Ade a case for the defence - SUE EM'

[wandarah]

Ok.

Well clearly, I wasn't saying that he punched him - I was giving you an example of how pictures, or video, can show intent.

Infact, the question is so bizarre - that I'm not entirely convinced you're just having me on. What you're saying is that if a guy sat down and shat on the pavement, and someone video'd it - that video would not show the intent which the guy had of shitting on the pavement.

It's weird. You are a strange, strange man.

 

[dannybcity]

Ok.

Well clearly, I wasn't saying that he punched him - I was giving you an example of how pictures, or video, can show intent.

Infact, the question is so bizarre - that I'm not entirely convinced you're just having me on. What you're saying is that if a guy sat down and shat on the pavement, and someone video'd it - that video would not show the intent which the guy had of shitting on the pavement.

It's weird. You are a strange, strange man.

Ironic considering the example you've just given.

My point is that Ade will or will not be banned on the basis that he either meant to hurt him or he didn't. I've asked you to show me a video where the intention is clear and you haven't been able to. Punching someone is an unnatural thing to do, and I think this is the basis of why your struggling with my argument. Contrary to what most Arsenal fans and players think trying to stay on your feet when a player comes within 20 yards of you is not unnatural. From one angle it shows Ade catching him possibly with intent, possibly not, from many others (including Clattenburg's) it shows no such thing. To ban a player with hindsight for an action he may or may not have done is a dangerous precedent to set.

 

[SWP's back]

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever read on a football forum.

Congratulations.

And you have no idea and are still crying about losing your top 4 place to liddle ciddy.

4-2 mate and we haven't even clicked yet....

 

[wandarah]

Just because there are angles that due to obfuscation of the incident, bring the nature of that incident into question - does not mean that a view of the incident which is not obscured is invalid.

 

[wandarah]

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever read on a football forum.

Congratulations.

And you have no idea and are still crying about losing your top 4 place to liddle ciddy.

4-2 mate and we haven't even clicked yet....

You are aware we're only 4-5 games in, right?

 

[dannybcity]

Just because there are angles that due to obfuscation of the incident, bring the nature of that incident into question - does not mean that a view of the incident which is not obscured is invalid.

No not invalid, but certainly inconclusive. Please just surrender me this obvious point.

 

[wandarah]

I would, but gosh-darn it, I just dont think you're right.

 

[dannybcity]

I would, but gosh-darn it, I just dont think you're right.

In that case I can only conclude you're Derren Brown as you can clearly read minds. Tell me what number I'm thinking about?

 

[cucumberman]

Just because there are angles that due to obfuscation of the incident, bring the nature of that incident into question - does not mean that a view of the incident which is not obscured is invalid.

let me just use your own method of debate. ahem.........potaeto, pottato.

 

[wandarah]

I would, but gosh-darn it, I just dont think you're right.

In that case I can only conclude you're Derren Brown as you can clearly read minds. Tell me what number I'm thinking about?

5? The number of games Man City will win this season? :D