Boy, that made a big deal out of Favre’s little mister. 
Shows just how complicated male/female flirting has become in this century.
I read Sterger got suggestive emails from other players besides Brett and she sent a few flirtations back. Sexting is apparently common these days.
Sure glad my dating days are behind me. Things are too darn complicated now.
I wonder what the “lack of cooperation” was. He wouldn’t let the NFL look at his dick?
You joke, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was part of it.
I wonder if the League had any concern about opening up a can of worms with other players being revealed to have done the same thing. Allegedly, Sterger said there were others.
Just thought the google ads could answer this question once and for all. Just select:
“Brett Favre Images See Pictures of Your Favorite Players on Bing™, Quickly & Easily!”
Not only will the commish be able to compare pictures of what he has with Mr. Favre’s “Johnson”, the SDMB will get a kickback of cash for selecting the ad.
Marley23,
I’m a bit surprised. You know better than to respond to the OP. When an absolute is claimed, there will never be any concession from that stance. Even if you present a rational, coherent argument, these things ultimately end as an exercise in futility.
[/sfp opinion]
What have I said that isn’t factual?
A very funny overview of the whole sad situation: http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/11/brett-favre-scandal-jenn-sterger-photos/
He was probably cool with that. But he’d never admit to wearing Crocs - besides, it might mess up his Wrangler endorsement deal.
Saying “innocent” in your OP is not factual, as **Marley23 **points out.
We simply don’t know. But you’ll spend as much time and energy necessary to spin someone into a word-parsing game until we get to:
Innocent-until proven guilty-in a court of law.
Your shtick is so predictable… and so played.
Here’s some footage of Jenn Sterger meeting with Roger Goodell:
I like how Dio insists Favre is innocent via lack of proof, but suggests that we “do the math” on Sterger wanting to shake Favre down for a payoff.
That’s not a crime.
That argument was pointless and irrelevant in the last thread.
If true, why does American jurisprudence try so many innocent people? It’s not because they are innocent, it’s because they have the appearance of guilt. Anyway, as Marley23 indicated, this was not a legal proceeding. If so, Favre was found “not guilty” not “innocent.”
[QUOTE=Marley23]
You know better than that.
[/QUOTE]
I’m beginning to consider this a dubious assertion, especially in threads with Favre as the topic.
Favre was not “found” anything. He was never even accused of anything, much less tried. Sterger never filed a complaint or alleged (at least publicly) that he harassed her. Should he still be assumed guility when he hasn’t even been accused?
It’s Dio; you’re all masochists.
What am I wrong or being unreasonable about?
I find it appalling and a serious injustice that an innocent person was fined $50,000. That has to be unprecedented.
He wasn’t innocent of failing to cooperate with investigators. That’s a separate issue.
Dio is reminding me of the Steelers fans who defend Roethlisberger.