PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
I’m not even smart enough to understand what this clown accused me of, so you can rule that out
Click to expand...

He's saying that in the middle of saying something, you've stopped yourself for a microsecond and consciously changed the word choices that you used and the sentence structure in order to say what you wanted to say but make it more in line with what the listener wants in a very subtle and propagandised way.

So theoretically, saying "if City are found not guilty then they would be fine" and saying "if City are found guilty then they will be charged" have very slight differences in how they are received by listeners. "Would be fine" is a more hypothetical then "will be charged" even though you predicated it with an IF statement, the implication on the listener's psychology is greater with will than would. There's an entire science behind these type of subtle word choices that is fascinating but impossible for somebody to perform in a live chat setting. That's possibly a pseudo-science depending on who you talk to or which empirical studies you use.

I'd take it as a compliment that he believes your intellect and word planning is so great that you generate this on the fly.
 
Think the media is just coming to terms, with the fact the PL had to win all (115) charges, for any punishment to be substantial, or even that they could get charged for every count they fail to provide evidence of. My view is every club cheats, and at some point City will have, but City is a very well run club that adapts to rule changes very well, while other have not.
i am expecting City to be cleared of 95% of the charges, albeit from an uneducated perspective, it has always been a % plus a few serious charges, and that % is what City will receive in cost plus damages, now there is a view that City will not receive substantial damages, due to it being in house, but City have had substantial damages, it effects every part of City`s business, as trust has been ripped apart. On another note, there is nothing stopping City partners suing the PL, certainly City`s accountancy firm will be looking for reputation
 
Damocles said:
He's saying that in the middle of saying something, you've stopped yourself for a microsecond and consciously changed the word choices that you used and the sentence structure in order to say what you wanted to say but make it more in line with what the listener wants in a very subtle and propagandised way.

So theoretically, saying "if City are found not guilty then they would be fine" and saying "if City are found guilty then they will be charged" have very slight differences in how they are received by listeners. "Would be fine" is a more hypothetical then "will be charged" even though you predicated it with an IF statement, the implication on the listener's psychology is greater with will than would. There's an entire science behind these type of subtle word choices that is fascinating but impossible for somebody to perform in a live chat setting. That's possibly a pseudo-science depending on who you talk to or which empirical studies you use.

I'd take it as a compliment that he believes your intellect and word planning is so great that you generate this on the fly.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be beyond a lawyer to be extremely efficient with his wording and phrasing whilst under pressure.
 
slbsn said:
Nah. Like all the conspiracy theorists they are the smartest guys in the room and can’t be tricked by the establishment, the City podcasters and the conditional inverters.
Click to expand...
Actually Stefan you are wrong.
Nephin Man is naive and pedantic. There.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top