OFFICIAL FAVRE SEXT SCANDAL ROCKS SPORTS WORLD

[sheepshead]

I take issue with your "I'm morally superior to you" approach and your compulsion to impersonate John the Baptist proclaing THE TRUTH IS, speaking on behalf of all Packer Fans on this, our Packer home.

John the Baptist is a Packer fan? I did hear he lost his head over the 'Skins game....

Nice one, Rand. I apolgize for going off, but I am just sick of it. I know from reading other posts I'm not alone. I'll try and keep on topic as a courtesy the SC that started the thread. Can't guarantee it, though.

Tarlem, your posts are like that urine covered bum laying in the building entrance passed out as Chicago commuters walk by, one eye peering over and saying, thank God that's not me. I hope he isnt there when I head home tonight.

[vince]

As for his legacy, I really dont see how it will affect that very much either. As I have said, he didnt touch kids, rape someone, or beat his wife. He didnt even drive drunk. IMO his behavior if he did it has only harmed himself. Even to that extent probably more half than the NFL fan base (20+ yr old males) would have been acting all horny around that bitch too. I doubt the HOF voters (probably bunch of old perverts too) will hold it against him. He is akready known for having been a pill popper and alkie, really what is a little nastygram gonna tarnish?

If you consider going from one of the most popular and beloved athletes of all time to being seen as a joke of a human being ridiculed for his unending drama and self-absorption not being tarnished, then I'd say I agree with that.

[mmmdk]

To just clean up and stop their obsessions to ridicule and otherwise demean members of the forum that they choose to disrespect.

The only person I was ever hostile against was Sheepshead. I still am and probably always will be. Unless personally attacked, or force fed religeon on a fooball site, I'm cool. No, I lie. mmmk and I had words recently, but I think that's a Danish/German deal.

I'm good plus I stepped over a line with Tar that I wasn't aware of. Water under the bridge with me.

[Administrator]

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.

[CaptainKickass]

Ok - this made my reading the entire thread worthwhile:

"Woody Johnson broght Brett Perve to the Jets." AND "Sterger spelled backwards is REGRETS."

Thank you Vince.

[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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp_jEryyND8

[Gunakor]

Do you 100% find that that man's voice in that source of information or purported evidence. That on that video, that the man is 'in fact' Brett Favre. That your 100% positive that's Brett Favre speaking on that video?

Yes. Absolutely. Without ANY doubt, that's Brett Favre's voice. We've been hearing it for 20 years, you'd recognize Brett Favre's voice the same as you'd recognize your mothers voice. That's Brett. Absolutely no question about it.

[Tarlam!]

Yes. Absolutely. Without ANY doubt, that's Brett Favre's voice. We've been hearing it for 20 years, you'd recognize Brett Favre's voice the same as you'd recognize your mothers voice. That's Brett. Absolutely no question about it.

With technology that has existed for the last 35 years or more, it's so easy to prove whether it is or isn't his voice.

However, if nobody offically complains, what's the use? He didn't break any laws, except if someone officially cites sexual harrassment, it gets buried.

I find it repulsive that rich people can buy their way out of this kinda stuff.

[Gunakor]

However, if nobody offically complains, what's the use?

If nobody complains then there's no grounds for legal action. But, if it happened yet nobody complains, does that make him any less dirty for doing it?

Whether Jenn Sterger complains or not, it's clearly evident there was something going on. That makes Favre a sleazebag pervert. A cheating bag 'o douche. The exact opposite of the reformed family man image we've been spoon fed through the media for a decade and a half now. The case doesn't have to go through the US legal system for me to figure that out. No NFL investigation is needed to figure that out. From a legal perspective this investigation must take place and a complaint must be filed, I get that. But from a purely moral and ethical standpoint, he's guilty as sin with or without a complaint or confession. There IS evidence. His voice.

[woodbuck27]

Pevre may well get out of this situation without being punished by the NFL. If that occurs, it will have everything to do with MONEY and nothing to do with THE TRUTH. That much is blatantly obvious.

It will have dick all too do with dollero's Vince.

If he's guilty he'll suffer more than a suspension. As the world desires to judge people and often that ... unfairly.

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

[CaptainKickass]

If nobody complains then there's no grounds for legal action. But, if it happened yet nobody complains, does that make him any less dirty for doing it?

I dunno,

If a man has an opinion while in the forest and there's no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

?

[Gunakor]

If nobody complains then there's no grounds for legal action. But, if it happened yet nobody complains, does that make him any less dirty for doing it?

I dunno,

If a man has an opinion while in the forest and there's no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

?

Yes...

[hoosier]

Do you 100% find that that man's voice in that source of information or purported evidence. That on that video, that the man is 'in fact' Brett Favre. That your 100% positive that's Brett Favre speaking on that video?

Yes. Absolutely. Without ANY doubt, that's Brett Favre's voice. We've been hearing it for 20 years, you'd recognize Brett Favre's voice the same as you'd recognize your mothers voice. That's Brett. Absolutely no question about it.

You think that's Brett Favre on the phone?!? Yo mama!

[woodbuck27]

more personal attacks

when will something be done about this?

red:

Are you referring to me and the above or any other posts in this thread as personal attacks? I am merely debating an issue, issues but.....

Let's establish first if you believe that I'm guilty of attacking any poster here red. Let me offer you this red:

Are you accusing me of making personal atacks on members here?

If so... back yourself up with specifics, PLEASE.

I'll challenge you red.

Maybe your definition of a personal attack differs from mine in terms of manner or sensitivity. Go back through the threads of the past week and look for any personal attacks on yours truly before you re-post me.

if you find any (them) do you offer that they were justified or fair attacks against me?

[woodbuck27]

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