eh eh....

[Jawge]

Interesting arguments, reminds me of the Golden age of the forum. Bravo, More!

[Gamma]

first thing sex can NEVER be consideration in order to prove the existence of a contract ...

second, bribery or graft will never be recognised as a consideration ... in short consideration can not be illegal if you are looking to establish a contract.

lastly, it remains allegations and for all the talk it has not yet been corroborated or proven. all that aside, i see england as the woman in the jewelry store!

btw you AREN'T defending her actions or culpability?

[Paul Marin]

first thing sex can NEVER be consideration in order to prove the existence of a contract ...

second, bribery or graft will never be recognised as a consideration ... in short consideration can not be illegal if you are looking to establish a contract.

lastly, it remains allegations and for all the talk it has not yet been corroborated or proven. all that aside, i see england as the woman in the jewelry store!

btw you AREN'T defending her actions or culpability?

Gamma, you are NOT FOCUSSED!!!

1. The analogy to sex is simply that, an analogy. It is not meant to be the an issue in the argument, so I don't know why you bring that up. Your original point was that FIFA and England had an agreement, FIFA reneged, and England bawled out. You think that they got stung, which may be true, but you are FAILING to acknowledge that FIFA may be culpable of unethical behaviour at best, and illegal at worst. You have not once called for an investigation, all you want to do is cry down the (alleged) rape victim drawing conclusions based on their character and not the issue of corruption at hand.

2. You said "it remains allegations, and [nothing] has been proven. I agree with this, but you have not come out and stated that there is "smoke" here so there is a justification for investigation. All you're doing is blaming the woman in the jewelery store (focussing on what you perceive to be an over-reaction) instead of acknowledging that the jeweler may well have been trying to pull a swindle of his own.

The bottomline: you haven't advanced ONE argument that says why FIFA should not be investigated. None.

Come again.

[Paul Marin]

Interesting arguments, reminds me of the Golden age of the forum. Bravo, More!

Weigh in Jawge!! Weigh in...the more the merrier (Even doh arguin' wid Gamma is like arguin' wid a stone!!! )

[Gamma]

you're wasting my time now. you clearly don't get it and that is fine. let's agree to disagree.

btw in the analogy what you missed is that the person who gave the woman the jewel is FIFA, the role of the jeweler is merely to verify the stone...i was wondering why you were focusing on the jeweller. she did what she did for which the jewel was to be the reward but it turns out the jewel is fake hence the statement ..... any way forget it and lets move on.

[Paul Marin]

you're wasting my time now. you clearly don't get it and that is fine. let's agree to disagree.

btw in the analogy what you missed is that the person who gave the woman the jewel is FIFA, the role of the jeweler is merely to verify the stone...i was wondering why you were focusing on the jeweller. she did what she did for which the jewel was to be the reward but it turns out the jewel is fake hence the statement ..... any way forget it and lets move on.

Gamma, so in your analogy, are you saying that the person who gave her the stone is to get off scott-free? While agree you can't call it "rape" you certainly can't call it fair play. Yet you keep focusing on only one party, when there are two. I just don't get it -- nowhere have you acknowledged that FIFA needs to be investigated. Stunning.

[Rockman]

Your analysis of what is believed to be PM's is spot on.I am enjoying the discussion.I disagree on one point,the Jewelery is worthy of the attention he is the (FIFA's)decision that is being opposed.The use of prostitution in the analogy does it a an injustice,the permanently soiled FIFA would have would have had their hands dirty if they had actually given it to England,which is why I agreed with the pith of your agruments.

[Gamma]

how csn you get justice in that scenario? sex (bribry/graft) cannot be consideration.

it is a conundrum for the girl with the stone...she had sex with someone because she thought she was getting a diamond, sex is not considered legal consideration for any transaction, so the fact that it is not a diamond cannot create a cause of action. there is no cause of action in equity or in law.

england grease palms and did not get the result they were promised, if the palm greasing is on both sides what cause of action do they have?

you looking for honour among thieves...good luck!!!

[Karl]

Hey! She never sold the 'stone'.

..but Gamma is correct England, who was not liked, played the game and as a tightwad...and lost!