| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! 11:12 - Jan 8 with 26036 views | ApeShit |
According to SSN. |  | | |  |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:12 - Jan 8 with 1980 views | Neath_Jack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:11 - Jan 8 by Starsky |
"You're" |
That was a tap in, Geoff. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:15 - Jan 8 with 1953 views | Shaky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:12 - Jan 8 by Neath_Jack |
That was a tap in, Geoff. |
F*ck me you're really clutching at straws aren't you, proven liar. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:16 - Jan 8 with 1953 views | Starsky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:12 - Jan 8 by Neath_Jack |
That was a tap in, Geoff. |
He's tampered with the evidence since and inserted "are" in front of "you". Bless him. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:17 - Jan 8 with 1947 views | Parlay |
Oh no, not spellcheck posts already?!
that can only mean one thing...
Isn't it funny that over 18 pages of this outrage at anyone suggesting the case sounds weak not one person has had the ability to state why.
Would be easy id have thought. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:18 - Jan 8 with 1936 views | Neath_Jack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:16 - Jan 8 by Starsky |
He's tampered with the evidence since and inserted "are" in front of "you". Bless him. |
They're like a couple of little kids begging to be allowed to play football with the big boys. But the most they get to participate is go and fetch the ball when it lands in the canal. One day boys, one day. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:21 - Jan 8 with 1920 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:18 - Jan 8 by Neath_Jack |
They're like a couple of little kids begging to be allowed to play football with the big boys. But the most they get to participate is go and fetch the ball when it lands in the canal. One day boys, one day. |
Yes because that makes perfect sense. 
Still waiting for a reply to back up this outrage. IF you wish to continue to dance around the fact you cannot substantiate your outage then just say so, would save an awful lot of smileys, silly posts and cut and runs. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:21 - Jan 8 with 1920 views | Starsky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:18 - Jan 8 by Neath_Jack |
They're like a couple of little kids begging to be allowed to play football with the big boys. But the most they get to participate is go and fetch the ball when it lands in the canal. One day boys, one day. |
To be fair NJ... It was only a mild case of bad grammar... In the spectrum, of course. | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:22 - Jan 8 with 1911 views | Parlay |
And it continues  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:22 - Jan 8 with 1906 views | Neath_Jack |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:21 - Jan 8 by Starsky |
To be fair NJ... It was only a mild case of bad grammar... In the spectrum, of course. |
Liar. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:23 - Jan 8 with 1899 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:22 - Jan 8 by Neath_Jack |
Liar. |
Scaredy cat. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:24 - Jan 8 with 1894 views | Starsky |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:17 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Oh no, not spellcheck posts already?!
that can only mean one thing...
Isn't it funny that over 18 pages of this outrage at anyone suggesting the case sounds weak not one person has had the ability to state why.
Would be easy id have thought. |
Lesson for you Parlay...
If you're going to call someone stupid, then you'd better do so using good grammar.
It's etiket see. | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:32 - Jan 8 with 1863 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 13:54 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
So you are saying Shaky was making a case as to why it "wasnt much" or "was the womans fault" then?
No.
Lisa was painting him as rapist that people have nightmares about, battered to within an inch of their life, controlling starring into their eyes, unable to move paralysed with fear with a knife to your neck.
Shaky pointed out that under the terms of the law this was classed as "mild" in terms of rape which is why he only got 5 years and should not be painted as the crime above.
THAT is why it is out of context. So neath jack you continue to be wrong on this subject. |
no I wasn't.
I hadn't made any comment whatsoever when Shaky came up with his comment. Look at the thread and show me the post where I said anything like that. In response to Shaky's comment I pointed out that the rape itself was worse than any attached physical violence could be. The rest of it you've completely made up as usual.
In much the same way as you made up in another thread that I had said something about 63 points needed for 6th place (or whatever it was).
You simply make up statements that you attribute to me and then carry on in your little frenzy ignoring any post that points out that you're wrong. You are either doing it deliberately or have a rather strange personality disorder. |  | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:33 - Jan 8 with 1856 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:24 - Jan 8 by Starsky |
Lesson for you Parlay...
If you're going to call someone stupid, then you'd better do so using good grammar.
It's etiket see. |
Grammar isn't a measure of stupidity though. Ask Leonardo Da Vinci fans.
He is well within his rights.
Id say a far more pertinent lesson is to substantiate your argument and don't be offended when asked to do so. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:44 - Jan 8 with 1814 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:32 - Jan 8 by londonlisa2001 |
no I wasn't.
I hadn't made any comment whatsoever when Shaky came up with his comment. Look at the thread and show me the post where I said anything like that. In response to Shaky's comment I pointed out that the rape itself was worse than any attached physical violence could be. The rest of it you've completely made up as usual.
In much the same way as you made up in another thread that I had said something about 63 points needed for 6th place (or whatever it was).
You simply make up statements that you attribute to me and then carry on in your little frenzy ignoring any post that points out that you're wrong. You are either doing it deliberately or have a rather strange personality disorder. |
Dont try that one again, you didnt cover yourself in glory last time you used that tactic in a debate you couldnt win.
Was is not you who said 63-67 points then? I thought it was. You know, you could have just said at the time instead of saying nothing and then storing it up for a time where your back is well and truly up against the wall and use it in a completely unrelated thread. Just a thought like.
Now then, i wasnt quoting, so not sure why you have taken umbrage to my post above. You clearly were suggesting that all rapes are equally as bad. This is why Shaky had to show you that they are not. You then got all uppity at the term mild, which he correctly told you was just your interpretation of the word, an interpretation that does not exist.
And lastly, can you be the one to finally crack this 18 page nonsense fest and actually tell us the proof that Ched Evans obviously raped this girl.
If it was so obvious you would think it would have been done 18 pages ago wouldnt you.
Over to you. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 14:50]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:52 - Jan 8 with 1796 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:44 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Dont try that one again, you didnt cover yourself in glory last time you used that tactic in a debate you couldnt win.
Was is not you who said 63-67 points then? I thought it was. You know, you could have just said at the time instead of saying nothing and then storing it up for a time where your back is well and truly up against the wall and use it in a completely unrelated thread. Just a thought like.
Now then, i wasnt quoting, so not sure why you have taken umbrage to my post above. You clearly were suggesting that all rapes are equally as bad. This is why Shaky had to show you that they are not. You then got all uppity at the term mild, which he correctly told you was just your interpretation of the word, an interpretation that does not exist.
And lastly, can you be the one to finally crack this 18 page nonsense fest and actually tell us the proof that Ched Evans obviously raped this girl.
If it was so obvious you would think it would have been done 18 pages ago wouldnt you.
Over to you. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 14:50]
|
no it was not and I pointed it out at the time - not storing it up - you just chose to ignore it on that thread as you do when someone points out you're wrong.
I at no point said all rapes are equal and as I said I hadn't even commented when Shaky made his point. Not at all, on anything at all.
And on the proof bit - as I said, I can't believe that you are so entrenched in your position when you admit you haven't read the case summary. I haven't changed from that position.
I'll make one quick point though which you may find helps you. You have now stated on many occasions that he was not accused of rape. That is fairly obviously not correct since he was, you know, charged with rape and convicted of rape. He's serving a sentence for rape at the moment which rather assumes that at one point or another he was accused of it don't you think? | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:00 - Jan 8 with 1779 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:52 - Jan 8 by londonlisa2001 |
no it was not and I pointed it out at the time - not storing it up - you just chose to ignore it on that thread as you do when someone points out you're wrong.
I at no point said all rapes are equal and as I said I hadn't even commented when Shaky made his point. Not at all, on anything at all.
And on the proof bit - as I said, I can't believe that you are so entrenched in your position when you admit you haven't read the case summary. I haven't changed from that position.
I'll make one quick point though which you may find helps you. You have now stated on many occasions that he was not accused of rape. That is fairly obviously not correct since he was, you know, charged with rape and convicted of rape. He's serving a sentence for rape at the moment which rather assumes that at one point or another he was accused of it don't you think? |
Chose to ignore it or didn't see it? Thats a hell of an assumption you are making there Lisa, and unsurprisingly yet again - the wrong one. It made no difference who said it so would have no reason to ignore it if i saw it. You are far too touchy for a football forum.
Ah great, so you do realise that not all rapes are as bad as each other after all, and on the spectrum of that then Ched Evans is on the lower one, in fact, hard to think of a milder case. I use the term mild as you refused to answer Shaky when he asked for an appropriate word to use that you wouldn't get all uppity about - you tend to do that when you are wrong.
Isn't it funny that whenever I ask you for proof, instead of giving it, you instead decide to attack my stance. As it goes, i don't have a stance. Where I am in my opinion is that from what I know, the case looks awfully weak - i have asked for information to show why this isn't the case and all the information I have received has just gone to strengthen that.
Eh? You are being a little obtuse now Lisa. He was accused by people that were not there. Nobody present accused anybody of rape - FACT. Nobody there said consent was not given - FACT. There was no evidence of date rape drug - FACT.
Maybe stop being an egotistical madam for one minute and actually answer the question being put to you and stop being so evasive. What proof have you read, which shows that Ched clearly raped the girl. Take your time. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:02 - Jan 8 with 1772 views | reddythered |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:52 - Jan 8 by londonlisa2001 |
no it was not and I pointed it out at the time - not storing it up - you just chose to ignore it on that thread as you do when someone points out you're wrong.
I at no point said all rapes are equal and as I said I hadn't even commented when Shaky made his point. Not at all, on anything at all.
And on the proof bit - as I said, I can't believe that you are so entrenched in your position when you admit you haven't read the case summary. I haven't changed from that position.
I'll make one quick point though which you may find helps you. You have now stated on many occasions that he was not accused of rape. That is fairly obviously not correct since he was, you know, charged with rape and convicted of rape. He's serving a sentence for rape at the moment which rather assumes that at one point or another he was accused of it don't you think? |
You'd also think, Lisa, that since Parlay asserts something to the contrary of the established decision that within 18 pages of this thread he'd have provided conclusive evidence Ched is indeed innocent.
After all, the onus is upon the person claiming a contrary decision to provide the evidence. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:07 - Jan 8 with 1760 views | ApeShit |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 14:52 - Jan 8 by londonlisa2001 |
no it was not and I pointed it out at the time - not storing it up - you just chose to ignore it on that thread as you do when someone points out you're wrong.
I at no point said all rapes are equal and as I said I hadn't even commented when Shaky made his point. Not at all, on anything at all.
And on the proof bit - as I said, I can't believe that you are so entrenched in your position when you admit you haven't read the case summary. I haven't changed from that position.
I'll make one quick point though which you may find helps you. You have now stated on many occasions that he was not accused of rape. That is fairly obviously not correct since he was, you know, charged with rape and convicted of rape. He's serving a sentence for rape at the moment which rather assumes that at one point or another he was accused of it don't you think? |
Please ignore him, for all our sakes. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:11 - Jan 8 with 1742 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:02 - Jan 8 by reddythered |
You'd also think, Lisa, that since Parlay asserts something to the contrary of the established decision that within 18 pages of this thread he'd have provided conclusive evidence Ched is indeed innocent.
After all, the onus is upon the person claiming a contrary decision to provide the evidence. |
What an absolutely terrifying thought process. Proving innocence should never have to be done - ever. Proving no guilt however is done by simply stating there is no evidence.
Otherwise i accuse anybody of age that they killed Kennedy, i have no evidence other than my assumption you can not prove you didn't. Life imprisonment please.
All I have asked for is the proof that categorically states that Ched raped the girl, in a situation where no person accused the other of rape who where present and nobody denies that permission was granted.
Simple question - yet obviously, a difficult answer.
That is why this case is not like others. [Post edited 8 Jan 2015 15:13]
| |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:12 - Jan 8 with 1738 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:07 - Jan 8 by ApeShit |
Please ignore him, for all our sakes. |
Leave the thread if you have nothing constructive to offer.
Ta. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:14 - Jan 8 with 1731 views | Darran |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:07 - Jan 8 by ApeShit |
Please ignore him, for all our sakes. |
For the sake of the Forum every poster should stop replying to the Troll. |  |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:16 - Jan 8 with 1712 views | Parlay |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:14 - Jan 8 by Darran |
For the sake of the Forum every poster should stop replying to the Troll. |
But then nobody would talk to you. | |
| |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:17 - Jan 8 with 1709 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:00 - Jan 8 by Parlay |
Chose to ignore it or didn't see it? Thats a hell of an assumption you are making there Lisa, and unsurprisingly yet again - the wrong one. It made no difference who said it so would have no reason to ignore it if i saw it. You are far too touchy for a football forum.
Ah great, so you do realise that not all rapes are as bad as each other after all, and on the spectrum of that then Ched Evans is on the lower one, in fact, hard to think of a milder case. I use the term mild as you refused to answer Shaky when he asked for an appropriate word to use that you wouldn't get all uppity about - you tend to do that when you are wrong.
Isn't it funny that whenever I ask you for proof, instead of giving it, you instead decide to attack my stance. As it goes, i don't have a stance. Where I am in my opinion is that from what I know, the case looks awfully weak - i have asked for information to show why this isn't the case and all the information I have received has just gone to strengthen that.
Eh? You are being a little obtuse now Lisa. He was accused by people that were not there. Nobody present accused anybody of rape - FACT. Nobody there said consent was not given - FACT. There was no evidence of date rape drug - FACT.
Maybe stop being an egotistical madam for one minute and actually answer the question being put to you and stop being so evasive. What proof have you read, which shows that Ched clearly raped the girl. Take your time. |
I said that I thought 'mild' to be inappropriate. I even asked you to describe a situation where someone raped you that you would believe was mild. You refused to do so (oh, right - you didn't 'see' that one).
And I am not wrong in taking that position. It is my position.
If you were genuinely interested in the facts of the case you would have looked at them - they are there for everyone to see in the court summary. However, you are not remotely interested, you are only interested in being as argumentative, difficult, and (in you mind) controversial as possible. No one is going to type out on here a long court document for you. This isn't 'proof' that they are wrong, it's just that they can't be bothered.
The only proof you need, is that he has been convicted and has had attempts to appeal (3 or 4 different points were raised to the court of appeals) all turned down. He is now trying to see if he will be allowed to appeal again. If he is allowed to, then the case will again go to the appeals court. It takes a special type of egomaniac to believe that they are not prepared to accept any of that or the decision of people that heard the facts. It takes a complete fantasist to adopt that stance when they haven't even read the evidence that was used in court.
And yet again you fall into using misogynistic language - you really can't help yourself can you? | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:19 - Jan 8 with 1700 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:14 - Jan 8 by Darran |
For the sake of the Forum every poster should stop replying to the Troll. |
yes - I will not respond any more as I think you are correct. | | | |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:21 - Jan 8 with 1681 views | Darran |
| Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off! on 15:19 - Jan 8 by londonlisa2001 |
yes - I will not respond any more as I think you are correct. |
I'm 100% correct he's renowned for doing it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
