Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (3 Viewers)

[Christo]

Guys, I got it straight from the timeline in the Freeh report.

 

[Christo]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

The bolded is false. Paterno convinced Curley to not pass McQueary's concerns to the appropriate authorities.

What part is false?

To start with, Paterno's involvement.

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

 

[Dragons]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

The bolded is false. Paterno convinced Curley to not pass McQueary's concerns to the appropriate authorities.

What part is false?

To start with, Paterno's involvement.

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

 

[Christo]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

 

[Dragons]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

 

[Christo]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

I never said it did. How does that make what I said false?

 

[Dragons]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

I never said it did. How does that make what I said false?

You said that it's possible Paterno thought he did enough, because others looked into it. This is false. Others looked into it, but their actions were altered by Paterno's coercion. That coercion happened prior to anyone talking to Sandusky or the Second Mile.ETA - Also, what was Paterno's involvement with notifying Second Mile and any investigation by them? IIRC, Curley's suggestion based on conversation with Paterno was that the humane thing to do was to talk to Sandusky. It suggested nothing about involving Second Mile.

 

[Christo]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

I never said it did. How does that make what I said false?

You said that it's possible Paterno thought he did enough, because others looked into it. This is false. Others looked into it, but their actions were altered by Paterno's coercion. That coercion happened prior to anyone talking to Sandusky or the Second Mile.

First, you said the bolded was false. It wasn't. Second, others did look into it. That is a fact. Third, you say Paterno's coercion altered their actions. No one is disputing that. But how did it alter their conclusions? I missed that part in Freeh's report.

 

[Christo]

ETA - Also, what was Paterno's involvement with notifying Second Mile and any investigation by them? IIRC, Curley's suggestion based on conversation with Paterno was that the humane thing to do was to talk to Sandusky. It suggested nothing about involving Second Mile.

I don't know if Paterno was involved with notifying Second Mile. It was one or both of Schultz and Curley who actually notified them after Curley met with Sandusky. Why is this important?

 

[Dragons]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

I never said it did. How does that make what I said false?

You said that it's possible Paterno thought he did enough, because others looked into it. This is false. Others looked into it, but their actions were altered by Paterno's coercion. That coercion happened prior to anyone talking to Sandusky or the Second Mile.

First, you said the bolded was false. It wasn't. Second, others did look into it. That is a fact. Third, you say Paterno's coercion altered their actions. No one is disputing that. But how did it alter their conclusions? I missed that part in Freeh's report.

Their immediate conclusions, which Paterno knew, was to report it to the appropriate agencies. You can not claim that Paterno was in denial because he passed "concerns" up the chain and nothing became of them, because he actively altered the actions of those investigations. That suggests some awareness or control of the situation.He may have been actually been in denial, but you can't say it's because he simply passed the concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. This was the excuse offered by people in defense of Paterno at the beginning, he did what he was supposed to do. Except we now know he didn't. He then actively participated in not reporting it appropriately.

 

[Dragons]

ETA - Also, what was Paterno's involvement with notifying Second Mile and any investigation by them? IIRC, Curley's suggestion based on conversation with Paterno was that the humane thing to do was to talk to Sandusky. It suggested nothing about involving Second Mile.

I don't know if Paterno was involved with notifying Second Mile. It was one or both of Schultz and Curley who actually notified them after Curley met with Sandusky. Why is this important?

Because you used this as a justification for Paterno being in denial. Second Mile investigated and came up with nothing. "Oh, I guess there must be nothing."ETA- From what I can tell, there was no suggestion that Paterno knew it would be reported to Second Mile at all. Of course, their reporting consisted of, "something happened, we investigated and nothing came of it", but there is nothing to suggest that Paterno knew that it would be such a weak-### report, either.

 

[Smack Tripper]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I'm traveling and will have to cite specifics later, but what was the "humane approach" stuff Inge emails about it not an awareness of a situation?As for the endless "what if" game of scenarios, it doesn't hold much water to think paterno viewed this as unsubstantiated allegation when his own public statements said nearly verbaitum "I wished I had do more". There is no doubt, denial or remote indication that he thought the charges were at any point without merit. He did express personal regret howeve, absent any qualifiers.

What we do know is,

-he was aware of the 1998 investigation

-several reports including quotes from possibly Sandusky himself indicate that he knew he would never coach the team in 1999, hence his retirement. Seems a curious position to put forth demonstratively given Sanduskys status

-reports that paterno helped establish emeritus status for Sandusky upon his 1999 retirement. Incentivizing his retirement?

-urges a humane approach to new charges of molestation, no reports that he says "that can't be"

-makes sure he has a golden parachute in August 2011. Again, unless he's amazingly luckily, there was an awareness of heat to be had on Sandusky. Why would an innocent man feather his bed.

No links to the above but if you have questions as to any Of them, I'll be happy to seek them out tOmorrow but the reports are out there for your own perusal.

 

[Christo]

I'm quite sure Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz.

Except it didn't end there.

What didn't end where?

Paterno's involvement in McQueary's concerns.

I never said it did. How does that make what I said false?

You said that it's possible Paterno thought he did enough, because others looked into it. This is false. Others looked into it, but their actions were altered by Paterno's coercion. That coercion happened prior to anyone talking to Sandusky or the Second Mile.

First, you said the bolded was false. It wasn't. Second, others did look into it. That is a fact. Third, you say Paterno's coercion altered their actions. No one is disputing that. But how did it alter their conclusions? I missed that part in Freeh's report.

Their immediate conclusions, which Paterno knew, was to report it to the appropriate agencies. You can not claim that Paterno was in denial because he passed "concerns" up the chain and nothing became of them, because he actively altered the actions of those investigations. That suggests some awareness or control of the situation.He may have been actually been in denial, but you can't say it's because he simply passed the concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. This was the excuse offered by people in defense of Paterno at the beginning, he did what he was supposed to do. Except we now know he didn't. He then actively participated in not reporting it appropriately.

Quit being disingenuous. And quit putting words in my mouth. You know that I was talking about the conclusions with respect to whether Sandusky had molested the kid in 2001. I never said Paterno didn't have a hand in keeping it in-house. I never said Paterno did what he was supposed to do. I never said it was reported appropriately. And I never said that he was in denial because he passed his concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. But that does not change the fact that the police investigation of the 1998 incident didn't end up with charges being brought against Sandusky and after Curley met with Sandusky and Second Mile about the 2001 incident Second Mile concluded it was a "non-incident."

 

[Dragons]

I'm going to assume you didn't read the report because you're sounding less than intelligent again. The report specifically found that there was no connection to Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. He left because he wanted to spend more time with the Second Mile than as DC of a major CFB team. He had turned down the Temple job in 1988 for the same reason, to stay with Second Mile. It's sickening to think of now, but that was the motivation. Unless you're implying that a number of major colleges called Penn State, were told he molested young boys, and then declined to interview him and didn't tell anyone else for the last 10-15 years. Is that the theory?

IIRC, the report did not find a connection with Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. This is not the same thing as saying that the report found that there was no connection.

 

[Christo]

ETA - Also, what was Paterno's involvement with notifying Second Mile and any investigation by them? IIRC, Curley's suggestion based on conversation with Paterno was that the humane thing to do was to talk to Sandusky. It suggested nothing about involving Second Mile.

I don't know if Paterno was involved with notifying Second Mile. It was one or both of Schultz and Curley who actually notified them after Curley met with Sandusky. Why is this important?

Because you used this as a justification for Paterno being in denial. Second Mile investigated and came up with nothing. "Oh, I guess there must be nothing."

I still don't understand why it matters whether Paterno was actually involved with notifying Second Mile. Why does it matter whether it was Paterno, Schultz or Curly who did the notification?

 

[The Commish]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

The point was made earlier that the powers of the school seemed to know exactly what they were doing and were in complete control.

If you include the board among "the powers", I completely disagree.

And if you exclude them?

Why would you?

Why did you go with the "if" in your first question. I didn't say ALL the people in power knew about it and orchestrated it. That's not what the report said.

 

[Christo]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I'm traveling and will have to cite specifics later, but what was the "humane approach" stuff Inge emails about it not an awareness of a situation?As for the endless "what if" game of scenarios, it doesn't hold much water to think paterno viewed this as unsubstantiated allegation when his own public statements said nearly verbaitum "I wished I had do more". There is no doubt, denial or remote indication that he thought the charges were at any point without merit. He did express personal regret howeve, absent any qualifiers.

What we do know is,

-he was aware of the 1998 investigation

-several reports including quotes from possibly Sandusky himself indicate that he knew he would never coach the team in 1999, hence his retirement. Seems a curious position to put forth demonstratively given Sanduskys status

-reports that paterno helped establish emeritus status for Sandusky upon his 1999 retirement. Incentivizing his retirement?

-urges a humane approach to new charges of molestation, no reports that he says "that can't be"

-makes sure he has a golden parachute in August 2011. Again, unless he's amazingly luckily, there was an awareness of heat to be had on Sandusky. Why would an innocent man feather his bed.

No links to the above but if you have questions as to any Of them, I'll be happy to seek them out tOmorrow but the reports are out there for your own perusal.

You really seem to be missing the point. He made that statement in 2011. The fact that he may have finally understood that it was true in 2011 doesn't prove that he understood it was true in 1998, 2001 or even early 2011.

 

[Dragons]

Their immediate conclusions, which Paterno knew, was to report it to the appropriate agencies. You can not claim that Paterno was in denial because he passed "concerns" up the chain and nothing became of them, because he actively altered the actions of those investigations. That suggests some awareness or control of the situation.

He may have been actually been in denial, but you can't say it's because he simply passed the concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. This was the excuse offered by people in defense of Paterno at the beginning, he did what he was supposed to do. Except we now know he didn't. He then actively participated in not reporting it appropriately.

Quit being disingenuous. And quit putting words in my mouth. You know that I was talking about the conclusions with respect to whether Sandusky had molested the kid in 2001. I never said Paterno didn't have a hand in keeping it in-house. I never said Paterno did what he was supposed to do. I never said it was reported appropriately. And I never said that he was in denial because he passed his concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. But that does not change the fact that the police investigation of the 1998 incident didn't end up with charges being brought against Sandusky and after Curley met with Sandusky and Second Mile about the 2001 incident Second Mile concluded it was a "non-incident."

Except you did suggest exactly that:

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.

You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I suppose you'll nuance this to mean something else, and frankly, I don't care. I don't really care about the psychology about whether Paterno was in denial. It doesn't change his culpability. He's dead and, as you said, we can't exhume him and order a psychological exam. In either case, whether he was in denial or whether he had a machiavellian complex, is pretty much irrelevant to anything left to discuss with the Penn State story. Leave it to the book on Paterno.

 

[bentley]

He kept McQueary on his staff and promoted him seems like he believed him.

Doesn't make sense, does it?As Christo keeps pointing out, all of you who are arguing so strenously against the possibility of denial keep pointing out illogical actions by Paterno and co- "If they were in denial, why didn't they do this? Why did they do that? Obviously, they weren't in denial."

The point is, you guys keep starting with the premise that Paterno and co. are going to behave logically. Whereas, as Christo keeps pointing out, denial includes the assumption that these guys behaved illogically. Once you accept this as a possibility, it is easy to understand why they would continue to behave illogically for a period of years.

I've pretty much intentionally avoided this thread, but why does it matter if they were in denial? Maybe they were in delusion? I have very strong secondhand (it happened to an immediate family member of mine) experience with something similar related to a small town high school basketball program. It was shocking the levels that people would go to in order to delude themselves that the things they observed weren't really what they observed. And the cover-up where administrators throughout the program were more interested in protecting the program than the minors who'd been violated was pretty disgusting. The coach pretty much had free reign. And we're talking about a program nowhere on the scale of Penn State. Ultimately, I guess I agree that they could easily behave illogically but it still makes them garbage.Anyhow, I'm not sure what my point is, but I'm sure that Paterno was more interested in his legacy than doing the moral thing.

 

[Dragons]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

The point was made earlier that the powers of the school seemed to know exactly what they were doing and were in complete control.

If you include the board among "the powers", I completely disagree.

And if you exclude them?

Why would you?

Why did you go with the "if" in your first question. I didn't say ALL the people in power knew about it and orchestrated it. That's not what the report said.

Because the discussion earlier did not include that information was concealed from the board.

 

[The Commish]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

The point was made earlier that the powers of the school seemed to know exactly what they were doing and were in complete control.

If you include the board among "the powers", I completely disagree.

And if you exclude them?

You are still wrong. At least with the NCAA definition of LOIC. However, in your other post I think you hint at a correct point in that LOIC is not really a stand alone charge (I think) and is an add on to other infractions. And you are also correct in that those other infractions are more fuzzy than institutions covering up student athletes that use marijuana for a criminal rather than competitive example. It is this fuzzy nature that will likely cause the NCAA to investigate and monitor what PSU does on its own rather than actually taking an active role. But they will still be there in the background.

LOIC has generally been used to define degree as it pertains to a NCAA established rule. There has to be something they are violating in the rules to lose control of. And you're correct, I suspect they could go after some "ethics" angle but IMO it would be foolish if they want to have any shred of credibility with the public or it's schools. They know as well as we do that ethical matters are swept under the rug on a daily basis across the country. The NCAA isn't exactly a beacon of ethics itself.

 

[Smack Tripper]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I'm traveling and will have to cite specifics later, but what was the "humane approach" stuff Inge emails about it not an awareness of a situation?As for the endless "what if" game of scenarios, it doesn't hold much water to think paterno viewed this as unsubstantiated allegation when his own public statements said nearly verbaitum "I wished I had do more". There is no doubt, denial or remote indication that he thought the charges were at any point without merit. He did express personal regret howeve, absent any qualifiers.

What we do know is,

-he was aware of the 1998 investigation

-several reports including quotes from possibly Sandusky himself indicate that he knew he would never coach the team in 1999, hence his retirement. Seems a curious position to put forth demonstratively given Sanduskys status

-reports that paterno helped establish emeritus status for Sandusky upon his 1999 retirement. Incentivizing his retirement?

-urges a humane approach to new charges of molestation, no reports that he says "that can't be"

-makes sure he has a golden parachute in August 2011. Again, unless he's amazingly luckily, there was an awareness of heat to be had on Sandusky. Why would an innocent man feather his bed.

No links to the above but if you have questions as to any Of them, I'll be happy to seek them out tOmorrow but the reports are out there for your own perusal.

You really seem to be missing the point. He made that statement in 2011. The fact that he may have finally understood that it was true in 2011 doesn't prove that he understood it was true in 1998, 2001 or even early 2011.

No I'm not missing the point. I'm asking for proof that he was in denial. You questioned his awareness, and then you questioned his processing of said information. Now you are speculating as to whether or not he was in denial. All I ask for is to point to something absolute as to why you think this. Again did Joes own words give you reasoning for your belief? I find nothing in them to indicate that time changed his mind.

Let's be real, the reason joes denial bit the dust in 2011 is because Sandusky got found out. Not because he had a change of heart.

The reasonable judgement would that he lied, not that he denied.

 

[Christo]

Their immediate conclusions, which Paterno knew, was to report it to the appropriate agencies. You can not claim that Paterno was in denial because he passed "concerns" up the chain and nothing became of them, because he actively altered the actions of those investigations. That suggests some awareness or control of the situation.

He may have been actually been in denial, but you can't say it's because he simply passed the concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. This was the excuse offered by people in defense of Paterno at the beginning, he did what he was supposed to do. Except we now know he didn't. He then actively participated in not reporting it appropriately.

Quit being disingenuous. And quit putting words in my mouth. You know that I was talking about the conclusions with respect to whether Sandusky had molested the kid in 2001. I never said Paterno didn't have a hand in keeping it in-house. I never said Paterno did what he was supposed to do. I never said it was reported appropriately. And I never said that he was in denial because he passed his concerns up the chain of command and they found nothing. But that does not change the fact that the police investigation of the 1998 incident didn't end up with charges being brought against Sandusky and after Curley met with Sandusky and Second Mile about the 2001 incident Second Mile concluded it was a "non-incident."

Except you did suggest exactly that:

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.

You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I suppose you'll nuance this to mean something else, and frankly, I don't care. I don't really care about the psychology about whether Paterno was in denial. It doesn't change his culpability. He's dead and, as you said, we can't exhume him and order a psychological exam. In either case, whether he was in denial or whether he had a machiavellian complex, is pretty much irrelevant to anything left to discuss with the Penn State story. Leave it to the book on Paterno.

There's no nuance. My words speak for themselves. I said it's possible Paterno had concluded he had done enough because others had concluded Sandusky had done nothing wrong. The denial is him simply not believing it's possible Sandusky did what he was accused of doing, which would have kicked in before he heard their conclusions.BTW, for someone who doesn't care you seem to have a lot to say.

 

[The Commish]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

The point was made earlier that the powers of the school seemed to know exactly what they were doing and were in complete control.

If you include the board among "the powers", I completely disagree.

And if you exclude them?

Why would you?

Why did you go with the "if" in your first question. I didn't say ALL the people in power knew about it and orchestrated it. That's not what the report said.

Because the discussion earlier did not include that information was concealed from the board.

I thought it was well established regarding who knew what and what they knew. I didn't feel it necessary to list the individuals by name. Sorry.

 

[Christo]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Christo?

 

[Christo]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Hold it. I stated an opinion. The opinion was that denial played a part in Paterno's failures. For that you called me unreasonable. Others agreed that it was possible. Denial is in the mind. There is no way for me to "prove" Paterno was in denial. Yet you've kept insisting that I prove that he was in denial. The only one who is being argumentative is you.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The only one who is being argumentative is you.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I'm traveling and will have to cite specifics later, but what was the "humane approach" stuff Inge emails about it not an awareness of a situation?As for the endless "what if" game of scenarios, it doesn't hold much water to think paterno viewed this as unsubstantiated allegation when his own public statements said nearly verbaitum "I wished I had do more". There is no doubt, denial or remote indication that he thought the charges were at any point without merit. He did express personal regret howeve, absent any qualifiers.

What we do know is,

-he was aware of the 1998 investigation

-several reports including quotes from possibly Sandusky himself indicate that he knew he would never coach the team in 1999, hence his retirement. Seems a curious position to put forth demonstratively given Sanduskys status

-reports that paterno helped establish emeritus status for Sandusky upon his 1999 retirement. Incentivizing his retirement?

-urges a humane approach to new charges of molestation, no reports that he says "that can't be"

-makes sure he has a golden parachute in August 2011. Again, unless he's amazingly luckily, there was an awareness of heat to be had on Sandusky. Why would an innocent man feather his bed.

No links to the above but if you have questions as to any Of them, I'll be happy to seek them out tOmorrow but the reports are out there for your own perusal.

I hate to get into a semantics argument but the bolded is not complete and I think you know it. His full statement was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more". Pretty big difference there. Everyone in this thread and frankly, in the country, is using hindsight. In hindsight, it's pretty horrible that he didn't do more. At the time, he might have thought there were mis-understandings/issues that got resolved/ etc. So it's reasonable that now that he knows, for a fact, that young boys were molested after he failed to act more completely on something he thought was "solved", he might say something like "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."Now, that doesn't excuse him and he certainly could be full of ####. But don't cut off the first part of the sentence when it makes a huge difference in the connotation of the statement.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm going to assume you didn't read the report because you're sounding less than intelligent again. The report specifically found that there was no connection to Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. He left because he wanted to spend more time with the Second Mile than as DC of a major CFB team. He had turned down the Temple job in 1988 for the same reason, to stay with Second Mile. It's sickening to think of now, but that was the motivation. Unless you're implying that a number of major colleges called Penn State, were told he molested young boys, and then declined to interview him and didn't tell anyone else for the last 10-15 years. Is that the theory?

IIRC, the report did not find a connection with Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. This is not the same thing as saying that the report found that there was no connection.

OK, but you have to admit, it was a pretty thorough and pretty negative investigation of that time frame and person. It would be very surprising if they missed that. But if it makes you feel better, I suppose they might have. I just know, as an Alum who followed the story at the time pretty closely, was that the story was that Sandusky was spending too much time with Second Mile. Paterno told him to spend more time with the team and Sandusky decided to retire instead and turn down any opportunities to leave State College. I think it's pretty obvious, in hindsight, why he did that. Frankly, that situation is about the only thing I'm positive about in this whole mess.

 

[Dragons]

I'm going to assume you didn't read the report because you're sounding less than intelligent again. The report specifically found that there was no connection to Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. He left because he wanted to spend more time with the Second Mile than as DC of a major CFB team. He had turned down the Temple job in 1988 for the same reason, to stay with Second Mile. It's sickening to think of now, but that was the motivation. Unless you're implying that a number of major colleges called Penn State, were told he molested young boys, and then declined to interview him and didn't tell anyone else for the last 10-15 years. Is that the theory?

IIRC, the report did not find a connection with Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. This is not the same thing as saying that the report found that there was no connection.

OK, but you have to admit, it was a pretty thorough and pretty negative investigation of that time frame and person. It would be very surprising if they missed that. But if it makes you feel better, I suppose they might have. I just know, as an Alum who followed the story at the time pretty closely, was that the story was that Sandusky was spending too much time with Second Mile. Paterno told him to spend more time with the team and Sandusky decided to retire instead and turn down any opportunities to leave State College. I think it's pretty obvious, in hindsight, why he did that. Frankly, that situation is about the only thing I'm positive about in this whole mess.

I'm not calling into question the investigation at all. It appears to be very thorough. I'm certainly not going to argue it's findings while trying to discount what it didn't find. But, as a result of the investigation, they did not state there was no connection, just that they did not find one. I'm not suggesting that it means there was a connection, I'm just saying to be careful with how you phrase what they said. Unfortunately, a negative is impossible to prove, even though it's likely it's true.

 

[TexanFan02]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Hold it. I stated an opinion. The opinion was that denial played a part in Paterno's failures. For that you called me unreasonable. Others agreed that it was possible. Denial is in the mind. There is no way for me to "prove" Paterno was in denial. Yet you've kept insisting that I prove that he was in denial. The only one who is being argumentative is you.

Worst thread ever. And now Christo is here. Fitting, even if I agree with him.

 

[Dragons]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

The point was made earlier that the powers of the school seemed to know exactly what they were doing and were in complete control.

If you include the board among "the powers", I completely disagree.

And if you exclude them?

Why would you?

Why did you go with the "if" in your first question. I didn't say ALL the people in power knew about it and orchestrated it. That's not what the report said.

Because the discussion earlier did not include that information was concealed from the board.

I thought it was well established regarding who knew what and what they knew. I didn't feel it necessary to list the individuals by name. Sorry.

No one thought to list them, so it appears that no one considered them. Do you think they're an important consideration regarding "institutional control"? Or do you think you can fairly exclude them and come to the same conclusions?

 

[Smack Tripper]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Hold it. I stated an opinion. The opinion was that denial played a part in Paterno's failures. For that you called me unreasonable. Others agreed that it was possible. Denial is in the mind. There is no way for me to "prove" Paterno was in denial. Yet you've kept insisting that I prove that he was in denial. The only one who is being argumentative is you.

I sense that we are going in circles and there is no real point to continue. To be clear, I do not dismiss your assertion out of hand, but only wish to hear if there is information that I'm not aware of. To be further clear, my opinion that he was not in denial is based on his actions behind the scene. By the way, as for the thought he may have been denial as late as early 2011, put that to bed, he started renegotiating his deal in the wake of his testimony in January 2011. Can you be in denial at the same time as you are orchestrating a situation to your benefit based on ostensibly inside information? I ask not because I'm interested in an answer because I know the answer and its no. As I said, you can have any opinion you want on any matter you like but all opinions aren't created equal. Some are informed and some are speculative. And one last thought for what its worth. I'm combative and take issue with this, my objection lies in the fact characterize Paterno's choices as being a product of being "in denial" without any significant evidence in word or deed affords him a benefit of the doubt I am no longer comfortable or capable of affording him. And if I'm to see others make the same choice, I wish not to see it as flippant, dismissive conjecture to explain the inexcusable conduct. The golden parachute was the last straw with me for this man. With the benefit of hindsight, to borrow a phrase, we have learned new information about this man that to me removes any sympathy from him.

 

[Smack Tripper]

lose an argument, move the goalposts.

Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid.

You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You SAID "considering the sources" in quotation in which I was citing sources. You did not directly reference myself or fatness in that post, so I would think a reasonable person might infer you were questioning the sources in the post and not the poster. To do this, you might address those us directly or say "you two" or words to that effect. You've done nothing other than to offer a schoolyard defense with some hamfisted "taunts" and you can scarcely articulate that in a cogent manner.

We stand where we started, you offering an opinion that you haven't supported.

How am I supposed to support it? I can't exhume Paterno and have a psychiatrist examine him.

It's not my Job to argue your side of the argument. You're telling me he was in denial, now show me how he was. Once again, my support for the non-denial side is rooted in the steps he took to protect penn state and his own personal situation. There is literally nothing in his choices to show a pattern he was in denial. Perhaps we differ on what "denial" means or to what degree he experienced it, but it he were in denial, he certainly Held the presence of mind to know what, where and when to conceal certain information.

To me, denial encompasses an obfuscation of reality. Joe's choices don't indicate that, he seemed well aware of the reality of consequences for his choices. To deny would leave this in question as I see it.

I cant see how he was I denial of anything when he negotiated a parachute before this story went big. It's machevellian if anything.

His choices indicate awareness, not denial.

What information was he concealing? What was he aware of? That Sandusky was a pedophile? Or that Sandusky was accused of being a pedophile? The police investigated the 1998 incident and concluded nothing was going on. Paterno passed on McQueary's concerns to Curley and Schultz, they met with Sandusky and Second Mile and Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. It's possible Paterno concluded that he had done enough in both instances because others who looked into it were convinced Sandusky had done nothing wrong. There may have been enough "evidence" for Paterno to conclude that Sandusky was a pedophile. But it's possible he used other people's erroneous conclusions to bolster his inability to believe Sandusky was a pedophile. That's exactly what denial is.You keep saying that what Paterno had to know Sandusky was a pedophile and still covered it up. What evidence do you have of his knowledge other than the cover up? It's quite possible that Paterno participated in the cover up not because he knew Sandusky was a pedophile but because he believed that even the accusation could tarnish him and the football program.

I'm traveling and will have to cite specifics later, but what was the "humane approach" stuff Inge emails about it not an awareness of a situation?As for the endless "what if" game of scenarios, it doesn't hold much water to think paterno viewed this as unsubstantiated allegation when his own public statements said nearly verbaitum "I wished I had do more". There is no doubt, denial or remote indication that he thought the charges were at any point without merit. He did express personal regret howeve, absent any qualifiers.

What we do know is,

-he was aware of the 1998 investigation

-several reports including quotes from possibly Sandusky himself indicate that he knew he would never coach the team in 1999, hence his retirement. Seems a curious position to put forth demonstratively given Sanduskys status

-reports that paterno helped establish emeritus status for Sandusky upon his 1999 retirement. Incentivizing his retirement?

-urges a humane approach to new charges of molestation, no reports that he says "that can't be"

-makes sure he has a golden parachute in August 2011. Again, unless he's amazingly luckily, there was an awareness of heat to be had on Sandusky. Why would an innocent man feather his bed.

No links to the above but if you have questions as to any Of them, I'll be happy to seek them out tOmorrow but the reports are out there for your own perusal.

I hate to get into a semantics argument but the bolded is not complete and I think you know it. His full statement was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more". Pretty big difference there. Everyone in this thread and frankly, in the country, is using hindsight. In hindsight, it's pretty horrible that he didn't do more. At the time, he might have thought there were mis-understandings/issues that got resolved/ etc. So it's reasonable that now that he knows, for a fact, that young boys were molested after he failed to act more completely on something he thought was "solved", he might say something like "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."Now, that doesn't excuse him and he certainly could be full of ####. But don't cut off the first part of the sentence when it makes a huge difference in the connotation of the statement.

I disagree that its particularly pertinent in regard to the exchange with Christo. Christo pondered the prospect of him being in denial, and in looking for any thing in his few parting words on this matter that would speak to him being in denial. I don't think that the addition changes the context of "I wish I had done more", but that is obviously my opinion. I still see nothing that would admit a disbelief or any other phrasing that might frame his then present or past thoughts as being in denial on this matter. In the face of trying to analyze his decisions and actions, we can only really couple them with his words to see what might have been in his head.

 

[Borat]

Who cares? Can't we all just agree that Joe Paterno was a complete scumbag and move on?

 

[pantherclub]

Is Christo a PSU alum/fan or is he just arguing to argue in here?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Hold it. I stated an opinion. The opinion was that denial played a part in Paterno's failures. For that you called me unreasonable. Others agreed that it was possible. Denial is in the mind. There is no way for me to "prove" Paterno was in denial. Yet you've kept insisting that I prove that he was in denial. The only one who is being argumentative is you.

I sense that we are going in circles and there is no real point to continue. To be clear, I do not dismiss your assertion out of hand, but only wish to hear if there is information that I'm not aware of. To be further clear, my opinion that he was not in denial is based on his actions behind the scene. By the way, as for the thought he may have been denial as late as early 2011, put that to bed, he started renegotiating his deal in the wake of his testimony in January 2011. Can you be in denial at the same time as you are orchestrating a situation to your benefit based on ostensibly inside information? I ask not because I'm interested in an answer because I know the answer and its no. As I said, you can have any opinion you want on any matter you like but all opinions aren't created equal. Some are informed and some are speculative. And one last thought for what its worth. I'm combative and take issue with this, my objection lies in the fact characterize Paterno's choices as being a product of being "in denial" without any significant evidence in word or deed affords him a benefit of the doubt I am no longer comfortable or capable of affording him. And if I'm to see others make the same choice, I wish not to see it as flippant, dismissive conjecture to explain the inexcusable conduct. The golden parachute was the last straw with me for this man. With the benefit of hindsight, to borrow a phrase, we have learned new information about this man that to me removes any sympathy from him.

I can't speak for Christo, but the "in denial" that I'm talking about is the continuation of Sandusky's activities after they talked to him in 2001. I don't think Paterno was in denial about the 1998 and 2001 incidents. As you state, he seems to have been actively helping hide 2001. My assertion is that I don't think it's very likely that any of those 4 guys, and you can really make it 5 with McQueary, KNEW that Sandusky was continuing to molest boys from mid-2001 until 2011. That's when they were in denial and deceived by Sandusky. Now, my opinion is that it was easier for those closer to Sandusky to be in denial and be deceived and that's why it was "worse" that Schultz and Spanier let it go on. But as this point, "worse" is a relative word. It was all bad.

 

[Furious Styles]

A report on ESPN says the trustees have decided that the statue stays up for now. It looks like they are afraid to upset alumni (read donors) who adore the coach. One trustee is even quoted as saying "the statue represents the good that Joe did. It doesn't represent the bad he did".

 

[fatness]

Forget about Sandusky, I want to know who Paterno was manipulating to get this kind of deal. It wasn't like he was the greatest coach that ever lived. and it seemed that a good amount of the alumni wanted him out.

The linked stories said that he worked out the deal quietly with Spanier. When Sandusky was arrested the details came out, the board was upset about them, but the board was under incredible fire from Paterno supporters for the firing. So the board approved the deal, to avoid more hate mail and lawsuit threats. Here's another one.

Both former university President Graham Spanier and former Vice President Gary Schultz were involved in the renegotiation, while the board of trustees as a whole had been left out of the loop until November when Sandusky was arrested, a source told CNN. Spanier was fired after the grand jury presentment against Sandusky came to light while Schultz was charged along with former Athletics Director Tim Curley with lying to a grand jury and failure to report suspected child abuse.

After being "bombarded with hate mail and threatened with a defamation lawsuit" following Paterno's firing over the scandal, the board eventually approved Paterno's new contract, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.

"Board members who raised questions about whether the university ought to go forward with the payments were quickly shut down," the newspaper reported.

Just yesterday the board said they won't be going back on the deal.

The day after an internal review blasted Penn State for its handling of a child sex abuse scandal that implicated top administrators, including the school's iconic head football coach, the board of trustees made it clear that a lucrative deal the university made with Joe Paterno that now benefits his estate will still stand.

My guess is that the board still fears hate mail and lawsuit threats from Paterno fan.

 

[fatness]

Nice to see something positive, if you can call it that, come from this: link

Yeah it is. Thanks for posting that.

A University of Michigan pediatrician's alleged possession of child pornography may never have come to light without the Penn State University scandal breaking last November, a U-M researcher concludes in a soon-to-be published scholarly article. An internal audit of the lapse reveals that at least eight employees knew about the porn by early June 2011 but did not report it.

The issue resurfaced six months later, in November, shortly after news broke that top officials at Penn State chose to cover up eye-witness accounts of assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky molesting young boys. U-M President Mary Sue Coleman sent a campus-wide email reminding people to report possible crimes.

On Nov. 18, three days after Coleman's email, a hospital security official called university police to report the crime. Police began investigating the report on Nov. 21.

 

[Christo]

I'm asking for proof that he was in denial.

Thank you. You have none. It's a theory pulled out of your behind that you've chosen to cling to for no other reason than to be argumentative, seemingly.

Hold it. I stated an opinion. The opinion was that denial played a part in Paterno's failures. For that you called me unreasonable. Others agreed that it was possible. Denial is in the mind. There is no way for me to "prove" Paterno was in denial. Yet you've kept insisting that I prove that he was in denial. The only one who is being argumentative is you.

I sense that we are going in circles and there is no real point to continue. To be clear, I do not dismiss your assertion out of hand, but only wish to hear if there is information that I'm not aware of.

Sure, that's why you called me unreasonable.

 

[fatness]

Him personally look into it? No. He told Curley & Schultz. Curley met with Sandusky. Curley informed Second Mile. Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. And as far as McQueary, maybe Paterno thought he had just misinterpreted it. As several people have pointed out, there was nothing logical to how he approached the situation.

There was logic to it. He reported it to Curley and Schultz so they could look into it and bury it. Which they decided to do 3 days later.

Three days after Mike McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a shower in 2001, two top administrators at Pennsylvania State University had begun to craft a plan:

They would not notify authorities.

When they began to deviate from the plan after further discussion, and exchanged emails talking about going to the authorities, Curley met with Paterno. And right after that meeting the plan to notify authorities was dropped. It was no reported. It was buried. Paterno got what he wanted.

 

[Christo]

Him personally look into it? No. He told Curley & Schultz. Curley met with Sandusky. Curley informed Second Mile. Second Mile concluded that nothing was going on. And as far as McQueary, maybe Paterno thought he had just misinterpreted it. As several people have pointed out, there was nothing logical to how he approached the situation.

There was logic to it. He reported it to Curley and Schultz so they could look into it and bury it. Which they decided to do 3 days later.

Three days after Mike McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a shower in 2001, two top administrators at Pennsylvania State University had begun to craft a plan:

They would not notify authorities.

How is that logical? If you want to bury something you don't go telling other people about it.

 

[CrossEyed]

A report on ESPN says the trustees have decided that the statue stays up for now. It looks like they are afraid to upset alumni (read donors) who adore the coach. One trustee is even quoted as saying "the statue represents the good that Joe did. It doesn't represent the bad he did".

Still worshipping at the altar of football and football donors. Nothing will change unless the NCAA steps in. Nothing.

 

[Christo]

A report on ESPN says the trustees have decided that the statue stays up for now. It looks like they are afraid to upset alumni (read donors) who adore the coach. One trustee is even quoted as saying "the statue represents the good that Joe did. It doesn't represent the bad he did".

Still worshipping at the altar of football and football donors. Nothing will change unless the NCAA steps in. Nothing.

My god, you people don't give up, do you? There was no NCAA infraction here. It isn't some all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful savior.

 

[fatness]

I've pretty much intentionally avoided this thread, but why does it matter if they were in denial?

It's an attempt at minimizing the harm that came from Paterno's actions and inactions. A bad attempt.

 

[Christo]

When they began to deviate from the plan after further discussion, and exchanged emails talking about going to the authorities, Curley met with Paterno. And right after that meeting the plan to notify authorities was dropped. It was no reported. It was buried. Paterno got what he wanted.

If he hadn't told them in the first place there would have been no plan to deviate from, no need to exchange e-mails, and no need to meet.

 

[Christo]

I've pretty much intentionally avoided this thread, but why does it matter if they were in denial?

It's an attempt at minimizing the harm that came from Paterno's actions and inactions. A bad attempt.

Perhaps your dumbest statement yet.