utterly miss almost every single point I made in the post quoted!

Brain Stroking · 01-01-2012 05:19PM

spockety wrote: »

Can you please provide some more information about what in the report tallies with any issue you pointed out that Kenny Dalglish and LFC have to be "sheepish" about? Specific references would be of some help.

Can you also please provide some more concrete information that you have at your disposal to suggest that a particular "guy" will be "gone inside 2 years"?

Can you also please provide any evidence whatsoever that anybody reading your post found it in any way humourous (i.e. "Funny", as you refer to at the end)?

The report states that Kenny Dalglish commented to the referee that Evra "has done this before". I think it is fairly well established that he was wrong there. And possibly slanderous if looked at in isolation. I think the finding in the report would lead one to conclude that the Liverpool response through their contradictory and ill-advised statement should lead them to slightly re-evaluate their actions in the future no?

My opinion is that Luis Suarez will be gone inside 2 years. I never quoted any sources. Do you think he will stay there? Really? The Champions League will soon be calling him.

And i find it funny. The whole thing. No one has said Luis Suarez is a racist prior to yesterday's report. The report muddies that assumption though somewhat doesnt it? The fact that Liverpool alleged it was nothing more than an innocent negrito shows just how far off the mark they were. Kuyt even gave evidence that said Suarez told him he had called Evra "Negro". TV footage was presented which showed Suarez saying things more than once. He even specifically said "because you are black" when Evra asked him why.
t's not funny actually. It's hilarious.

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

Comments