Suarez is rotten to the core

[Gamma]

who, Håland?

[Lazie]

What smokescreen? Mussi you mi tief it fram. LOL!! Anyway, any dispassionate reader can clearly see my explanation that CLEARLY says I wouldn't have argued if he got a straight red...but of course, leave it to you to introduce juvenile attempts to obfuscate. All now you cyan seh (like my yout' Jangle) dat Keane was a thug far beyond anything that Suarez could ever be accused of. Double standard. ~Sad.

This thread isn't about Roy Keane or Rooney. Its about Suarez. Jangle may fall for the spin.

[Jangle]

Parker's wife or girlfriend should either sue Suarez or lay charges against him for trying prevent Parker from enjoying her sweetness or fathering her children.

[Gamma]

"loss of consortium" is a real cause of action! especially fi a young virile athlete ... that could be a big money claim!!

[Paul Marin]

You are that naive. How many players give 'apology' to prevent being punished? I very much doubt certain players would harbor the thought of player for Liverpool. Roy Keane would break his own legs than to play for your joker team.

Really Lazie? Players apologize all the time...so I don't know where you are making that one up from. And I am glad you stated "Roy Keane would break his own legs than to play for your joker team." as we'd happily have him oblige and do the world a favor. As Gamma said, he's a "troubled soul". Perfect "Legend" for a poxy tiefin' team. Perfect.

By the way - was Keane a thug? Simple question. Right. Didn't think you could give a straight answer.

[Paul Marin]

This thread isn't about Roy Keane or Rooney. Its about Suarez. Jangle may fall for the spin.

Of course Lazie. Whatever you say. The point of introducing Keane was to remove bias and show consistency. Jangle stepped up, I stepped up...but sadly, you are still wallowing around in the dust down below unable to bring yourself to state the obvious - Keane was a thug. Suarez could not have argued with a red being issued. ~sigh...to coin a phrase from a great man "Why di 'ell do I bother?"

[Muadib]

Sewerez...

[Paul Marin]

who, Håland?

I would have expected that from Lazie...but stop mek trouble

[Paul Marin]

Sewerez...

LOL!!! Okay.

[Paul Marin]

"loss of consortium" is a real cause of action! especially fi a young virile athlete ... that could be a big money claim!!

As long as you share the settlement wid me, X and Peter...we have no problem -- file away!!!! After all these years, is time me mek some money off of Liverpool!!!

[Paul Marin]

"Poof" ... LOL!!!

[Lazie]

Of course Lazie. Whatever you say. The point of introducing Keane was to remove bias and show consistency. Jangle stepped up, I stepped up...but sadly, you are still wallowing around in the dust down below unable to bring yourself to state the obvious - Keane was a thug. Suarez could not have argued with a red being issued. ~sigh...to coin a phrase from a great man "Why di 'ell do I bother?"

Stop the foolishness PM ... this isn't a Roy Keane issue. When Roy Keane was up for discussion we discussed Roy Keane. This is about Suarez. Yuh can waste server space bring up everybody else .... this is about Suarez.

[Paul Marin]

Stop the foolishness PM ... this isn't a Roy Keane issue. When Roy Keane was up for discussion we discussed Roy Keane. This is about Suarez. Yuh can waste server space bring up everybody else .... this is about Suarez.

I know the academics of this is lost on you. So let me try the "see dick run" approach.

1. Suarez - a budding Liverpool legend - is accused by a Manu** supporter of an egregious offense.
2. To remove any hint of bias, one introduces a similarly egregious offense by a Manu** player and asks if the accuser's interpretation is the same as with the Suarez offense.
3. If the answer to #2 is "No, Suarez is a maggot but Keane is a legend" then there is a high probability that bias exists. If the answer is "No - they are both maggots" then clearly no bias exists.

Your inability to state that Keane is a maggot indicates that there is a high probability that bias on your part exists. You could clear this up by saying either "Yes - he is a maggot" or "No - he's not". On his part, Jangle ruled bias out on his part as he clearly condemned Keane as well. I ruled out bias on my part as I said I would not have argued if Suarez got a red.

I hope this helps...as things stand...any opinion you give on Suarez's actions in this case are inadmissible as you remain partisan (i.e. biased). Sorry.

[GazX]

Last night while watching the highlights of the Tottenham vs Loserfool game, I saw Suarez give Scott Parker a ************ kick in the belly. Now I know that anyone who saw it, may jump to his defense saying that he was going for the ball, but I stopped it and rewound the play over and over and still came to the same conclusion, the act was very deliberate. It happened in Tottenham's 18 yard box. Scottie was going up to head out the ball and Suarez with his back half-turned to Tottenham's goal tried to volley the ball. However, the ball was high in the air above Parker's head, falling. There was absolutely no way Suarez could have gotten that ball. Take a look for yourself and be the judge.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz-67zw1S6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hxQh...eature=related

Didnt you know that such kicks like that is something that's commonly done over in Uraguay?

[Gamma]

boss i biased too! i don't like the guy but i cannot honestly say that the kick looked intentional so as to attribute malice to it, reckless, SURE!