Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
11 Pages«<891011>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Wade  
#181 Posted : Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:52:56 PM(UTC)
Re: subjunctive.

Jessica Biel likes some men enough to have sex with them. I'm a man. I could someday have sex with Jessica Biel.

Major and minor premise I would argue are true statements. They are also necessary conditions for the "could" in the third statement being accurate.

They are, however, not sufficient conditions for the "could" becoming "will".

If Voldemort lies, he shows himself capable of lying. That's all Rourke is saying. Right?
RedSoxExcel  
#182 Posted : Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:53:21 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The theory must be


Your saying it's so doesn't make it so.


Ok, what is the theory, I'm curious.
Dexter_Sinister  
#183 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:36:55 AM(UTC)
That Favre has been proven to be dishonest in this instance changes his credibility. Or for Favre apologists it takes away plausible deniability.

The defenders have always said the it is Favre's word agains Glazer's in the Lionsgate story. Glazer put his employer's butts on the line with his story and if he lied, he and they could be sued. His claim that Favre went to several of the Packers opponents and divulged privileged information is actually against trade secret laws. Opponents including the Lions, who went on record, and some that didn't. (I read an article in a legal journal about it) Favre could sue if the story were a fabrication. Glazer stood by the story and Favre denied it. Since this is a more significant issue than some leaked texts and Favre was obviously willing to lie about them. The conclusion could be reached that Favre did indeed leak his reads and keys to several of the Packers opponents in '08. Sabotaging them and Rodgers in his first year.

Since Bevel admitted that the Vikings were also in contact with Favre before his demand to be reinstated, one could also infer that they were one of the other off the record teams Favre tried to help beat the Packers.

That is why Favre's credibility matters. Nothing he claims can be believed as true. Not that is is believed to be a lie, but not credible. So if someone says Favre is not telling the truth. The conclusion is that unless the other party has proven to be as big of a liar as Favre, it is credible.
Zero2Cool  
#184 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:44:32 AM(UTC)
You pricks take me off ignore. As I've said before, Brett is a known liar, it was documented on this very site!!!

Get over it, dayum!
Pack93z  
#185 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:57:24 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
You pricks take me off ignore. As I've said before, Brett is a known liar, it was documented on this very site!!!

Get over it, dayum!


Why whine about it.. you have a Brett section let this shit play out.. sounds like just bitching to bitch about something constantly trying to stop the Brett debates. ;)

Being a dick aside.. lol.

Brett section, his own damn section speaks volume about the effect he has on people.. no other player has a dedicated section.. so what else is expected past nonstop debates about him?
Pack93z  
#186 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:16:06 AM(UTC)
And BTW.. so you know.. I am mostly giving you grief.. I know the intended purpose for this section.. but much like these debates over his actions of the past and present.. it may be time to get past it.
longtimefan  
#187 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:45:34 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Anyone is capable of lying about anything (including Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy), so thats not the theory. The theory must be that Favre is more likely to have lied about 2008 because of what he said about these texts in 2010.

I just think if LT is on this mission to discredit Favre about this texts in order to lead into something about the 2008 off season, I think that has many holes. You don't know people's motivations, thats my whole point. What if Favre was told by his Coach to not mention the texts, is that still mean you can draw something about 2008?

The reverse to all this is that Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy are less likely to lie about 2008 because they didn't lie about these text messages. I just don't get it, I think its all a bit of a stretch.


Nope read what Non has said...He has said it perfectly, but yet "people" cant even put the IDEA in their heads that maybe Brett COULD have done something...

Even hypothetical situations people still will say Brett can't do that or wont..

That is unbelievable
Formo  
#188 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:52:56 AM(UTC)
Great points Nonstop and LTF bring up.. I think RedSox brings up just as valid points. In fact, he brings more objective points. Not because he's 'defending' Favre.. but with the 'woulda coulda' debate.

Wow.. Agreeing with a BoSox fan is almost as hard as siding with a Yankees fan.. And to add he's a Puker fan?! BLEH!
RedSoxExcel  
#189 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:39:22 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Anyone is capable of lying about anything (including Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy), so thats not the theory. The theory must be that Favre is more likely to have lied about 2008 because of what he said about these texts in 2010.

I just think if LT is on this mission to discredit Favre about this texts in order to lead into something about the 2008 off season, I think that has many holes. You don't know people's motivations, thats my whole point. What if Favre was told by his Coach to not mention the texts, is that still mean you can draw something about 2008?

The reverse to all this is that Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy are less likely to lie about 2008 because they didn't lie about these text messages. I just don't get it, I think its all a bit of a stretch.


Nope read what Non has said...He has said it perfectly, but yet "people" cant even put the IDEA in their heads that maybe Brett COULD have done something...

Even hypothetical situations people still will say Brett can't do that or wont..

That is unbelievable


Where did I say that hypothetically Favre couldn't have lied? I DON'T CARE IF HE LIES OR NOT. I do not like Favre for being a great human being. I don't care. All I am saying is that even IF IF IF IF (so your in a subjunctive mood or whatever) Favre lied, it does not necessarilymake any inference about 2008. You don't know why he lied and most importantly EVERY SINGLE F'N PERSON (including your beloved TT/MM) have lied at some point.

All I was saying was that I don't understand the point of throwing out all these hypotheticals. Why don't you just want until you have facts, like proof of what the texts said or the motivation behind lying, etc. Tahts its, thats my point. Right now, you are all making inferences about him based on theories. Why do you care so much and why don't you just wait until you have solid information.

Its like the whole thing with that Jets cheerleader or whatever. Everyone jumped all over it and guess what, nothing, no proof yet. Its like the Schism thing, its like Ed Werder's reports last year, etc.

All I am saying is taking everything you read about Favre with a grain of salt. Or a pound of salt.
RedSoxExcel  
#190 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:42:26 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
You pricks take me off ignore. As I've said before, Brett is a known liar, it was documented on this very site!!!

Get over it, dayum!


Thats my whole point, if you are bringing up all these hypotheticals to prove that Favre has the capability of lying, all of you are making an underlying assumption that FAVRE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN CAPABLE OF LYING BEFORE!

If the last 6 pages of this thread are about hypotheticals to say that Favre is capable of lying, then I am very sad that I even posted in this thread. Everyone is capable of lying and if this text thing is the thing that proves to you that Favre is capable of lying, thats lame, I'm sure you can do better (and probably have done so in the past).
RedSoxExcel  
#191 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:46:43 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
That Favre has been proven to be dishonest in this instance changes his credibility. Or for Favre apologists it takes away plausible deniability.

The defenders have always said the it is Favre's word agains Glazer's in the Lionsgate story. Glazer put his employer's butts on the line with his story and if he lied, he and they could be sued. His claim that Favre went to several of the Packers opponents and divulged privileged information is actually against trade secret laws. Opponents including the Lions, who went on record, and some that didn't. (I read an article in a legal journal about it) Favre could sue if the story were a fabrication. Glazer stood by the story and Favre denied it. Since this is a more significant issue than some leaked texts and Favre was obviously willing to lie about them. The conclusion could be reached that Favre did indeed leak his reads and keys to several of the Packers opponents in '08. Sabotaging them and Rodgers in his first year.

Since Bevel admitted that the Vikings were also in contact with Favre before his demand to be reinstated, one could also infer that they were one of the other off the record teams Favre tried to help beat the Packers.

That is why Favre's credibility matters. Nothing he claims can be believed as true. Not that is is believed to be a lie, but not credible. So if someone says Favre is not telling the truth. The conclusion is that unless the other party has proven to be as big of a liar as Favre, it is credible.


My point exactly. If you all of this ammunition with Lionsgate or whatever and you have already proven to yourself that he is capable of lying, then why do you need this particular hypothetical to once again prove he is capable of lying. Thats what I am not getting. If this text thing is your strongest proof that Favre is capable of lying (when ALL human beings are capable of lying), I don't know what ot tell you.

Also, I assume you are not actually making that point but if part of what your saying is that Rodgers failed in his first because Favre gave other teams hints, Rodgers is pathetic and so is the Packers coaching staff. Every year players go from one team to another, you adjust every year. You don't think McNabb is going to tell the Redskins about the Eagles playbook, etc. Sharper went from the Packers to the Vikings, shouldn't you just naturally evolve the defense or the offense?

And if your point is that they didn't expect Favre to tell other teams, when he's friends with Matt Millan and they know he dislikes them, they're stupid too. YOUR AN NFL F'N COACH, PREPARE.
RedSoxExcel  
#192 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:49:13 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Re: subjunctive.

If Voldemort lies, he shows himself capable of lying. That's all Rourke is saying. Right?


Thats what the last 6 pages have been about? Really? There is an underlying assumption there then that Favre has never shown himself capable of lying before. You wouldn't need a theory if something has already been proven. I'm SURE Favre has lied about things in the past and I'm sure TT/MM have too (e.g., player injuries). Everyone in the world is capable of lying, we really need a hypothetical text lie to prove that?

I don't know how we even got sidetracked on all of this (and subjunctive mood will be the schism of 2010, lol) but all I am trying to say is take all these media reports about Favre with a grain of salt. Mariucci said this, Weder said that, Schefter said this, Glazer said that, etc. They're not facts.

For example, lets say Favre plays this year and plays for $13 million. All those reports in which they said Favre got $20 million and all of the columns and posts about his greed will be forgotten. In that case, would Favre really turn down SEVEN million dollars to discredit a media report? But the whole point is, we won't know until he returns, so why so much hate and opinions on stuff that is reported by "anonymous sources". Let's just let it play out.
Wade  
#193 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:50:53 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post


All I am saying is taking everything you read about Favre with a grain of salt. Or a pound of salt.


Or perhaps one of these salt blocks upside the head? :)


UserPostedImage
RedSoxExcel  
#194 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:03:25 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post


All I am saying is taking everything you read about Favre with a grain of salt. Or a pound of salt.


Or perhaps one of these salt blocks upside the head? :)



Lol, I feel like hitting myself with that right now. I wish I could go back and take back all my time and effort on this thread if it really was to say that Favre is capable of lying in a hypothetical.

I'm with Zero, lock it please, lol. I do not have the self-restraint to stop posting on it, so I am like a child, take away my toy.
Zero2Cool  
#195 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:46:10 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm with Zero, lock it please, lol. I do not have the self-restraint to stop posting on it, so I am like a child, take away my toy.


I'm in the same boat my friend, lol.
Gravedigga  
#196 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:38:33 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm with Zero, lock it please, lol. I do not have the self-restraint to stop posting on it, so I am like a child, take away my toy.


I'm in the same boat my friend, lol.


Do you really have a boat? Or was that a lie? Can we infer from this lie that you lied about other things? Are you even really a packer fan? Hmmmm, I wonder............
Zero2Cool  
#197 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:42:24 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm with Zero, lock it please, lol. I do not have the self-restraint to stop posting on it, so I am like a child, take away my toy.


I'm in the same boat my friend, lol.


Do you really have a boat? Or was that a lie? Can we infer from this lie that you lied about other things? Are you even really a packer fan? Hmmmm, I wonder............


Am I a Packer fan? Look around the website you're on slapnuts.That's right, I went there!!
Gravedigga  
#198 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:45:21 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm with Zero, lock it please, lol. I do not have the self-restraint to stop posting on it, so I am like a child, take away my toy.


I'm in the same boat my friend, lol.


Do you really have a boat? Or was that a lie? Can we infer from this lie that you lied about other things? Are you even really a packer fan? Hmmmm, I wonder............


Am I a Packer fan? Look around the website you're on slapnuts.That's right, I went there!!


Lol. Sorry man, you lied. I can never believe anything you say again.
Pack93z  
#199 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:53:11 PM(UTC)
And some admin was complaining about a Packer related thread.. lol.. this has been pared down already and shows no sign of slowing down.
DakotaT  
#200 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:58:03 PM(UTC)
When somebody whips out a derrogatory name used by the wrestler Jeff Jarrett (slapnuts), one of my personal favorties BTW, the gloves are off.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
11 Pages«<891011>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
uffda udfa (13h) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (15h) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (16h) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (16h) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (16h) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Datone Jones Vikings deal $3.75M, $1.6M signing bonus, $1.5M salary, $31,250 per game active, $150K workout bonus, $1.25M sacks-pt incentive
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Nope. I don't care to read up on Vikings players. :-)
Bnoble (15-Mar) : Anyone see any numbers on Jones deal?
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Datone to Minnesota.
musccy (14-Mar) : A more $ than I'd prefer, but still glad Elliott is back
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Jayrone back on a one year 1.6 deal.
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Martellus Bennett Contract Details: New Packers TE has just $3.85M cap hit in 2017
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Packers have $28 under cap yet
hardrocker950 (13-Mar) : Walden would be a nice pickup...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1h / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

9h / Announcements / Smokey

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

12h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Mar / Around The NFL / Smokey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

Headlines