OFFICIAL FAVRE SEXT SCANDAL ROCKS SPORTS WORLD

[RashanGary]

Dianna likes her lifestyle. She'll share her Brent with some big-boobed hoes if it means her lifestyle stays in tact. Trying to hook up with Sterger wasn't cheating, it was a tribute to Dianna.




Oh, the wonderful Favre family. To the other evil men who cheat on their wives, burn in hell you mother f*ckers. Brent, you are a hero. Thank you for your tributes to your wife. That's not abusive, disgusting behavior. That's just you being wonderful you.

Thanks Bert! You're our favorite woman abuser!

[hoosier]

I don't feel sorry for her, though. I feel badly for her, but not sorry. She's not a victim.

I don't necessarily agree. I pity her and the daughters especially. I think the additional public attention for the alleged ( ) conduct of Brent has victimized them to a degree.

I agree with Fritz that Deanna is not a victim, both because she doesn't have a victim mentality and because she knew exactly what she was getting when she married Bert (or, if not then, at least the last time she let him back in the house). So in fact she's not a victim twice over. The kids are a different matter, they had no say in the matter. And think about this: if the definition of a teenager is someone who is embarrassed to be seen with his or her parents, what must Favre's kids be going through right now?

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, she knew he was a womanizer in his twens, but this incident happened when he was 38. Let's say she hasn't caught him since back in the day - hey, it's possible, right, then she believes her world is in order and he's a family guy.

Maybe she's not a victim, but, unless she knew he was AWOL regularly, even sporadically, she has my pity.

[AtlPackFan]

Deanna was on Good Morning America and wouldn't say if the allegations are true or false. She's just "handling this through faith", which is the same thing we hear from the politicians when they get busted with hookers or in airport bathrooms looking for sex.

This lack of denial coming from the Favre camp when they were so willing to speak up when they wanted out of Green Bay is so telling.

He's guilty and they know it.

Didn't she handle it through faith when he was drinking, hooked on vic, and cheating on her before? Maybe she should try handling it by frying pan instead. Might be more effective.

She's handling it? I thought Deanna was done handling it because of all the other women who had handled it?

[Fritz]

Yeah, she knew he was a womanizer in his twens, but this incident happened when he was 38. Let's say she hasn't caught him since back in the day - hey, it's possible, right, then she believes her world is in order and he's a family guy.

Maybe she's not a victim, but, unless she knew he was AWOL regularly, even sporadically, she has my pity.

I'm probably being more specific with my definition of the word "victim" than you are. To me, victims are people that don't have choices: kids born with aids or born addicted to crack. People who work hard and do all the right things and follow the rules and still get the house foreclosed on.

But Deanna's not a victim. She has choices about being with Brent or not. She keeps choosing to stay with the guy. She's no victim and I feel badly that she's in the public eye about what really ought to be (and even this could be argued) a private matter, but she is choosing to be where she is.

[HowardRoark]

LOL

Reciting holy books are for dummies or jerks who hijack planes.

I think you meant "is for dummies...."

Why do you think this?

[mmmdk]

LOL

Reciting holy books are for dummies or jerks who hijack planes.

I think you meant "is for dummies...."

Why do you think this?

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I don't claim to have the truth like religious people do but be aware of that us rational people aren't going to listen to the ludicrous gospels for much longer or the babel on Deanna's fridge.

[sharpe1027]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

[mmmdk]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

Hmm - could be, not sure that I wasn't right. I ran it through a grammar checker but I don't know how reliable they are. I think one must look at "reciting holy books" as an plural act though.

[Fritz]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

"Reciting holy books are for dummies or jerks who hijack planes."

Okay. The verb in this sentence is "are." What is the subject? That is, what "are for dummies or jerks"? The writer seems to be saying that it is not the holy books that are for dummies or jerks, it is the reciting of them. Thus, "reciting" is the subject of the sentence.

And you are correct - it is singular. Just as it seems odd to say or write "Writing are for dumb people," it are odd to say or write that "Reciting are for dummies or jerks."

[mmmdk]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

"Reciting holy books are for dummies or jerks who hijack planes."

Okay. The verb in this sentence is "are." What is the subject? That is, what "are for dummies or jerks"? The writer seems to be saying that it is not the holy books that are for dummies or jerks, it is the reciting of them. Thus, "reciting" is the subject of the sentence.

And you are correct - it is singular. Just as it seems odd to say or write "Writing are for dumb people," it are odd to say or write that "Reciting are for dummies or jerks."

Thank you. I've learned something today which is a good thing - can't say the same for those with a religious agenda.

Lastly, is "religulous" even a word? Should be!

[HowardRoark]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

Hmm - could be, not sure that I wasn't right. I ran it through a grammar checker but I don't know how reliable they are. I think one must look at "reciting holy books" as an plural act though.

I think this should be "....as a plural act though."

[mmmdk]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

Hmm - could be, not sure that I wasn't right. I ran it through a grammar checker but I don't know how reliable they are. I think one must look at "reciting holy books" as an plural act though.

I think this should be "....as a plural act though."

Sure! But it's about me attacking religion right? Get out of your fucking bible class and meet me in the yard.

[HowardRoark]

I don't claim to have the truth like religious people do but be aware of that us rational people aren't going to listen to the ludicrous gospels for much longer or the babel on Deanna's fridge.

Why do you consider yourself rational?

[HowardRoark]

No, it's "are" - I said HOLY BOOKS.

I think that you used "books" as a the object of the gerund "reciting." Since "reciting" is singular, I think it should be "is." Anyone an English major?

Hmm - could be, not sure that I wasn't right. I ran it through a grammar checker but I don't know how reliable they are. I think one must look at "reciting holy books" as an plural act though.

I think this should be "....as a plural act though."

Sure! But it's about me attacking religion right? Get out of your fucking bible class and meet me in the yard.

Are you attacking religion?