Man U Man backs Klopp:This man can do it.

[Peter R]

Much better... TOTALLY different than what you had me saying. Thanks.
But two things.
1. You omitted the "?" at the end of the quote. For me that is part of the quote.
2. And since when you calling me "Claffy" ? (you attribute it to someone called "Claffy") LOL Like "Claffy" twis yuh up yu ah dream him to rahtid...LOL

[Rockman]

Giving bad choices the same weight.
Polar differences regarding opinions on the Suarez matter,and seemingly it has everything to do with whether or not you are a Liverpool fan(with Mr President being the exception to the rule).
The question then becomes what would be your say on the issue had you not been a Liverpool fan?
The human eyes are unable to detect many things(bacteria etc),does that mean those things do not exist?
Lack of evidence isn't necessarily proof of innocence,siding with choir boy Suarez is faulting Evra without applying the same appreciation for concrete evidence, absence of it exonerates Suarez.

[Peter R]

Giving bad choices the same weight.
Polar differences regarding opinions on the Suarez matter,and seemingly it has everything to do with whether or not you are a Liverpool fan(with Mr President being the exception to the rule).
The question then becomes what would be your say on the issue had you not been a Liverpool fan?
The human eyes are unable to detect many things(bacteria etc),does that mean those things do not exist?
Lack of evidence isn't necessarily proof of innocence,siding with choir boy Suarez is faulting Evra without applying the same appreciation for concrete evidence, absence of it exonerates Suarez.

Unuh good sah! Woieee mi humerus... why don't you just debate my position? Your bredrin says: bad choices made by a proven winner are BETTER than bad choices by a proven failure. The example I gave of Road Runner and Coyote made no distinction between the "weight" of the bad choices. They both made the same bad choice in my example and that is part of the assumption that I MADE in advancing this discussion. You'd have to be an a$$ to ascribe weight...it would be a non-discussion. Clearly it's a bad choice to run across the road on a busy street without looking, and clearly it's a bad choice to pick up a gun and just shoot the person running across the street... in my mind no "weight" was ascribed to the decisions...if they were, who is to say that the "proven failure's" bad decisions are less poor than the "proven success'".

Polar differences based on whether you are a fan of Liverpool or not. I don't have a problem with that observation, but I don't have any evidence to say that that is true or not. Maybe you do. The number of posters here doesn't give a large enough sample to say that's so or not... but even if that is so, the same could be said (notwithstanding MO) that those who thought he was guilty are NOT fans of LFC but primarily of ManU. So what might your position be WERE YOU a fan of LFC? What you're telling me if I am to follow your reasoning, is that you would have given him the benefit of the doubt. As difficult as it might be for you to believe, my opinion on whether Suarez racially abused Evra is based upon evidence provided by independent sources and has nothing to do with being a LFC fan. But there was NO SUCH EVIDENCE (independent) and only Evra's say so...and BTW from my recollection and I stand open to correction, Evra never complained about this after it allegedly occurred. He only spoke about it (as far as I understand) on an interview programme and then the FA took it up.

And re your bacteria comment... Do you believe aliens exist? Personally, I could tell you that maybe they do, but until concrete evidence is provided, to say they do is pure conjecture... similarly with the incident, it is possible that Suarez racially abused Evra but until CONCRETE evidence is provided my opinion is no, he didn't. What do you have to go on that made you decide he is guilty? your gut feel, or because you choose to believe Evra's interpretation of what was said or because you are a ManU fan ? (primarily, if I am to use your reasoning).

Lack of evidence is proof of NOTHING! Without evidence, to find someone guilty is abuse of power and perversion of justice, regardless of your choir boy Evra's contention. Mi gawn!

[Peter R]

Who questioned his credentials? I merely wrote "...as a pundit? "

He may turn out to be an excellent pundit! or he may turn out to be a terrible pundit! I REALLY don't know... that's what this icon means. Don't be so sensitive man!

[Paul Marin]

Unuh good sah! Woieee mi humerus... why don't you just debate my position? Your bredrin says: bad choices made by a proven winner are BETTER than bad choices by a proven failure. The example I gave of Road Runner and Coyote made no distinction between the "weight" of the bad choices. They both made the same bad choice in my example and that is part of the assumption that I MADE in advancing this discussion. You'd have to be an a$$ to ascribe weight...it would be a non-discussion. Clearly it's a bad choice to run across the road on a busy street without looking, and clearly it's a bad choice to pick up a gun and just shoot the person running across the street... in my mind no "weight" was ascribed to the decisions...if they were, who is to say that the "proven failure's" bad decisions are less poor than the "proven success'".

Polar differences based on whether you are a fan of Liverpool or not. I don't have a problem with that observation, but I don't have any evidence to say that that is true or not. Maybe you do. The number of posters here doesn't give a large enough sample to say that's so or not... but even if that is so, the same could be said (notwithstanding MO) that those who thought he was guilty are NOT fans of LFC but primarily of ManU. So what might your position be WERE YOU a fan of LFC? What you're telling me if I am to follow your reasoning, is that you would have given him the benefit of the doubt. As difficult as it might be for you to believe, my opinion on whether Suarez racially abused Evra is based upon evidence provided by independent sources and has nothing to do with being a LFC fan. But there was NO SUCH EVIDENCE (independent) and only Evra's say so...and BTW from my recollection and I stand open to correction, Evra never complained about this after it allegedly occurred. He only spoke about it (as far as I understand) on an interview programme and then the FA took it up.

And re your bacteria comment... Do you believe aliens exist? Personally, I could tell you that maybe they do, but until concrete evidence is provided, to say they do is pure conjecture... similarly with the incident, it is possible that Suarez racially abused Evra but until CONCRETE evidence is provided my opinion is no, he didn't. What do you have to go on that made you decide he is guilty? your gut feel, or because you choose to believe Evra's interpretation of what was said or because you are a ManU fan ? (primarily, if I am to use your reasoning).

Lack of evidence is proof of NOTHING! Without evidence, to find someone guilty is abuse of power and perversion of justice, regardless of your choir boy Evra's contention. Mi gawn!

You good Pedro. X+Y=

[Peter R]

Good one

[Sir X]

Something like that,getting harder to differentiate you 3 ,but thats what men do, admit errors and make corrections,cant say the same about you 3.

My point stands and its a proven psych theory.


Yuh see mi.

[Rockman]

Peter R,you and only you are assuming that those bad choices are exactly the same by virtue of their dynamics,it narrowed the scope, and X, against better judgement, fell for it,he made concessions.You made weight relevant.

The Suarez matter has to do with atypical reactions because of priority given to being a fan of of some frigging club.

If lack of evidence proves nothing then where is the evidence that Evra must be lying?
It is okay to say the allegations can't be proven,to say there isn't any merits to the allegation is a completely different thing.

Spending precious time on this is a waste as far as I am concerned.
My point is much time was spent by you and Paul Marin chastizing X for voicing his intent to switch alliance when possibly you are both equally guilty of the same egregious offence(I would argue it is a greater infraction given clearly the issue of racism is a no spin zone but we will say equal for now).

[Rockman]

Yuh notice how X is is staying wide of my discussions on this particular issue,he fully understands that he is not exempted from the very things I am accusing you fellows of.
There isn't a X plus Y in this equation as X finds himself grouped with unuh,deal,with the facts.

[Paul Marin]

Spending precious time on this is a waste as far as I am concerned.
My point is much time was spent by you and Paul Marin chastizing X for voicing his intent to switch alliance when possibly you are both equally guilty of the same egregious offence(I would argue it is a greater infraction given clearly the issue of racism is a no spin zone but we will say equal for now).

RockY - you are in another zone...I can't reach you from here. When you put down the crack pipe, we can talk. To equate heX's DEFINITIVELY and IRREFUTABLE departure to City (A FACT), with Peter and me stating that Evra's charge against Suarez is UNPROVEN ( I.E. NOT FACT BASED), shows that you are conflating two paradigms that have no business being compared.

The Suarez/Evra affair resulted in a charge against Suarez that was leveled based on the "balance of probabilities"...(i.e. not IRREFUTABLE FACT, it was Evra's word against Suarez's). Had IRREFUTABLE PROOF been proffered, I can state UNEQUIVOCALLY that neither Peter or I would have uttered one semblance of defense for Suarez.

Now...go to the beach, you can afford the time - it is obvious that you are Xcelling at X-University.

[Rockman]

Does saying disparaging things such as put down the crack pipe bolster your arguments?
Now you are shifting the goal post,we are all aware that for you it goes beyond not being able to prove Evra case without a shadow of doubt,you actually accused Evra of lying!
There are parallels that can be drawn with both choices,and doing so makes you uncomfortable.

[Rockman]

Well somewhere in all that is the notion that it is not definite what kind of pundit he is now.
My thing is there is a possibility that you are applying two different scales,one for Liverpool boy Carragher and another for Mr Dwight Yorke.You never raised that issue regarding Carragher executing the functions of a pundit.

[Peter R]

Are you serious Rock-Y! I never mentioned Carragher or made any comment on his punditry...It was you who brought him up and when you did I made EXACTLY the same comment about him as I did about Yorke, which is "I DON'T KNOW"... how they are as pundits.

You tell me where I applied different scales or whatever?? Please guy! why do you people MAKE UP STUFF???

[Peter R]

Well somewhere in all that is the notion that it is not definite what kind of pundit he is now.
My thing is there is a possibility that you are applying two different scales,one for Liverpool boy Carragher and another for Mr Dwight Yorke.You never raised that issue regarding Carragher executing the functions of a pundit.

My second response is this: With respect to the bolded, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, because that is EXACTLY what I indicated... I DON"T KNOW what kind of pundit he is, let me repeat, I don't know...I have no "definite" (to use your word) opinion and that is what I tried to demonstrate by using this smiley "" But somehow, you see ulterior motive. You should lighten up a little dude...
If you think he is a good pundit, why don't you just come out and say so and educate me...what is WRONG WITH stating how you feel instead of always attacking people's (mine) opinion or comment? and then dragging Carragher into this?

[Paul Marin]

Does saying disparaging things such as put down the crack pipe bolster your arguments?
Now you are shifting the goal post,we are all aware that for you it goes beyond not being able to prove Evra case without a shadow of doubt,you actually accused Evra of lying!
There are parallels that can be drawn with both choices,and doing so makes you uncomfortable.

I think Evra lied...but what I think is not material. You are backhandedly telling me that I support racism, total effrey. If anyone on here want to compare their experience with racial abuse to mine, I will stand toe to toe wid dem all day long. When I went to Canada, at 13, there were only 3 non-white in my school of 800+, (including Asian, indian, native american, chiney etc. etc.) and two of them were me and my next older brother. Dread, you can't bring that sh*t to me. Imagine, when I was in my first week, the teacher for one of my classes told us he flew planes for the Nazi's in the 2nd world war, the class cheered. That whole year, true I came 2nd in the 800 in intramurals, the whole school called me "Ben Jipcho" and ever form of n*gger you could ever imagine. Dude...racism is ugly, but one thing I know, accusing a man of racism with out definitive proof is NOT something you do. Period. I agree with Gamma that Suarez is a reprobate (for his inhuman penchant for biting), but I have not seen any evidence other than Evra's (lame) accusation that he is a racist.

Now...

What the hell does Suarez have to do with the X's run to City? Only a distorted mind could conflate the two...distorted as in a crack head. So when you say "There are parallels that can be drawn with both choices,and doing so makes you uncomfortable." you are wrong, it just make me think you are running around in outer-space. But maybe I am wrong...maybe it takes someone who is Xtra-ordinarY to understand your higher level of thinking.