WTF Penn State?!?!?!

Off Topic
781

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[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]

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.
[/quote]

smh.

I cut to the meat of the above.

The entire crux of your (and everyone else so inclined) argument above is that it is speculation what Joe knew and when. Speculation. There is absolutely no way around this simple point. It matters not what was reported to him by McQueery. For all I care, he could have told Paterno that kid was getting gang raped by the entire coaching staff. It doesn’t matter. What matters is what occurred after and when. And that’s the part we don’t know.

And with the benefit of hindsight and the terrible allegations out there, is there anything left but “I wish I had done more”?

782

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wow.

You’re wrong. The simple point IS passing you by.

You admit we know very little. Yet you next SPECULATE that Paterno “knows a lot”.

We DO NOT KNOW what Paterno was told relative to the outcome of the report concerning victim 2. For all we know, he could have been informed it was investigated and “unfounded”. We do not know.

Why is this so hard to understand? We do NOT know what he knew, or when. Period.

783

I hope that clarity comes to this situation sooner rather than later so this thread can die.

784

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[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]

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.
[/quote]

smh.

I cut to the meat of the above.

The entire crux of your (and everyone else so inclined) argument above is that it is speculation what Joe knew and when. Speculation. There is absolutely no way around this simple point. It matters not what was reported to him by McQueery. For all I care, he could have told Paterno that kid was getting gang raped by the entire coaching staff. It doesn’t matter. What matters is what occurred after and when. And that’s the part we don’t know.

And with the benefit of hindsight and the terrible allegations out there, is there anything left but “I wish I had done more”? [/quote]

Actually, yes. “I had no idea this was going on”.

What I am saying is that Paterno portrayed himself as the all-seeing and all-knowing leader of that program. THAT is what is causing the backlash. You can’t spend decades saying you know everything that is going on in your facilities and then suddenly change your story when something unseemly comes up. There is always going to be a certain amount of outrage towards the man who lets abuse occur in his house.

We know he was, at the very least, told something happened which leaves two choices:

  1. Joe knew what was going on and chose to turn a blind eye.

  2. Joe never had all of the power and sway he supposedly possessed and had no idea what was happening.

Will his ego allow him to fess up to option #2 if that is truly the case? (which again, I don’t think most people would buy anyway).

785

South Park ripped on PSU on yesterday’s episode.

786

It was supposedly a ban from bringing any children on campus. It was a toothless cya manuever. Sandusky had professor emeritus status and couldn’t be banned without a felony conviction. You can’t take away part it his retirement package on hearsay or because you feel like it. You need a conviction.

Devil’s in the details.

[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]

787

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wow.

You’re wrong. The simple point IS passing you by.

You admit we know very little. Yet you next SPECULATE that Paterno “knows a lot”.

We DO NOT KNOW what Paterno was told relative to the outcome of the report concerning victim 2. For all we know, he could have been informed it was investigated and “unfounded”. We do not know.

Why is this so hard to understand? We do NOT know what he knew, or when. Period.
[/quote]

Why are you focused on victim 2? Do you honestly believe that he’s the only victim Paterno knew about? Apparently you’re not as proficient at critical thinking as you think. If Sandusky - the defensive coordinator for a multiple national champion team and the heir apparent at one of the biggest football schools in the country - is “mysteriously” fired and not offered a single gig after, then it is pretty obvious that a lot of people knew what was going on but kept quiet. You’re gonna shout “speculative”, and while that is all this is at this point, it is also pretty obviously the facts to anyone with half a brain.

788

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I knew you would skip over what I wrote (like always) and type out one response just to see your name and writing on the screen.

Did you miss the part in both of those quotes where it said TESTIFIED? Not summarized… But testified.

“Joseph V. Paterno TESTIFIED…”
“Schultz TESTIFIED…”

The very basic point (which I quoted for you two separate times above) is that:

I said: the words man, boy, shower & inappropriate were told to Joe Paterno.

You didn’t believe me, asked me to provide evidence and that if you were wrong you’d admit it.

I posted Joe Paternos own TESTIMONY (His quoted TESTIMONY, which appeared in the GJ Summary) where he admits he knew what I said he did the day after the incident happened.

You do not admit you were wrong and go on about something else and throw insults out and attempt to patronize others with your posts.

Are you still unclear on what I’ve been saying to you from the beginning? I don’t know how it could be unclear because I’ve been quoting the same quote and saying the same thing the whole time. I’m sure you’ll just try to twist this around, throw out a few more insults and try and get me as upset as you obviously are… While avoiding actually addressing what I have said from the beginning. (go look at the quotes from this exchange. It’s all there and is all pretty straight forward)

789

[quote]giterdone wrote:
I hope that clarity comes to this situation sooner rather than later so this thread can die.[/quote]

Why? This is a extremely important subject that NOT ENOUGH people talk about.

The discourse on this thread has been quite civil for the most part. BG has made his point well, others have disagreed…BG questions their elevation on the mental food chain…pretty standard for these parts…haha.

If you want to see train wreak threads, dip your toe into PWI for an hour…you will need a shower.

790
791

Looks like more victims are coming forward:

792

The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.

793

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Looks like more victims are coming forward:

It’s fucking pathetic that people put so much stake into football programs that they will bully and threaten the victims. This whole, “No we really do give a shit about the victims” in Happy Valley seems to ring hollow. I hope it’s just a media slant cause otherwise that’s just pathetic.

794

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wow.

You’re wrong. The simple point IS passing you by.

You admit we know very little. Yet you next SPECULATE that Paterno “knows a lot”.

We DO NOT KNOW what Paterno was told relative to the outcome of the report concerning victim 2. For all we know, he could have been informed it was investigated and “unfounded”. We do not know.

Why is this so hard to understand? We do NOT know what he knew, or when. Period.
[/quote]

Why are you focused on victim 2? Do you honestly believe that he’s the only victim Paterno knew about? Apparently you’re not as proficient at critical thinking as you think. If Sandusky - the defensive coordinator for a multiple national champion team and the heir apparent at one of the biggest football schools in the country - is “mysteriously” fired and not offered a single gig after, then it is pretty obvious that a lot of people knew what was going on but kept quiet. You’re gonna shout “speculative”, and while that is all this is at this point, it is also pretty obviously the facts to anyone with half a brain. [/quote]

you’re confused. maybe you’re only using half your brain?

you admitted in one sentence your conclusion is “speculative” and then you called it a “fact”. Which is it?

795

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I knew you would skip over what I wrote (like always) and type out one response just to see your name and writing on the screen.

Did you miss the part in both of those quotes where it said TESTIFIED? Not summarized… But testified.

“Joseph V. Paterno TESTIFIED…”
“Schultz TESTIFIED…”

The very basic point (which I quoted for you two separate times above) is that:

I said: the words man, boy, shower & inappropriate were told to Joe Paterno.

You didn’t believe me, asked me to provide evidence and that if you were wrong you’d admit it.

I posted Joe Paternos own TESTIMONY (His quoted TESTIMONY, which appeared in the GJ Summary) where he admits he knew what I said he did the day after the incident happened.

You do not admit you were wrong and go on about something else and throw insults out and attempt to patronize others with your posts.

Are you still unclear on what I’ve been saying to you from the beginning? I don’t know how it could be unclear because I’ve been quoting the same quote and saying the same thing the whole time. I’m sure you’ll just try to twist this around, throw out a few more insults and try and get me as upset as you obviously are… While avoiding actually addressing what I have said from the beginning. (go look at the quotes from this exchange. It’s all there and is all pretty straight forward)[/quote]

I think I did admit my error there. But I also clarified (which you have repeatedly ignored - big surprise) that I care about what he knew and when AFTER the initial report. Let’s see how many different ways you can ignore and/or screw that distinction up.

Proceed.

And by the way, it’s not his “testimony”; it’s still a summary. We do not have his testimony. As far as I know, the transcript has not been released.

You can report you saw a fucking alien. I care about the investigation thereafter. I can claim that in one of your clever planking pictures that I saw you butt fucking your 10 year old neighbor. Would you want my claim to be the beginning and end of any judgment against you?

There are too many big gaping holes in the story that has been released thus far.

796

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The N.Y. Times with a really good article…this is why investigative writers are still around.

That was a very interesting read.

Thanks

797

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Looks like more victims are coming forward:

It’s fucking pathetic that people put so much stake into football programs that they will bully and threaten the victims. This whole, “No we really do give a shit about the victims” in Happy Valley seems to ring hollow. I hope it’s just a media slant cause otherwise that’s just pathetic. [/quote]

It’s not mutually exclusive . You can want justice , truth, and people still treated fairly . Me supporting Paterno does not mean I do not feel towards the victims. I myself was mildly abused . But rushing to judgement is still wrong if you’re going to hurt anyone who is innocent.

This is more complicated than most understand. Everyone wants to overreact and when everything shakes out these same people won’t be around to even say oops.
Think back to the duke lacrosse team. Rasheed Casey . Both innocent. But I didn’t see the same media attention when that info came out.

798

It would appear that Paterno is getting some advice about potential civil action.

799

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Looks like more victims are coming forward:

It’s fucking pathetic that people put so much stake into football programs that they will bully and threaten the victims. This whole, “No we really do give a shit about the victims” in Happy Valley seems to ring hollow. I hope it’s just a media slant cause otherwise that’s just pathetic. [/quote]

It’s not mutually exclusive . You can want justice , truth, and people still treated fairly . Me supporting Paterno does not mean I do not feel towards the victims. I myself was mildly abused . But rushing to judgement is still wrong if you’re going to hurt anyone who is innocent.

This is more complicated than most understand. Everyone wants to overreact and when everything shakes out these same people won’t be around to even say oops.
Think back to the duke lacrosse team. Rasheed Casey . Both innocent. But I didn’t see the same media attention when that info came out.[/quote]

Yeah, but said article is referring to victims being harassed and bullied because it brought down Paterno. That’s a little different than liking the man over all even though he fucked up. That’s blaming the victim and that’s fucked up. The problem is that you see that, but not any kind of counter effort. Why should these victims have to hide for their own safety if this sentiment wasn’t prevalent? I mean seriously isn’t getting asshole raped when you a kid, bad enough?

800

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I think I did admit my error there.
[/quote]
You didnt admit your error there but I’ll take the above as you admitting you were wrong

I didnt adress your clarification because I wasnt interested I what you said after you initially question what I said. I dont have any issues with wanting to know the facts. I never screwed any of that up… I just didnt address it because we hadnt worked out our initial exchange.

I did

so the part where it says “Joseph V. Paterno testified…” is not his testimony?

again with the attempts at patronizing posts and insults? I guess thats your thing.

I never said anything about a judgment being passed against Paterno. What I said is that he was told about the situation and that he would be fired because of all this.