Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[E-Z Glider]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

do you think he did enough?

I have no way of knowing as all the facts arent out yet.ps - thanks for the setup

 

[Doug B]

The problem with this theory is that Paterno has already admitted that McQueary told him of "fondling" and "something of a sexual nature".

That's enough detail, wouldn't you agree? There's no reasonable explanation for an adult man to do anything of a "sexual nature" with a young boy, wouldn't you agree?

I can, believe it or not, conceive of ways that it's all not quite that pat. For instance, hypothetically: McQueary was unclear/dodgy in his description to Paterno, and McQueary reported likewise to Schultz. Paterno mentally explained it away at the time, but then saw/heard something years later that made it all click. Fast forward to 2011 -- Paterno admits that McQueary told him of "fondling" and "something of a sexual nature" but in his recall of the conversation, he paraphrased McQuery's words (IOW, it's wasn't a verbatim account to the grand jury).But if the information revealed to the grand jury remains unaltered ... you're correct.

 

[BroadwayG]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."

Your link's broken.

 

[Doug B]

it's not clear (to me anyway) how much detail he shared with Paterno. He does, however, seem adamant that he went into graphic detail during the meeting with Curley and Schultz. The Grand Jury also appears to have taken his word over theirs so I think we can pretty safely assume that he conveyed the seriousness of the crime to them at least.

Thanks for the info. "He" in the bolded sentence is McQueary, and not Paterno, correct?I do think that despite any grand jury testimony, these kinds of communication issues are going to be a big plank in any defense mounted for Curley and Schultz (and for Paterno if taken to civil court)..

 

[Doug B]

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again ...

I'll be interested to see if Sandusky had any big cards his hand to fend off just such an action. Maybe Sandusky didn't, but the speculation is interesting.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

do you think he did enough?

I have no way of knowing as all the facts arent out yet.ps - thanks for the setup

do you really need "all the facts" to make this determination?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

it's not clear (to me anyway) how much detail he shared with Paterno. He does, however, seem adamant that he went into graphic detail during the meeting with Curley and Schultz. The Grand Jury also appears to have taken his word over theirs so I think we can pretty safely assume that he conveyed the seriousness of the crime to them at least.

Thanks for the info. "He" in the bolded sentence is McQueary, and not Paterno, correct?I do think that despite any grand jury testimony, these kinds of communication issues are going to be a big plank in any defense mounted for Curley and Schultz (and for Paterno if taken to civil court)..

yes. I thought you were asking about McQueary.

 

[James Daulton]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

do you think he did enough?

I have no way of knowing as all the facts arent out yet.ps - thanks for the setup

You can't be serious. It's clear that he had numerous run-ins with Sandusky following the McQueary reporting. According to Sandusky himself, Paterno never asked him about any of it. And you think there's even a remote possibility he did enough? Paterno himself said he'd wished he'd done more. I think that before this is all said and done we're going to learn some increasingly disturbing facts about Penn State administration turning their back and ignoring a predator who used their football program to lure young boys.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

You're right. Joe's awesome. He did the barest minimum requirement and just because he sat by and knew it was happening over and over and over when he knew the truth about Sandusky shouldn't be held against him. Cuz hey, he didn't talk to the guy anymore so his hands are clean! You guys are pathetic.

 

[Joe Summer]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

do you think he did enough?

I have no way of knowing as all the facts arent out yet.

Joe Paterno says you're wrong.

 

[E-Z Glider]

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

He was fired because of the media outrage.

do you think he did enough?

I have no way of knowing as all the facts arent out yet.ps - thanks for the setup

You can't be serious. It's clear that he had numerous run-ins with Sandusky following the McQueary reporting. According to Sandusky himself, Paterno never asked him about any of it. And you think there's even a remote possibility he did enough? Paterno himself said he'd wished he'd done more. I think that before this is all said and done we're going to learn some increasingly disturbing facts about Penn State administration turning their back and ignoring a predator who used their football program to lure young boys.

You know this how?

 

[soothsayer]

Joe Paterno has lung cancer.

Joe Paterno has treatable form of lung cancer, son says Article by: GENARO C. ARMAS , Associated Press Updated: November 18, 2011 - 3:31 PMSTATE COLLEGE, Pa. - Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno has a treatable form of lung cancer, according to his son.Scott Paterno said in a statement provided to The Associated Press by a family representative on Friday that the 84-year-old Joe Paterno is undergoing treatment and that "his doctors are optimistic he will make a full recovery.""As everyone can appreciate, this is a deeply personal matter for my parents, and we simply ask that his privacy be respected as he proceeds with treatment," Scott Paterno said in a brief statement.Scott Paterno said the diagnosis was made during a follow-up visit last weekend for a bronchial illness.Earlier Friday, the Standard-Speaker newspaper of Hazleton, Pa., reported that Paterno had been seen Wednesday visiting the Mount Nittany Medical Center and was treated for an undisclosed ailment and released.Paterno was fired last week in the aftermath of shocking allegations against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, charged with sexually abusing eight boys over 15 years. He initially announced his retirement effective the end of the season the morning of Nov. 9 before university trustees fired him about 12 hours later.The lurid scandal tarnished the reputation of a football program that once prided itself on the slogan "Success with Honor." The Hall of Famer's 409 career victories are a Division I record.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

You're right. Joe's awesome. He did the barest minimum requirement and just because he sat by and knew it was happening over and over and over when he knew the truth about Sandusky shouldn't be held against him. Cuz hey, he didn't talk to the guy anymore so his hands are clean! You guys are pathetic.

Again, you know this how?

 

[E-Z Glider]

Joe Paterno has lung cancer.

Joe Paterno has treatable form of lung cancer, son says Article by: GENARO C. ARMAS , Associated Press Updated: November 18, 2011 - 3:31 PMSTATE COLLEGE, Pa. - Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno has a treatable form of lung cancer, according to his son.Scott Paterno said in a statement provided to The Associated Press by a family representative on Friday that the 84-year-old Joe Paterno is undergoing treatment and that "his doctors are optimistic he will make a full recovery.""As everyone can appreciate, this is a deeply personal matter for my parents, and we simply ask that his privacy be respected as he proceeds with treatment," Scott Paterno said in a brief statement.Scott Paterno said the diagnosis was made during a follow-up visit last weekend for a bronchial illness.Earlier Friday, the Standard-Speaker newspaper of Hazleton, Pa., reported that Paterno had been seen Wednesday visiting the Mount Nittany Medical Center and was treated for an undisclosed ailment and released.Paterno was fired last week in the aftermath of shocking allegations against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, charged with sexually abusing eight boys over 15 years. He initially announced his retirement effective the end of the season the morning of Nov. 9 before university trustees fired him about 12 hours later.The lurid scandal tarnished the reputation of a football program that once prided itself on the slogan "Success with Honor." The Hall of Famer's 409 career victories are a Division I record.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?

If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

That's just it. You have no idea exactly what his "actions or inactions" were at this point. Its not public record.Why would you be interested in hearing them anyway? Just a minute ago you said...

no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

That's because it's an established FACT that he knew of Sandusky at least in 2002, if not '97. That alone is enough.

So its his job to report the incident, conduct the investigations, prosecute the accused, deliver a verdict, and enforce all penalties?

You're right. Joe's awesome. He did the barest minimum requirement and just because he sat by and knew it was happening over and over and over when he knew the truth about Sandusky shouldn't be held against him. Cuz hey, he didn't talk to the guy anymore so his hands are clean! You guys are pathetic.

Again, you know this how?

His GJ testimony.

 

[Doug B]

I am very leery of using the Grand Jury testimony as absolutely established fact. It's true that it's the best source we have right now.

 

[mad sweeney]

I am very leery of using the Grand Jury testimony as absolutely established fact. It's true that it's the best source we have right now.

The testimony contained in the GJ report may not be fact, but if Paterno said to the GJ that there he was told of "inappropriate contact of a sexual nature", then that can and should be used against him in the court of public opinion. They're his own words as quoted by the report.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

See, I disagree with that based on the facts we know. The facts we know are that MCQueary told him what he saw, he passed it up the chain and he didn't call 911 or the local police. We assume a whole lot more (he knew about 1998, was covering everything up, knew Sandusky was continuing to molest young boys, etc). Maybe all the assumptions are true, in which case I agree with you. But there's certainly a chance that when all the facts come to light in a trial or under oath, his role will be less involved than the current assumptions. Not acquitted, mind you. He'll never be acquitted for not immediately calling the cops in 2002. But based on the facts right now, I still have an iota of respect for everything else he's done. I'm just not that black and white. Sorry. Super busy weekend so I'll get back to this thread and the people invariably calling me all sorts of names when I can.

Lots of assumptions about what the guy knew. Not much fact to back up those assumptions.

I agree that there are lots of assumptions about what Paterno knew.But there's also a lot of denial about what he DID know. And no amount of new facts could possibly "come to light in a trial" that could make Paterno look like anything less than a coward who sought to protect himself and his school instead of protecting little boys.

I disagree but we'll just have to see.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sure we don't know how much he knew, but it's very clear he knew enough.

How much is enough?

He knew about an eyewitness report of a sex act between a man and a boy.Is that not enough?If there are any theoretical "facts" that could possibly "come to light" that would justify Paterno's actions (and inaction), I would love to hear them.

We'll see at the trial, although with the news of his battle with lung cancer, I actually hope they do a deposition on video just in case.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that.

There are a few options: Call the police. Do something/anything to protect the kid and any other kids that were being abused. Confront Sandusky about it. Etc.

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

How do we know he didn't do this? In private? It's been mentioned, and I've heard this even before this situation came to light, that he and Sandusky didn't really speak after Sandusky retired. But obviously who knows whether they spoke in private about this or anything else.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."

But here's the part you're missing Joe. He's coming off back to back 5 win losing seasons. People are starting to say he needs to hang it up. He desperately wants to remain and turn it around (which he did in 2005). So in the spring of 2002, Curley says "Go ahead Joe. You didn't call the cops either. You'll be fired and your legacy will be tainted. To avoid making a scene, we have to still allow him access to the program. But we've told Second Mile about it and he's insisting it was a misunderstanding and won't happen again. And we're watching him and the Second Mile is watching him too. Your move Coach".

I think that Paterno could have easily fallen for some well placed lies like those, given the situation at the time.

 

[Dragons]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Still no link for this?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Still no link for this?

I was under the impression that after the 2002 incident they took away his office, his keys to the locker area and told someone high up at The Second Mile. But I could be wrong.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that.

There are a few options: Call the police. Do something/anything to protect the kid and any other kids that were being abused. Confront Sandusky about it. Etc.

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

How do we know he didn't do this? In private? It's been mentioned, and I've heard this even before this situation came to light, that he and Sandusky didn't really speak after Sandusky retired. But obviously who knows whether they spoke in private about this or anything else.

we don't.I was responding to the question of what he could do in a situation like this.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What was he supposed to do? He reported it to his supervisors. No one knows exactly what happened after that.

There are a few options: Call the police. Do something/anything to protect the kid and any other kids that were being abused. Confront Sandusky about it. Etc.

You're the one implying that he didnt do enough?

Considering he was fired, isn't the Board of Trustees saying the same thing?

How do we know he didn't do this? In private? It's been mentioned, and I've heard this even before this situation came to light, that he and Sandusky didn't really speak after Sandusky retired. But obviously who knows whether they spoke in private about this or anything else.

we don't.I was responding to the question of what he could do in a situation like this.

Ah, OK. Sorry. And for the record, I stand by the fact that we do know enough now to say that he did NOT do enough. He should have skipped the administration and had McQueary go right to the local police. However for me everything beyond that is pretty speculative right now.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Still no link for this?

I was under the impression that after the 2002 incident they took away his office, his keys to the locker area and told someone high up at The Second Mile. But I could be wrong.

I've yet to see it reported that he had no office so was curious to see a link for that tidbit as well. I did see it mentioned that they took away his keys so not sure about the office, but I suppose it would make sense.Second Mile says they told them of an investigation, but didn't mention the severity and said the investigation they conducted cleared him of the charges.

 

[cstu]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Still no link for this?

I was under the impression that after the 2002 incident they took away his office, his keys to the locker area and told someone high up at The Second Mile. But I could be wrong.

But then they gave them them back, because you know, ya gotta beat Iowa.

 

[Joe Summer]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."

But here's the part you're missing Joe. He's coming off back to back 5 win losing seasons. People are starting to say he needs to hang it up. He desperately wants to remain and turn it around (which he did in 2005). So in the spring of 2002, Curley says "Go ahead Joe. You didn't call the cops either. You'll be fired and your legacy will be tainted. To avoid making a scene, we have to still allow him access to the program. But we've told Second Mile about it and he's insisting it was a misunderstanding and won't happen again. And we're watching him and the Second Mile is watching him too. Your move Coach".

Uhhhhh....how exactly does this scenario make Paterno look like anything but a coward who put his own interests above a boy's safety?

 

[CrossEyed]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."

But here's the part you're missing Joe. He's coming off back to back 5 win losing seasons. People are starting to say he needs to hang it up. He desperately wants to remain and turn it around (which he did in 2005). So in the spring of 2002, Curley says "Go ahead Joe. You didn't call the cops either. You'll be fired and your legacy will be tainted. To avoid making a scene, we have to still allow him access to the program. But we've told Second Mile about it and he's insisting it was a misunderstanding and won't happen again. And we're watching him and the Second Mile is watching him too. Your move Coach".

Uhhhhh....how exactly does this scenario make Paterno look like anything but a coward who put his own interests above a boy's safety?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported.

First I've heard of this. Got a link?Even if Sandusky did not have an office, he was still obviously permitted by Paterno to associate himself with the program. Paterno could have had Sandusky banned from campus if he wanted it.

Got a link?

"Tim? Joe Paterno here. I want you to do whatever it takes to make sure Jerry Sandusky never sets foot on this campus again, and never has any contact with the football program again. If you don't make this happen then I'm calling the cops and holding a press conference to expose the cover-up. Thanks."

But here's the part you're missing Joe. He's coming off back to back 5 win losing seasons. People are starting to say he needs to hang it up. He desperately wants to remain and turn it around (which he did in 2005). So in the spring of 2002, Curley says "Go ahead Joe. You didn't call the cops either. You'll be fired and your legacy will be tainted. To avoid making a scene, we have to still allow him access to the program. But we've told Second Mile about it and he's insisting it was a misunderstanding and won't happen again. And we're watching him and the Second Mile is watching him too. Your move Coach".

Uhhhhh....how exactly does this scenario make Paterno look like anything but a coward who put his own interests above a boy's safety?

Well, in my scenario above he thinks that the boy is safe. They lie to him about that. But certainly he puts his own interests above getting to the bottom of it or making sure himself that it doesn't happen again. And he does that because it's easier than thinking that this guy he's known and worked with for 30 years is a pedophile. It's easier to have someone else like Curley or Schultz or some guy at The Second Mile watch out for him. It's a failure and one he should be criticized for. But I think it's a failure that other people might have made in the same situation.

 

[Mario Kart]

However for me everything beyond that is pretty speculative right now.

This is where I am too. I tried to explain this many pages ago. So much speculation with so little "proof" to back it up. Also, given the grand jury testimony, not much could or should be extrapolated from what has been said because there would be misinformation spread around. What I still do not get is that people have lambasted Paterno day in and day out but he was told about something (and we do not know exactly what he was told) but the guy who actually saw the incident is not being hanged in public.

 

[tri-man 47]

Joe Paterno has lung cancer.

Wow - so that's in addition to having no spine.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.

Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.

Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.

And, I'm back out.

:22:

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Joe Paterno has lung cancer.

Wow - so that's in addition to having no spine.

Ha, you should write for Letterman.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

That's deep, man.

 

[Sea Duck]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported. I wonder how many other "facts" you are incorrect about?

So the grand jury was lying?

Sandusky holds emeritus status with Penn State. In addition to the regular privileges of a professor emeritus, he had an office and a telephone in the Lasch Building.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sandusky did not maintain an office within his facilities after he retired. This was falsely reported. I wonder how many other "facts" you are incorrect about?

So the grand jury was lying?

Sandusky holds emeritus status with Penn State. In addition to the regular privileges of a professor emeritus, he had an office and a telephone in the Lasch Building.

No I think that was true in 1999 when he retired. We just don't know if it was still true after the 2002 incident, which I think is what EZ meant. I could be wrong though.EDIT - If that is from the GJ document, then the tenses there are interesting. He "holds" emeritus status but he "had" an office and telephone in Lasch.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Several articles have noted this.

Though he was not particularly close with Paterno, he remained a familiar sight around the Penn State football complex. He was given an office in the East Area Locker building, across the street from the football building, as part of his retirement package, and would take Second Mile kids around the football facilities.

East Area Locker building, not Lasch.Oops.

The Grand Jury testament says Lasch. So that is wrong? What is E-Z Glider's source? Can't find anyone reporting it. Is this one of those insider who posts to Penn State boards thingys?

 

[Short Corner]

URGENT MEMO



You are only allowed to be disgusted by child rape at a university if you have no ties to any other university that has been a rival of the university at which the rape was committed.

Update your notebooks accordingly

You should also add that if it happens at your school, that the alumni and the institution are the REAL victims.

 

[beavers]

Tatts not tots folks.

 

[Tango]

Look at the Syracuse thing. That is coming to light because of the spotlight shone on what happened at PSU. Talking about this is good. Bringing it to light is very good. I'm sorry it makes some people uncomfortable because terrible things happened where they went to school. I can't help you there.

It also might have the effect of bringing out unscrupulous people looking for a buck. The accused can become a victim pretty quickly in these things.

 

[Disco Stu]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

 

[roadkill1292]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

I've been on the opposite side of more than one debate with IB but I've always appreciated the thought he put into his arguments.

 

[AmosMoses]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

I've been on the opposite side of more than one debate with IB but I've always appreciated the thought he put into his arguments.

Yeah, it's great and correct. Except it fights against the purpose of the internet, which is to be right before it's proven.

 

[roadkill1292]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

I've been on the opposite side of more than one debate with IB but I've always appreciated the thought he put into his arguments.

Yeah, it's great and correct. Except it fights against the purpose of the internet, which is to be right before it's proven.

Hard as it is to believe, not every message board is like that. But all too many are and all too often this one is, too, so we should all appreciate IB fighting the good fight.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

I've been on the opposite side of more than one debate with IB but I've always appreciated the thought he put into his arguments.

Except I'm not able to come up with a single hypothetical that makes any kind of sense at all. That is because we don't really know anything about much of any of this at this point. Of course it is possible we never will.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hard as it is to believe, not every message board is like that. ...

There are other message boards?

 

[roadkill1292]

Hard as it is to believe, not every message board is like that. ...

There are other message boards?

If you don't believe me, just ask BGP. According to him, most of them are better than this one.

 

[-fish-]

has yandek intereviewed sandusky yet?

First off, don't touch me.

 

[cstu]

The problem is that there are broad assumptions being made by everyone discussing this issue. The problem is that it only seems socially acceptable to make assumptions and logical leaps in support of greater culpability of Paterno and Penn State as an institution. Those people have the ultimate fall back position, that is, I would rather condemn all who might possibly have been involved in any way now (and indeed I will look to make those connections) because I am passionate about preventing all forms of child abuse (who can argue?) and, if I find out I was wrong on a fact or assumption later, I will own up to it then. But better to condemn a potential CME and be wrong than to attempt to defend one and be wrong.Those who make broad assumptions hoping to exonerate Paterno and or limit the moral culpability of him and the University are immediately labeled apologists, though they are participating in the same exercise as those who would condemn, just on the other side of the coin. It is more difficult to take this position, because as more facts emerge, you may be proven wrong and your defense will have been of a man/system that is ultimately been shown to be culpable. But there is nothing wrong with HOPING that the facts bear out such that Paterno/Penn State's involvement was limited. Making those assumptions doesn't make you evil. Some want to believe it is limited to one and/or few men with knowledge because of their pride in the school (and to lesser extent the man). Some want to believe that because it somehow makes them feel better about humanity that this may be the act of one single monster and not a much grander act of individual and institutional self interest.Either of those prior exercises in making assumptions and providing hypotheticals is o.k., so long as we are prepared to revise them and accept the truth, whatever it may be, as more facts are revealed. But it seems that it is the friction between those making large logical leaps in either direction that is largely responsible for the conflict in this thread.And, I'm back out.:22:

This is actually a really good point.

I've been on the opposite side of more than one debate with IB but I've always appreciated the thought he put into his arguments.

Yeah, it's great and correct. Except it fights against the purpose of the internet, which is to be right before it's proven.

What facts are in question here?1. McQueary sees Sandusky raping a boy in the shower.2. McQuery reports what he saw to Paterno.3. Sandusky continues working along side Paterno.