poolsupporter wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

poolsupporter wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

halamadrid2 wrote:

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Can't believe Evra is walking free after all this

Are you serious? smh.

What has Evra done wrong in all this? Other than be a victim of racism.

I can't believe you just posted that.

i think he meant the evra part where he wound suarez up by saying "you south american"

There is no evidence whatsoever that Evra said that. Suarez has admitted to calling Evra a "negro"

I'm pretty sure Evra admitted to this already.

Not tryna put you on the spot here, but if you have the link, could you post it? I actually haven't heard or read him saying it.

I'll look it up, give me a bit.

Liverpool's statement claims it was in Evra's evidence submitted.

‘We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms.

‘Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.’

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Can't believe Evra is walking free after all this

Are you serious? smh.

What has Evra done wrong in all this? Other than be a victim of racism.

I can't believe you just posted that.

mate, if you seriously think evra is innocent then you are being extremely biased. I posted the link above, Evra did say to suarez " dont touch me you south american "

Suarez wouldn't just randomly say " porque, negrito " to evra. Think about it for a minute

direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Can't believe Evra is walking free after all this

if Evra indeed insulted Suarez's nationality, he must be punished with an 8 match ban as well...

but the thing is Suarez hasn't denied saying he used "negrito" and whether it means pal or not in South America,

this is NOT South America....

he deserves the punishment until proven innocent.... no matter the tone in which he used it...

Do you honestly feel that if someone if accused of something that they should be assumed to be guilty until they prove their innocence. Do you actually believe this or are you just taking the piss?

has Suarez denied using "negrito" or shall I get you a box so you can look above the brick wall?

Answer my question before you ask your own.

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

let me make my pt easy for you.

There was a murder scene and only Mr. X was found on the spot.

Until investigations are concluded, he is guilty until proven otherwise.

Suarez hasn't denied using "negrito" and until the FA concludes investigations, he is as at now deserved of the punishment...

So you wont answer the direct question I put to you twice already. Are you refusing to answer it?

Maybe third time lucky. Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

you can keep going with your superior puppeh motives, I don't know what I can do to make you understand all the examples I have given so chase me around and neg me....

That's 3 times you've dodged a direct question. How stupid are you? Answer this question directly:

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

if the person attests to the crime but says he did not mean to do it, how would you judge him?

you answer the question as IT applies to the argument...

4 times you've refused to answer the question. Is it because you finally realise how ridiculous you sound?

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

until you read the examples I gave you, I will not answer your question...

I asked you a direct question 5 times but instead of answering it, (because you know it will be be nail in the coffin that proved you are a complete fool) you've dodged it 5 times.

Do you honestly feel that if someone if accused of something that they should be assumed to be guilty until they prove their innocence. Do you actually believe this or are you just taking the piss?

ragbirjosh wrote:"You have a problem mate" = "tienes una problema negrito"

I'm sure that you realise it's the "you have a problem" and not the "mate" that is used to wind up Evra.

Yeah him saying that to someone who is not familiar with the term.

Him saying that to a person of colour, who is only familiar with the word 'negro'. I bet Evra "would take that well" Especially as Suarez has spent 5 years in Europe.

Saying that, and continuosly saying that to a person who is clearly not his 'mate' and saying it even when that person was clearly getting fed up with it.

Conclusion: Suarez is one dumb racist.

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

Did you read the rest of that paragraph ?

"It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'"

Devil-Is-Red wrote:For the one millionth time smh.

"Negrito" allegedly means 'little black man' and is seen as some sort of endearment in South America.

Saurez used that word on Evra. Not in an endearment way, but in a vicious way, to wind up Evra. He used Evra's skin colour to annoy him.

That is racism and that is why he was found guilty. It was in the context of what was said.

What premise are you using to claim Suarez meant it in a vicious way, Did suarez admit to that or did you use your super powers to figure it out?

Devil-Is-Red wrote:

ragbirjosh wrote:"You have a problem mate" = "tienes una problema negrito"

I'm sure that you realise it's the "you have a problem" and not the "mate" that is used to wind up Evra.

Yeah him saying that to someone who is not familiar with the term.

Him saying that to a person of colour, who is only familiar with the word 'negro'. I bet Evra "would take that well" Especially as Suarez has spent 5 years in Europe.

Saying that, and continuosly saying that to a person who is clearly not his 'mate' and saying it even when that person was clearly getting fed up with it.

Conclusion: Suarez is one dumb racist.

Have a read.

> An article outlining the role and history of racism in English professional football....good pre-reading to anyone who wants to truly gain a deep understanding of the context-http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/dec/18/highereducation.books

A case study for you to look at......a real racism case with actual merit....that was not enforced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/schmeichel-faces-racist-abuse-charge-1279851.html?CMP=ILC-refresh

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/schmeichel-faces-racist-abuse-charge-1279851.html?CMP=ILC-refresh

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LIES!%3B+Fergie+fury+over+Wright+race+slur+on+Schmeichel.-a061127771

In this case now punishment was handed out.If you read through this understanding you will clearly see that Sir Alex Ferguson continued Criticism of Suarez and Gus Poyet- an outspoken defender of Suarez is ironic , prejucaical and inflamatory, and derogotary.

Patrice Evra never played the race card before? Don't believe that idiot article spreading like wildfire across Man Utd forums.

How can one actively pusue a Racism case without a plaintiff..........that's all there is really, he would've had to bring the matter up.....wether he choose to pusue it legally and exhaustively is a deifferent matter.Anyway......those claims only mention PL incidents, here is another incident where he "played" the race card

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/793670/ce/uk/&cc=3888

Bear in mind that you can play the race card in many ways and for many reasons......not soley to see legal punishment brought upon it's accused.It can be done for slander and it can be done to evoke sympathy.

Nirgal wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

Nirgal, I love your patience and you attempt to convince me,

I think the reason you and I misunderstand each other on the situation is you are trying to say it is not it not NOT a cultural offence and not anyway offensive

and what am saying is intent or not, Culturally offensive or not, it must not be allowed to persist and Suarez should know better on what words trigger in different places...

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

negrito, i think you emphasized the wrong part. stop trying to make a big story out of something that isnt.

This is ridiculous.. Why don't the FA go and visit some footballgrounds where youth play and hear the racial abuse parents shout at kids..

elmystique wrote:

Nirgal wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

Nirgal, I love your patience and you attempt to convince me,

I think the reason you and I misunderstand each other on the situation is you are trying to say it is not it not NOT a cultural offence and not anyway offensive

and what am saying is intent or not, Culturally offensive or not, it must not be allowed to persist and Suarez should know better on what words trigger in different places...

So Hernandez and Pacheco get a pass somehow? Why aren't you talking about them using the word?

RealGunner wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

Did you read the rest of that paragraph ?

"It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'"

am sure the in the wars of the early days, Slave Masters/Plantation owners happily fought and died with their slaves in wars....

my argument..... intent or not a racist comment is still racist no matter the intent...

Terry's also innocent because he plays with Drogba. Great logic.

Who used that logic ^

poolsupporter wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Nirgal wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

Nirgal, I love your patience and you attempt to convince me,

I think the reason you and I misunderstand each other on the situation is you are trying to say it is not it not NOT a cultural offence and not anyway offensive

and what am saying is intent or not, Culturally offensive or not, it must not be allowed to persist and Suarez should know better on what words trigger in different places...

So Hernandez and Pacheco get a pass somehow? Why aren't you talking about them using the word?

am still waiting for you to tell me whom they said it to and what the atmosphere was...

elmystique wrote:

poolsupporter wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Nirgal wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

Nirgal, I love your patience and you attempt to convince me,

I think the reason you and I misunderstand each other on the situation is you are trying to say it is not it not NOT a cultural offence and not anyway offensive

and what am saying is intent or not, Culturally offensive or not, it must not be allowed to persist and Suarez should know better on what words trigger in different places...

So Hernandez and Pacheco get a pass somehow? Why aren't you talking about them using the word?

am still waiting for you to tell me whom they said it to and what the atmosphere was...

I'm still waiting for you to answer this questions. If you are not going to answer it will you at least say so.

Do you honestly feel that if someone if accused of something that they should be assumed to be guilty until they prove their innocence. Do you actually believe this or are you just taking the piss?

elmystique wrote:

poolsupporter wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Nirgal wrote:

elmystique wrote:direct from realgunner's article

Gus Poyet said: 'In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest. It is not offensive. Such people are part of society. We will defend them, go to war with them, share everything with them and at the same time use that word.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2074811/Luis-Suarez-v-Patrice-Evra-Everything-need-know-race-row.html#ixzz1hBWf5BA6

I have seen enough, it NOT being offensive in Uruguay or South America doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see it same....

but Suarez's defenders cannot see

I think that the red marked part is wrong. At least in argentina, it's not a term used to refer to dark skinned or darker skinned people. it's a term used to refer to anyone of ANY race or skin color.

Nirgal, I love your patience and you attempt to convince me,

I think the reason you and I misunderstand each other on the situation is you are trying to say it is not it not NOT a cultural offence and not anyway offensive

and what am saying is intent or not, Culturally offensive or not, it must not be allowed to persist and Suarez should know better on what words trigger in different places...

So Hernandez and Pacheco get a pass somehow? Why aren't you talking about them using the word?

am still waiting for you to tell me whom they said it to and what the atmosphere was...

It doesn't matter right? They've lived in England and played there, hence they should know better, according to your logic. You keep hammering the point that it's a racist word regardless of culture and background and context. So who they said it to shouldn't matter, right?

RG, if you can see my post in the big pond of quoted posts dating back to yesterday lol

can you change it so that you can only quote the persons post and not the posts the other guy quoted and all of that bullsh!t, its taking up too much space...my eyes cant handle it apparently

ragbirjosh wrote:Who used that logic ^

Barca fans

I am done with this discussion, it's clearly going nowhere. I don't know why you bother elmystique, this ain't going nowhere. This whole discussion is going around in circles.

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

elmystique wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Can't believe Evra is walking free after all this

if Evra indeed insulted Suarez's nationality, he must be punished with an 8 match ban as well...

but the thing is Suarez hasn't denied saying he used "negrito" and whether it means pal or not in South America,

this is NOT South America....

he deserves the punishment until proven innocent.... no matter the tone in which he used it...

Do you honestly feel that if someone if accused of something that they should be assumed to be guilty until they prove their innocence. Do you actually believe this or are you just taking the piss?

has Suarez denied using "negrito" or shall I get you a box so you can look above the brick wall?

Answer my question before you ask your own.

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

let me make my pt easy for you.

There was a murder scene and only Mr. X was found on the spot.

Until investigations are concluded, he is guilty until proven otherwise.

Suarez hasn't denied using "negrito" and until the FA concludes investigations, he is as at now deserved of the punishment...

So you wont answer the direct question I put to you twice already. Are you refusing to answer it?

Maybe third time lucky. Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

you can keep going with your superior puppeh motives, I don't know what I can do to make you understand all the examples I have given so chase me around and neg me....

That's 3 times you've dodged a direct question. How stupid are you? Answer this question directly:

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

if the person attests to the crime but says he did not mean to do it, how would you judge him?

you answer the question as IT applies to the argument...

4 times you've refused to answer the question. Is it because you finally realise how ridiculous you sound?

Do you actually believe that people should be assumed guilty until proven innocent? Yes or No.

until you read the examples I gave you, I will not answer your question...

I asked you a direct question 5 times but instead of answering it, (because you know it will be be nail in the coffin that proved you are a complete fool) you've dodged it 5 times.

Do you honestly feel that if someone if accused of something that they should be assumed to be guilty until they prove their innocence. Do you actually believe this or are you just taking the piss?

I dont wish to get involved in this mess, but dude you already know why he tries to avoid answering you. Guilty until proven innocent is the stupidest logic ever by anyone in these forums or anywhere else...I just dont understand why the lot of you are trying to convince him of something that will never be accepted by him, dont waste your time and ignore him lol

ICS and Elmystique taking Multiquoting to a new level.

[/quote]
I dont wish to get involved in this mess, but dude you already know why he tries to avoid answering you. Guilty until proven innocent is the stupidest logic ever by anyone in these forums or anywhere else...I just dont understand why the lot of you are trying to convince him of something that will never be accepted by him, dont waste your time and ignore him lol[/quote]

@ ToEy.

You see here's the thing: He either doesn't know he's an idiot or he knows he's an idiot and just will not admit it.

At the moment it looks like the later but I am trying to find the definite answer by insisting he answers a direct question.

Guys, stop going around in circles.

Elmystique's opinion is that since Suarez used the word N**rito, he should be punished regardless of the intent as it has racist connotation in England.

Many of us feel intent is important and as long as Suarez can prove that he did not intend to be racist at all, then he should not be punished.

But, the real story is that the FA does not have any proof except for Evra's statement. The FA are charging Suarez for the exchange at the corner flag, which, according to Liverpool, no one heard. So there is no basis in the whole charge by the FA.

What we should all be waiting for now is the written explanation by the FA which will indicate the reason they decided to charge Suarez.