Harte is Rubbish, not good enough for the Championship

[Royal With Cheese]

Surely it's only a fact if Harte actually comes out and either says "I was hurt" or "I was faking it" using a lie detector?

Until then we're merely speculating on wether he was injured or not and you are basing your opinion on this?

No. It's a fact. If he lies about it, what happened is still a fact.


Look. Far off there is a scuffle. You think Fred didn't strike Joe. Joe falls down as if struck.

Either Joe WAS struck or he WASN'T struck.

What YOU think. What I think. What Joe SAYS. None of those things affect the fact of whether or not Joe was struck.

I don't think anyone is doubting contact took place between Holt and Harte. That is a fact. The severity of that impact is what is being debated.

So are you saying that you know for a fact Harte felt considerable pain and therefore his sworn testimony, under a lie detector, would be entirely irrelevant if it didn't support your point of view?

[Snowball]

Just answer one question. Do you agree that Harte knows or knew at the time that he felt real pain (or didn't)?
Just that, just answer that. Can you not see that Harte's report-to-self is a real, actual thing and not an opinion?
The "opinion" is our differing interpretations of the signs because we don't know the facts. The facts underlie it all.

We aren't arguing about whether Harte's KNOWS or KNEW at the time that he felt pain. Only he knows that.
We are arguing about whether we THINK he felt any pain, or pain to the level his actions showed. And that is undeniably an opinion.

No. I'm asking you. Is there or is there not, at the bottom, an undeniable fact? If the answer is yes, one of us is wrong.

That is not the same as a difference of opinion, say, two men arguing over what car is the hottest, or who was the greatest footballer? They are opinions which can never be proven one way or the other, because there IS NO underlying fact.

[Snowball]

I don't think anyone is doubting contact took place between Holt and Harte. That is a fact. The severity of that impact is what is being debated.

So are you saying that you know for a fact Harte felt considerable pain and therefore his sworn testimony, under a lie detector, would be entirely irrelevant if it didn't support your point of view?

OK.


Fact 1. Contact occurred. In fact it was a double contact.

Fact 2.

There was either no pain,
a little, but no-big-deal pain,
a fair degree of pain for say, a minute or a bit less,
or
extreme pain, for say a minute or a bit less.


That second "thing" is a fact, yes?

[Wycombe Royal]

We aren't arguing about whether Harte's KNOWS or KNEW at the time that he felt pain. Only he knows that.
We are arguing about whether we THINK he felt any pain, or pain to the level his actions showed. And that is undeniably an opinion.

No. I'm asking you. Is there or is there not, at the bottom, an undeniable fact? If the answer is yes, one of us is wrong.

That is not the same as a difference of opinion, say, two men arguing over what car is the hottest, or who was the greatest footballer? They are opinions which can never be proven one way or the other, because there IS NO underlying fact.

Please don't make out that I wrote what you wrote. I want to keep my credibility. And I have answered your question, as has RwC.

[Snowball]

Get a book on basic logic for Xmas

[Wycombe Royal]

I don't need one I have common sense.

Whether you think someone was injured is an opinion, or do you really honestly believe that is a fact?

So come on no comebacks moving the goalposts, just answer it. Yes or No. I answered you comment earlier saying that what you wrote was a fact but that it wasn't what we are arguing about so come on answer the real quesion.

It's an open question so others can answer it as well, just a yes or no please.

[Royal With Cheese]

I don't think anyone is doubting contact took place between Holt and Harte. That is a fact. The severity of that impact is what is being debated.

So are you saying that you know for a fact Harte felt considerable pain and therefore his sworn testimony, under a lie detector, would be entirely irrelevant if it didn't support your point of view?

OK.


Fact 1. Contact occurred. In fact it was a double contact.

Fact 2.

There was either no pain,
a little, but no-big-deal pain,
a fair degree of pain for say, a minute or a bit less,
or
extreme pain, for say a minute or a bit less.


That second "thing" is a fact, yes?

So it's also a fact that cheese is made with either milk or Sulphuric Acid?
I'll conceed you that if you conceed that both our facts are bollocks and not relevant.

[Snowball]

I don't need one I have common sense.

Whether you think someone was injured is an opinion, or do you really honestly believe that is a fact?

So come on no comebacks moving the goalposts, just answer it. Yes or No. I answered you comment earlier saying that what you wrote was a fact but that it wasn't what we are arguing about so come on answer the real quesion.

It's an open question so others can answer it as well, just a yes or no please.

Is that like you answered MY question with a simple yes-no?

If something actually happens and it's an A or B thing, and two people have different opinions
about what it was that actually happened, one says A, the other says B, do you or do you not
agree that one of them is right and the other is wrong?

[Snowball]

So it's also a fact that cheese is made with either milk or Sulphuric Acid?
I'll conceed you that if you conceed that both our facts are bollocks and not relevant.

I'm afraid I don't eat cheese or eat/drink sulphuric acid, and do
not know how to make either, so couldn't possibly comment.

[Royal With Cheese]

I'm afraid I don't eat cheese or eat/drink sulphuric acid, and do
not know how to make either, so couldn't possibly comment.

And yet you can read the brainwaves of a footballer?

[Wycombe Royal]

I don't need one I have common sense.

Whether you think someone was injured is an opinion, or do you really honestly believe that is a fact?

So come on no comebacks moving the goalposts, just answer it. Yes or No. I answered you comment earlier saying that what you wrote was a fact but that it wasn't what we are arguing about so come on answer the real quesion.

It's an open question so others can answer it as well, just a yes or no please.

Is that like you answered MY question with a simple yes-no?

If something actually happens and it's an A or B thing, and two people have different opinions
about what it was that actually happened, one says A, the other says B, do you or do you not
agree that one of them is right and the other is wrong?

No because there could be a C, D, E, etc option as well. It isn't something that is black or white.....

[Snowball]

[
No because there could be a C, D, E, etc option as well. It isn't something that is black or white.....

Oh and what would they be?


1 By coincidence Harte had a shooting pain in his leg at the same moment he was kicked?

2. Harte wasn't hurt but he really thought he had been hurt?

3. Harte was in the shower and it was all a dream?



What about this is not black and white? I believe he was hurt. You believe he wasn't. Is that not the gist of it?

[Royal With Cheese]

What about this is not black and white? I believe he was hurt. You believe he wasn't. Is that not the gist of it?

Isn't that what was said a page ago? As you can't be sure he wasn't hurt and Wycombe cannot be sure he was you will have to agree to disagree.

It's really not that difficult.

Oh and looking at the word FACT in the dictionary and it can basically mean anything that the person quoting them believes. It doesn't matter if they are bollocks if you believe them. It's not the way you've been using the word - and if you dispute that you are truly bonkers and that's a FACT.

[Snowball]

I'm afraid I don't eat cheese or eat/drink sulphuric acid, and do
not know how to make either, so couldn't possibly comment.

And yet you can read the brainwaves of a footballer?

Isn't it funny how the motivated can change "I believe Harte was hurt" into me reading his brainwaves

[Ian Royal]

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/player/VideoArchive/0,,10306~1616280~36,00.html
Reading vs Ipswich
58 seconds in, Ian Harte waving his arms at the referee calling for and waving an imaginary card at the ref. For what is a fairly inoccuous challenge, though I suspect persistent fouling played a significant factor.

Just posting it seeing as I appear to be being accused of being a liar for some unknown reason. You'll need a Reading Player account unfortunately.

And just for the record I'm not saying he feigned injury to get Holt sent off. I think it's quite easy for even light contact to cause pain, which can quite quickly go away or be dealt with. I'm also not saying he didn't.

[Snowball]

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/player/VideoArchive/0,,10306~1616280~36,00.html
Reading vs Ipswich. 58 seconds in, Ian Harte waving his arms at the referee calling for and waving an imaginary card at the ref. For what is a fairly inoccuous challenge, though I suspect persistent fouling played a significant factor. Just posting it seeing as I appear to be being accused of being a liar for some unknown reason. You'll need a Reading Player account unfortunately. And just for the record I'm not saying he feigned injury to get Holt sent off. I think it's quite easy for even light contact to cause pain, which can quite quickly go away or be dealt with. I'm also not saying he didn't.

You are making things up, seeing things, deluded, or all three. There is no way Harte is "waving an imaginary card at the ref." How many people posted on HNA during or after the game to say Harte "waved an imaginary card at the ref.". In round figures?

Now take a look at the Holt Challenge on Harte and see what HOWARD does.

[Snowball]

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/player/VideoArchive/0,,10306~1616280~36,00.html
Reading vs Ipswich 58 seconds in, Ian Harte waving his arms at the referee calling for and waving an imaginary card at the ref. For what is a fairly inoccuous challenge, though I suspect persistent fouling played a significant factor. Just posting it seeing as I appear to be being accused of being a liar for some unknown reason. You'll need a Reading Player account unfortunately.
And just for the record I'm not saying he feigned injury to get Holt sent off. I think it's quite easy for even light contact to cause pain, which can quite quickly go away or be dealt with. I'm also not saying he didn't.

And BTW (if only you actually watched some real game) the player got sent off because it was his SECOND YELLOW, and this one was for kicking the ball away, NOT for the challenge itself.

From the OS

With seven minutes of the second half gone Town were reduced to ten men; Hyam shown a second yellow after kicking the ball away at a Reading free kick. It was the type of infringement that often goes unpunished, but Hyam took a massive risk by kicking the ball away in the first place; the whistle having clearly gone well before he kicked the ball.

From the Ipswich Official Site

Seconds later, Town were reduced to 10 men , Hyam dismissed for a second yellow after kicking the ball away after a free-kick had been given against him.

When an opponent kicks the ball away when you have a free-kick, and you are the guy who takes the free kicks, mightn't you be a tad annoyed? No Card waving at all, another delusion

[Snowball]

Karacan on that tackle

“If Harte’s foot had been planted he could have broken it, but thankfully he got out of the way. The marks on his leg show how bad it could have been.”

[Snowball]

Been scouring the web to see where fans or whoever might have suggested Harte "dived" or tried to
get Holt sent off. So far found nothing to even hint at the idea.

This is the only thing I've found (outside HNA!) that suggests anything untoward

Holt caught Harte a little late just inside the Reading half, the full-back reacting angrily and rolling around clutching his ankle, but it appeared no more than a yellow card offence and Holt looked stunned when referee Oliver produced the red.

[Snowball]

" My first thought at full speed was that the referee had to send him off, but from what I saw and heard ­after-wards it seemed a bit harsh"

– Noel Hunt


It’s hard for the ref and Harty has got a mark on his ankle that could have been serious.

Mirror, unattributed