Olivant, all due respect, I think you're having a hard time being objective here.
Normally, you're the morals police here . For example, you're radically pro-life, yet you look at the (possible) sexual asaults of two women as no big deal? I find that a bit contradictory. And now that the subject matter involves your beloved Pittsburgh Steelers, you seem to want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Now I'm not saying that Ben's guilty, but if it turns out that he goes out fondling women, then I'd say he does "have a problem," as Goombah suggests. Wouldn't you agree?
No, you and Goombah are being subjective. I reiterate: the only information available to us is that which is conveyed through the media. That media information concerns accusations only. By the way, part of Goombah's post was "He obviously has a problem." You though use the phrase "turns out". Well, yeah. That's why we have criminal and civil justice systems. Another by the way: there is nothing in my previous post that lends itself to a quantitative or qualitative evaluation of a "deal".
Last edited by olivant; 03/10/1005:10 PM.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
. For example, you're radically pro-life, yet you look at the (possible) sexual asaults of two women as no big deal? I find that a bit contradictory. And now that the subject matter involves your beloved Pittsburgh Steelers, you seem to want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. 
