- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Because he didn't call her the face of racism. Again, saying someone is the face of racism and saying that saying racism had a face on a specific occasion have two very distinct meanings. The link you provided omitted a (quite important) part of what he said, breaking down one continuous sentence into two distinct independent ones. If what you posted was indistinguishable from his actual statement, why not just post his actual wording instead of paraphrasing or omitting parts?No I didn't. My original comment was "he came out with his "face of racism" comment". That's it. That's what I said. You then replied that he didn't say that
That's not wrong. The fact that you were called on it and said "fair call" doesn't change the fact that you were willing to jump on Goodes and comment on his intent despite it actually agreeing with yours. I mean, I'm actually curious as to how you read a statement that you apparently agreed with and immediately attacked it. Unless you didn't actually believe it and were just using it as a way to criticise Goodes for something, or you did believe it and somehow just disregarded that, again in an attempt to criticise Goodes.Wrong again. You should have read on to see my reply to that post actually was, which was "fair call". Unlike you mate, if I err in something I've said I will stand up and account for myself. Perhaps you should do the same.
Either way, you posting "fair play" (and nothing further explaining either way, it should be noted.) doesn't change the fact that you did it. What if you hadn't been called on it and posted a nothing response? Would it still be wrong to point out you did it?
I've actually stuck to the same lines on every post on this. You chose to use paraphrasing and omission rather than Goodes' own words and then based your statements off those. You also said "He just ran with claiming the other person was intentionally offensive because he was offended, end of story." Despite direct quotes from him that I've posted indicating that he didn't at all.I can only assume you mean the bent you put on my words, as clearly you've misrepresented a couple of times now and every time I provide quotes to show otherwise, you ignore it and skip on to a new distortion.
Look, this is actually pretty tedious. Multiple times, for whatever reasons, you've inaccurately represented what Goodes has said or done, or attacked him for holding the same opinion you do. For someone who believes they have a valid argument, it's strange that you'd have to do so in order to illustrate your argument.