OFFICIAL FAVRE SEXT SCANDAL ROCKS SPORTS WORLD

[woodbuck27]

Serious question. Does anyone here actually read Woodbuck's book length posts? Or do you scroll past them and continually be amazed by the length?

If you read my posts with an open mind you may find something that is positive and of decent sense man. I havn't lived as long as I have, experienced what I have, to come away without some merit in terms of wisdom and common sense.

I post with as much honesty and integrity as I can muster. I post in this thread with nothing but concern for my position of values and to promote future good will for Packerrats. To attempt to make a contribution that makes Packerrats a better NFL and Team fan site on the WWW.

I want Packerrats to be the best fan site that exists.

I do NOT beg you to agree with me.

Sincerely,

woodbuck27

[woodbuck27]

Serious question. Does anyone here actually read Woodbuck's book length posts? Or do you scroll past them and continually be amazed by the length?

I scroll.

That's your choice and as I respect. The same free will we all deserve.

Scroll away.

[woodbuck27]

Serious question. Does anyone here actually read Woodbuck's book length posts? Or do you scroll past them and continually be amazed by the length?

I just try to find a funny snippet, that I can take out of context. Then Woody answers it SERIOUSLY! That's Hi-larious! Woody is a Packerrats icon...

I'll inform you mraynrand of what I am here @ Packerrats. AMN that really cares that as a forum we operate as an example for all NFL and team fan forums.

Yes. My effforts make me happy in terms of the integrity and overall positive efforts. I do indeed attempt to contribute here. If posters here misjudge or or otherwise are confused by my efforts. That's something I must weigh in terms related to my personal values and that integrity.

I will always stick to that method of posting by far and overall.

[mraynrand]

Not many care when you do right and noone forgets when you do wrong.

Heh, Heh...there's some trooth there to that one, Mr. Woodybucky. Did I mention ta y'all that I'm tryin' evrything I knows ta get y'all them texcuts extended? Read ma book, I heven't red it yet maself, but I betcha Bert Ferver is in there some too.

[mraynrand]

Serious question. Does anyone here actually read Woodbuck's book length posts? Or do you scroll past them and continually be amazed by the length?

I just try to find a funny snippet, that I can take out of context. Then Woody answers it SERIOUSLY! That's Hi-larious! Woody is a Packerrats icon...

I'll inform you mraynrand of what I am here @ Packerrats. AMN that really cares that as a forum we operate as an example for all NFL and team fan forums.

Yes. My effforts make me happy in terms of the integrity and overall positive efforts. I do indeed attempt to contribute here. If posters here misjudge or or otherwise are confused by my efforts. That's something I must weigh in terms related to my personal values and that integrity.

I will always stick to that method of posting by far and overall.

You're a good AMN, woodbuck

[HowardRoark]

I was resisting weighing in on this thread.

I'm going to leave it here for a while, however, get the discussion back to the topic.

I don't really think discussions about morals, intentions, and other posters is the purpose of the thread. I'm trying to leave it here, because it is news, and it is football news.

But, let's be less personal about it, on all sides.

Woody, you aren't going to convince anyone of your viewpoint at this point. Further, the rest of you aren't going to convince woody of anything either. Find a way to agree to disagree without being personally attacking.

" Woody, you aren't going to convince anyone of your viewpoint at this point." Administrator

Yes. It's now clear to me that your correct. I may have argued 'a losing battle' from the start. What follows may or may not have been a factor in regards to my efforts that were sincere and certainly offered with gusto.

Woody, you aren't going to convince anyone of your viewpoint at this point. Further

" Find a way to agree to disagree without being personally attacking " Administrator

That is one part, the bigger part of the agenda I'm focused on. That a common sense approach promotes harmony here at Packerrats.

My mission wasn't meant ultimately, to attack anyone in terms of threat, or otherwiser entreat punishment, to any poster as an outcome, personal to me.

Sometimes emotions run amuck. The agenda's ' that inspire certain posters here at Packerrats that admit their dislike for another is disappointing, Yet a reality.

Why is this disappointing to me?

** How many here at Packerrats really know the other poster's

or

** How many 'really know', who the disliked poster is?

I observe posters here lining up to discredit, insult, humiliate, bully,and name call some individual poster (s). Often and at particular times directly related to a specific issue. A poster 'the popular one', and for whatever reason ' often the attacker ' is aligned with 'a group of posters. A ' ganging on ' attitude and agenda takes hold. Centered in a certain emotion or not.

Centered in a certain emotion of dislike and worse hate takes away from the spirit of debate that is to be more in terms of a discussion approach; and in time, harvest a position between posters or debators and in terms of group debate then position of 'the group or membership at Packerrats.

Please, simply read this as it follows, with an open mind and do not perceive it as a personal attack on one soul here. He or she doesn't like this or that poster. Worse this or that poster admits to being capable of hate or hatred.

Sometimes, an attacked poster will persevere, inspite of any levity of an attack by any number of members and defend a position with vigor. This calls upon a certain phenomenon or group response that forgoes objective debate or reasoning and turns instead to defending the insider no matter how aggressive and 'in truth' wrong the aggressor or attacker may certainly be.

Thus 'the Forum 'as a whole fails in compromised debate, to arrive at a more accurate outcome. Susequent to that, 'the clique', finds ways and means; an agenda to isolate and reject the disfavoured poster. This may not even be a conscious effort, agenda or focus/goal of ' the insider clique '. As that focus may be initiated and aggressively acted out by ' the disliker ' or ' hater '.

He/she leaves our small society, Packerrats and OUR membership continues to exist with the status quo and the same clique running it's ' closed minded ' agendas.

Agenda's ... Right or Wrong.

Onlookers or non members that may enter Packerrat5s to take a look around and see and feel the style of Packerrats. Observe this process and may? become intimidated. If so? and thus decide against and fail to join as a potential contributing member, or simply join OUR membership and post in a manner that's plainly aggressive and may or not find favor with the 'in group or ** clique'. As members pf Packerrats it's up to every poster to promote good will at Packerrats as a decent respect for a return on the membership.

It's a privalege to post here at Packerrats. It's not a battle ground or a place to settle old or newer accounts primarily based in terms related to any person's ego or sensitivities or paranoia or need to showboat, control or manipulate.

What drives your needs to post at Packerrats. Do you have issues that run amuck of the specific questions asked in the threads?

** The clique ( re-call thst from High School days), is a group of posters that may harbour their own favor, by not often or never, monitoring Packerrats to ensure fair play for all posters. Thus defeat what we all need to aspire to. Overall good will and harmony to attract new and positive minde and significant positively contributing members.

Aggressive, attacking or flaming posts must never be tolerated, much more, become the custom at Packerrats.

I want to write about some posters referring to a dislike for other posters. Is disliking someone a milder form (or a self defensive choice of a word) to cover up hating someone?

I don't know. I'm not sure??

Often a person's dislike for another is out of some fear or need to control or manipulate another; to seek alignment in terms of agreement. Sometimes posters just want to bust a posters ASS. Those attacks are too obvious.

We're 'the post police' here arn't we?

That often fails after an altercation that adds to seperation. The best result reached in this case is;
For the two posters to compromise ' in time ' or act mannerly. Often two posters must accept that there exists a strong seperation in terms of values, ideas, positions, viewpoints (or personality) and simply stop posting one another.

This one gives me further pause and creates a more magnified problem:
We have posters here at Packerrats that admit to aspiring to HATE. To 'be hateful ' or 'a hater' or 'to hate'. My position is 'that emotion' or HATE is one that is dangerous, in terms of destrution.

If any poster here at Packerrats knows history ( Google ), and even goes back over the past century . You must be aware of what such a strong and negative emotion such as hate leads to. I won't give you a history lesson here.

I must as the person I am. Oppose only one thing. HATERS I cannot aspire to do that and succeed if the membership as a whole disagrees with me and imagines that 'Haters", are what we should all aspire to be.

Hate the action and not the person accused or guilty of that action. Hate informs me of unfair or prejudice in terms of weighing guilt and judgement. Hate inspires unfarness in terms of subjective reasoning and decision making. It detracts from one being objective and therefore competent in looking morew closely at matters or issues.

My position is that to hate is wrong/destructive and an unwanted emotion in our Packer home. When ' the clique ' is drawn together and inspired by HATE. We should clearly see the course and discredit those with such emotion. Haters are hardly objective in terms of fairplay and assessing issues that require more fair minded and more emotionally balanced posters.

Going back to the top and the ultimate or expected manner (s)
all posters at Packerrats need to adopt fully and ' remain true to, ' or not accepting is:

" Find a way to agree to disagree without being personally attacking " by adopting decent manners and respect for all members at Packerrats, by adopting a personal monitoring policy of being assertive in debate, but never aggressive in terms of poor manners and choice of the written word.

Think about any possible consequence in terms of personal damage or insult to the member your posting.

This should be considered as 'only my presentation' towords any personal code of conduct towords promoting. ' good and decent will and harmony ' at Packerrats.

My name is Ed. woodbuck27

Cliffnotes please.

[Tarlam!]

Woody is now lecturing the owner. There is no doubt in my mind he means well, but it is audacious of him non-the-less.

What are cliffnotes?

[mission]

tl;dr

there is no problem at packerrats. we get along better than any other board i frequent or have been on in the past.

some argument between everyone vs woody should not be mistaken as there actually being a problem here.

it's called the 'Law of Bob': when Bob has a problem with everyone, the problem is usually Bob.

Substitute whatever name you'd like for 'Bob'.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2010/10/12/2010-10-12_tv_hostess_could_opt_for_brett_hush_money.html

Jenn Sterger could take money from Brett Favre to keep quiet, attorney Gloria Allred says

BY Michael O'Keeffe
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER


The sexy TV personality who allegedly received X-rated crotch shots from Brett Favre is under no obligation to talk to NFL investigators - and, according to attorney Gloria Allred, she could even agree to a deal with the legendary quarterback to keep her mouth shut.

Attorneys who believe their clients have legitimate harassment complaints can negotiate settlements that include confidentiality clauses, Allred told the Daily News Monday.

"Parties often agree to confidential settlements rather than have one party pursue litigation," said Allred, who represented Tiger Woods' mistresses Rachel Uchitel, who is reported to have received a settlement from Woods prior to canceling a news conference, and porn actress Joslyn James. "If there's no legal merit to the claim, that's a different situation."

Sterger has not ruled out cooperating with the NFL's probe but she has also not yet agreed to talk to the league's investigators, according to a source familiar with the NFL inquiry. Sterger's manager, Phil Reese, declined comment Monday when asked if she has retained counsel.

"We're looking at all our options right now and our only concern is what's in Jenn's best interest," Reese said in an email to the News.

Unlike prosecutors, NFL investigators cannot issue subpoenas requiring Sterger to talk about the photos and voicemails Favre allegedly sent in a clumsy attempt to woo Sterger, who is now a host of "The Daily Line" on Versus.

"She has no legal duty to speak to the NFL," Allred said. "The only way you can compel somebody to answer questions is with a subpoena."

A.J. Daulerio, the Deadspin editor who posted on his website what he says are pictures of Favre's private parts last week, says he's heard from Sterger's friends that the former Jets game-day hostess has been getting pressure to not speak to the NFL gumshoes.

"She doesn't want to be known as the person who ruined the public perception of this guy," said Daulerio, who has not spoken directly with Sterger.

Deadspin posted three pictures of private parts it says the Minnesota Vikings quarterback sent to Sterger in 2008, when Favre was with the Jets and Sterger was the game-day hostess.

Daulerio also posted voicemails he says that Favre, a 41-year-old grandfather, left on Sterger's phone in a attempt to hook up with the 26-year-old model, actress and TV host.

Two other women - massage therapists who also worked for the Jets in 2008 - have said Favre sent them unwelcome texts, phone calls and emails.

Daulerio said Sterger did not supply the photos and voicemails. The website purchased them from a third party he refused to identify.

There isn't a thing in the above article that isn't open ended in terms related to 'the possible' key witness, Jenn Sterger and will she or won't she contribute testimony or cooperate with the NFL committee appointed to investigate to date.

Clear and ' absolutely unchallengeable ' evidence, that finds that Brett Favre is without a doubt, the man in the the video and voice mails. Just..may, cause the NFL to impose penalty on Brett Favre.

All that remains to be seen, and as of this moment nothing I'm aware of to this point in time, can determine his guilt.

There's feedback I received from one poster here @ Packerrats, based on a post yesterday to that poster. That provides me with an opinion of his valued analysis that I do trust inn terms of a weight of guilt factor and ...that ... concerns me Re: Favre's guilt.

Another poster here, backs up that first poster, and that adds legitimate weight, for my concern. I am concerned for Brettt Favre and surely for how this has already and may moreso affect his marriage.

I pray the Favre and Deanna Favre stay united and strong. It's just that. In their vows. For better or worse I pray that they will find 'the way and strength' to remain loving and married. Otherwise, I have 'no right ' to offer opinion or otherwise.

With due respect Packerats. Brett Favre has not been deemed guilty by the NFL. Officially and at this tine and to my knowledge based on all I know. I personally HOLD my stance. That Brett Favre is innocent. I don't expect that anyone At Packerrats will agree. We're on opposite sides of a fence. That's OK.

Free Will.

Today in terms of my values and common sense . Brett Favre is OK and I pray for him to have integrity and deal with this, as is best. It's not again my business, so I cannot offer any further comment on what Favre might do depended on circumstances.

There is a hint, in that last sentence that suggests what I might advise, depended on the actual circumstances, if he asked me to be his advisor. That is not likely so therfore ...moot.

[mission]

Brett Favre is innocent of what? Or innocent like what?

Like a 3 year old child is innocent? What do you mean by innocent?

[Tarlam!]

Brett Favre is innocent of what? Or innocent like what?

Like a 3 year old child is innocent? What do you mean by innocent?

People that disbelieve the accusations that are being levied against their idol will continue with the "innocent until proven guilty" line. Since hush money is IMO a likelihood, he will only get judgement in the court of public opinion.

So the Favre defenders will, sooner or later, offer this as evidence of his innocence. As it stands, they don't even have a denial from their demi-god, the team has a teary apology for "the distraction", and still the defense stays the course.

Mind boggling.

I remeber bringing the same "innocent until proven guilty" line when the Vick shit hit the fan, Scott Campbell ripped me a new one.

[HowardRoark]

Woody is now lecturing the owner. There is no doubt in my mind he means well, but it is audacious of him non-the-less.

What are cliffnotes?

Cliffs (ehemals Cliffs Notes, die ursprünglich Cliff's Notes und oft fälschlicherweise, CliffNotes) sind eine Reihe von Studenten Studie Führer zur Verfügung allem in den Vereinigten Staaten. Die Führungen vorzustellen und zu erläutern literarischen und anderen Werken in Form von Flugblättern oder online. Kritiker der Studie Führer behaupten, sie lassen Studenten Bypass Lesen der Literatur zugeordnet. Im Gegensatz dazu behauptet das Unternehmen, das Lesen des Originals zu fördern, und nicht den Blick Studienführer als Ersatz für die Lesung.

Cliffs wurde von einem einheimischen Nebraska benannt Cliff Hillegass im Jahr 1958 begonnen. Er wurde in Nebraska Book Co. of Lincoln, Nebraska, wenn er Jack Cole, der Mitinhaber von Coles, ein Buch Toronto Geschäft traf arbeiten. Coles war auch der Herausgeber einer Reihe von kanadischen Studie Führer genannt Coles Notes. Jack Cole boten die amerikanischen Rechte an Hillegass.

Hillegass und seine Frau Catherine, begann das Geschäft in ihrem Keller bei 511 Eastridge Drive, mit sechzehn William Shakespeare Titel. Cliffs, gibt es heute in Hunderten von Werken. Der Begriff Cliffs hat nun in modernen Sprachgebrauch kommen, wie ein Substantiv für Notizen ähnlicher Art auf den ursprünglichen CliffsNotes Bücher.

[sharpe1027]

People have been convicted and sent to jail on far less evidence, and we aren't even talking about him being criminally guilty. We're just saying "hey, look at A, B, and C, it seems pretty obvious that he did it." Is it possible that he didn't, I suppose. It is also possible that NASA never landed on the moon, but looking at all the evidence, I'd say its pretty likely that they did.

[woodbuck27]

Brett Favre is innocent of what? Or innocent like what?

Like a 3 year old child is innocent? What do you mean by innocent?

Are you following this story? Are you fully aware of all the facts and details available to you as you may choose or not to investigate them for yourself; do so of your own free will or not?

Maybe you don't have a dictionary?

Webster's Concise Family Dictionary:

Innocent 1. free from guilt or sin; BLAMELESS
3. : free from legal guilt or fault: LAWFUL

[woodbuck27]

I cannot judge Scott Campbell nor Tarlam! as I'm again not eligible.

Well, in this post alone you pass judgement on quite a few occasions,

Tarlam!

Unless your suffering some senseless paranoia my advice is for you to try your best to relax.