*Official* English Football Season 2011-12

[Ikki]

You are just a troll, aren't you? I don't believe you're really that simple.

Ok, I'll play the game and assume you are,

1) Suarez and Evra are in the midst of what might best be called a heated discsussion.

2) The former uses what is, when used towards an opponent without whom one has a prior understandng or intimacy with, a racial slur.

3) The latter, being cogniscent of the situation, hears and takes umbrage

4) The former claims that, by having spoken to him in Spanish, the latter has tacitly accepted they have some familiarity. A reading of the siutation that bears no basis to reality and is, rightly, rejected by the FA panel.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, which makes this cringeworthy. The initial post I quoted from you was utterly wrong and I am not sure what you're trying to get at here.

You are, again, taking Evra's evidence as what actually happened. Read Suarez's:

Evra initiated the contact in Spanish. When the experts refer to some relationship, they are not referring to some friendly relationship, just that it is established that they were talking in Spanish and using their nuances - per your own quote "a linguistic and/or cultural relationship". This is more an objective observation: you talk Spanish to someone, you agree to Spanish culture.

Suarez says Evra angrily asked about the foul earlier on his knee. Suarez approaches him and says that it is a part of the game. Evra then says "Don't touch me, South American" in spanish. That is when Suarez says "Why, black?"

They didn't reject that part of the expert testimony. The experts were only interpreting what is likely to have happened if what Suarez was saying was accepted. If the court denied this, then they would have been in effect giving their own expert testimony, defeating the purpose of having experts.

What the courts did was simply reject Suarez's case over Evra's and hence used the interpretative analysis the experts did on Evra's testimony. Suarez didn't contradict himself, neither did the experts.

 

[Furball]

I stated a legal problem I had with the case. And you came back with "Nah, you're wrong, because this guy is a QC and you can't be right...even though I am not sure what you're arguing". P-lease.



I am not sure, what your argument here is? The experts are saying that because Suarez and Evra had talked to each other in Spanish, Suarez could be believed to have assumed that they are talking in the plane of that culture - i.e. not the English culture which would find certain terms offensive.

There is no inconsistency there as far as I can see. They are using facts to back up the reliability of his belief.

'It's ok where I come from' isn't a valid defence.

 

[sledger]

you talk Spanish to someone, you agree to Spanish culture.

Oh come on now, this is getting (even more) silly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, which makes this cringeworthy. The initial post I quoted from you was utterly wrong and I am not sure what you're trying to get at here.

You are, again, taking Evra's evidence as what actually happened. Read Suarez's:

Evra initiated the contact in Spanish. When the experts refer to some relationship, they are not referring to some friendly relationship, just that it is established that they were talking in Spanish and using their nuances - per your own quote "a linguistic and/or cultural relationship". This is more an objective observation: you talk Spanish to someone, you agree to Spanish culture.

Suarez says Evra angrily asked about the foul earlier on his knee. Suarez approaches him and says that it is a part of the game. Evra then says "Don't touch me, South American" in spanish. That is when Suarez says "Why, black?"

They didn't reject that part of the expert testimony. The experts were only interpreting what is likely to have been happened if what Suarez's was saying was accepted. If the court denied this, then they would have been in effect giving their own expert testimony, defeating the purpose of having experts.

What the courts did was simply reject Suarez's case over Evra's and hence used the interpretative analysis the experts did on Evra's testimony. Suarez didn't contradict himself, neither did the experts.

No, I'm not taking Evra's version, I'm taking the version that anyone who's ever had an argument with an opponent knows to be the real one. Your claims of an "objective" observation are just that: claims. Rejected and refuted by an independent panel.

You can say my posts are cringeworthy or that I don't understand the situation all you want, I think any reasonably unbiased reader of the thread will see that I do.

I think I speak for the majority here when I'd respectfully ask you not darken the thread again.

 

[Furball]

Agree with Brumby. Put it far more eloquently than what I intended to write.

 

[Ikki]

'It's ok where I come from' isn't a valid defence.

Apparently not in criminal law but it was considered by the commission - re the intention of the language.

Oh come on now, this is getting (even more) silly now.

That is what the experts said. If you are speaking with someone in a certain language, are you not accepting their nuances and colloquialisms? I find this uncontroversial, personally. Why wouldn't you logically construe as such?

No, I'm not taking Evra's version, I'm taking the version that anyone who's ever had an argument with an opponent knows to be the real one. Your claims of an "objective" observation are just that: claims. Rejected and refuted by an independent panel.

You can say my posts are cringeworthy or that I don't understand the situation all you want, I think any reasonably unbiased reader of the thread will see that I do.

I think I speak for the majority here when I'd respectfully ask you not darken the thread again.

Your creating a standard from your behind. There is no standard. You're taking the side of someone who you feel is right. Thank **** you're not a judge. Evidence would be an inconvenience for you, eh?

You speak for who? You think that matters? Listen, the next time you say something as stupid as you've been saying in these past few exchanges I'll still come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Learn to know what you're talking about or don't post at all.

 

[sledger]

Well, this is awkward.

 

[Pothas]

Daglish rather changing his tune now then.

 

[Pothas]

Well, this is awkward.

Is pointless is what it is.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Your creating a standard from your behind. There is no standard. You're taking the side of someone who you feel is right. Thank **** you're not a judge. Evidence would be an inconvenience for you, eh?

You speak for who? You think that matters? Listen, the next time you say something as stupid as you've been saying in these past few exchanges I'll still come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Learn to know what you're talking about or don't post at all.

Internet hardman are such fun, aren't they? Tonne of bricks? Hark at it.

But, hey, whatevs. Keep digging for all I care.

 

[Ikki]

FTR, I don't mind if people hate Suarez, think the panel is right or whatever. When you state something that is factually, and glaringly, wrong such as "Suarez has admitted using a racial term towards Evra ("negrito" or "little black man"), the only dispute was about how many times he used it"...then you need to give up.

 

[sledger]

I think you'd best heed your own advice there to be honest. Not wishing to become embroiled in a further argurment, but you're rather souring the tone of the thread.

 

[Furball]

How about you just give up posting in this thread you obnoxious troll?

 

[sledger]

K. Cya.

 

[BoyBrumby]

FTR, I don't mind if people hate Suarez, think the panel is right or whatever. When you state something that is factually, and glaringly, wrong such as "Suarez has admitted using a racial term towards Evra ("negrito" or "little black man"), the only dispute was about how many times he used it"...then you need to give up.

Actually, I think you need to understand the difference between racial and racist.

There is no dispute anywhere that "negrito" is a racial term; it patently is. In certain contexts it might not be racist, but there is no argument it isn't a racial term. As in a word used to describe someone or something of or pertaining to a certain race.

 

[Ikki]

I think you'd best heed your own advice there to be honest. Not wishing to become embroiled in a further argurment, but you're rather souring the tone of the thread.

TBF, I have no problem with pissing people off. I'd rather just not be wrong. If I ever am, I apologise and try to right it. I find misleading people > annoying them.

How about you just give up posting in this thread you obnoxious troll?

Haha, yeh, I'm gonna listen to you bro.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, I think you need to understand the difference between racial and racist.

There is no dispute anywhere that "negrito" is a racial term; it patently is. In certain contexts it might not be racist, but there is no argument it isn't a racial term. As in a word used to describe someone or something of or pertaining to a certain race.

Even if that was the misunderstanding; he didn't admit calling him negrito. For the nth time. The only place negrito was mentioned in the entire report was is to describe the nickname Hernandez has. Someone who has read the report would know this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Even if that was the misunderstanding; he didn't admit calling him negrito. For the nth time. The only place negrito was mentioned in the entire report was is to describe the nickname Hernandez has. Someone who has read the report would know this.

Swap "negro" for "negrito" if it makes you happy, then. The same applies.

 

[Ikki]

Swap "negro" for "negrito" if it makes you happy, then. The same applies.

Although it doesn't - as some of the linguistic testimony would explain for you - for someone who claims to know about the case, they should know the one word the whole controversy is about. That is not what irked me. The way you summed up the case illustrated how very little you actually know/understand about the case. As you've pretty much said, facts and evidence seem secondary to what you 'feel'.

Before people think I am defending Suarez because he is a Liverpool player, let me make it known that I think he is a ****. He is our ****, but a **** nonetheless. Regardless, I feel the charge should be established on stronger grounds when they ban a player for 8 games and then **** on his reputation. Then, worse, the media gang up on him for not shaking the hand of the person he believes is a liar. That context is missed, he is demonised further as well as the manager and the club.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Although it doesn't - as some of the linguistic testimony would explain for you - for someone who claims to know about the case, they should know the one word the whole controversy is about. That is not what irked me. The way you summed up the case illustrated how very little you actually know/understand about the case. As you've pretty much said, facts and evidence seem secondary to what you 'feel'.

Before people think I am defending Suarez because he is a Liverpool player, let me make it known that I think he is a ****. He is our ****, but a **** nonetheless. Regardless, I feel the charge should be established on stronger grounds when they ban a player for 8 games and then **** on his reputation. Then, worse, the media gang up on him for not shaking the hand of the person he believes is a liar. That context is missed, he is demonised further as well as the manager and the club.

*sigh*

Well, let's see, shall we?

Actually, I think you need to understand the difference between racial and racist.

There is no dispute anywhere that "negro" is a racial term; it patently is. In certain contexts it might not be racist, but there is no argument it isn't a racial term. As in a word used to describe someone or something of or pertaining to a certain race.

Fair to say that's still true.

Happy to clear that up for you.