Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on November 10, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
-
RT @nathanielkraft Mark Madden just said on WEEI that reports coming that Sandusky & Second Mile pimped out young boys to rich donors
Close the fucking program down. It's done.
This is beyond believable. I'm hoping this isn't true.
-
Close the fucking program down. It's done.
This is beyond believable. I'm hoping this isn't true.
You know, this thought occurred to me this morning. Pedos run in packs sometimes. One of them finds a "good thing", like Second Mile, and there's no way he keeps this to himself. Find one and search his contacts list and his emails and computer records and sometimes more roaches scurry out.
But Dear Lord, don't let this be true.
-
Close the fucking program down. It's done.
This is beyond believable. I'm hoping this isn't true.
Holy. Shit.
-
Donors to his charity I think. Not any better but is different than it being that PSU boosters.
-
What the fuck is wrong with this world where donors to anti-child raping charities are the ones ACTIVELY RAPING CHILDREN?
So beyond crazy.
-
I just can not wrap my head around how seriously fucked up all this is. This makes me feel furious and deeply saddened at the same time. How in the FUCK can this shit be so blatant but yet widespread. Damn man, I can't help but think of my own children and what kind of revenge I would take on these son.of.a.BITCHES!
-
I just can not wrap my head around how seriously fucked up all this is. This makes me feel furious and deeply saddened at the same time. How in the FUCK can this shit be so blatant but yet widespread. Damn man, I can't help but think of my own children and what kind of revenge I would take on these son.of.a.BITCHES!
The Pedo State students say you're wrong and have taken to the streets in support of child rape.
-
(http://www.seekdestroyers.be/kill.jpg)
-
Close the fucking program down. It's done.
This is beyond believable. I'm hoping this isn't true.
The Second Mile isn't a PSU program. It was Sandusky's bait program for little boys for him to rape.
-
The Pedo State students say you're wrong and have taken to the streets in support of child rape.
I couldn't believe that either.
-
This shit is surreal. I mean, you can't even point a finger and laugh at PSU over this. Of all fucked up things you can imagine going on in a football program, this is just out there. That program is ruined. Period. Like THS said, shut it down. This is beyond just a black eye for them. I can't believe that the PSU students are marching in support of Joe Pa. I'm not syaing they should be marching with pitchforks and torches asking for his head, but damn. He knew this shit was going on. Maybe not on the full scale of what it was, but he knew something was going on. And they want to defend that?
If I were them, I would leave it alone and grab the nearest shovel to bury this as deep as I could. I certainly wouldn't be organizing a public demonstration to call more attention to it.
-
I couldn't believe that either.
What's a little sodomy of a 10 year old? This is JoPa. They treated him mean. His players graduated. He made men into boys....I mean, men out of boys....in, out...you know what I mean.
-
If I were them, I would leave it alone and grab the nearest shovel to bury this as deep as I could.
Or, to paraphrase Sani: the first step in getting out of a hole is to put the fucking shovel down.
-
What's a little sodomy of a 10 year old? This is JoPa. They treated him mean. His players graduated. He made men into boys....I mean, men out of boys....in, out...you know what I mean.
He put men into boys.
-
He put men into boys.
Boys to men. A, B, C, BBD
-
Boys to men. A, B, C, BBD
Motown Philly back again.
Doin a little east coast swing....
-
The thing is, they will never be able to talk shit about anyone else...ever...again.
-
Would there be rallies in the street if this had been some valued assistant on Bear Bryant's staff and the old man was forced out?
They'd be burning Tuscaloosa to the ground today.
That's the difference between programs that are icon based and programs that are family based like Auburn's.
No man is greater than the University.
When it comes to some, one man is the program. Idol worshippers.
-
Would there be rallies in the street if this had been some valued assistant on Bear Bryant's staff and the old man was forced out?
They'd be burning Tuscaloosa to the ground today.
That's the difference between programs that are icon based and programs that are family based like Auburn's.
No man is greater than the University.
When it comes to some, one man is the program. Idol worshippers.
Nail. Head.
-
The thing is, they will never be able to talk shit about anyone else...ever...again.
Hell, they won't ever be able to mention Jo Pa again. No documentaries talking about what a great ambassador he was for college football. No awards named after him. Nothing. CSS is editing their "College football's greatest moments" montage as we type.
-
He put men into boys.
LOL'ed hard here.
Would there be rallies in the street if this had been some valued assistant on Bear Bryant's staff and the old man was forced out?
They'd be burning Tuscaloosa to the ground today.
That's the difference between programs that are icon based and programs that are family based like Auburn's.
No man is greater than the University.
When it comes to some, one man is the program. Idol worshippers.
I thought of this exact same thing. To a degree, even Saban. Imagine if you combined Saban & Bear into one figure. But he was there for all the in-between years too.
That would be what Penn State thinks of this man.
I can't imagine Bammers not acting exactly the same way if this exact same thing came out and the equivalent of Saban AND Bear knew about it.
-
LOL'ed hard here.
I thought of this exact same thing. To a degree, even Saban. Imagine if you combined Saban & Bear into one figure. But he was there for all the in-between years too.
That would be what Penn State thinks of this man.
I can't imagine Bammers not acting exactly the same way if this exact same thing came out and the equivalent of Saban AND Bear knew about it.
WTH you mean? I thought Bear was diddling boys?
-
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316863_10150371321324635_783169634_8467196_1469923584_n.jpg)
-
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316863_10150371321324635_783169634_8467196_1469923584_n.jpg)
^^
Hearty laughter emanated.
-
What's a little sodomy of a 10 year old? This is JoPa. They treated him mean. His players graduated. He made men into boys....I mean, men out of boys....in, out...you know what I mean.
For real. I'm sure if any of these protesters had been raped as a child, they wouldn't be supporting this shit. Hell, a person with a half ass sense of common decency wouldn't be out picketing this shit. I can't even stomach to read half the links posted on the X, so its far beyond my understanding why in the hell these JoePa supporters are doing what they are doing. Who gives a shit if JoePa graduated 100% of his players, there were 10 yr old kids fucking raped in his locker room showers and did nothing.
-
Man.
The hysterical nancys are out in full force.
You're all acting like Paterno was in the shower videotaping the shit.
He had ONE incident reported to him 11 years ago. There are questions about exactly what he was told. He may or may not have understood that Jerry was raping a kid. From his testimony, he was told that Jerry was going a little overboard with the bonding.
The rest, it can reasonably be assumed, was kept from him.
But we know his name. Crucify! Crucify!!
-
Man.
The hysterical nancys are out in full force.
You're all acting like Paterno was in the shower videotaping the shit.
Did you read the grand jury doc?
He had ONE incident reported to him 11 years ago.
No, there were more.
There are questions about exactly what he was told. He may or may not have understood that Jerry was raping a kid. From his testimony, he was told that Jerry was going a little overboard with the bonding.
Again, did you read the text? Joe says that he was told that Sandusky was fondling or doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy.
-
Did you read the grand jury doc?
No, there were more.
Again, did you read the text? Joe says that he was told that Sandusky was fondling or doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy.
Yeah. I read it all.
I only saw one instance where it was reported to Paterno or where it could be reasonably assumed that he was definitely informed.
"Something of a sexual nature."
Ok. Nobody wants that around them. Nobody wants the stigma. Nobody is going to run to the press with that. They did what is ALWAYS done in these situations. They went to the guy, confronted him, gave him an opportunity to leave with dignity, quietly and in the interests of preserving the presige of the college.
Happens all the time. I can go to any college campus and show you professors still on staff who have been charged with sexual misconduct. They're there because they've settled and people don't want the image tarnished.
Open the door to the Catholic Church. The freaking cardinals and bishops are worse than Joe.
I'm sure Sandusky was tearful and appropriately remorseful. I'm sure he bawled and apologized and said it was a one-time thing, he was under stress, he was on medication, he was having Vietnam flashbacks -- whatever. He put on a performance. They wanted it to go away.
He was sanctioned: No job. Don't try to get one. Get out and go live quietly. Don't do that shit again.
Maybe they even saw his work with The Second Mile as his attempt to redeem himself and atone for that shit.
All I'm saying is the rush to crucify Paterno is nothing but a public relations stunt. It's exactly the same thing as quietly easing Sandusky out the door. It's manipulated to try to salvage the image of the school. And Paterno pays the price. His reputation is ruined -- and I'm not sure it's merited.
Paterno did exactly the same thing thousand and thousands of other administrators have done in the past and will do tomorrow and the day after that. He tried to make a bad situation go away while inflicting the least damage. Not sure me, you or anybody else wouldn't follow the same path.
-
Not sure me, you or anybody else wouldn't follow the same path.
The GA comes to Paterno and relays the graphic sexual assault described in the report. Paterno softens it to "fondling or something of a sexual nature with a young boy."
Standing alone, this is enough that Joe should have done more than report to the administration. Coupled with Sandusky's prior brush with the law for a related charge, Joe is at fault for failing to do more or to recognize a pattern of behavior. Sandusky's continued association with the PSU football program and parading of children through the complex...and bringing the victim on overnight road trips with the team...should have had claxon sirens sounding off the interior of his thick fucking head.
Fuck the apologism for kindly old Joe. If he wasn't complicit in covering for Sandusky, he was willfully fucking blind.
-
Yeah. I read it all.
I only saw one instance where it was reported to Paterno or where it could be reasonably assumed that he was definitely informed.
"Something of a sexual nature."
Ok. Nobody wants that around them. Nobody wants the stigma. Nobody is going to run to the press with that. They did what is ALWAYS done in these situations. They went to the guy, confronted him, gave him an opportunity to leave with dignity, quietly and in the interests of preserving the presige of the college.
Happens all the time. I can go to any college campus and show you professors still on staff who have been charged with sexual misconduct. They're there because they've settled and people don't want the image tarnished.
Open the door to the Catholic Church. The freaking cardinals and bishops are worse than Joe.
I'm sure Sandusky was tearful and appropriately remorseful. I'm sure he bawled and apologized and said it was a one-time thing, he was under stress, he was on medication, he was having Vietnam flashbacks -- whatever. He put on a performance. They wanted it to go away.
He was sanctioned: No job. Don't try to get one. Get out and go live quietly. Don't do that shit again.
Maybe they even saw his work with The Second Mile as his attempt to redeem himself and atone for that shit.
All I'm saying is the rush to crucify Paterno is nothing but a public relations stunt. It's exactly the same thing as quietly easing Sandusky out the door. It's manipulated to try to salvage the image of the school. And Paterno pays the price. His reputation is ruined -- and I'm not sure it's merited.
Paterno did exactly the same thing thousand and thousands of other administrators have done in the past and will do tomorrow and the day after that. He tried to make a bad situation go away while inflicting the least damage. Not sure me, you or anybody else wouldn't follow the same path.
This is bullshit. You're playing devil's advocate. No way you believe what you just typed. No fucking way. For whatever reason, you fancy being the lone ranger. I get that.
But after all the shit you talk about doing. For making a complete asshole out of yourself over a fucking tomato, and you really expect me to believe poor little Joe is a victim here?
Fuck that.
-
This is bullshit. You're playing devil's advocate. No way you believe what you just typed. No fucking way. For whatever reason, you fancy being the lone ranger. I get that.
But after all the shit you talk about doing. For making a complete asshole out of yourself over a fucking tomato, and you really expect me to believe poor little Joe is a victim here?
Fuck that.
:haha:
Yeah, he's playing devil's advocate.
-
:haha:
Yeah, he's playing devil's advocate.
Agreed. And the tomato thing made me chortle.
-
Agreed. And the tomato thing made me chortle.
You mean
*snicker*
:haha:
-
This is bullshit. You're playing devil's advocate. No way you believe what you just typed. No fucking way. For whatever reason, you fancy being the lone ranger. I get that.
But after all the shit you talk about doing. For making a complete asshole out of yourself over a fucking tomato, and you really expect me to believe poor little Joe is a victim here?
Fuck that.
:bar:
-
You mean
*snicker*
:haha:
Fine, rub it in why dont'cha
-
This is bullshit. You're playing devil's advocate. No way you believe what you just typed. No fucking way. For whatever reason, you fancy being the lone ranger. I get that.
But after all the shit you talk about doing. For making a complete asshole out of yourself over a fucking tomato, and you really expect me to believe poor little Joe is a victim here?
Fuck that.
Tomatoes are important. Leave one on my sandwich and I'll show you just how imporant they are, pedro.
And yeah, I pretty much do believe it.
Don't know what was said behind closed doors or how Sandusky reacted if/when confronted.
You know yourself that this shit happens at colleges, churches, little league programs, cheerleader camps, softball teams, police departments and anywhere else adults come in contact with vulnerable kids. It happens all the time.
I know a place right now where a guy is still teaching after having four complaints lodged against him for inappropriate contact. He's still there because he has tenure, because most of the parents/kids just want to forget it ever happened, because he's a really swell guy and everybody likes him and because things get quietly settled.
I can show you a church where the youth minister was drilling a high school sophomore on the youth building stage on a regular basis. He had a wife and kids. Nobody wants the scandal so it is quietly dispensed with. The church doesn't let him leave because that would spark more conversation. So he stays. And his duties are changed.
You know it happens.
You also know that the handling of Sandusky was pretty much by the book for a big enterprise like that. They did what's always done. The only difference is Sandusky couldn't get control of himself and he kept on taking risks.
The people at PSU, including Paterno probably, didn't see because they didn't WANT to see.
-
The people at PSU, including Paterno probably, didn't see because they didn't WANT to see.
Which is precisely why Paterno should be lambasted for his lack of effort to put a stop to Sandusky's actions.
One of the most powerful men in Pennsylvania "didn't want to see." No where near acceptable and should be chastised to the fullest extent.
-
Oh it definitely happens at cheerleading camps. This one time.....I mean, damn that Paterno.
-
Oh it definitely happens at cheerleading camps. This one time.....I mean, damn that Paterno.
And he's a witch.
-
Willful blindness is just as culpable. Fuck Joe.
-
Willful blindness is just as culpable. Fuck Joe.
Too old for Jerry's tastes.
-
Willful blindness is just as culpable. Fuck Joe.
The rippin and the tearin.
http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/rippin--and-tearin-
-
Tomatoes are important. Leave one on my sandwich and I'll show you just how imporant they are, pedro.
And yeah, I pretty much do believe it.
(http://www.landbigfish.com/images/store/swatches/PBB-BladeBait.jpg)
-
Willful blindness is just as culpable. Fuck Joe.
Easy to say.
-
Easy to say.
You're right. It rolls off the tongue. Fuck Joe, Fuck Joe, Fuck Koe...oops, maybe not so easy after all.
-
I think it's worth noting that if this were Bryant or Saban I would be leading the charge to have them stoned.
Part of my reluctance to crucify Joe is that for 381 years he's done things with integrity and class. No probation. No scandal. No drug issues. No thug issues. His kids usually don't get arrested. His kids usually do right when they come out. Some of his former players are among the most respected and professional in the business.
The personal and professional integrity the guy has shown over the years does not reconcile with the image of some deviant schemer who purposely buried things for his own selfish benefit.
If he knew (and I'm not willing to agree he had full knowledge) did he purposely try to minimize things and make them go away for the greater benefit of Penn State? I can accept that premise. I can't condemn it because I've seen far too many other people with less at stake do the same thing or worse.
I'm just not willing to let one instance where he maybe possibly could have or should have handled something differently -- and clearly it was something monumental -- destroy a 837-year history of doing things right.
You destroy Paterno because he didn't go above and beyond what he was required to do and what's left?
-
I think it's worth noting that if this were Bryant or Saban I would be leading the charge to have them stoned.
Part of my reluctance to crucify Joe is that for 381 years he's done things with integrity and class. No probation. No scandal. No drug issues. No thug issues. His kids usually don't get arrested. His kids usually do right when they come out. Some of his former players are among the most respected and professional in the business.
The personal and professional integrity the guy has shown over the years does not reconcile with the image of some deviant schemer who purposely buried things for his own selfish benefit.
If he knew (and I'm not willing to agree he had full knowledge) did he purposely try to minimize things and make them go away for the greater benefit of Penn State? I can accept that premise. I can't condemn it because I've seen far too many other people with less at stake do the same thing or worse.
I'm just not willing to let one instance where he maybe possibly could have or should have handled something differently -- and clearly it was something monumental -- destroy a 837-year history of doing things right.
You destroy Paterno because he didn't go above and beyond what he was required to do and what's left?
Despite what I've said earlier with pitchfork in hand, I can see some of this. Personally, I've seen enough to condemn them all. However, I think I have to concede that outside of Sandusky and what will probably happen to him, Paterno is the face of Penn State and all the media attention has been and will continue to be focused almoast solely on him. 2 days from now, we won't recall any of the names involved in this other than Padusky.
-
I think it's worth noting that if this were Bryant or Saban I would be leading the charge to have them stoned.
Part of my reluctance to crucify Joe is that for 381 years he's done things with integrity and class. No probation. No scandal. No drug issues. No thug issues. His kids usually don't get arrested. His kids usually do right when they come out. Some of his former players are among the most respected and professional in the business.
The personal and professional integrity the guy has shown over the years does not reconcile with the image of some deviant schemer who purposely buried things for his own selfish benefit.
If he knew (and I'm not willing to agree he had full knowledge) did he purposely try to minimize things and make them go away for the greater benefit of Penn State? I can accept that premise. I can't condemn it because I've seen far too many other people with less at stake do the same thing or worse.
I'm just not willing to let one instance where he maybe possibly could have or should have handled something differently -- and clearly it was something monumental -- destroy a 837-year history of doing things right.
You destroy Paterno because he didn't go above and beyond what he was required to do and what's left?
But it wasn't one instance. Every time Sandusky came into the athletic complex was a chance for Joe to do something about it. Every time the GA (I can never remember his name) saw Sandusky in the athletic complex was a chance to talk to Joe about it.
Plus it isn't like Joe doesn't have an ego. Why else would he hang on to coach for 500 years. As it is I fully expect Joe to be dead in 2 years. One: he's really freakin' old, Two: he's not going to be able to handle the ongoing scrutiny combined with remorse and not coaching anymore.
-
But it wasn't one instance. Every time Sandusky came into the athletic complex was a chance for Joe to do something about it. Every time the GA (I can never remember his name) saw Sandusky in the athletic complex was a chance to talk to Joe about it.
Exactly. This clown was allowed to continuously visit the facilities and lockerroom AFTER the initial incident with JoePa knowing what kind of guy he was and what he had done. That put other people in further danger letting a pedo run free at the scene of the crime.
-
But it wasn't one instance. Every time Sandusky came into the athletic complex was a chance for Joe to do something about it. Every time the GA (I can never remember his name) saw Sandusky in the athletic complex was a chance to talk to Joe about it.
Have you ever been in that situation?
Nobody WANTS to talk about it. Everybody is Pontius Pilate.
Did what I was supposed to do. Told somebody. They must have solved it.
Hey, Jerry (fucking creep. wonder if he really did anything with those kids? He's doing that Second Mile thing now, maybe he's trying to do better. The kids with him seem like they're happy, they're having a good time, he's taking care of them. I don't see any horns, there's no hooves, Jerry seems like a decent guy. Second Mile has raised a shit ton of money and helped a lot of kids, maybe there's nothing to it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Why would the parents let the kids come with him over and over and over if something was wrong? Wouldn't the kids tell their moms? Jerry said it was all a misunderstanding. People took some things the wrong way, he's just a friendly guy, just horsing around. Well, I won't let him near MY kids, but he seems straight. Maybe it was just some craziness. Maybe he took the wrong meds. Maybe it wasn't what it looked like......) how's it hanging? Busy, man. Got a game to prepare for. Sure, we got some new Nikes in. Got a few extra pairs. Be glad to donate them to the kids. See ya! (fucking creep)
Not the same, but dealing with a situation where I'm pretty sure I've got employees fucking each other. Both are married. Had people report to me they've seen them in a compromising position in the parking lot. And more. Lot at stake. I could fire them. I could ask them about it. I could open myself up to a lawsuit if I'm wrong. I could compromise my relationship with the customers they're most familiar with. It's never as cut and dried as people want to make it.
-
Have you ever been in that situation?
Nobody WANTS to talk about it. Everybody is Pontius Pilate.
Did what I was supposed to do. Told somebody. They must have solved it.
Hey, Jerry (fudgeing creep. wonder if he really did anything with those kids? He's doing that Second Mile thing now, maybe he's trying to do better. The kids with him seem like they're happy, they're having a good time, he's taking care of them. I don't see any horns, there's no hooves, Jerry seems like a decent guy. Second Mile has raised a shitake ton of money and helped a lot of kids, maybe there's nothing to it. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Why would the parents let the kids come with him over and over and over if something was wrong? Wouldn't the kids tell their moms? Jerry said it was all a misunderstanding. People took some things the wrong way, he's just a friendly guy, just horsing around. Well, I won't let him near MY kids, but he seems straight. Maybe it was just some craziness. Maybe he took the wrong meds. Maybe it wasn't what it looked like......) how's it hanging? Busy, man. Got a game to prepare for. Sure, we got some new Nikes in. Got a few extra pairs. Be glad to donate them to the kids. See ya! (fudgeing creep)
Not the same, but dealing with a situation where I'm pretty sure I've got employees fudgeing each other. Both are married. Had people report to me they've seen them in a compromising position in the parking lot. And more. Lot at stake. I could fire them. I could ask them about it. I could open myself up to a lawsuit if I'm wrong. I could compromise my relationship with the customers they're most familiar with. It's never as cut and dried as people want to make it.
Is one of them 10 and the other a 60 year old sexual predator? Then it's not the same.
-
I guess the words "not the same" didn't appear on your screen.
Merely pointing out that in situations where people's personal and professional reputations are at stake, where your own livelihood is at risk, where your company (and family's) future are at stake you don't know what you'd do.
It's easy to rage hysterically and call for peoole's heads after the fact. It's a simple thing to say what should have been done and piously smote from your very high horse. Everybody is captain America in retrospect.
You would have whipped his ass, turned on the bat signal, led the SWAT team in a raid and personally brought Sandusky to justice. You would have put on your iron man suit and turned the building into rubble.
Ok. I'm sure you would.
Paterno handled it like a corporate executive would. Like they do.
Doesn't make it right. Just what it is.
-
I guess the words "not the same" didn't appear on your screen.
Merely pointing out that in situations where people's personal and professional reputations are at stake, where your own livelihood is at risk, where your company (and family's) future are at stake you don't know what you'd do.
It's easy to rage hysterically and call for peoole's heads after the fact. It's a simple thing to say what should have been done and piously smote from your very high horse. Everybody is captain America in retrospect.
You would have whipped his ass, turned on the bat signal, led the SWAT team in a raid and personally brought Sandusky to justice. You would have put on your iron man suit and turned the building into rubble.
Ok. I'm sure you would.
Paterno handled it like a corporate executive would. Like they do.
Doesn't make it right. Just what it is.
That's the problem. You watch too many movies. It doesn't take a super hero to protect children. It doesn't take a super human suit to put someone in jail. It simply takes not being a dick sucking coward.
-
That's the problem. You watch too many movies. It doesn't take a super hero to protect children. It doesn't take a super human suit to put someone in jail. It simply takes not being a dick sucking coward.
Movies, schmoovies. Hyperbole escapes you.
I hope I'd do things differently than Joe.
But unless you're in that situation, unless you can say unequivocally what he knew and when he knew it, you can't honestly know what you'd do. You can only hope.
He behaved like a corporate executive. Don't tell me you aren't aware that it happens every day.
-
Movies, schmoovies. Hyperbole escapes you.
I hope I'd do things differently than Joe.
But unless you're in that situation, unless you can say unequivocally what he knew and when he knew it, you can't honestly know what you'd do. You can only hope.
He behaved like a corporate executive. Don't tell me you aren't aware that it happens every day.
It does happen every day. Doesn't make it right. And when they finally do get caught? It should be very public, it should be very ugly, and it should happen the exact way it's happening now.
-
It does happen every day. Doesn't make it right. And when they finally do get caught? It should be very public, it should be very ugly, and it should happen the exact way it's happening now.
For Sandusky. I agree.
Dragging Paterno behind a truck? I dunno. Feels wrong.
-
Two married grownups fucking at work is not a crime.
Anal rape of a child is a CRIME. C.R.I.M.E.
JoePa not reporting an assistant coach fucking sorority girls is not a fireable offense.
JoePa not reporting an assistant coach fucking a ten year old is absolutely a fireable offense.
It was WHAT he covered up - not that he covered up some random embarassment. And HOW LONG it was covered up, giving the pedo time to hurt other kids.
I am starting to agree with Token. No way do you not get this. No way do you really believe what you are typing. You, Mr. Fire and Brimstone, Fuck Em and Feed Em Fish heads?
I just broke the line.
No way.
-
It was WHAT he covered up - not that he covered up some random embarassment. And HOW LONG it was covered up, giving the pedo time to hurt other kids.
I am starting to agree with Token. No way do you not get this. No way do you really believe what you are typing. You, Mr. Fire and Brimstone, Fuck Em and Feed Em Fish heads?
I just broke the line.
No way.
Said this elsewhere, but when you take away all the high and mighty posturing from people who claim to know with absolute certainty what they'd do in a situation like this; when you step back and ask yourself "what did Joe know, when did he know it, and how much did he know"; when you recognize that the report is essentially a series of isolated incidents (in a way) and that no one person was aware of the totality of it I think there are a lot of questions that need to be asked.
If all we do is rant about what woulda, shoulda without taking the time to figure out how otherwise good, decent, moral and righteous men and women turned away from what we've established as their moral obligation how can we ever understand enough to prevent the next situation?
All I'm trying to do is figure out why and come up with some explanation for how a person with Paterno's standards (by all accounts) could have become entangled in this.
If you asked me to rank the relative morality of everybody on this board (based on what little I know of you) against Paterno (based on everything I've ever read and heard about him)? Before last week he'd have been like Moses. We'd have been like the heathenites. So now we're all living by a higher standard than him? If it could happen to him, it could never, ever, ever happen to any of us? That's what we're saying?
Haven't we all seen basically good people bury some awful shit in a misguided effort at self preservation?
Just trying to figure it out, that's all. Don't think I've ever said it was right, just trying to figure out how somebody who (again, by all accounts) is a person of high moral fiber got where he is. How did it happen?
Everybody keeps saying "anal rape of a child." There's no evidence Paterno knew that. According to the Grand Jury testimony McQueary is the one lone soul with knowledge of that event. If Paterno was told his friend and confidant was butt fucking a kid, then yeah. That changes things. No testimony to that affect (yet) and (in my mind at least) it's unfair to make the assumption that he was told. McQueary didn't say he told him that. If that's what McQueary saw and he failed to communicate the gravity to Paterno or anybody else? That changes things.
JoePa not reporting anal rape. Again. Are we all sure that's what Paterno knew to report? If you can show me in the testimony -- his or McQueary's -- where that was specifically communicated to him, please do. I never saw that. If he was specifically told that and buried his head in the sand? Different story.
If you "just know in your heart he knew" that's something else altogether. I want to know the absolute facts without broad assumptions.
How do you know what Paterno allegedly "covered up." Can you tell me from the grand jury testimony that his knowledge extended beyond "some horsing around in the shower" and a vague allegation of improper conduct? It's not unreasonable for me to consider that Sandusky was a master at explaining, obfuscating, whitewashing the deal with everybody around him. Pretty clearly obvious he was good at it. Why is it completely impossible to conceive that he was able to convince his good friend -- a guy who knew him for 40-something years -- that there was nothing to it? Particularly when reports up the ladder came to nothing? Is it impossible to believe that maybe, just maybe, Paterno was fooled by a master deceiver (and yes, fooled in part because he didn't want to believe that a guy he called a friend and confidant was capable of such)?
I guess I'm unwilling to accept that Paterno had full knowledge and allowed this to pass until and unless somebody can show me explicitly where he was told.
That's my only real sticking point and I've attempted (badly it appears) to convey that in about three dozen different ways.
I'm trying to look objectively at the facts in evidence and not make leaps of logic in terms of what somebody "must have" known.
My mistake for thinking out loud and assuming people would be able to step back and objectively consider possibilities.
But for the last time, given everything we know about the man, I have an extremely difficult time reconciling that with the image of some deviant who was complicit in the molestation of children. All I'm doing is considering alternative answers that will help me understand how things got to this point. Apparently I'm the only one willing to try to figure it out.
Given time to consider, I can see how Penn State is right to remove him. But the side to that you're all failing to see is that the decision is also made in the interests of preserving the dignity of the school. They're not firing him because he was wrong, they're firing him to hopefully salvage the season and to distance the school from his "dirt." That's the only part of it that feels wrong I think.
-
Said this elsewhere, but when you take away all the high and mighty posturing from people who claim to know with absolute certainty what they'd do in a situation like this; when you step back and ask yourself "what did Joe know, when did he know it, and how much did he know"; when you recognize that the report is essentially a series of isolated incidents (in a way) and that no one person was aware of the totality of it I think there are a lot of questions that need to be asked.
If all we do is rant about what woulda, shoulda without taking the time to figure out how otherwise good, decent, moral and righteous men and women turned away from what we've established as their moral obligation how can we ever understand enough to prevent the next situation?
All I'm trying to do is figure out why and come up with some explanation for how a person with Paterno's standards (by all accounts) could have become entangled in this.
If you asked me to rank the relative morality of everybody on this board (based on what little I know of you) against Paterno (based on everything I've ever read and heard about him)? Before last week he'd have been like Moses. We'd have been like the heathenites. So now we're all living by a higher standard than him? If it could happen to him, it could never, ever, ever happen to any of us? That's what we're saying?
Haven't we all seen basically good people bury some awful shit in a misguided effort at self preservation?
Just trying to figure it out, that's all. Don't think I've ever said it was right, just trying to figure out how somebody who (again, by all accounts) is a person of high moral fiber got where he is. How did it happen?
Everybody keeps saying "anal rape of a child." There's no evidence Paterno knew that. According to the Grand Jury testimony McQueary is the one lone soul with knowledge of that event. If Paterno was told his friend and confidant was butt fucking a kid, then yeah. That changes things. No testimony to that affect (yet) and (in my mind at least) it's unfair to make the assumption that he was told. McQueary didn't say he told him that. If that's what McQueary saw and he failed to communicate the gravity to Paterno or anybody else? That changes things.
JoePa not reporting anal rape. Again. Are we all sure that's what Paterno knew to report? If you can show me in the testimony -- his or McQueary's -- where that was specifically communicated to him, please do. I never saw that. If he was specifically told that and buried his head in the sand? Different story.
If you "just know in your heart he knew" that's something else altogether. I want to know the absolute facts without broad assumptions.
How do you know what Paterno allegedly "covered up." Can you tell me from the grand jury testimony that his knowledge extended beyond "some horsing around in the shower" and a vague allegation of improper conduct? It's not unreasonable for me to consider that Sandusky was a master at explaining, obfuscating, whitewashing the deal with everybody around him. Pretty clearly obvious he was good at it. Why is it completely impossible to conceive that he was able to convince his good friend -- a guy who knew him for 40-something years -- that there was nothing to it? Particularly when reports up the ladder came to nothing? Is it impossible to believe that maybe, just maybe, Paterno was fooled by a master deceiver (and yes, fooled in part because he didn't want to believe that a guy he called a friend and confidant was capable of such)?
I guess I'm unwilling to accept that Paterno had full knowledge and allowed this to pass until and unless somebody can show me explicitly where he was told.
That's my only real sticking point and I've attempted (badly it appears) to convey that in about three dozen different ways.
I'm trying to look objectively at the facts in evidence and not make leaps of logic in terms of what somebody "must have" known.
My mistake for thinking out loud and assuming people would be able to step back and objectively consider possibilities.
But for the last time, given everything we know about the man, I have an extremely difficult time reconciling that with the image of some deviant who was complicit in the molestation of children. All I'm doing is considering alternative answers that will help me understand how things got to this point. Apparently I'm the only one willing to try to figure it out.
Given time to consider, I can see how Penn State is right to remove him. But the side to that you're all failing to see is that the decision is also made in the interests of preserving the dignity of the school. They're not firing him because he was wrong, they're firing him to hopefully salvage the season and to distance the school from his "dirt." That's the only part of it that feels wrong I think.
You still don't get it, chopper.
You've already said you'd be leading the charge if this happened at Alabama, so you can save all the "taking away the emotion and thinking objectively" bullshit for another argument. You are biased towards Joe Paterno because you believe him to be above this type of behavior. He's not, and he's getting what he deserves for being a coward.
-
Pretty clearly obvious he was good at it. Why is it completely impossible to conceive that he was able to convince his good friend -- a guy who knew him for 40-something years -- that there was nothing to it? Particularly when reports up the ladder came to nothing? Is it impossible to believe that maybe, just maybe, Paterno was fooled by a master deceiver (and yes, fooled in part because he didn't want to believe that a guy he called a friend and confidant was capable of such)?
I guess I'm unwilling to accept that Paterno had full knowledge and allowed this to pass until and unless somebody can show me explicitly where he was told.
Here's where I get hung up.
He wasn't good at it. After reading the entire Grand Jury report, he was caught multiple times over multiple years doing something inappropriate with a child. Perhaps not anal sex, but strange, inappropriate behavior that was "in a sexual nature."
He was caught laying face to face with a boy late at night by the elementary school wrestling coach.
He was caught by the assistant principal of a high school.
He was caught by victim 1's mother.
He was caught by a graduate assistant.
He was caught by Detective Ralph Ralston admitting to doing inappropriate, sexual acts in a shower while apologizing to the mother of the child. (Interesting part here - He was subsequently forced to "retire" and told he was no longer the successor to Joe Paterno. That was in 1998/1999.)
He was caught giving oral sex to a boy in a Penn State athletic department building by a janitor.
He was caught caught caught caught caught. This isn't a matter of "they had to have known." They did know.
Joe Paterno's treatment isn't contingent upon whether or not he was told Sandusky was anally raping a boy.
It's the fact that in 1998/1999, Sandusky had been caught by police and Paterno subsequently relieved him of his coaching duties for seemingly no reason.
It's the fact that prior to 1999, Sandusky had numerous boys attached to him on bowl trips, at football games, at practices, at team dinners, and at his house. It doesn't take a crime detective to say, "Hey, you know what? I bet something was weird about Sandusky having those boys attached to his hip all those years. And then he gets caught doing some weird, sexual things to boys? Hmmm."
It's the fact that despite Paterno (and the rest of the Penn State officials) being aware of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior towards a child in 1999, he was still having access to Penn State facilities.
In 2002, it's reported to Joe Paterno that Sandusky is doing some "horse play" in a "sexual nature" to a boy.
Then in 2005, Sandusky is bringing another reported victim to Penn State preseason practices.
Then in 2009, Sandusky is still allowed to host his little boy camps on Penn State campuses.
They all knew at the very least that Sandusky was an ill-reputable character who had a history (albeit to them, very small history) of inappropriate behavior with children.
As for the legality of the matter? Who gives a shit?
Anyone with a lick of common sense can make an inference. Anyone could infer that this Sandusky guy (especially if Paterno was that close with him for so many years coaching) had a problem.
-
In a sense, it's like bitching about "playcalling". NONE of us KNOW why they called the play they did, we're just certain that we'd have called it differently despite the fact we don't have the knowledge they have at the time they had it.
-
You still don't get it, chopper.
You've already said you'd be leading the charge if this happened at Alabama, so you can save all the "taking away the emotion and thinking objectively" bullshit for another argument. You are biased towards Joe Paterno because you believe him to be above this type of behavior. He's not, and he's getting what he deserves for being a coward.
Yeah. Because what I know of Saban and Bryant doesn't give me any indication to think that they'd be above it. You're right.
Who it is makes a difference. If this were Dennis Rodman or Phil Spector, I wouldn't have much trouble with the concept.
Paterno? Doesn't make sense. Doesn't jibe. That leaves me with either blindly accepting what's on the surface or trying to figure it out by looking at the entire picture.
I think I specifically said I'm trying to figure out how a guy with Paterno's established credibility and integrity could get caught up in something like this. And I'm formulating rational and reasonable -- non-emotional -- reasons for how it could have reached this point.
It doesn't make sense to me and I'm trying to look at it objectively and understand it in the context of the world we actually live in as opposed to the utopian one where everybody always does what's morally and ethically right regardless of the circumstances. What did he know, what was he told when he made the decisions that he did?
You're a cop for god's sake. You know better than anybody the kind of heinous shit people try to keep buried in their own familes, in business, in schools -- for reasons far less valid than this.
All I'm saying is that I can see how a guy who is his good friend, his confidant could convince him that what the GA termed "some sex stuff maybe in the shower" or whatever was completely misconstrued. I can see him wanting to believe and accepting the explanation. I'm saying that you, in the same situation, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY TOLD, might could be convinced by your favorite uncle that what some other guy THOUGHT was sexual horseplay was nothing of the sort. No way.
That door is closed to you. I understand. It's not entirely closed to me until and unless somebody tells me for an absolute undeniable concrete fact that Paterno unquestionably knew the extent and there was no room for doubt.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I said he did what he should have done, did all he could do, or did what was acceptable to me. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible reality that fits who we all knew Paterno to be before the other day. Would that guy honestly try to cover up (as has been shouted here as if it were an absolute) anal rape of a child!!! The only guy we KNOW covered that up is McQueary.
I'm not willing to make my final determination on Paterno based on "he must have" or "he had to" or "IMO he did" or "there's no way he didn't" or "I believe" or "I'm sure he" or "you can't tell me he didn't" or any of that. Every single ounce of that is speculation. What are the FACTS?
It's illegal and worth condemnation to point that out? Speculating on what he "should have" known is okay, but speculation on how he may have gotten there without being a closeted, enabling pervert is verboten? What's fair about that?
I understand that the abuse of a child is the worst possible offense. Sandusky (All I'm trying to do is keep the horror over what Sandusky did from impacting my view of the facts in relation to the actions of others. It's hard to separate because this is the worst thing ever. The disgust and revulsion over what Sandusky did carries over to everybody else no matter how little they may have known about it. Every single person on that campus, everybody who ever played there is now looked at with a twinge of suspicion. How could that have gone on and they didn't see or hear anything?
That goes to my argument that institutions are often irreparably harmed by allegations of this nature. Sex scandal at the college no matter who reports it? College becomes "that place where they were raping kids." Your best friend, business associate and partner is raping kids? Even if you're the whistleblower people will still wonder what you knew, how long it went on, why you didn't come forward sooner. Just happens. You become "the law firm where that guy was raping kids."
When there's a definitive answer to what Paterno knew and when, or if something else comes out (and it may, but that's not a given either) THEN decide what his ultimate fate is. He's been removed from his job and is the target of public scrutiny.
Call me whatever you want, but a 60-year history of (from all we know) doing things the right way qualifies the guy for at least the possibility that things are not as they appear on the surface and that maybe we're not seeing something or that we're seeing something we need to see to find an outlet for our collective rage.
There's the strong possibility that as this goes on and we learn more details I'll pick up rocks, too. I'll throw some with you if it's proven that he was as complicit as most of you have already decided he was. I just want to know and I want it to be without "must have" or "had to" speculation.
Before you go on a rampage, I'm not saying this is on the same scale at all, but how many times were we subjected to the argument that Cam "must have" known this, that or the other? We all accept that he lived in the same house with his father, was invested in the life decisions that were being made and had no knowledge of his dad's activities at all. That's perfectly plausible.
But now I'm Satan for suggesting that it's possibly plausible Paterno had limited knowledge (whether it was willfully limited or not is another discussion)? Not that it excuses his actions, but at least it puts some semblance of order to them and helps me understand? For that "I'm not the person you knew?" Hmmm. That's curious to me. I have no response to that.
Right now, PSU took steps to protect its image. Was firing Paterno an effort to help any of the kids? No, it was an effort to save face. That pisses me off. They fired him hoping that things will go easier on them down the road if more comes out. That's what bothers me, I guess.
If it was as widespread as it seems are the three or four who are gone the ONLY people who could have known?
Did McQueary not ever speak of it again except to his dad? Did the janitors not tell their wives or girlfriends? Tell somebody over drinks at the bar?
It's an awful, horrible thing. The focus on Paterno as if he is the devil incarnate and the only person capable of stopping this years ago is where I begin to lose grips with it.
-
Yeah. Because what I know of Saban and Bryant doesn't give me any indication to think that they'd be above it. You're right.
Who it is makes a difference. If this were Dennis Rodman or Phil Spector, I wouldn't have much trouble with the concept.
Paterno? Doesn't make sense. Doesn't jibe. That leaves me with either blindly accepting what's on the surface or trying to figure it out by looking at the entire picture.
I think I specifically said I'm trying to figure out how a guy with Paterno's established credibility and integrity could get caught up in something like this. And I'm formulating rational and reasonable -- non-emotional -- reasons for how it could have reached this point.
It doesn't make sense to me and I'm trying to look at it objectively and understand it in the context of the world we actually live in as opposed to the utopian one where everybody always does what's morally and ethically right regardless of the circumstances. What did he know, what was he told when he made the decisions that he did?
You're a cop for god's sake. You know better than anybody the kind of heinous shit people try to keep buried in their own familes, in business, in schools -- for reasons far less valid than this.
All I'm saying is that I can see how a guy who is his good friend, his confidant could convince him that what the GA termed "some sex stuff maybe in the shower" or whatever was completely misconstrued. I can see him wanting to believe and accepting the explanation. I'm saying that you, in the same situation, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY TOLD, might could be convinced by your favorite uncle that what some other guy THOUGHT was sexual horseplay was nothing of the sort. No way.
That door is closed to you. I understand. It's not entirely closed to me until and unless somebody tells me for an absolute undeniable concrete fact that Paterno unquestionably knew the extent and there was no room for doubt.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I said he did what he should have done, did all he could do, or did what was acceptable to me. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible reality that fits who we all knew Paterno to be before the other day. Would that guy honestly try to cover up (as has been shouted here as if it were an absolute) anal rape of a child!!! The only guy we KNOW covered that up is McQueary.
I'm not willing to make my final determination on Paterno based on "he must have" or "he had to" or "IMO he did" or "there's no way he didn't" or "I believe" or "I'm sure he" or "you can't tell me he didn't" or any of that. Every single ounce of that is speculation. What are the FACTS?
It's illegal and worth condemnation to point that out? Speculating on what he "should have" known is okay, but speculation on how he may have gotten there without being a closeted, enabling pervert is verboten? What's fair about that?
I understand that the abuse of a child is the worst possible offense. Sandusky (All I'm trying to do is keep the horror over what Sandusky did from impacting my view of the facts in relation to the actions of others. It's hard to separate because this is the worst thing ever. The disgust and revulsion over what Sandusky did carries over to everybody else no matter how little they may have known about it. Every single person on that campus, everybody who ever played there is now looked at with a twinge of suspicion. How could that have gone on and they didn't see or hear anything?
That goes to my argument that institutions are often irreparably harmed by allegations of this nature. Sex scandal at the college no matter who reports it? College becomes "that place where they were raping kids." Your best friend, business associate and partner is raping kids? Even if you're the whistleblower people will still wonder what you knew, how long it went on, why you didn't come forward sooner. Just happens. You become "the law firm where that guy was raping kids."
When there's a definitive answer to what Paterno knew and when, or if something else comes out (and it may, but that's not a given either) THEN decide what his ultimate fate is. He's been removed from his job and is the target of public scrutiny.
Call me whatever you want, but a 60-year history of (from all we know) doing things the right way qualifies the guy for at least the possibility that things are not as they appear on the surface and that maybe we're not seeing something or that we're seeing something we need to see to find an outlet for our collective rage.
There's the strong possibility that as this goes on and we learn more details I'll pick up rocks, too. I'll throw some with you if it's proven that he was as complicit as most of you have already decided he was. I just want to know and I want it to be without "must have" or "had to" speculation.
Before you go on a rampage, I'm not saying this is on the same scale at all, but how many times were we subjected to the argument that Cam "must have" known this, that or the other? We all accept that he lived in the same house with his father, was invested in the life decisions that were being made and had no knowledge of his dad's activities at all. That's perfectly plausible.
But now I'm Satan for suggesting that it's possibly plausible Paterno had limited knowledge (whether it was willfully limited or not is another discussion)? Not that it excuses his actions, but at least it puts some semblance of order to them and helps me understand? For that "I'm not the person you knew?" Hmmm. That's curious to me. I have no response to that.
Right now, PSU took steps to protect its image. Was firing Paterno an effort to help any of the kids? No, it was an effort to save face. That pisses me off. They fired him hoping that things will go easier on them down the road if more comes out. That's what bothers me, I guess.
If it was as widespread as it seems are the three or four who are gone the ONLY people who could have known?
Did McQueary not ever speak of it again except to his dad? Did the janitors not tell their wives or girlfriends? Tell somebody over drinks at the bar?
It's an awful, horrible thing. The focus on Paterno as if he is the devil incarnate and the only person capable of stopping this years ago is where I begin to lose grips with it.
willful blindness is far easier to do than actually committing the crime.
-
Here's where I get hung up.
He wasn't good at it. After reading the entire Grand Jury report, he was caught multiple times over multiple years doing something inappropriate with a child. Perhaps not anal sex, but strange, inappropriate behavior that was "in a sexual nature."
He was caught laying face to face with a boy late at night by the elementary school wrestling coach.
He was caught by the assistant principal of a high school.
He was caught by victim 1's mother.
He was caught by a graduate assistant.
He was caught by Detective Ralph Ralston admitting to doing inappropriate, sexual acts in a shower while apologizing to the mother of the child. (Interesting part here - He was subsequently forced to "retire" and told he was no longer the successor to Joe Paterno. That was in 1998/1999.)
He was caught giving oral sex to a boy in a Penn State athletic department building by a janitor.
He was caught caught caught caught caught. This isn't a matter of "they had to have known." They did know.
Joe Paterno's treatment isn't contingent upon whether or not he was told Sandusky was anally raping a boy.
It's the fact that in 1998/1999, Sandusky had been caught by police and Paterno subsequently relieved him of his coaching duties for seemingly no reason.
It's the fact that prior to 1999, Sandusky had numerous boys attached to him on bowl trips, at football games, at practices, at team dinners, and at his house. It doesn't take a crime detective to say, "Hey, you know what? I bet something was weird about Sandusky having those boys attached to his hip all those years. And then he gets caught doing some weird, sexual things to boys? Hmmm."
It's the fact that despite Paterno (and the rest of the Penn State officials) being aware of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior towards a child in 1999, he was still having access to Penn State facilities.
In 2002, it's reported to Joe Paterno that Sandusky is doing some "horse play" in a "sexual nature" to a boy.
Then in 2005, Sandusky is bringing another reported victim to Penn State preseason practices.
Then in 2009, Sandusky is still allowed to host his little boy camps on Penn State campuses.
They all knew at the very least that Sandusky was an ill-reputable character who had a history (albeit to them, very small history) of inappropriate behavior with children.
As for the legality of the matter? Who gives a shit?
Anyone with a lick of common sense can make an inference. Anyone could infer that this Sandusky guy (especially if Paterno was that close with him for so many years coaching) had a problem.
I'm getting sick of being the devil, but allow me to retort.
All of those things were separate self-contained instances. You're making the illogical leap that each "must have" known about the other when there's no evidence to support it. You're connecting dots that were only connected when the Grand Jury began putting them together.
The wrestling coach didn't tell McQueary.
McQueary told Paterno something, but we don't know what.
The assistant principal didn't tell.
Detective Ralston didn't bother to notify anybody at PSU.
And so on.
You've heard the story of the blind men describing an elephant? I think that's what we have here.
YOU can see how all of the pieces fit together. But when you only have one piece and you're walking around not knowing what pieces everybody else has? You don't see the puzzle.
You have no way of knowing how Sandusky explained away the little escapades to Penn State. It's out of the realm of possibility that he convinced the people in power that it was just some routine horseplay? That in 1998/99 they did what they thought was the honorable thing and cut him out of the loop even when there was no actual evidence of anything?
And then four years later -- with no other reports -- there's some vague allegation (again because you don't know what the GA told anybody). And he explains it away again?
And you look at the work he's doing with the foundation? The thousands of kids who were helped? The awards, accolades and honors he got for his work there? And in your mind you just can't possibly see that maybe, just maybe it was a mistake? That the guy you know COULDN'T be that kind of person. Just no way.
You're assuming what people "should" have known or guessed. Nobody's ever fooled you? You've never had somebody turn out to be something you thought they weren't? You've never been shocked to find out that somebody was able to lie to you with a straight face and dupe you? Never had somebody you stood up for turn out to be unworthy of your support?
Predators and addicts are extremely good at lying to themselves and to others. They're skilled at escaping and maintaining the facade.
But whatever.
I'm the devil here. Boogety fucking boogety.
-
willful blindness is far easier to do than actually committing the crime.
And I'll have a problem with that if that's what happened.
I'm still waiting for somebody to definitively show me exactly what Paterno knew.
I'm waiting for somebody to deny that it's possible Sandusky convinced him it was all a big ass misunderstanding and he was just helping the kid get soap out of his eyes or something inane like that.
Fuck it. Tired of the debate. Went a lot further than I intended it to, but the lynch mob mentality was interesting to me and I wanted to explore it a little. It's pretty ugly.
Most people here are convinced Paterno was either ass raping children himself or at least videotaped it and didn't share. Of course the facts don't fit that, but who cares?
Boogety boogety.
-
Boogety boogety. boogety. amen.
FIFY
-
I'm still waiting for somebody to definitively show me exactly what Paterno knew.
Here's all you should need to know:
In 1999 Paterno, as HC, canned the guy who was widely regarded as the heir apparent to his position. The firing was in response to the investigation into sexual abuse by Sandusky.
Sandusky was allowed to remain in and around the football complex.
In 2002 Paterno is told, at a bare minimum, that Sandusky was in the showers engaging in some sexual activity with a young boy.
Sandusky is allowed to remain in and around the program until very recently.
All the other allegations and reports of abuse are just piling on, but the above is enough to make Paterno an enabling shit.
-
Here's all you should need to know:
In 1999 Paterno, as HC, canned the guy who was widely regarded as the heir apparent to his position. The firing was in response to the investigation into sexual abuse by Sandusky.
Sandusky was allowed to remain in and around the football complex.
In 2002 Paterno is told, at a bare minimum, that Sandusky was in the showers engaging in some sexual activity with a young boy.
Sandusky is allowed to remain in and around the program until very recently.
All the other allegations and reports of abuse are just piling on, but the above is enough to make Paterno an enabling shit.
This.
-
And I'll have a problem with that if that's what happened.
I'm still waiting for somebody to definitively show me exactly what Paterno knew.
I'm waiting for somebody to deny that it's possible Sandusky convinced him it was all a big ass misunderstanding and he was just helping the kid get soap out of his eyes or something inane like that.
Fuck it. Tired of the debate. Went a lot further than I intended it to, but the lynch mob mentality was interesting to me and I wanted to explore it a little. It's pretty ugly.
Most people here are convinced Paterno was either ass raping children himself or at least videotaped it and didn't share. Of course the facts don't fit that, but who cares?
Boogety boogety.
Paterno can't tell you what he knew. He may not can tell you his own name.
-
Here's all you should need to know:
In 1999 Paterno, as HC, canned the guy who was widely regarded as the heir apparent to his position. The firing was in response to the investigation into sexual abuse by Sandusky. Assuming facts not in evidence. Logical to assume, but never explicitly stated.
Sandusky was allowed to remain in and around the football complex. True and typical response unfortunately
In 2002 Paterno is told, at a bare minimum, that Sandusky was in the showers engaging in some sexual activity with a young boy. Possibly sexual?
Sandusky is allowed to remain in and around the program until very recently. Can't be around children, right? No kids with him any more?
All the other allegations and reports of abuse are just piling on, but the above is enough to make Paterno an enabling shit.
Not Paterno. Penn State. The entire thing enabled him.
The fact that they let him stay around leads me to believe that somebody either didn't know the full extent or something. Something doesn't make sense.
-
Paterno can't tell you what he knew. He may not can tell you his own name.
Paterno's so old, his Social Security number is 1.
He's so old, someone told him to act his age and he died.
He's so old, he knew Mr. Clean when he had a comb over.
-
Not Paterno. Penn State. The entire thing enabled him.
The fact that they let him stay around leads me to believe that somebody either didn't know the full extent or something. Something doesn't make sense.
Paterno. He was the football program. The rest of the administration is guilty as well, but Paterno is the man at the top with whom the buck presumably stops.
I get it, you like Joe. But fuck Joe.
-
Paterno. He was the football program. The rest of the administration is guilty as well, but Paterno is the man at the top with whom the buck presumably stops.
I get it, you like Joe. But fuck Joe.
just so we are clear....
It's ok to fuck Joe. He's of age.
-
just so we are clear....
It's ok to fuck Joe. He's of age.
Butt fuck him, even.
-
Butt fuck him, even.
In the shower.
-
In the shower.
Or some other very uncomfortable place.
-
In the shower.
At least it would be somewhat lubed.
And I don't necessarily like Joe. I really don't have a strong opinion on him one way or another.
I just always thought he was basically a good guy in a sea of assholes. Can't reconcile this.
-
Paterno. He was the football program. The rest of the administration is guilty as well, but Paterno is the man at the top with whom the buck presumably stops.
I get it, you like Joe. But fuck Joe.
The highlighted part is ultimately the answer. Many times the boss takes the fall when an employee under his direction fucks up royally (Nutt/Boone at Ole Miss and that was only heinous football not heinous crimes).
In this instance, there is no dispute that Paterno was in sole control of the football program at Penn State and it was his employee that continually performed criminal actions at, in, around and associated with JoePa's football program. Even if no one had EVER said ANYTHING to JoePa, he would at a minimum have been retired at the end of the season because this happened at his program and on his watch. Because there is credible testimony that the GA specifically DID tell JoePa about what he saw, and because there is credible evidence to support the theory that this is not the first time JoePa had ever heard anything skeevey about Sandusky, JoePa and his bosses were immediately terminated.
-
Or some other very uncomfortable place.
Like the back of a Volkswagon?
-
The highlighted part is ultimately the answer. Many times the boss takes the fall when an employee under his direction fucks up royally (Nutt/Boone at Ole Miss and that was only heinous football not heinous crimes).
In this instance, there is no dispute that Paterno was in sole control of the football program at Penn State and it was his employee that continually performed criminal actions at, in, around and associated with JoePa's football program. Even if no one had EVER said ANYTHING to JoePa, he would at a minimum have been retired at the end of the season because this happened at his program and on his watch. Because there is credible testimony that the GA specifically DID tell JoePa about what he saw, and because there is credible evidence to support the theory that this is not the first time JoePa had ever heard anything skeevey about Sandusky, JoePa and his bosses were immediately terminated.
And I think Paterno has largely been a figurehead, much like Bryant was for the last eight or ten years of his career.
People started doing things AROUND Paterno instead of through him. I figure that's been the case for at least 15 years.
But I'm assuming and that has no place here. If you can't assume what he was told, I can't assume his diminished level of power.
-
Like the back of a Volkswagon?
I set 'em and you spike 'em, Karch.
-
I set 'em and you spike 'em, Karch.
You know it Steve.
-
What you need is a fatty-boom-batty blunt! And I guarantee you'll be seeing a sailboat, an ocean, and maybe even some of those big-tittied mermaids doing some of that lesbian shit! Look at me, look at me, you sloppy bitch!
-
And I'll have a problem with that if that's what happened.
I'm still waiting for somebody to definitively show me exactly what Paterno knew.
I'm waiting for somebody to deny that it's possible Sandusky convinced him it was all a big ass misunderstanding and he was just helping the kid get soap out of his eyes or something inane like that.
Fuck it. Tired of the debate. Went a lot further than I intended it to, but the lynch mob mentality was interesting to me and I wanted to explore it a little. It's pretty ugly.
Most people here are convinced Paterno was either ass raping children himself or at least videotaped it and didn't share. Of course the facts don't fit that, but who cares?
Boogety boogety.
Unlike the Cam crap, there's evidence here, and the leap of logic isn't nearly as long. I agree we don't all know who had what pieces to the puzzle. This isn't a court of law, and "innocent til proved guilty" doesn't apply. I've seen and read enough to know Joe Pa knew something very bad, and did only the legal minimum. Joe is held to a higher standard, because he's fucking Joe Pa. His inaction here calls in to question his entire history. The perceived "cover-up culture" leads most everyone to believe that his crystal clean legacy could be a sham.
I'm hurt that the guy that seemed to represent all that was good about college football, has been involved in something like this. I believe he had an opportunity to put an end to it.
I understand your "this happens everywhere" and "this is how they try to handle it to save face" take. I agree. The other side of that coin is: when the shit comes to light, guess who is held responsible? That's right, the big dogs...the guys that knew, or should have known, even if they didn't. THAT happens on a regular basis too. Is it possible that Scrushy's accounting minions lied to him? Yeah, but nobody believes that, and he was Captain of the good ship Healthsouth. In name, Joe Pa may not have been Captain of the good ship Nittany Lion, but in practice, he was. He took a chance, and he lost, and it's cost him and PSU an otherwise untarnished legacy. Did he grasp how big a chance it was he was taking? Well I'd argue like many others, a man in his position should have made it his business to know.
My dad use to tell me: "one 'awe shit' wipes out a thousand 'attaboys'." This is one big fucking "awe shit" for Joe.
-
Motown Philly back again.
Doin a little east coast swing....
And all the Philly steaks you can eat.
-
What you need is a fatty-boom-batty blunt! And I guarantee you'll be seeing a sailboat, an ocean, and maybe even some of those big-tittied mermaids doing some of that lesbian shit! Look at me, look at me, you sloppy bitch!
Why don't they ever bring back or remake good shows, like "BJ and the Bear"? Now there's a concept I can't get enough of, a man and his monkey.
-
Anyone thing that Sporcle chose poor timing to release this quiz?
http://www.sporcle.com/games/MathMan44/19-kids-and-counting-children
-
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/sports/college/football&sa=NCF&eid=8114416
Report: PSU officials declined to alert authorities
06/29 7:23 PM
Former Penn State officials exchanged emails in 2001 to determine how they would deal with allegations of inappropriate behavior against Jerry Sandusky, according to a report by CNN. Former Penn State officials exchanged emails in 2001 to determine how they would deal with allegations of inappropriate behavior against Jerry Sandusky, according to a CNN report.
According to the report, emails between former Penn State officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier show the trio initially planned to tell authorities about the allegations against Sandusky, who was convicted on 45 of 48 charges against him last week.
However, the three men opted not to alert authorities after speaking with "Joe," according to the report.
"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved," read one of the emails, according to CNN.
During the Sandusky trial, prosecutors said Schultz, a Penn State vice president, kept a secret file containing allegations of inappropriate behavior against Sandusky that directly contradicted statements Schultz made to the grand jury investigating the disgraced former defensive coordinator.
"The commonwealth has come into possession of computer data (again, subpoenaed long ago but not received from PSU until after the charges had been filed in this case) in the form of emails between Schultz, Curley and others that contradict their testimony before the Grand Jury," the document states.
The document also states that Schultz, who also oversaw the school's police force, "created, maintained and possessed" the file.
-
Is it too soon to resume bashing Paterno, or is everyone going to get their panties in a wad about how great of a man he was prior to allowing children to be molested without doing what he should have?
-
Is it too soon to resume bashing Paterno, or is everyone going to get their panties in a wad about how great of a man he was prior to allowing children to be molested without doing what he should have?
Bash away.
The whole school should be ashamed. The coaches involved. The administration. Boosters. Fans. Students that marched and protested in supported of Joe Pa. All of them.
-
Bash away.
The whole school should be ashamed. The coaches involved. The administration. Boosters. Fans. Students that marched and protested in supported of Joe Pa. All of them.
Fans/Alum can be ashamed of their program/institution, but they had no culpability. I even get the students marching to support him prior to all we know now. Now? Anybody that supports him or his legacy at PSU is trash. Joe Pa, his likeness, and any legacy or trace of him at that place should be removed and burned.
It's sad that one of the guys I thought had been doing it right, and one of the programs that seemed so clean went down in such a fucking massive ball of flames. The worst part is, it had nothing to do directly with football. This wasn't about winning and losing, it was about pedophiles and kids being ass raped! This was real life, and real lives! Damn shame for Joe Pa, but nothing he did on the field, and nothing he did for that university or community comes close to outweighing the damage done when he had the power to stop it. A legacy forever tarnished!
-
Fans/Alum can be ashamed of their program/institution, but they had no culpability. I even get the students marching to support him prior to all we know now. Now? Anybody that supports him or his legacy at PSU is trash. Joe Pa, his likeness, and any legacy or trace of him at that place should be removed and burned.
It's sad that one of the guys I thought had been doing it right, and one of the programs that seemed so clean went down in such a fudgeing massive ball of flames. The worst part is, it had nothing to do directly with football. This wasn't about winning and losing, it was about pedophiles and kids being ass raped! This was real life, and real lives! Damn shame for Joe Pa, but nothing he did on the field, and nothing he did for that university or community comes close to outweighing the damage done when he had the power to stop it. A legacy forever tarnished!
:dead:
He's dead. His family? Maybe they care but probably no more than they care about holding on to his money. Never seen a man in power who didn't get there by stepping over others somewhere along the way. Was JoePa obsessed with his legacy? Maybe. Theres certainly evidence to support that. But he's no different than any other "hero" I suppose.
-
Never seen a man in power who didn't get there by stepping over others raping a few kids somewhere along the way.
Agreed.
-
And it gets thicker http://www.koamtv.com/story/18922362/report-ex-psu-president-okd-not-reporting-abuse?clienttype=printable (http://www.koamtv.com/story/18922362/report-ex-psu-president-okd-not-reporting-abuse?clienttype=printable)
A couple of interesting excerpts from that report.
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) - Emails show Penn State's former president Graham Spanier agreed not to take allegations of sex abuse against ex-assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to authorities but worried university officials would be "vulnerable" for failing to report it, a news organization has reported.
The emails followed a graduate assistant's 2001 report he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the team locker room shower, CNN reported. The existence of the emails was first reported earlier this month by NBC.
The emails show athletic director Tim Curley and retired vice president Gary Schultz intended to report the allegation, then reconsidered. Spanier responded that he was "supportive" of their plan, but he worried they might "become vulnerable for not having reported it."
And here's the kicker
The timing of their change in plans - coming after Curley's discussion with Paterno - raises questions about whether the coach was more involved than he said in the decision.
The CNN report cites an email from Schultz to Curley on Feb. 26, 2001, 16 days after graduate assistant Mike McQueary told veteran coach Joe Paterno about the shower assault. Schultz suggests bringing the allegation to the attention of Sandusky, Sandusky's charity and the Department of Welfare, which investigates suspected child abuse, according to the report.
But the next night, Curley sent an email to Spanier, saying that after thinking about it more and talking to Paterno, he was "uncomfortable" with that plan and wanted to work with Sandusky before contacting authorities, the report said.
If Sandusky is cooperative, Curley's email said, "we would work with him. .... If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups," according to the report.
Spanier wrote back and agreed with that approach, calling it "humane and a reasonable way to proceed," according to the report. But he also worried about the consequences.
Scumbags.
-
Wait until they find out about the investigator that â€went missing†along with his laptop's hard drive after the initial Sandusky child abuse case got thrown out.
-
Wait until they find out about the investigator that â€went missing†along with his laptop's hard drive after the initial Sandusky child abuse case got thrown out.
I remember that story from the early days of all this. Seemed like a stretch then and not so much now. What a mess!