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?

---

Ok, what is the theory, I'm curious.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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

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!

---

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.

---

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).

---