The topics I don't want to discuss are the things I'm being purported to say that I'm not. You said I gave 36 hours. You do realize of course that your entire argument is with yourself don't you, because you've invented both sides. The things you say I'm saying and the arguments against them. It's actually strangely interesting to follow. I'm actually surprised you've been able to keep at it this long and have been wondering where your exit was. It's actually Karina with a K and the B is capitalized and she played in WUSA, WPS and NWSL. You make a stop for the home side they love you, you're the opposition they get on you. The last one I heard was a hilarious and rousing rendition of Blame Canada and it was actually heartwarming and charming.
On a message board there are these things called "Messages", and they have these things called "time stamps". This allows us to understand what someone said in the past, and even roughly when they said it. So we look at the timestamp of the first message where you ask for proof from someone at the stadium and notice it gives us a time stamp of "law10, Jun 10, 2013" (Notice that is copied directly from the post.) Then we skip forward to the post stamped at 'law10, Tuesday at 9:58 PM which is the next day but was roughly a day and a half when the timestamp was present on the original post. On this second post you stated: "I was just curious if anyone else in the stadiums correlated the claim. I'll presume the answer is no." So generally speaking you asked for proof on the 10th, and made your assumption based on no responses the next day. "I" did not say 36 hours, "I" noted it was 36 hours. So at this point I am going to guess you agree by your statements, and the judgements you passed on LeRoux, that you are a liar now. Goose/Gander, pot/kettle...you know the drill. Your word is crap.
Her name is Sydney Leroux. If I gave 36 hours a week ago, why have I been looking and asking almost daily for the past week? And by the way, if I did stop there and call it a day, I would be at exactly the same place I am now as there's nothing further that's been found. The only thing the past week's been about is everything except the question itself. If you want to keep character assassinating feel free, but at some point there has to be something better to do with your time.
So you are saying your statement that you made that you were presuming the answer was no was misstated? You did not presume the answer after a day and a half? Did you misspeak or did people read into the statement incorrectly? I am pretty sure Sydney LeRoux understands how you feel. As a matter of fact many posters critical of her statement have made the exact same mistake. But all of them have not felt they were being fairly treated when it was pointed out. You are a special case I guess, you don't care about any of the known evidence, but seem to think the only important thing is the thing yet to be proven. While in the real world nobody really would ignore the racist tweets and shrug with an idea that "If you can't prove it in a stadium it isn't important.". I wonder is the stadium bit important because she said it, or because it hasn't been proven yet? Not really sure why so many people cling to it, when soooo much other proof is out there. But I guess when they say "We are Canadian and don't put up with it" they mean "We are Canadian and don't put up with it (in stadiums)...(if you have undeniable proof and catch us red handed.)". Still a bit embarrassing.
I'm saying you spend an awful lot of time caught up in a cycle of creating meaning where it doesn't exist and then arguing against it. I've acknowledged and condemned any documented example of racism in social media or elsewhere. Is there a number of times I have to tell you that's not what I'm looking for where it actually flips a switch? Again, it's Leroux.
Well 'that's not what I'm looking for' sounds so dismissive because...well, it's dismissive. And when it's used to dismiss everything that *can* be proven it seems even worse. I suppose it could matter if somebody could corroborate the stadium claim if you were in charge of stadium security or advertising at the stadium or some such. While it's important to make sure the stadium does not allow these type of things to happen, it really is misleading to focus only on that part. In the big picture whether it only happened in a stadium or on Twitter should not matter to a Canadian, a football fan or anywhere else. Zero tolerance really means zero.
Darn, missed this gem. This came from the person that is ignoring 75% of an incident to focus ONLY on if anything was said in a stadium? I think you sank your own battleship there.
Any type of racial abuse is pathetic and zero tolerance is the only acceptable answer. We all know there are ignorant slimeballs on social media who get off spreading filth. We know their profiles and usually who they are. It's public and documented. Racist comments. Jerks. Done. Moving on. There was a statement that people in Canadian stadiums were chanting racist abuse ("When you chant racial slurs..."). I find this pretty disgusting and am trying to figure out information on it. Apologies if you find that odd. Unfortunately so far I've come up with nothing, but if you ever come across anything please pass it on. I believe someone was going to go through the audio on the original CONCACAF game film, if you ever hear anything about that I'd appreciate it as well.
We have come up with nothing that she ever mentioned Toronto, which you stated ' everybody knows' she did. You have had about 100 times her 140 characters to prove your point here, and haven't. You aren't meeting the test you set for her and keep insisting your point. I think that is more disgusting than any claim you make about her. Further, you reneged on your promise to shut up if I found "ANYONE" who admitted there chants in the stadium and weaseled out of it. Further, there are vile Fbombs and "bitch" chants that can be heard on replays of the goal. This is now more about your level of truth than hers as I see it, and will continue to be until you accept what she actually did and didn't say. You don't get more leeway than you are willing to give her 140 characters, as you have had a week to craft your story. so put up. You can start by proving she ever said anything about Toronto.
If you're not one of the people who assumed she meant Toronto, then godspeed to your thought pattern. If you think you found someone who admitted there were racist chants in the stadium, godspeed to your thought patterns again.
Pretty much the reply I was guessing at. If God himself handed you a chiseled tablet with the phrase "14 people chanted racists things at a Vancouver match" you would suddenly become Wiccan.
See? This is the whole thing about a smear. It has nothing to do with what she said. It has to do with what YOU hatefully choose to craft as what everybody should assume. You wrote about proof, and you have none. So shut up until you find some. She said nothing about Toronto in the tweet. You won't get away with it. You wrote about what is disgusting. This is it. I'll keep pointing it out until the cows come home. It is simple English and pretty direct. "the racist and hatred chants" means there were chants. If you think it doesn't, take a course in the English language.The beauty is that is in a 140 character tweet, just like the tweet you are raising such a fuss about. I'm surprised you don't grasp the beauty of the symmetry. I met the requirement you set. " open and shut"
When you play a game and finish it with a comment like "when you chant at me this is what I do," most people put two and two together. We're not all mensa level theoricians though, that's reserved for special individuals. Actually I have three years of university English, and I'm thinking that's probably the problem here. "You deserve the racist and hatred chants." So if I say you charming fellows deserve them, does that mean they happened? Or does it mean I think you deserve them? I also took philosophy of logic, and that statement is actually not even university level.
Yet somehow you fall back on the "But everyone thought she meant Toronto" regarding her Tweet. You may want to get a robe, your bias is showing.
And when you claim she said something, you should be able to back it up. I don't see Toronto anywhere but in YOUR posts. You have had well over your allotted 140 characters. Another year and you might get a degree. I hope they require comprehensive oral exams at the end. You seem deficient in some areas. THE chants means there were some. If you wish to imply a hypothetical, proper English demands another article. Perhaps "a" or omitting the article altogether might be appropriate. Too bad your fellow Canadian didn't know that, if that's not what he meant. Not my problem. He had his 140 characters. Maybe you could have him call a press conference to clarify. No, that's the point. You don't need a university degree to see through your weaseling.
I'm stunned you're stuck on this. First, it bears little significance to anyone but you. Second, for God's sake man, what do you think people thought? Why do you think US Soccer issued the clarification? http://goo.gl/yLczj The first two are Canada's national newspapers. "Sydney Leroux, a Canadian-born U.S. international, has cleared up a misunderstanding over a tweet she sent that led many to assume she endured racist taunts during Sunday’s Canada-U.S. friendly in Toronto." If you want it to believe that, knock yourself out. It probably helps you feel better, so that's a good thing. It's actually pretty standard liberal arts fare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic Scroll at least the first 10 pages: http://goo.gl/03BKY
"Characterisations include Philosophy of logic is the arena of philosophy devoted to examining the scope and nature of logic.[1] Philosophy of logic is the investigation, critical analysis and intellectual reflection on issues arising in logic. The field is considered to be distinct from philosophical logic. " So if I understand the characterizations above correctly, you took a course about logic not a course in logic?
Haha. I'm stunned you think Toronto was mentioned anywhere by Leroux, other than to disavow the site and say it was a great thing for womens soccer. You still need to explain that. You could start by exploring where she said that in her tweet, not what you thought. Then focus on what your fellow Canadians said transpired at the match. And you could explain why Canadians were holding up fingers( presumably telling her she was number one in their hearts) in the video while simultaneously screaming 'F ing Bitch' at her. I don't see the logic there. Haha again. I have degrees in Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics, and a couple of the Romance Languages. This may shock you, but you aren't the only person on these forums with a college degree, and we aren't all liberal Arts majors ( not that there is anything wrong with that). I have taught robotics at two universities and several high schools, so I have a pretty good grounding In sequential logic. Three of those fields actually deal a lot with fact, so I can see your consternation. The liberal arts actually teach you to think. You could use some help there.
Hey now, he never said he actually passed the class. Only that he took it, so obviously he failed...by his own logic. It's pretty obvious he isn't applying any of it, either way.
Little observation for your edification. Your signature move when you're ducking on something you're beat on is introducing things with an emotional element to provide cover. And really, why stop at Canadians giving her the finger, surely someone of your capable means can tug the heartstrings better than that. And don't forget internet postography. Was that at Epcot? Using the dewey decimal system? On a USR 1200bps? Sorry, it's actually very commendable. The word just cracks me up. One of the main components of the philosophy of logic is truth trees. Fascinating stuff actually and endlessly useful. A survey course, you failed, more 'inferred' cliches. Yawn. You really an educated man?
Which sounds more intelligent than the other posts you have in this thread. You are getting there! This is a much saner course for you than debating that a person meant what they didn't say and then another person didn't mean what they did say. And it comes off a lot less hypocritical too. Speaking of... It's been more than the 36 hours you had allowed to pass before making your assumption that nobody heard anything at a stadium, nobody has come forth with proof that LeRoux lied so I am guessing you are going to state she didn't now. You aren't going to let us down now are you?