Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
14 Pages«<11121314>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Wade  
#181 Posted : Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:52:56 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 678
Applause Received: 697

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?
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#182 Posted : Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:53:21 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
blank
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#183 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:36:55 AM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

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.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#184 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:44:32 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,955
Applause Received: 2,186

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!
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#185 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:57:24 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 397
Applause Received: 1,075

Originally Posted by: " 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?
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#186 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:16:06 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 397
Applause Received: 1,075

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.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline longtimefan  
#187 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:45:34 AM(UTC)
longtimefan

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 11/30/2006(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 21

Originally Posted by: " 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
Offline Formo  
#188 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 6:52:56 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

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!
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#189 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:39:22 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
blank
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#190 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:42:26 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " 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).
blank
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#191 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:46:43 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " 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.
blank
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#192 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:49:13 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " 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.
blank
Offline Wade  
#193 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 1:50:53 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 678
Applause Received: 697

Originally Posted by: " 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
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#194 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:03:25 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " 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.
blank
Offline Zero2Cool  
#195 Posted : Friday, August 13, 2010 2:46:10 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,955
Applause Received: 2,186

Originally Posted by: " 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.
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
14 Pages«<11121314>
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / RaiderPride

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

24-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann