Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

I disagree, but that's certainly fair. I don't think that our legal standard for something like this should be that if you hear second hand that it has happened and if you don't immediately call 9-1-1, you go to jail. As horrible of a crime as it is, I think that's over the top. Now McQueary having by law to report to police within X amount of time when he saw with his own two eyes something that appeared to be child abuse, fine. I can get behind that law.

Depending on how you interpret the existing law, McQueary may not have been required to report to anyone. Pennsylvania law only requires staff members to report suspected abuse if a child comes before them in an official capacity. Since McQueary witnessed the abuse in an unofficial, after hours capacity (and since he wasn't even a staff member at the school -- he was an intern), he can make a legit case that the current law doesn't apply to him.

They need to change that law.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

 

[shake zula]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

because there is no way that you can believe calling the cops on a child rapist requires a hero. It's not that hard. In fact, I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops. Which is precisely what makes his actions calculated. His self interested conduct is what makes him a scum bag.

 

[trout]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

because there is no way that you can believe calling the cops on a child rapist requires a hero. It's not that hard. In fact, I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops. Which is precisely what makes his actions calculated. He's self interested conduct is what makes him a scum bag.

Whoa...hadn't heard it put that way before.

 

[PeterSam]

Damn guys. I said some cruel #### about Paterno (and meant all of it) but we could at least lay off for a few days, right? If you don't respect Joe Paterno, you could at least respect the innocent people involved with emotional attachment like his family and people here. Their thoughts and feelings are legitimate too you know. Can't we just chill with the negative stuff for a few days?For everyone that is torn up about Paterno's death, sending empathy waves to you.

I agree. Let's wait a few days to say anything. After all, it's the weekend...

 

[PeterSam]

I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops.

Um, no.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops.

Um, no.

Really? You think it's easier to go for a decade seeing Sandusky with kids in tow, knowing what you know about him than to have exerted your almost total power in the situation to make sure a completely disgusting human being was stopped?

 

[PeterSam]

I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops.

Um, no.

Really? You think it's easier to go for a decade seeing Sandusky with kids in tow, knowing what you know about him than to have exerted your almost total power in the situation to make sure a completely disgusting human being was stopped?

I think it's ended up being worse for him, but at the time it was far easier to handle it quietly, and not have to deal with a media firestorm, questions about the program (including whether JoPa's past his prime, for the 1,000,000th time), whether there was prior evidence suggesting misconduct, implementing new policies, etc., etc. Joe didn't act decisively because it was expedient to remain quiet and do the minimum. I certainly don't accuse him of supporting child molestation, or being directly complicit with Sandusky, but the fact that he didn't during more recent years outright refuse to allow Sandusky access to the football facilities - something Paterno certainly had the influence and power to do - speaks volumes to me about Paterno's priorities - he protected himself and his football program and his institution.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

because there is no way that you can believe calling the cops on a child rapist requires a hero. It's not that hard. In fact, I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops. Which is precisely what makes his actions calculated. His self interested conduct is what makes him a scum bag.

Not sure why I'm bothering but let me ask you something:What cops would he have called?

 

[JAA]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/joe-paterno-dies-in-hospital-doctors-promise-to-te,27125/

 

[Chaka]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

because there is no way that you can believe calling the cops on a child rapist requires a hero. It's not that hard. In fact, I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops. Which is precisely what makes his actions calculated. His self interested conduct is what makes him a scum bag.

Not sure why I'm bothering but let me ask you something:What cops would he have called?

I swear I'm not trying to be a smartass but how about the ones who investigate child rapists?

 

[tri-man 47]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/joe-paterno-dies-in-hospital-doctors-promise-to-te,27125/

See Humor; Biting

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Sandusky killed Paterno.

 

[Short Corner]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

WOW!

 

[The Sniper]

I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops.

Um, no.

Really? You think it's easier to go for a decade seeing Sandusky with kids in tow, knowing what you know about him than to have exerted your almost total power in the situation to make sure a completely disgusting human being was stopped?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

Fair enough. Average is probably right. Having said that, it's easy to say after the fact what you would have done in a given situation. 99% of the posters here say they would have beaten the #### out of Sandusky had they been McQueary. I promise you that 99% would not have done that. Some would have, some would have called the cops, some would have run to their Daddy and some would have thrown up in the nearest toilet. It's easy to be a hero on the Internet. It's a lot harder in real life.

because there is no way that you can believe calling the cops on a child rapist requires a hero. It's not that hard. In fact, I'd argue it was harder for Paterno to do what he did than it would have been to call the cops. Which is precisely what makes his actions calculated. His self interested conduct is what makes him a scum bag.

Not sure why I'm bothering but let me ask you something:What cops would he have called?

I swear I'm not trying to be a smartass but how about the ones who investigate child rapists?

I don't think you are but who exactly is that? I mean I imagine that there is some special unit in the FBI or something that examines that. But it's silly to say he would have known that or contacted them. He should have called the police responsible for the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, right? So that would be the Campus Police, since the crime occurred on campus. So even though it's not like they were going to catch Sandusky in the act or anything late Saturday morning when he talked to McQueary, I think he should have called the Campus Police and had them talk to McQueary. Take a statement from him and investigate. That would have been the best thing to do. Instead he waited for the next day and called his boss, the AD. His boss told him to set up a meeting for him and McQueary. Paterno then set up the meeting and invited Schultz, the head of Campus Police. I'm pretty sure the testimony specifically says it was Paterno who brought Schultz into it, not the AD. Now I know that the head of campus police was likely a title and the guy wasn't really a cop, but it does seem to me that Paterno might have thought that he was "alerting the police" albeit later than he should of and the wrong guy.

Too bad he didn't he didn't just call them as soon as McQueary told him, or, I don't know, McQueary didn't call them himself on Friday night.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

WOW!

I know, right?!

 

[Mario Kart]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?3) is Sandusky still locked up?Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

First, no one here is putting McQueary up on a pedestal.Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.Third, he knew the university wasn't doing squat about the rape for years. That makes him part of the coverup.

 

[mad sweeney]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?3) is Sandusky still locked up?Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

 

[Chaka]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.

Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

Man, you're all over the map here. So you're saying that Paterno lied to the grand jury because his lack of knowledge about the 98 incident, or other incidents, doesn't fit your idea of what you think (or what to have) happened? Come on now. The grand jury found statements by other people testifying to be in perjury. They thought no such thing of Paterno's testimony. I don't see how anyone here can listen to your opinion if it revolves around Paterno lying under oath. That's just stupid. Regarding the second bold statement, you clearly didn't read or pay any attention to the latest testimony in which McQueary admitted he didn't give a very detailed description of what was going on to Paterno out of respect. I believe his quote was that "you don't talk about something like that in front of Coach Paterno". So now, Paterno did not lie to the Grand Jury when he said he wasn't told all the details of what McQueary saw. McQueary admits he didn't give Paterno all the details.

Now that doesn't excuse Paterno from not doing more because even with few details and even if McQueary had been exaggerating, it sounds creepy as hell that his former asst is naked in the shower with a 10 year old. But if you want to convince people of your point of view, you really need to stick to the facts and not imagine everything coming out of Paterno's mouth, even under oath, to be a lie.

 

[mad sweeney]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

Did you read what I posted before the part you quoted?

 

[Dragons]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

As far as I know, he doesn't. But, IMO, he absolutely should, unless they're sending him into the witness protection program.

 

[mad sweeney]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.

Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

Man, you're all over the map here. So you're saying that Paterno lied to the grand jury because his lack of knowledge about the 98 incident, or other incidents, doesn't fit your idea of what you think (or what to have) happened? Come on now. The grand jury found statements by other people testifying to be in perjury. They thought no such thing of Paterno's testimony. I don't see how anyone here can listen to your opinion if it revolves around Paterno lying under oath. That's just stupid. Regarding the second bold statement, you clearly didn't read or pay any attention to the latest testimony in which McQueary admitted he didn't give a very detailed description of what was going on to Paterno out of respect. I believe his quote was that "you don't talk about something like that in front of Coach Paterno". So now, Paterno did not lie to the Grand Jury when he said he wasn't told all the details of what McQueary saw. McQueary admits he didn't give Paterno all the details.

Now that doesn't excuse Paterno from not doing more because even with few details and even if McQueary had been exaggerating, it sounds creepy as hell that his former asst is naked in the shower with a 10 year old. But if you want to convince people of your point of view, you really need to stick to the facts and not imagine everything coming out of Paterno's mouth, even under oath, to be a lie.

You've got what I said all wrong.What I am saying is, that Paterno told the GJ that he was told by McQ of "fondling and something of a sexual nature", but when he released his public statement after the arrest he said he wasn't told specifics and didn't know what happened. He was saving face. I think he told the GJ the truth but obviously couldn't say that in his public statement. What I wrote was a little convoluted, but what I meant was that the only way you can excuse Paterno in the least is if you think he lied to the GJ about the specifics he told them that he was told. Since he wasn't indicted on perjury charges, I'm sticking with thinking that he told the truth to the GJ and he knew what McQ told him he saw.

Second paragraph: see above. Paterno used the words "fondling" and "of a sexual nature" in his GJ testimony. Curly and Spanier tried to downplay it to the GJ, which is why they're charged with perjury.

Your third paragraph is based on your mistaken assumption of what I was saying.

 

[Dragons]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?3) is Sandusky still locked up?Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

Why stop at 3rd hand knowledge? Why not go for 4th or 5th? Or maybe just read the known facts where he, himself, admitted to a grand jury that McQueary, the person who witnessed the shower incident, told him first hand about the shower incident. That's 2nd hand knowledge in most circles.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.

Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

Man, you're all over the map here. So you're saying that Paterno lied to the grand jury because his lack of knowledge about the 98 incident, or other incidents, doesn't fit your idea of what you think (or what to have) happened? Come on now. The grand jury found statements by other people testifying to be in perjury. They thought no such thing of Paterno's testimony. I don't see how anyone here can listen to your opinion if it revolves around Paterno lying under oath. That's just stupid. Regarding the second bold statement, you clearly didn't read or pay any attention to the latest testimony in which McQueary admitted he didn't give a very detailed description of what was going on to Paterno out of respect. I believe his quote was that "you don't talk about something like that in front of Coach Paterno". So now, Paterno did not lie to the Grand Jury when he said he wasn't told all the details of what McQueary saw. McQueary admits he didn't give Paterno all the details.

Now that doesn't excuse Paterno from not doing more because even with few details and even if McQueary had been exaggerating, it sounds creepy as hell that his former asst is naked in the shower with a 10 year old. But if you want to convince people of your point of view, you really need to stick to the facts and not imagine everything coming out of Paterno's mouth, even under oath, to be a lie.

You've got what I said all wrong.What I am saying is, that Paterno told the GJ that he was told by McQ of "fondling and something of a sexual nature", but when he released his public statement after the arrest he said he wasn't told specifics and didn't know what happened. He was saving face. I think he told the GJ the truth but obviously couldn't say that in his public statement. What I wrote was a little convoluted, but what I meant was that the only way you can excuse Paterno in the least is if you think he lied to the GJ about the specifics he told them that he was told. Since he wasn't indicted on perjury charges, I'm sticking with thinking that he told the truth to the GJ and he knew what McQ told him he saw.

Second paragraph: see above. Paterno used the words "fondling" and "of a sexual nature" in his GJ testimony. Curly and Spanier tried to downplay it to the GJ, which is why they're charged with perjury.

Your third paragraph is based on your mistaken assumption of what I was saying.

You're correct, I mis-read what you meant. Sorry about that. I do think he downplayed it for the public. I think that's somewhat normal but it's not like the testimony was going to be sealed. It was going to get out. Sorry again for misconstruing your statements.

 

[Chaka]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

Did you read what I posted before the part you quoted?

Yes.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

As far as I know, he doesn't. But, IMO, he absolutely should, unless they're sending him into the witness protection program.

Completely agree. Is that it though? Did he get some sort of plea deal for testifying? Or was he never under legal duress, so to speak?

 

[mad sweeney]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.

Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

Man, you're all over the map here. So you're saying that Paterno lied to the grand jury because his lack of knowledge about the 98 incident, or other incidents, doesn't fit your idea of what you think (or what to have) happened? Come on now. The grand jury found statements by other people testifying to be in perjury. They thought no such thing of Paterno's testimony. I don't see how anyone here can listen to your opinion if it revolves around Paterno lying under oath. That's just stupid. Regarding the second bold statement, you clearly didn't read or pay any attention to the latest testimony in which McQueary admitted he didn't give a very detailed description of what was going on to Paterno out of respect. I believe his quote was that "you don't talk about something like that in front of Coach Paterno". So now, Paterno did not lie to the Grand Jury when he said he wasn't told all the details of what McQueary saw. McQueary admits he didn't give Paterno all the details.

Now that doesn't excuse Paterno from not doing more because even with few details and even if McQueary had been exaggerating, it sounds creepy as hell that his former asst is naked in the shower with a 10 year old. But if you want to convince people of your point of view, you really need to stick to the facts and not imagine everything coming out of Paterno's mouth, even under oath, to be a lie.

You've got what I said all wrong.What I am saying is, that Paterno told the GJ that he was told by McQ of "fondling and something of a sexual nature", but when he released his public statement after the arrest he said he wasn't told specifics and didn't know what happened. He was saving face. I think he told the GJ the truth but obviously couldn't say that in his public statement. What I wrote was a little convoluted, but what I meant was that the only way you can excuse Paterno in the least is if you think he lied to the GJ about the specifics he told them that he was told. Since he wasn't indicted on perjury charges, I'm sticking with thinking that he told the truth to the GJ and he knew what McQ told him he saw.

Second paragraph: see above. Paterno used the words "fondling" and "of a sexual nature" in his GJ testimony. Curly and Spanier tried to downplay it to the GJ, which is why they're charged with perjury.

Your third paragraph is based on your mistaken assumption of what I was saying.

You're correct, I mis-read what you meant. Sorry about that. I do think he downplayed it for the public. I think that's somewhat normal but it's not like the testimony was going to be sealed. It was going to get out. Sorry again for misconstruing your statements.

It was convoluted, not your fault. I'm watching the game and posting between plays to drown Joe Buck's voice out of my head.

 

[mad sweeney]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

As far as I know, he doesn't. But, IMO, he absolutely should, unless they're sending him into the witness protection program.

Completely agree. Is that it though? Did he get some sort of plea deal for testifying? Or was he never under legal duress, so to speak?

Does PA have a Good Samaritan Law where him not stopping the rape or calling the police that night would apply?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I haven't kept up on this issue since it broke, more or less, but could someone who has answer a few questions?

1) has the boy who was apparently in the shower been identified in any way? Last I heard he had not been identified.

2) what dicipline, if any, has been brought on McQueary over than not being on the sidelines for the last couple football games? Was he on the sideline for the bowl game?

3) is Sandusky still locked up?

Finally, Joe Paterno reported what he knew, which was not much of the incident with McQueary. He knew second, maybe third hand knowledge of the shower incident. If he calls the cops, what would the cops say/do? He did not see it. He could not identify the boy. The time, place would all be heresy coming from Paterno. The cops may have looked into it but they would have had little to go on, coming from Paterno.

If you guys want to keep hating Paterno and blaming him, start spewing more hatred of McQueary for his inaction as well as Sandusky for his actions.

I think pretty much everyone on here has blasted McQueary for his cowardice. He's a little tiny guppy in JoePa's whaleshark tank though, and he didn't just die, so naturally the talk will be mostly about Paterno.JoePa told the Grand Jury that McQ was "visibly upset" when McQ told JP of the incident the night before. And JP also told the GJ that he was told it was "fondling" and of a "sexual nature". Add this to the fact that, while it's not proven like this is (unles JP's lying to the GJ about it), that JP knew, IMO, that this was happening when Sandusky retired, then it's even more damning that Paterno passed the buck and did nothing about it even though Sandusky was still seen on campus and affiliated loosely or unofficially with not only the school but the football program. Oh yeah, and he had a bunch of foster kids and ran a charity for youths, some of which Joe had to have known were being raped during the previous decade. So, Joe told the AD, wash his hands clean and call him great. Good job Joe, thanks for looking out, protecting kids and integrity. Plus, completely countering his GJ statements with his official statement after Sandusky's first arrest, by trying to claim that wasn't told specifics and wasn't made clear what McQ (the coward) saw in the shower.

Seriously, there are a TON of heads in the sand on this. Not necessarily you, but to ignore all this is inconceivable to me (except for one guy from whom I expect nothing else).

Man, you're all over the map here. So you're saying that Paterno lied to the grand jury because his lack of knowledge about the 98 incident, or other incidents, doesn't fit your idea of what you think (or what to have) happened? Come on now. The grand jury found statements by other people testifying to be in perjury. They thought no such thing of Paterno's testimony. I don't see how anyone here can listen to your opinion if it revolves around Paterno lying under oath. That's just stupid. Regarding the second bold statement, you clearly didn't read or pay any attention to the latest testimony in which McQueary admitted he didn't give a very detailed description of what was going on to Paterno out of respect. I believe his quote was that "you don't talk about something like that in front of Coach Paterno". So now, Paterno did not lie to the Grand Jury when he said he wasn't told all the details of what McQueary saw. McQueary admits he didn't give Paterno all the details.

Now that doesn't excuse Paterno from not doing more because even with few details and even if McQueary had been exaggerating, it sounds creepy as hell that his former asst is naked in the shower with a 10 year old. But if you want to convince people of your point of view, you really need to stick to the facts and not imagine everything coming out of Paterno's mouth, even under oath, to be a lie.

You've got what I said all wrong.What I am saying is, that Paterno told the GJ that he was told by McQ of "fondling and something of a sexual nature", but when he released his public statement after the arrest he said he wasn't told specifics and didn't know what happened. He was saving face. I think he told the GJ the truth but obviously couldn't say that in his public statement. What I wrote was a little convoluted, but what I meant was that the only way you can excuse Paterno in the least is if you think he lied to the GJ about the specifics he told them that he was told. Since he wasn't indicted on perjury charges, I'm sticking with thinking that he told the truth to the GJ and he knew what McQ told him he saw.

Second paragraph: see above. Paterno used the words "fondling" and "of a sexual nature" in his GJ testimony. Curly and Spanier tried to downplay it to the GJ, which is why they're charged with perjury.

Your third paragraph is based on your mistaken assumption of what I was saying.

You're correct, I mis-read what you meant. Sorry about that. I do think he downplayed it for the public. I think that's somewhat normal but it's not like the testimony was going to be sealed. It was going to get out. Sorry again for misconstruing your statements.

It was convoluted, not your fault. I'm watching the game and posting between plays to drown Joe Buck's voice out of my head.

Thanks. Started arguing about one of your posts over in the "Death" thread. Please check in when Mr Buck gets to you again.

 

[Dragons]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

As far as I know, he doesn't. But, IMO, he absolutely should, unless they're sending him into the witness protection program.

Completely agree. Is that it though? Did he get some sort of plea deal for testifying? Or was he never under legal duress, so to speak?

Does PA have a Good Samaritan Law where him not stopping the rape or calling the police that night would apply?

If so, I'm sure it would have been mentioned in this thread at least 3 times, so I don't think so.I'm not sure how I feel about good samaritan laws in general, but crimes involving children should be held to a far greater standard.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Second, McQueary doesn't have a fraction of the power Paterno had at that university.

He had the power to call the police. All of them.

And he's been pilloried on this board, public opinion and in the media, fired and sent into reclusion.

But unless I'm mistaken, he has no legal issues with this right?

As far as I know, he doesn't. But, IMO, he absolutely should, unless they're sending him into the witness protection program.

Completely agree. Is that it though? Did he get some sort of plea deal for testifying? Or was he never under legal duress, so to speak?

Does PA have a Good Samaritan Law where him not stopping the rape or calling the police that night would apply?

If so, I'm sure it would have been mentioned in this thread at least 3 times, so I don't think so.I'm not sure how I feel about good samaritan laws in general, but crimes involving children should be held to a far greater standard.

Agree. Hell, maybe this whole thing will force people to look at those laws more closely.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Question for the thread: Something I can't get my mind around in the whole "cover up" theory is why, if you're worried about the reputation of Penn State being harmed (be it Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier), would you continue to "knowingly" "allow" Sandusky to keep raping kids?

This just doesn't pass the logic test for me. So Spanier finds out about 2002. He is worried, correctly, about the damage it would do to Penn State. So what does he do? I can see him agreeing to something like this:

Someone below Spanier: "We're going to tell Second Mile. Won't happen again. But we can't just cut off his access to PSU. It would be too suspicious."

Spanier: "OK, that will help us avoid an embarrassing scandal."

However it sounds like some people think it went like this:

Someone below Spanier: "We can't let this become an embarrassing scandal. So we're going to let him go on raping kids, just ask him not to do it on campus. That should be safe".

Spanier: "OK. I'm sure that 6 more years of kids getting raped won't present a greater danger of a classmate, parent or teacher finding out and turning this into an embarrassing scandal".

I mean, that makes no sense at all. I suppose they could just all be completely incompetent, but I'm not sure that's very likely. So how does that add up? What is the theory on that from the "Paterno, et al knowingly let Sandusky keep raping kids" crowd? If you're trying to cover up a crime, do you purposefully keep allowing that crime to happen?

 

[bentley]

On second thought, I don't feel like sharing.

But I think it's pretty common in coverups to only think about the immediate act without regarding for longterm consequences. Wasn't that what Watergate was about?

 

[TexanFan02]

Pretty sure the REAL Grand Jury found Joe Pa innocent of any charges. I'll take that over internet outrage 100% of the time. RIP Joe Paterno, you were a good guy, no matter what knee jerk overreactions on the internet want to say.

 

[Sea Duck]

Pretty sure the REAL Grand Jury found Joe Pa innocent of any charges.

Pretty sure you don't know what a grand jury is, Tex.

 

[PeterSam]

Sandusky killed Paterno.

No, it was booty what killed the beast.

 

[PeterSam]

I'd just like to clarify that I'm still against kiddie rape

Have a nice recruiting season, guy.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

On second thought, I don't feel like sharing.But I think it's pretty common in coverups to only think about the immediate act without regarding for longterm consequences. Wasn't that what Watergate was about?

Eh, in hastily made coverups I'd agree with you. But Paterno didn't go to the AD until the next day and the AD and VP didn't meet with McQueary until more than a week later. Plenty of time to think things through.

 

[RC94]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10342814-sandusky-prosecutors-cite-neighbors-in-seeking-tougher-bail

Sandusky prosecutors cite neighbors in seeking tougher bail

By Michael Isikoff, NBC News

Pennsylvania state prosecutors are asking that Jerry Sandusky's bail conditions to be tightened after receiving reports from local neighbors that the accused child molester has been spotted sitting on the deck of his house watching school children in a nearby playground.

In court papers filed Tuesday, prosecutors say there are "grave concerns" among Sandusky's neighbors about the safety of their children. They urge a judge to further restrict conditions for the former Penn State University defensive coach, barring him from "leaving the walls of his house for any reason" unless accompanied by a court officer.

The prosecutors acted after local school officials and neighbors complained that Sandusky was recently seen on the deck -- which overlooks an elementary school less than 50 yards away -- watching children play during recess.

"To think that he's up there, watching our kids and that's his new outlet, that's just creepy," Amy Hasan, a neighbor of Sandusky's, told NBC News in an interview.

Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, texted a reporter that the claim he's been watching school children from his deck "is a totally false statement" made by individuals who "will not be happy unless Jerry is incarcerated."

He added that "the law presumes Jerry innocent and Jerrry has always maintained his innocence."

Sandusky -- facing 52 counts of child sex abuse involving 10 children over a 15 year period -- has been under house arrest since his re-arrest last December, confined to his home with an electronic monitor around his ankle.

Amendola recently asked the judge overseeing the case, John Cleland, to ease his bail conditions to allow him to meet, e-mail and text with his grandchildren. Sandusky also wants the freedom to leave his house to accompany a private investigator to identify the homes of potential witnesses in the case. Amendola wrote that the grandchildren have expressed "sadness" about their inability to communicate with their grandfather.

But prosecutors strongly urged the judge to deny the request.

"House arrest is not meant to be a house party," they write in their court filing. They also noted that the ex-wife of one of Sandusky's sons "strenously objects to her three minor children having any contact whatsoever with the defendant."

A hearing on the bail issue is slated for Friday.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

Can we please stop bumping this until he's in general population?!?

We'd all appreciate it, thanks!

 

[Tiger Fan]

Can we please stop bumping this until he's in general population?!?We'd all appreciate it, thanks!

https://twitter.com/#!/SPORTSbyBROOKS

Penn State chooses to lose state funding in order to prevent release of '98 130-page Sandusky PSU police report. The coverup continues ...

that seems pretty big, no?

 

[Dragons]

Can we please stop bumping this until he's in general population?!?We'd all appreciate it, thanks!

https://twitter.com/#!/SPORTSbyBROOKS

Penn State chooses to lose state funding in order to prevent release of '98 130-page Sandusky PSU police report. The coverup continues ...

that seems pretty big, no?

Seems big, but it also seems strange. Why would this be a choice that could possibly be in their hands?

 

[E-Z Glider]

Can we please stop bumping this until he's in general population?!?We'd all appreciate it, thanks!

https://twitter.com/#!/SPORTSbyBROOKS

Penn State chooses to lose state funding in order to prevent release of '98 130-page Sandusky PSU police report. The coverup continues ...

that seems pretty big, no?

Seems big, but it also seems strange. Why would this be a choice that could possibly be in their hands?

SportsByBrooks = Weekly World NewsHTH

 

[Apes with Guns]

One neighbor had used a video camera to document Sandusky's time on his deck, Sassano said.

He's ripping off their clothes with his eyes!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Pretty sure Parrothead is related to Sandusky or Paterno.

I've ignored you for 89 pages- but please point me to the post where I defended Paterno or Sandusky (you kidding me?? ).. otherwise, ####

You come across as a complete apologist for child rape enablers. Everyone is calling you "creepy" and "jackhole" and saying you are way off base. But you're right, it is everyone but you.

again- prove it = where did I defend Paterno or Sandusky? Give me a break.. read the thread

Parrothead, I know you are angry and ashamed at the individuals involving this scandal. I feel bad for you and for all the other Penn St grads regarding this. But you really need to lay off comparing this to anything else, even the Citadel story. If you want to talk about the Citadel story, you should make a new thread. Otherwise, even if you don't try to draw comparisons, everyone here will think you are posting it here to deflect the message board hate to Citadel. Because of that, people are going to take shots at you that you nor the board need. Can you just drop the Citadel stuff in this thread? Thanks.

I like how Parrothead went through this entire thread dropping stuff in like the Citadel and then getting completely defensive when someone challenged him on it. Agree with Todd Andrews, very creepy.

only the part where a high ranking official at a college looked the other way when presented with child molestation charges.. imagine if the Citidel president acted when he fisrt heard about it.. how many molestations could have been prevented???I guess the name Citidel isn't sexy enough to get the same attention..