What's new

Managing Director Football: Fabio Paratici

Status
Not open for further replies.
BringBack_leGin

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Locotoro said:
The irony...given this conversation.

Yes I have been practicing as a lawyer for the better part of 10 years so you'd expect me to know what both evidence and proof means but some people are not satisfied and give more credit to journalists claiming we're interested in hiring the tea lady as head coach
Click to expand...
After 5 years of bouncing between paralegal roles and not getting a TC I chucked it in, sold my soul and became a recruiter! Lovely to see you’ve made a good career for yourself ?
 
Locotoro

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,448
14,196
BringBack_leGin said:
After 5 years of bouncing between paralegal roles and not getting a TC I chucked it in, sold my soul and became a recruiter! Lovely to see you’ve made a good career for yourself ?
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're not in legal recruitment and you're not the famous Johnny Pearl.

If you know that name then you know too much already! :cautious:
 
Amo

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,799
31,490
Locotoro said:
Didn't go out of my way. It's pretty clear but just for your benefit the definitions from Meriam Webster online dictionary:

Definition of proof
1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Definition of evidence
1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

He's the explanation from DifferenceBetween.com:

"Proof and evidence are two words that have very similar meanings and are used almost interchangeably as such by common people. In fact, if one tries to look up in a dictionary, he finds that the two words are seen being used to explain the meaning of the other. Evidence is a word that is used more in legal connections as well as in science. On the other hand, proof is a word used more commonly in math and in daily lives. Any fact that helps in corroborating a statement or justifying it is called a proof. An available fact to help a jury to reach a consensus is referred to as evidence. If these definitions do nothing to clear your doubts, read on as this article takes a closer look at the two concepts of proof and evidence."

So dear friend, rather than attempting to deflect my post as some pitiful example of laziness or, worst still, stupidity, why don't you try and explain to us all what the difference between Evidence and Proof is?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the last two days have been of the few I haven't been in the mood for a good old Amo argument. Thus, I've been dropping debates after a post or so instead of responding to stuff and prolonging arguments.

And I really can't be bothered to commit a long post towards rebutting one that spends half its word count committing the argument from authority fallacy only to then cite "differencebetween" as the source of his insight. In any case, the proof-evidence dichotomy within the context of legal studies is completely irrelevant to the journalistic context. So even there your claims towards authority are void.

Nonetheless, a quickie for you as my last contribution to this discussion:

"they offer up actual, tangible proof of what they claim. That’s how evidence works."

The context of the usage of those two words is important. The challenge made towards writers of reportage (which is evidence, however strong or weak) to offer "actual, tangible proof" is one that can't ever be met. It's a tautology.

"Tangible proof" is certainty. It is the fact of the matter. Evidence is what points towards that certainty.

Ali G's YouTube blog in which he states Spurs might have signed Gattuso if it weren't for backlash isn't proof. It is evidence. It may be weak evidence. It may be strong evidence. It doesn't prove we were in talks with Gattuso. It cannot prove we were in talks with Gattuso. If that's the challenge you set journalists in their line of work then not a single journalist would ever work again. Ever.

Because there's a difference between proof and evidence. There's no proof that Boris Johnson diverted state funds towards his party's donor illegally. Not yet, anyway. But there's plenty of evidence towards it. That's how evidence works.

We cannot prove Spurs were in contact with Gattuso. Ali G cannot provide "tangible proof" that we held talks with Gattuso. But the dismissal of evidence towards Spurs having talks with Gattuso must be challenged because we have an overwhelming supply of such evidence.

You're welcome to dismiss any evidence you choose. Not just for football, but for anything we cannot prove with 100% certainty (or beyond all doubt if you will). One example from beyond football: I'm not going to pretend to respect those who dismiss evidence towards climate change despite not being able to prove it.

I do regret replying at all tbh. You weren't writing in good faith and your comment about reporters claiming we're signing the tea lady as manager was "proof" that you're arguing from a place of bitterness and bad faith. You're welcome to dismiss evidence in the form of a highly-respected BBC reporter's article. But expecting him to prove his claims is not reasonable nor proportionate.

That's the difference between proof and evidence I the context of this particular discussion.
 
Locotoro

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,448
14,196
Amo said:
Unfortunately the last two days have been of the few I haven't been in the mood for a good old Amo argument. Thus, I've been dropping debates after a post or so instead of responding to stuff and prolonging arguments.

And I really can't be bothered to commit a long post towards rebutting one that spends half its word count committing the argument from authority fallacy only to then cite "differencebetween" as the source of his insight. In any case, the proof-evidence dichotomy within the context of legal studies is completely irrelevant to the journalistic context. So even there your claims towards authority are void.

Nonetheless, a quickie for you as my last contribution to this discussion:

"they offer up actual, tangible proof of what they claim. That’s how evidence works."

The context of the usage of those two words is important. The challenge made towards writers of reportage (which is evidence, however strong or weak) to offer "actual, tangible proof" is one that can't ever be met. It's a tautology.

"Tangible proof" is certainty. It is the fact of the matter. Evidence is what points towards that certainty.

Ali G's YouTube blog in which he states Spurs might have signed Gattuso if it weren't for backlash isn't proof. It is evidence. It may be weak evidence. It may be strong evidence. It doesn't prove we were in talks with Gattuso. It cannot prove we were in talks with Gattuso. If that's the challenge you set journalists in their line of work then not a single journalist would ever work again. Ever.

Because there's a difference between proof and evidence. There's no proof that Boris Johnson diverted state funds towards his party's donor illegally. Not yet, anyway. But there's plenty of evidence towards it. That's how evidence works.

We cannot prove Spurs were in contact with Gattuso. Ali G cannot provide "tangible proof" that we held talks with Gattuso. But the dismissal of evidence towards Spurs having talks with Gattuso must be challenged because we have an overwhelming supply of such evidence.

You're welcome to dismiss any evidence you choose. Not just for football, but for anything we cannot prove with 100% certainty (or beyond all doubt if you will). One example from beyond football: I'm not going to pretend to respect those who dismiss evidence towards climate change despite not being able to prove it.

I do regret replying at all tbh. You weren't writing in good faith and your comment about reporters claiming we're signing the tea lady as manager was "proof" that you're arguing from a place of bitterness and bad faith. You're welcome to dismiss evidence in the form of a highly-respected BBC reporter's article. But expecting him to prove his claims is not reasonable nor proportionate.

That's the difference between proof and evidence I the context of this particular discussion.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but no.

You make a lot of assumptions about the intent in my post, the context I was using the two terms and the source I was "relying" on.

Your assertions and explanations are actually incorrect. The only thing you've managed to prove me wrong in is my previously held belief that you were a polite and respectful poster but I was clearly wrong.

With that in mind, I'm happy to know that whilst you already said you won't be replying, I'll close the discussion by saying, for all the rhetoric you've posted above, most of which is irrelevant to me and what I stated, you are very wrong.

Good talking.(y)
 
Last edited:
G

Grey Fox

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2008
5,134
31,094
Amo said:
Unfortunately the last two days have been of the few I haven't been in the mood for a good old Amo argument. Thus, I've been dropping debates after a post or so instead of responding to stuff and prolonging arguments.

And I really can't be bothered to commit a long post towards rebutting one that spends half its word count committing the argument from authority fallacy only to then cite "differencebetween" as the source of his insight. In any case, the proof-evidence dichotomy within the context of legal studies is completely irrelevant to the journalistic context. So even there your claims towards authority are void.

Nonetheless, a quickie for you as my last contribution to this discussion:

"they offer up actual, tangible proof of what they claim. That’s how evidence works."

The context of the usage of those two words is important. The challenge made towards writers of reportage (which is evidence, however strong or weak) to offer "actual, tangible proof" is one that can't ever be met. It's a tautology.

"Tangible proof" is certainty. It is the fact of the matter. Evidence is what points towards that certainty.

Ali G's YouTube blog in which he states Spurs might have signed Gattuso if it weren't for backlash isn't proof. It is evidence. It may be weak evidence. It may be strong evidence. It doesn't prove we were in talks with Gattuso. It cannot prove we were in talks with Gattuso. If that's the challenge you set journalists in their line of work then not a single journalist would ever work again. Ever.

Because there's a difference between proof and evidence. There's no proof that Boris Johnson diverted state funds towards his party's donor illegally. Not yet, anyway. But there's plenty of evidence towards it. That's how evidence works.

We cannot prove Spurs were in contact with Gattuso. Ali G cannot provide "tangible proof" that we held talks with Gattuso. But the dismissal of evidence towards Spurs having talks with Gattuso must be challenged because we have an overwhelming supply of such evidence.

You're welcome to dismiss any evidence you choose. Not just for football, but for anything we cannot prove with 100% certainty (or beyond all doubt if you will). One example from beyond football: I'm not going to pretend to respect those who dismiss evidence towards climate change despite not being able to prove it.

I do regret replying at all tbh. You weren't writing in good faith and your comment about reporters claiming we're signing the tea lady as manager was "proof" that you're arguing from a place of bitterness and bad faith. You're welcome to dismiss evidence in the form of a highly-respected BBC reporter's article. But expecting him to prove his claims is not reasonable nor proportionate.

That's the difference between proof and evidence I the context of this particular discussion.
Click to expand...

God help your Mrs if that was a quicky
 
spurnut

spurnut

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2006
1,037
336
easley91 said:
Wish I never came in here now..
Click to expand...
ed8.gif
 
BoringOldFan

BoringOldFan

It's better to burn out than to fade away...
Sep 20, 2005
9,955
2,498
Well Paratici doesn’t officially start with us until Thursday. Are there odds that he won’t be with us by then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Geez
Chief scout Gabbanini leaves with new sporting director due
Replies
2
Views
498
Cinemattis
Cinemattis
mawspurs
Sporting Director Search: Tim Steidten in the Frame
Replies
2
Views
596
Japhet
Japhet
mawspurs
Technical director Johan Lange confirms wonderkid transfer plan
Replies
0
Views
336
mawspurs
mawspurs
Top