WTF Penn State?!?!?!

Off Topic
761

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
There are still people here, when confronted with the FACT that THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACTS, building arguments (speculation really) on a house of cards. But don’t worry, so-called “journalists” are doing the same thing so it must be right :)[/quote]

you have “said from the beginning” that you “want to know what Joe Pa knew and when.”

I said “the words ‘man’ ‘boy’ ‘show’ and ‘inappropriate’ were told to Joe and thats all he needed to know” the day after the incident happened (and gave the reference you asked for… two separate times)

You said that you wanted me to produce some proof the above and that you’d admit you were wrong about joe pa not knowing or gladly refute the evidence that wasnt actually evidence (which were two different peoples testimonies, one of which was Joe Pa himself)

Then you disappeared from the thread for a few pages, completely skipped over actually addressing my posts (which you asked me for) and came back with an attempt to insult me (which is exactly what happened in one of the “F the police” threads that we ‘debated’ in)

Do you want me to quote those posts for you?

762

EDIT: I attached these quotes with my previous post but for some reason they were deleted out of my post?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]

AND

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

ANOTHER ONE…
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

same report…

“Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student”

young boy = boy
sandusky = man
shower = shower
disturbing/inappropriate = inappropriate[/quote]

is that building an argument on a house of cards?

763

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
There are still people here, when confronted with the FACT that THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACTS, building arguments (speculation really) on a house of cards. But don’t worry, so-called “journalists” are doing the same thing so it must be right :)[/quote]

you have “said from the beginning” that you “want to know what Joe Pa knew and when.”

I said “the words ‘man’ ‘boy’ ‘show’ and ‘inappropriate’ were told to Joe and thats all he needed to know” the day after the incident happened (and gave the reference you asked for… two separate times)

You said that you wanted me to produce some proof the above and that you’d admit you were wrong about joe pa not knowing or gladly refute the evidence that wasnt actually evidence (which were two different peoples testimonies, one of which was Joe Pa himself)

Then you disappeared from the thread for a few pages, completely skipped over actually addressing my posts (which you asked me for) and came back with an attempt to insult me (which is exactly what happened in one of the “F the police” threads that we ‘debated’ in)

Do you want me to quote those posts for you?[/quote]

Perhaps I’m giving your intellect too much credit. In your rush to be clever, you have a problem not only with critical thinking, understanding the law and logic, but you’re just a cheap smart ass. If you want to go quote-mining (your favorite past time) go right ahead.

For the LAST time.

What you linked was a GRAND JURY SUMMARY. It is NOT testimony. Period. Learn the difference between YOU respond further. Learn what it is, and what it isn’t. That said…

What I’ve said ALL ALONG is that, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT WAS REPORTED TO JOE (and the “what” is still subject to question - refer AGAIN to point number one above), I wanted to know what Joe knew thereafter and when. For instance, if he reasonably believed (or was likewise misled) that the incident in question was properly reported, and the proper authorities were involved and that the report was “unfounded”, it would affect my opinion as to his culpability, if any.

Again, before you jump back in with both feet and starting quoting words from a SUMMARY, learn the difference between a summary and testimony. The fact remains, WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT JOE KNEW AND WHEN HE KNEW IT. Even a dumb little fuck like you must know that you need to know those two things before you start “morally” condemning someone.

Dude, as for “debating” you? Please. What is it you do for a living again? When did you and those absolutely horrendous 70’s mustaches become a pillar of intellect and logic? When? Stick to planking.

764

[quote]gregron wrote:
EDIT: I attached these quotes with my previous post but for some reason they were deleted out of my post?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]

AND

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

ANOTHER ONE…
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

same report…

“Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student”

young boy = boy
sandusky = man
shower = shower
disturbing/inappropriate = inappropriate[/quote]

is that building an argument on a house of cards?[/quote]

For the slow kid…

Grand jury summary does not equal testimony or undisputed facts.

Jesus H. ya little dummy, McQueery himself has already contradicted your holy grail grand jury SUMMARY in his latest email.

Keep trying dick rider. You’re my favorite hater.

765

oh…and I no more “disappeared” than you did the last two days. Sorry I’m not on call for you.

766

BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.

767

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
EDIT: I attached these quotes with my previous post but for some reason they were deleted out of my post?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]

AND

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

ANOTHER ONE…
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

same report…

“Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student”

young boy = boy
sandusky = man
shower = shower
disturbing/inappropriate = inappropriate[/quote]

is that building an argument on a house of cards?[/quote]

For the slow kid…

Grand jury summary does not equal testimony or undisputed facts.

Jesus H. ya little dummy, McQueery himself has already contradicted your holy grail grand jury SUMMARY in his latest email.

Keep trying dick rider. You’re my favorite hater.
[/quote]

again with attempt at personal attacks. I never went after you in any thread (which if I had would apparently make me a “dick rider”). I just answered your question and you got butt hurt like you seem to do quite a bit.

the parts of the SUMMARY that I quoted were TESTIMONIES. You said you didnt believe that Joe Pa knew those pieces of information. I quoted where Joe Pa and Schultz TESTIFIED that they did have that info.

Hater? thats funny coming from you. You’ve tried to come at me personally several times and in different threads before this. They seem to always end with you getting frustrated and trying to drag me into your game of insults.

again you just cant ever admit that you were/are wrong… even when you said that you would.

I dont expect you to actually respond to what I said in the quoted posts… that seems to be your style, so feel free to commence with your insults and patronizing posts.

768

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
EDIT: I attached these quotes with my previous post but for some reason they were deleted out of my post?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]

AND

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

ANOTHER ONE…
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

same report…

“Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student”

young boy = boy
sandusky = man
shower = shower
disturbing/inappropriate = inappropriate[/quote]

is that building an argument on a house of cards?[/quote]

For the slow kid…

Grand jury summary does not equal testimony or undisputed facts.

Jesus H. ya little dummy, McQueery himself has already contradicted your holy grail grand jury SUMMARY in his latest email.

Keep trying dick rider. You’re my favorite hater.
[/quote]

again with attempt at personal attacks. I never went after you in any thread (which if I had would apparently make me a “dick rider”). I just answered your question and you got butt hurt like you seem to do quite a bit.

the parts of the SUMMARY that I quoted were TESTIMONIES. You said you didnt believe that Joe Pa knew those pieces of information. I quoted where Joe Pa and Schultz TESTIFIED that they did have that info.

Hater? thats funny coming from you. You’ve tried to come at me personally several times and in different threads before this. They seem to always end with you getting frustrated and trying to drag me into your game of insults.

again you just cant ever admit that you were/are wrong… even when you said that you would.

I dont expect you to actually respond to what I said in the quoted posts… that seems to be your style, so feel free to commence with your insults and patronizing posts.[/quote]

I wouldn’t waste your time gregron, it’s not worth it. I know you have better things to spend it on (like that girl of yours).

769

The board admitted as much. They directly said they did not have all the facts yet an did not have a good answer for why Curley , Schultz, and McQueary were not fired at that time. They looked foolish.
I don’t know how many people know that the board was in state college on Sunday night. They could have gone out in front on this but seemingly screwed around .
There is also some Pa politics going on here with the AG’s office, governor who btw was the AG on this case, the PSU president who resigned( funding battle against the governor in the spring ). And some other stuff I think played a part in this.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And by the way ladies and gents, some of which are over in PWI doing this thread injustice; there is a difference between grand jury SUMMARY and grand jury testimony. Most of you have been building your “arguments” and “logic” based upon the linked GRAND JURY SUMMARY - NOT TESTIMONY.

Huge difference. [/quote]

Quite correct.

But I still maintain that the firing of Paterno was a moral issue not a legal one.

The leader has to take the fall when something this egregious happens under their watch, fair or not…the buck has to stop someplace.

And Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State.[/quote]

I’ve never uttered he didn’t deserve to be fired. Only that any moral or legal judgment as to his actions and “culpability” (if any) need wait for a full disclosure of the facts and timeline. That has not occurred yet. [/quote]

OK…then I agree with you mostly.

Moral culpability does not carry the burden of proof that legal guilt does…clearly the board of trustees had seen enough to fire the President, the AD, the Director of Business and Finance and Paterno.

The Board’s moral threshold had been met…if Paterno feels he was wrongly fired there is legal civil recourse I would assume.[/quote]

We may have some common ground, but for the rest of the above…no.

The board did a great big CYA PR move in the face of a great shit storm.

And I don’t think Joe would file any such suit given his age, and his pension. There is really no economic loss to him.
[/quote]

770

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

Now I’ve seen some articles where they could not legally ban him barring any legal conviction for a felony due to his professor emeritus status. Do you realize how big PSU is? The whole campus is open to the public during the day except certain secure buildings . So without due process there is nothing paterno or McQueary could officially do.

771

obviously we can’t forget where the real guilt lies here, it’s a given and there is no reason to rehash on that.

I have no reason to suspect any inaccuracies from the grand jury testimony (otherwise we’re looking at perjury charges to follow) Now if the Associated Press has left out some major details, I’m sure the lawyers, or representation of the accused, would make their voice(s) heard. I guess from what I’m hearing now is that McQueary is claiming that he went to police? etc etc. We can only wait for those reports made to the police to surface. My guess is we’ll hear, “i reported it to campus police, who looked into the allegations, but it was never investigated” B.S. Reeks of damage control.

If Shultz, and Curley are liable, then I see no reason for JoePa to not also be liable. This is sending a dangerous precedent of ‘being absolved of all responsibility by passing the buck along’. I think we can all agree that all three had positions of major authority, which comes with elevated responsibilities and obligations. Now if for some reason, anyone wants to make JoePa out as a patsy in the events that occurred, well then my opinion is that there is some strong bias involved.

And the argument that ‘maybe Paterno thought Curley and Shultz went to the police after the meeting’ doesn’t hold water with me if there is no evidence of a police report filed or sign of an investigation. If one should surface, then so be it, I’m sure it would or will absolve the PSU representatives here, and shift the blame onto the police’s lack of follow up. It’s not the case we’re hearing as to the 2002 incident anyway. Otherwise, if Paterno had believed the police were informed, he should of expected a meeting with investigators to collaborate what McQueary had told him of the incident. And the fact that he said ‘i should’ve done more’ sorta supports that claim.

772

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=8277101

Hope the link works . It’s an article outlining some fund raising involving the governor . I think it’s also available at deadspin.

There are a lot of politics at play here . I believe paterno caught most of the flack while politicians and administrators cya ed themselves.

773

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

Now I’ve seen some articles where they could not legally ban him barring any legal conviction for a felony due to his professor emeritus status. Do you realize how big PSU is? The whole campus is open to the public during the day except certain secure buildings . So without due process there is nothing paterno or McQueary could officially do.[/quote]

Then why “ban” him in the first place? If a person is not allowed on campus, then when that person is spotted by security or campus police, they are escorted off. And, if it happens repeatedly appropriate legal action is taken. It’s pretty simple.

774

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
EDIT: I attached these quotes with my previous post but for some reason they were deleted out of my post?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

Joe Paterno’s testimony is in the grand jury report that was in the very first post of this thread. Did you read the report? Are you in group number 2 from above?

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

“Young Boy” = Boy
“Jerry Sandusky” = Man
“Lasch Building showers” = Shower
“Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” = Inappropriate[/quote]

AND

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I think that there are two groups of people here…

  1. People who have read the report, are sickened by it and know that JoePa had to go

and

  1. People who havent read it yet.

“boy” “man” “shower” “inappropriate”… those words were told to JoePa, nothing else needs to be said.[/quote]

post the link. i’ll either admit i’m wrong or i’ll happily illustrate any lack of critical thinking as it relates to said document.
[/quote]

ANOTHER ONE…
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

same report…

“Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student”

young boy = boy
sandusky = man
shower = shower
disturbing/inappropriate = inappropriate[/quote]

is that building an argument on a house of cards?[/quote]

For the slow kid…

Grand jury summary does not equal testimony or undisputed facts.

Jesus H. ya little dummy, McQueery himself has already contradicted your holy grail grand jury SUMMARY in his latest email.

Keep trying dick rider. You’re my favorite hater.
[/quote]

again with attempt at personal attacks. I never went after you in any thread (which if I had would apparently make me a “dick rider”). I just answered your question and you got butt hurt like you seem to do quite a bit.

the parts of the SUMMARY that I quoted were TESTIMONIES. You said you didnt believe that Joe Pa knew those pieces of information. I quoted where Joe Pa and Schultz TESTIFIED that they did have that info.

Hater? thats funny coming from you. You’ve tried to come at me personally several times and in different threads before this. They seem to always end with you getting frustrated and trying to drag me into your game of insults.

again you just cant ever admit that you were/are wrong… even when you said that you would.

I dont expect you to actually respond to what I said in the quoted posts… that seems to be your style, so feel free to commence with your insults and patronizing posts.[/quote]

None of this rebuts my very basic point that you can’t seem to grasp; exactly what the man knew and when. It’s a simple, very simple, very elegant concept.

There is no “error” to admit. I told you that when I read the SUMMARY up to victim 2. And in case you think mine is a novel point/distinction, it is not.

775

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

I don’t know why this small distinction keeps passing you by.

We do NOT know what Paterno was told AFTER the report. Even Sandusky’s attorneys are claiming victim 2 will claim no such sexual assault occurred. Is it that much a leap that perhaps Paterno was misinformed? Or, that maybe there was no sexual assault as to victim 2? If there indeed was a cover-up, why did Joe have to part of it instead of victim to it? I don’t know either way; but neither can you. Why? Because we do not have ALL THE FACTS IN TEMPORAL CONTEXT. The fact is, we know very little.

776

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

I wouldn’t waste your time gregron, it’s not worth it. I know you have better things to spend it on (like that girl of yours).[/quote]

Good point. Because bickering is for women.

Gregron, go nitpick and bicker with your future wife.

777

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

Now I’ve seen some articles where they could not legally ban him barring any legal conviction for a felony due to his professor emeritus status. Do you realize how big PSU is? The whole campus is open to the public during the day except certain secure buildings . So without due process there is nothing paterno or McQueary could officially do.[/quote]

Then why “ban” him in the first place? If a person is not allowed on campus, then when that person is spotted by security or campus police, they are escorted off. And, if it happens repeatedly appropriate legal action is taken. It’s pretty simple.[/quote]

He wasn’t “banned”. He was professor emeritus.

778

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
More will come out after the trial. The devil is in the details. The GJ report is merely a 23 page summation of testimony with no cross examination. If it comes out later that he did intercede and did talk to the police a lot of people are going to look very stupid with their knee jerk reactions.

The piling on before we learned everything is vile. If you’re living in Pa. or have been following this very closely like I have you’ll see there are a lot of factors politically from the governor’s office down and a lot of speculation and a huge lack of facts at this time.

[/quote]

This is pretty much what I’ve been saying for pages here and you’d think I had spoken some heresy against the Almighty. At one point, I was accused of “trolling”. Sorry, it’s called having critical thinking and analytical skills. I guess I take it for granted that the average person is capable of CRITICAL THINKING (they are not). And my guess is that most here were raised with what passes as “journalism” these days where it’s “damn the facts”, let’s sell some newspapers. This of course requires no restraint and just a herd mentality of rushing to judgment and being provocative.

There are still people here, when confronted with the FACT that THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACTS, building arguments (speculation really) on a house of cards. But don’t worry, so-called “journalists” are doing the same thing so it must be right :)[/quote]

I think a lot of the frustration people are feeling is because HE IS JOE PATERNO. No one tells him what to do in Happy Valley. Most of us who live in/near the area are not terribly surprised that there was a cover-up as it is all political inbreeding out there. However, unfairly or not, the people are looking to Joe and wondering why just about the only guy with the power to stand up and make sure any possible wrongs were righted was silent? Who is going to silence Joe Paterno?

It seems odd to me that he reports such a heinous act to a superior and then sees nothing happens but doesn’t look into it further. MOST people recognize it is not a legal transgression but it is a case of watching one of your heroes fail you morally.

And phrases like, “I wish I had done more” are not helping his case with the public. He didn’t say that he did all that he could do but higher up X,Y and Z over-ruled him and told him to keep his mouth shut. Why? Because he is Joe Fucking Paterno and no one tells him what to do. That’s the reputation he built for himself so unfortunately in a case like this, the buck stops with him.

Its a completely visceral reaction to be sure. Pacino’s quote about quaterbacks comes to mind in this situation,
“You’re a goddamn quarterback! You know what that means? It’s the top spot, kid. It’s the guy who takes the fall. It’s the guy everybody’s looking at first - the leader of a team”
He may not have been the quaterback, but Paterno was most definitely the leader of that school.

779

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

I don’t know why this small distinction keeps passing you by.

We do NOT know what Paterno was told AFTER the report. Even Sandusky’s attorneys are claiming victim 2 will claim no such sexual assault occurred. Is it that much a leap that perhaps Paterno was misinformed? Or, that maybe there was no sexual assault as to victim 2? If there indeed was a cover-up, why did Joe have to part of it instead of victim to it? I don’t know either way; but neither can you. Why? Because we do not have ALL THE FACTS IN TEMPORAL CONTEXT. The fact is, we know very little. [/quote]

It hasn’t passed me by. And, while I agree that we know very little, it is quite obvious that Paterno knows a lot. Again, after you report that someone has been accused of child molestation yet you continually see said person with children, you deduce that something isn’t right and you follow up on it until the problem goes away. That is unless you’re trying to cover it up. And, if the person in question is one of the best defensive coordinators around yet gets fired and doesn’t even get job offers from other programs, then clearly it’s a known “dark secret” in that circle.

780

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
BG, don’t you think if Paterno is innocent when he saw Sandusky in their facility with children AFTER he reported it to the AD he would’ve suspected something was fishy and followed up on it? He clearly did not, and has said he wished he’d done more. Not really sure what else you need to know about what he knew after his “report”. He clearly knew quite a bit, and he wasn’t the only one. Once again, this will be the biggest story in American sports history and potentially one of the biggest stories regardless of distinction. Like I said before, this goes way farther down the rabbit hole than we probably want to know.[/quote]

Now I’ve seen some articles where they could not legally ban him barring any legal conviction for a felony due to his professor emeritus status. Do you realize how big PSU is? The whole campus is open to the public during the day except certain secure buildings . So without due process there is nothing paterno or McQueary could officially do.[/quote]

Then why “ban” him in the first place? If a person is not allowed on campus, then when that person is spotted by security or campus police, they are escorted off. And, if it happens repeatedly appropriate legal action is taken. It’s pretty simple.[/quote]

He wasn’t “banned”. He was professor emeritus.
[/quote]

Excuse me, he was banned from bringing children on campus but was continually seen with children for YEARS after the “ban” was imposed.