Everton bans fan over racist Richard Wee tweets

About me? No? What made you think that? Where on earth do you see offence in that?

I was simply answering your somewhat circular, off topic question. As I put, it's unlikely to be me as I avoid many of these type of threads, as they just degenerate into childish name calling.

It's not particularly interesting, but you did ask.

 

It has far less tedious types with issues and agendas.

 

I'm not sure anyone actually posts on there anymore.

 

Childish name calling you say?

Not guilty of that.

You?

 

I guess it's subjective. I do respond in kind to some posters, but given the level of abuse some feel they're at liberty to hurl my way on the board and via PM, I think I'm generally restrained and rarely throw first.

Anyway, best not progress this off topic, circular discussion of yours, people don't like it.

 

So that's a yes then.

Don't worry about it, it happens.

We move on.

 

It's stuttering and stumbling into the usual tedious exchanges, but it's nearly there.

 

I don't worry and I moved on ages ago. I'm just politely answering some queries.

 

?

 

Why can't some of you just admit urine the wrong? This thread is really starting to piss pepole off.

 

Should we ask the owner of the site, mic,turate these threads that drift into nothingness?

 

Are they stood up, or sat down, Tommy?

 

Just read all of this. LOL about sums it up.

Yep, I got confused with the post about the burden of proof, the principle of what I was saying was right, but in the context of defendant / claimant, it was obviously arse about face. So apologies to Tuckin for questioning his expertise.

I do however stand by everything else I said, and I maintain it's correct.

 

I'm guessing some of them will have to sit down, though not out of choice.

 

Carmine, have you got Russia in the sweepstake or are you just a Red?

 

Priceless.

Tuckin, who has said exactly what I said, apart from the bits I queried, which turns out I was nearer than him, is right, but I'm wrong, and you're right even though you got it totally back to front.

I tell you what, as all I've been claiming is that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion, and you say I'm wrong, here's a challenge for you;

I say, other people on this thread agree with what I put. In my claim, that's for me to prove by posting one or more quotes from people agreeing with me, but in yours, you must prove nobody at all supports me, so, you're now tasked to show you're right, by proving nobody at all agrees with what I say.

 

It could be that I've got Russia in the sweepstake.

Can you prove that though?

Do I have to prove that I have or do you have to prove I haven't?

Or

Do I have to prove I haven't and you have to prove I have?

Prove it.

 

It's the exception that proves the rule. Now, there's a phrase that confuses some proof readers.

 

I never mentioned you, so put your massive ego away petal.

You really are a tedious prick

 

Given you've spent 18 pages being abusive, only to have to admit you should have listened, I'll allow you to keep your "tedious prick" comment for yourself. It fits you better.