Packer Player Under Investigation In Sexual Assault

[MJZiggy]

Yeah, fucking around on the mother of your children and commitment of your life is just fine.

Before my wife and I were married, I wonder how she might have felt?


As far as I'm concerned the commitment means more than the paper and Favre was committed when he was doing that to his lover and mother of his children.

No, your g/f should have left you like Deanna should or could have left Brett. Why is this so hard for you to understand. I don't believe he was committed until she forced him to be. The baby was not exactly planned. She wasn't a statement of commitment and if you think otherwise, you need to reread her book as Brett didn't stick around after she was born. He went off to college and left them behind. He didn't marry Deanna when the baby showed up. Why do you think that might be?

They weren't married which makes it different. Much easier for her to just dump you and walk away when you aren't married, but after you've stood in a church in front of your families and all your friends and declared in front of whomever you worship that you'd NEVER do that it becomes a bit of a different story. You're not just her boyfriend now who she'd be pissed at. You're her husband and it sort of trashed her whole idea of what her life is about. The one who made that promise in front of everyone has now violated her trust and brought another woman into her sacred union. That's not the same as being pissed at your boyfriend.

[RashanGary]

Whatever you say, oh holy one

[falco]

3) Even if you are pregnant or have a newborn at home you still have to find ways of meeting your husbands needs.

hee hee this thread is awesome. keep it coming my friend.

[Joemailman]

3) Even if you are pregnant or have a newborn at home you still have to find ways of meeting your husbands needs.

Yep.

[CaliforniaCheez]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJntBTx_KKs&feature=related

[vince]

Cheez this is dumb. I assumed you know the meaning of the word slander and/or were using the word consistent with it's meaning.

Notwithstanding the fact that slander covers oral communication and libel the written, there is a requirement that there be a statement of fact (not opinion) and further that the statement be provably false at the time it was made. not just critical. In other words, they have to knowingly lie (or it must be demonstrated that they should have known the factual statement was a lie) about that person or group.

I'll give you the couple sarcastic jokes not intended as factual about Bush just for the hell of it. Not one of the many items you listed qualifies as slander. Many of them are critical. Many of them are opinions. None of them are slander. in fact the majority of them although critical, are demonstrably accurate - not that I care enough to take the time to demonstrate them all. A bunch of them aren't even statements. Others are listed completely out of context and/or have had portions deleted so as to suggest a statement that wasn't made.

[vince]

Vince, you went on and on about how Matthews not defending Underwood was fishy. You sited the dumb-ass JS piece saying Underwood had a "problem" since coming out. When someone said Matthews might have been jsut pissed that hsi charity was undermined by this, you brought up how fishy it is that Matthews didn't defend his teammate.

You were on the exact opposite end of me. I said the whole thing seemed fishy but maybe he did do it. You kept talking about how fishy Underwood was, but were open to him not doing it.

Maybe you didn't go out and start a lynch mob, the same way I didn't call those girls whores until I found out they were whores, but you were clearly leaning toward Underwood doing it. That's how I read it anyway.

I know you listen to all of hte Packer interviews. The list you had in the beginning of this thread was spot on (except I would have taken Colledge out of it), but you ended up running with a lot of JS pimped drama that many of us know can't be trusted.

I understand that you read what I said that way, JH. Let me try to clarify once more.

I didn't have a conclusion about Underwood's guilt or innocence until it came out that the girls were prostitutes. At that point, as you said, the dots connected together pretty well, at least in my (and yours and others) opinion.

That said, one of the first reactions (back on page 1 of the other thread) I had when this came out was that the charges seemed highly questionable. Throughout the time, there wasn't enough information in my mind to conclude anything with certainty, nor was there enough to substantively change that initial response. Your reading that I thought he was guilty was not accurate. I certainly considered the possibility however which is reasonable of anyone not in denial of a specific conclusion.

I noted that it's possible that an assault could have happened, particularly if a lot of alcolhol was involved. If the girls had passed out, and then sexual advances occur, that's assault as I understand it. That was possible based on the information available at that time, but that didn't change my feeling - like yours - that assault seemed unlikely. I absolutely agreed with the gist of what you said in that regard, although I tend to let posts that I agree with and don't have a lot to add to stand for themselves.

Regarding Matthews, I said his comments were "condemning," and they were in my opinion. I didn't think they meant Underwood was guilty of assault and I said as much.

The point I'm trying to make, which I feel I've beaten to death trying to clarify is that Matthews - like Sitton - very likely knew what happened, yet he did nothing to suggest that the accusations were anything but true. Given the damage that such accusations have on an athlete's image, that's pretty noteworthy. That was and is my opinion about Matthews' statements, not Underwood's actions.

People challenged that with reasons why he might not step up for Underwood. I understand and agree with all those reasons. I was clarifying what I thought about what he said and didn't say, and what and how he might have said something different if he knew Underwood is innocent of the accusations - which I don't think there is any question he did.

I said it then and I'll say it again. Matthews could have IMO separated himself from the incident as he did AND let the public know the charges were bogus - just like Sitton did. I said he somewhat threw Underwood under the bus (with my belief that the accusations were questionable) and that was challenged. I tried to clarify. Hopefully, Sitton's (better IMO)comments and approach illustrate that.

[vince]

Regarding the JSO pimped drama, I have been very critical of certain reporters at JSO on numerous occassions when I thought they tried to manufacture drama. This case didn't need any pimping. It was built in. I have to say that I thought they were very responsible in reporting on these issues, respecting the need to source and research any and all claims, while at the same time thoroughly serving the public's right/demand to know. Given the accusations, and even the events as they actually occurred, citing multiple team members' comments about Underwood being a problem is highly relevant. Hardly bullshit drama pimping.

Unlike other articles that include uninformed opinions, subjective hand-picked facts, shotty reporting and incompetent interviews, they were very careful in this case to explicitly source their information - and explicitly state that as well. While they provided comprehensive coverage, they didn't report on the results of their investigations until their information was appropriately verified.

They haven't always done that for sure, but to their credit, I thought they did that here.

[Tarlam!]

I don't believe he was committed until she forced him to be. The baby was not exactly planned. She wasn't a statement of commitment and if you think otherwise, you need to reread her book as Brett didn't stick around after she was born. He went off to college and left them behind. He didn't marry Deanna when the baby showed up. Why do you think that might be?

They weren't married which makes it different. Much easier for her to just dump you and walk away when you aren't married, but after you've stood in a church in front of your families and all your friends and declared in front of whomever you worship that you'd NEVER do that it becomes a bit of a different story. You're not just her boyfriend now who she'd be pissed at. You're her husband and it sort of trashed her whole idea of what her life is about. The one who made that promise in front of everyone has now violated her trust and brought another woman into her sacred union. That's not the same as being pissed at your boyfriend.

Wow, Ziggy. I can't believe how far off this is. THEY WERE LIVING IN A DEFACTO MARRIAGE!! Otherwise, how could she have packed his bags and forced this issue? If he never intended on marrying her, why did he eventually do it? It would have been easier for him to dumpo her and the girl than vice versa. He had the financial means. He was king of the hill and could have gotten any number of non child rearing replacements from any NFL city he visited.

You'd be correct if she lived in a house next door, but they shared the same table and bed. B. Lorenzo cheated on his fiancé AND his baby girl. OFTEN. He was immature, drunk and disorderly in public. OFTEN! He risked his mid-long term income. OFTEN. You're giving him a pass, because they didn't exchange VOWS? Are you seriously making that case?

This has NOTHING to do with sexual assault, yet you tie that in here as to what you would certainly punish a QB for. Well, guess what, Underood is no more guilty of that than B. Lorenzo. I am astounded you would even bring that comparison up. The only true differences are that Underwood isn't a star and even if he cecomes one, he doesn't play QB. To validate the difference, ask yourself whom you'd prefer replacing in a crisis: Rodgers or Woodsen?

Secondly, B. Lorenzo wasn't suspected publicly of soliciting prostitution, but until the latter came up, Underwoods conduct was no more distasteful than that other guy's and while Underwood was being crucified on here, B. Lorenzo has been sainted.

That, ladies and gentlen, smacks of double standards to me.

[GrnBay007]

I don't believe he was committed until she forced him to be. The baby was not exactly planned. She wasn't a statement of commitment and if you think otherwise, you need to reread her book as Brett didn't stick around after she was born. He went off to college and left them behind. He didn't marry Deanna when the baby showed up. Why do you think that might be?

They weren't married which makes it different. Much easier for her to just dump you and walk away when you aren't married, but after you've stood in a church in front of your families and all your friends and declared in front of whomever you worship that you'd NEVER do that it becomes a bit of a different story. You're not just her boyfriend now who she'd be pissed at. You're her husband and it sort of trashed her whole idea of what her life is about. The one who made that promise in front of everyone has now violated her trust and brought another woman into her sacred union. That's not the same as being pissed at your boyfriend.

Wow, Ziggy. I can't believe how far off this is. THEY WERE LIVING IN A DEFACTO MARRIAGE!! Otherwise, how could she have packed his bags and forced this issue? If he never intended on marrying her, why did he eventually do it? It would have been easier for him to dumpo her and the girl than vice versa. He had the financial means. He was king of the hill and could have gotten any number of non child rearing replacements from any NFL city he visited.

You'd be correct if she lived in a house next door, but they shared the same table and bed. B. Lorenzo cheated on his fiancé AND his baby girl. OFTEN. He was immature, drunk and disorderly in public. OFTEN! He risked his mid-long term income. OFTEN. You're giving him a pass, because they didn't exchange VOWS? Are you seriously making that case?

This has NOTHING to do with sexual assault, yet you tie that in here as to what you would certainly punish a QB for. Well, guess what, Underood is no more guilty of that than B. Lorenzo. I am astounded you would even bring that comparison up. The only true differences are that Underwood isn't a star and even if he cecomes one, he doesn't play QB. To validate the difference, ask yourself whom you'd prefer replacing in a crisis: Rodgers or Woodsen?

Secondly, B. Lorenzo wasn't suspected publicly of soliciting prostitution, but until the latter came up, Underwoods conduct was no more distasteful than that other guy's and while Underwood was being crucified on here, B. Lorenzo has been sainted.

That, ladies and gentlen, smacks of double standards to me.

It may smack of double standards now, but it sure didn't before he was in the purple. C'mon Tar........you've been around JSO and this board as long as me ...or almost. NOBODY dogged on BF's behavior when he was winning game for GB. This comparison is the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here!!!!!!

[Tarlam!]

NOBODY dogged on BF's behavior when he was winning game for GB. This comparison is the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here!!!!!!

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!! That is what I consider to be the double standard. That is why I believe the finger pointing at any player not named Brett Lorenzo Favre is so damned hypocritical.

I found BLF's wild days pleasantly entertaining. I am indifferent to Underwood, because he's not a super star, while others are highly critical. I am guilty of double standards as anybody in that case.

[pbmax]

Okay, Mr unobservant (Cheeze is referencing Vince here, not your friendly neighborhood pbmax). Just remember you are the one that demanded it and threw your fellow posters under the bus.
Fellow posters blame Vince for being thrown under the bus.

The Packers are no longer winning the offseason.

I completely stand by this assertion of jocularity.

And Underwood is a dope if he hired prostitutes or strippers. That was the major point of most posters. It just took a while to get there. Trust us Cheeze, we know we are full of gorgonzola.

[pbmax]

3) Even if you are pregnant or have a newborn at home you still have to find ways of meeting your husbands needs.

Yep.

I take it you're really hungry?

[RashanGary]

Whatever the case, Vince, all of your posts revolved around the possiblity of him doing it, not the possibility of him being innocent. Some people were on the opposite end.


And like you, I could have easily made a post when everything was done saying I was unsure. I was unsure, but I had a way I was leaning and I would have admittted it if I was wrong.

You can back away from the lean you had like it never happened. Maybe you're being honest with yourself, but I was here. You were eating up the, "Underwood has a "problem"" stuff from unnamed sources and the Matthews didn't defend him stuff. Then the evil looking picture on the JS site. . . The whole thing, the stuff they chose to report "he has a problem" but not going into any detail with what he has a problem with. The evil picture. . . It was just the media being the media and you were eating it up.

[RashanGary]

And yep, the Bert stuff is very hypocritical from most fans. Most fans love you if you're good, hate you if you're bad.

Robert Ferguson was a great guy by all accounts, a hard worker and a good example in the lockerroom. He was a bad player, so people personally hated him.

Bert was a bad example in the lockerroom, a drug addict, cheater on the mother of his children, generally disgusting dude, but he was good at football so women and men loved him.

If people havent' found out that fans are prone to believing what they want to believe over reality, sorry on them.