This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I wouldn't no matter who it was given recent events with him...Tiger...and how many other athletes that seem to have a problem keeping it in their pants.But keep thinking its just about being a Packer fan...put your head in the sand to what went on early in his career if you want. All in the name of defending all that is Brett.
Good god, why are you bring this up again?!!!And, WTF are you talking about?I never said that Goodell said buying the drinks was the only thing he did wrong. (Try to find where I posted that, please) What I said was that in his letter where he suspended Ben, the only thing he specifically mentioned as a "wrong act" (my phrase, not his) was the purchase of drinks for minors. I've asked you SEVERAL TIMES to show me where anything else was specifically mentioned, and you keep back-tracking and avoiding that question, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. This is the reason that is significant.Now, let's just try to think for a minute. If he (Goodell) knew (as you implied by saying "we don't know what Ben said to Goodell, or what other information he has") that Ben HAD forced the girl to have sex, or merely had consensual sex in a public place, don't you think he would have referenced that? Since he didn't, it's logical to conclude that there is no "proof" that that happened.Does that mean it didn't happen? No-but there's a HUGE difference between believing something happened, and it actually happening. A man (or women, or child for that matter) shouldn't be punished merely because people BELIEVE something bad happened.Now, please, either provide SOME semblance of support for your flimsy, weak argument, or LET IT GO, already!Never said Goodell specified anything in particular.. You're the one saying that... You said Goodell said (or maybe implied) that buying the drinks for the under-aged girl was the only thing Ben did wrong. Goodell never said it was the only thing Ben did wrong.. You tried constructing that "fact" based on conclusions you drew on your own...actually growing quite tired of your semantics though, so go ahead and construct your next 'point/counter point' post and move along.. The thread hijack (that I spurred I know) should have ended several posts ago.. Your enthusiasm can most likely be better appreciated on the thread topic..
You're the one that can't seem to let it go, you construct arguing points and conclusions out of mere air... That post was 5 days old... Grow up and move on..Setting your profile on ignore by the way... enjoy the rest of the season..Good god, why are you bring this up again?!!!And, WTF are you talking about?I never said that Goodell said buying the drinks was the only thing he did wrong. (Try to find where I posted that, please) What I said was that in his letter where he suspended Ben, the only thing he specifically mentioned as a "wrong act" (my phrase, not his) was the purchase of drinks for minors. I've asked you SEVERAL TIMES to show me where anything else was specifically mentioned, and you keep back-tracking and avoiding that question, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. This is the reason that is significant.Now, let's just try to think for a minute. If he (Goodell) knew (as you implied by saying "we don't know what Ben said to Goodell, or what other information he has") that Ben HAD forced the girl to have sex, or merely had consensual sex in a public place, don't you think he would have referenced that? Since he didn't, it's logical to conclude that there is no "proof" that that happened.Does that mean it didn't happen? No-but there's a HUGE difference between believing something happened, and it actually happening. A man (or women, or child for that matter) shouldn't be punished merely because people BELIEVE something bad happened.Now, please, either provide SOME semblance of support for your flimsy, weak argument, or LET IT GO, already!Never said Goodell specified anything in particular.. You're the one saying that... You said Goodell said (or maybe implied) that buying the drinks for the under-aged girl was the only thing Ben did wrong. Goodell never said it was the only thing Ben did wrong.. You tried constructing that "fact" based on conclusions you drew on your own...
Well thanks for that, hopefully I won't be dragged back into reading any more of your "insightful"You're the one that can't seem to let it go, you construct arguing points and conclusions out of mere air... That post was 5 days old... Grow up and move on..Good god, why are you bring this up again?!!!And, WTF are you talking about?Never said Goodell specified anything in particular.. You're the one saying that... You said Goodell said (or maybe implied) that buying the drinks for the under-aged girl was the only thing Ben did wrong. Goodell never said it was the only thing Ben did wrong.. You tried constructing that "fact" based on conclusions you drew on your own...
actually growing quite tired of your semantics though, so go ahead and construct your next 'point/counter point' post and move along.. The thread hijack (that I spurred I know) should have ended several posts ago.. Your enthusiasm can most likely be better appreciated on the thread topic..
I never said that Goodell said buying the drinks was the only thing he did wrong. (Try to find where I posted that, please) What I said was that in his letter where he suspended Ben, the only thing he specifically mentioned as a "wrong act" (my phrase, not his) was the purchase of drinks for minors. I've asked you SEVERAL TIMES to show me where anything else was specifically mentioned, and you keep back-tracking and avoiding that question, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
This is the reason that is significant.
Now, let's just try to think for a minute. If he (Goodell) knew (as you implied by saying "we don't know what Ben said to Goodell, or what other information he has") that Ben HAD forced the girl to have sex, or merely had consensual sex in a public place, don't you think he would have referenced that? Since he didn't, it's logical to conclude that there is no "proof" that that happened.
Does that mean it didn't happen? No-but there's a HUGE difference between believing something happened, and it actually happening. A man (or women, or child for that matter) shouldn't be punished merely because people BELIEVE something bad happened.
Now, please, either provide SOME semblance of support for your flimsy, weak argument, or LET IT GO, already!
Setting your profile on ignore by the way... enjoy the rest of the season..
posts.BTW-I'm pulling "conclusions out of mere air," yet you posted several times that Goodell "must know more than we do" and
Is that a real quote or is that a funny? If real, where did it come from?
Come on it is a joke of coarse. Get it "intercepted"
You're right. It's dead in the water if she says nothing.I assume the hush money has already been paid, and she'll continue to say nothing.
Exactly. I do this on almost a daily basis.Who hasn't at one time or another texted or emailed pictures of their junk?
Text? No. But I did fax and I don't suggest it to anyone!
Deanna is on Good Morning America on Thursday morning. I imagine the subject will be avoided. She is being interviewed by Robin Roberts, a family friend.
I wish my fellow vikings fans wouldn't treat all Packer fans the same. Like all fans, there are some ##### bags but also some reasonable people. In my experience here, Sho Nuff is reasonable.I disagree that this is or should be a public issue; it's between the Favres. I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that what may have happened was unwanted or hostile. I have seen a couple of things that lead me to believe Jenn may have led him on. And I can think of a few million reasons why she might have. But harassment? Nah. I don't think so. And so, it's really a marital issue and we should all keep our big noses out of other people's bed rooms.
I am really curious as to why a guy would think that sending a photo of their thing is going to get a woman to have sex with them. I would be insulted!A: doesn't matter if he is a first time offender ... this falls under the statute of workplace harassment and if it is him will be punished whether Peter King thinks it should be or not.B: I would text pics of my dong to Jenn Sterger if I had her number as well
Check your phoneabricru said:I am really curious as to why a guy would think that sending a photo of their thing is going to get a woman to have sex with them. I would be insulted!A: doesn't matter if he is a first time offender ... this falls under the statute of workplace harassment and if it is him will be punished whether Peter King thinks it should be or not.B: I would text pics of my dong to Jenn Sterger if I had her number as well
Who hasn't at one time or another texted or emailed pictures of their junk?
