Snak

Halil pensler det jo ud med blot 4 ord.

Det ved modtageren jo ikke nødvendigvis - eller de der bliver krænkede på modtagerens vegne.

"Du er et sort svin, men jeg er ikke racist"; det holder jo ikke.

Nu har Evra jo selv sagt at Suarez ikke er racist, og derved må han jo have forstået lige præcis dette.

Ja, hvorfor egentlig forholde sig til det konkrete indhold i afgørelsen, hvis man kan nå nogle stenhårde konklusioner uden den slags studentikose og rent ud sagt feje tricks.

Halil pensler det jo ud med blot 4 ord.

Hvordan kan noget blive tolket som racistisk, hvis hverken modtager eller afsender opfatter det som racisme?

Ja, hvorfor egentlig forholde sig til det konkrete indhold i afgørelsen, hvis man kan nå nogle stenhårde konklusioner uden den slags studentikose og rent ud sagt feje tricks.

Forholder jeg mig ikke til sagens indhold?

Du kender efter eget udsagn ikke indholdet i afgørelsen. Du har jo efter eget udsagn ikke gidet sætte dig ind i den slags detaljer.

Hvilke detaljer misser jeg? Jeg snakker om kerneproblemet. Blandt andet ud fra de links i ligger op. Man må formode I vil jeres sag det godt, selvom det ikke lader til at være således, og nu kryber du i hi.

Hehe

Undskyld BIF, men den her fra redcafe fik mig til tænke på dig:

- First of all he definitely said nothing. No mention of colour at all. Evra´s a lying twat. And he´s done it before.

Then it emerged he´s admitted saying it. And Evra was never found to have done anything like this before.

- Ok, erm, well he still probably did. Cos he´s a cunt. And anyway, Suarez said negrito. Lets have a long and protracted discussion on the nuances of that word. It´s really at the crux of everything.

Then it emerged he´d never said that at all.

- Well, obviously, that´s ...erm...well it´s not important. Negro´s pretty much exactly the same anyway. And Evra said sudaca, which is much worse when said in Spanish.

Then it emerged Evra had never said that. And Suarez himself had put forward the accusation in English.

- Well, clearly "South American" is still just as offensive. And he´s admitted saying it.

Then it emerged he´d denied saying it.

- Well he´s lying. And anyway, Kuyt heard him say he was booked for being black. So that´s definitely true. Kuyt would never mishear or misunderstand anything. It´s one mans word against another´s.

Then it emerged that Kuyt had misheard AND misunderstood what Suarez had told him he´d said IN DUTCH!...As had Comoli. Both of whom had coincidentally understood it as virtually identical to what Evra was accusing.

- Well lets ignore that. It´s still one mans word against anothers. Our own sides words don´t count. And anyway Comolli can´t speak French properly. Despite being french.

Then it emerged that there was video evidence corroborating Evra´s consistent version of the story, and not Suarez´s, which changed later to fit it.

- ONE MAN´S WORD AGAINST ANOTHER, LALALALALALALALA.....Anyway, the video evidence we haven´t seen doesn´t show anything. So there´s no reasonable doubt.

Then they finally cottoned on that this wasn´t a criminal trial, it was a civil trial, and conducted in exactly the same manner as all civil trials.

- Well we should take it to a criminal court. We´ll completely destroy them. There´s no evidence, it´s one mans word against another.

Some begin to cotton on that Suarez´s testimony was full of holes, inconsistencies and changed a couple of times, whilst Evra´s was consistent.

- Well that´s obviously only because Evra is a multi-linguist who had time to prepare whilst Suarez can barely speak the language.

Then it emerged he´d conducted his testimony in Spanish, and had been given TWO interpreters.

- Yeah, well obviously he was just nervous at being accused of something he never did. If he was guilty, he´d have been much better at lying.

Det kan altså vanskeligt være mit problem, at du ikke gider at sætte dig ind i grundlaget for en diskussion. Så det vil jeg hermed gøre.

Hvis FA accepterer, at man kan sige hvadsomhelst i Pr. League, har man åbnet for en sluse, der vil skylle al modstand mod racisme væk.

At Evra dybest set ikke tror, at Súarez er racist, bør ikke kunne få indflydelse på kampen mod racisme.

Selv synes jeg, at straffen er i overkanten, men man skal også anerkende kampen mod racisme - og derved acceptere, at nogle straffe kan blive vel voldsomme.

I øvrigt sætter man jo Evra i en vanskelig situation, når man forlanger, at han skal tage stilling til, hvorvidt Súarez er racist. Det vil være noget af en beskyldning at lire af for franskmanden, hvorfor han selvfølgelig udtrykker det modsatte ( for det er jo kun enten eller ). I øjeblikket - og det er jo dét, der tæller i denne sag - var Súarez dog racistisk.