Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (2 Viewers)

[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.

 

[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.

 

[ICON211]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

 

[Mile High]

I have the unpopular opinion that Penn State should not ban their football program. I think the senior officials who covered up the crime should be prosecuted by law, but I don't think the football team should also be punished. The players did nothing wrong, the football staff they have now did nothing wrong, the students did nothing wrong, the remaining faculty at the school did nothing wrong, and the fans and alumni did nothing wrong. Penn State will be slapped with lawsuits too, so the punishment doesn't just end with the senior officials being prosecuted. Joe Paterno football is gone. It's dead, and his legacy is now damaged beyond repair. Let a new era begin, while they deal and heal with the hurt Paterno and other senior officials left behind. Take the statue down, change the uniforms, but don't take away an innocent football team. The football team was also betrayed by Joe and the others that covered up what that monster did. Like all the innocent students, faculty, and Penn State alumni and fans, the football team trusted them to do the right thing too. Nobody is going to forget what happened with Penn State and Sandusky if the football team is playing every Saturday. There is no need to inflict more pain.

Do you support not sanctioning teams for any NCAA infractions then? If not, what is the difference between those "innoncent players" and these?

NCAA infractions inherently involve football and fall under the purview of, well, the NCAA. Child sexual abuse and cover-ups related to it don't have anything in particular to do with football, are prosecuted as crimes by law enforcement authorities, and don't involve the NCAA.

Might be more skeletons in the closet. Didn't the Baylor murder scandal lead to the NCAA to start snooping around? Wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA doesn't find infractions while "snooping around" that they might have not found before this.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I dont care if those vile scumbag criminals were in denial or not--they covered up and enabled child rape and protected the child rapist for a decade or more to protect themselves and their football program and university reputation.

All of them need to be curbstomped.

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

 

[Mile High]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

In your experience is "more then one" to many in most cover ups?

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

In your experience is "more then one" to many in most cover ups?

There's always a weak link.

 

[ICON211]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident as did Paterno. Isn't it more likely that he was taking council with him on what to do now that it has resurfaced again?

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident as did Paterno. Isn't it more likely that he was taking council with him on what to do now that it has resurfaced again?

More likely than what?

 

[ICON211]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Sandusky has been banging kids in the shower again. Thought you should know. Don't tell anyone. Ok see ya."

 

[ICON211]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Sandusky has been banging kids in the shower again. Thought you should know. Don't tell anyone. Ok see ya."

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident. Most likely they discussed the new incident that McQueary saw and decided not to report it to the authorities like the Freeh report states. The person in denial here appears to be you.

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Sandusky has been banging kids in the shower again. Thought you should know. Don't tell anyone. Ok see ya."

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident. Most likely they discussed the new incident that McQueary saw and decided not to report it to the authorities like the Freeh report states. The person in denial here appears to be you.

How do either of those things demonstrate he wasn't in denial?

 

[ICON211]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Sandusky has been banging kids in the shower again. Thought you should know. Don't tell anyone. Ok see ya."

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident. Most likely they discussed the new incident that McQueary saw and decided not to report it to the authorities like the Freeh report states. The person in denial here appears to be you.

How do either of those things demonstrate he wasn't in denial?

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

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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

 

[timschochet]

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

page not found

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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

page not found

Fixed. Sorry.

 

[Christo]

I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.

If he was in denial why did he report what McQueary told him to the AD? Why did he say he wished he had done more when he was in damage control mode before Sandusky had been tried and convicted? Seems more to me that he just did not want anything impacting his football program and its reputation.

He may have reported it because he didn't think it was true. The first incident was investigated by the cops and nothing happened. If Paterno believed it, didn't give two ####s and wanted to sweep it under the rug he could have told McQueary to keep his mouth shut and never reported it himself.First rule of a cover up is to involve as few people as possible.

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Mike McQueary told me caught Sandusky molesting a young boy on campus. I only bring this up because it can not be true. Ok see ya."

"Tim its Joe, just calling because Sandusky has been banging kids in the shower again. Thought you should know. Don't tell anyone. Ok see ya."

The AD already knew about the 1998 incident. Most likely they discussed the new incident that McQueary saw and decided not to report it to the authorities like the Freeh report states. The person in denial here appears to be you.

How do either of those things demonstrate he wasn't in denial?

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

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Paterno wasn't in denial. Everything the man did was to protect his own image and promote his football program and legacy.

 

[timschochet]

Paterno wasn't in denial. Everything the man did was to protect his own image and promote his football program and legacy.

Your second sentence has nothing to do with your first.

 

[Apple Jack]

Who cares if he was in denial? You don't get partial credit for that.

 

[timschochet]

Paterno wasn't in denial. Everything the man did was to protect his own image and promote his football program and legacy.

Let's say you're right. Paterno knew what was going on, and he wanted to protect his own image and legacy. Now when Penn State played in the Alamo Bowl, Paterno allowed Sandusky to attend, and to take with him a child "guest" who was one of the victims. Are you actually suggesting that Joe Paterno knew, in his conscious mind and heart, that Sandusky was molesting this kid, and allowed it to continue in order to protect his (Paterno's) image? Wouldn't the logical act, if one were trying to protect one's image, be to put a stop to this? Or at the very least not allow Sandusky to bring the kid to the Alamo Bowl? For every charge of irrationality by Paterno from those who dismiss the concept of denial, his actions appear even more irrational if he was not in denial. In fact, if Paterno was not in personal denial about what Sandusky was doing, his actions appear insane.

 

[The Commish]

No, my argument is that it's out of the NCAA jurisdiction...

Nonsense

...and the NCAA couldn't possibly punish them as thoroughly as the criminal justice system.

Of course not, but you don't seem to understand that this is not an either or proposition. The NCAA has no choice but to protect the interest of the NCAA and its member institutions and that gives them a role here. Now whatever the NCAA ultimately does, and I think it will be limited to investigation and monitoring will be independent of numerous other actions happening over the next decade or so.

It appears to be hard for some to understand that the NCAA isn't in the business of law enforcement. They are in the business of NCAA rule enforcement. They police their rules. Realistically, the NCAA is going to really have to work at getting involved here and be pretty liberal with some of their interpretations to their rules.

You don't think that there are ethical clauses in the NCAA rules and policies that Penn State has agreed to follow? The NCAA will probably stay away from the punishment of PSU because Penn State will be making enough institutional changes on their own that the NCAA will find anything they can add redundant, but the NCAA will have no problem finding a legitimate role in this mess if they see that PSU is not doing enough to protect from further tarnishing college football, college athletics, and the NCAA brand. (The Big 10 will be doing exactly the same thing.)

If you aren't breaking NCAA rules, I'm not sure how they have a role. I don't know if any rules are being broken and have maintained that throughout. I've also asked several times for the rules that PSU broke that would get the NCAA involved. So far, nothing other than a very thinly veiled LOIC angle his been offered as a possibility. If you go the ethics path, that's fine and they'd technically have a role, but it's unnecessary and quite honestly I don't see how they'd go about this and avoid looking like hypocrites and piling on an already terrible situation.

 

[timschochet]

Who cares if he was in denial? You don't get partial credit for that.

That's a separate argument, and one that I agree with.

 

[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.

 

[ICON211]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

 

[ICON211]

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.

Actually these are very logical actions of someone covering it up.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll post here as well. I do not believe there will be any punishment handed down by the NCAA:

All of this talk, is just that. At the end of the day, Penn State will promise (and may even deliver) a thorough review of its football program. It will vow that going forward there will be greater transparency. They will settle the various law suits, and as a result of those settlements will probably set aside funds to support child abuse programs. Time is their ally here - withstand the knee jerk responses and let it fade into the distance. The football program is not going to be shut down, by Penn State or the NCAA, for any length of time. The program itself will likely suffer no punishment or any long-lasting impact on its reputation. 100,000+ people will still fill the stadium on Saturdays. This year will still bring stories about Sandusky and Paterno at every game, but by next season, it will largely be forgotten. Sure, there will be a few folks who vow to never forget, but the public at large will move past this and never look back. Paterno will not be remembered for his wins, his library, or anything else. His story line will always begin "covered up child abuse". Most folks will be satisfied with scapegoating* Sandusky, Paterno, and a few administrators, but the story behind the scenes is really the old adage power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Paterno did what many would have done in his position. He was human, and made mistakes. It does not make him less culpable, but when you look for the root cause here, look at the culture that enabled Paterno to wield so much power. * I use this term very loosely. Sandusky, Paterno, and others are very culpable for the decisions they made, but I think there are bigger issues at play than the mistakes these individuals made.

 

[Christo]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

 

[Christo]

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.

Actually these are very logical actions of someone covering it up.

The most logical thing he could have done to cover it up was not report it. Yet he did. Your appeal to logic is misplaced.

 

[ICON211]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

We are talking about Joe Paterno. A man who told the university he would discipline his players and they should stay out of football affairs. He didn't have to show McQueary anything.

 

[ICON211]

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.

Actually these are very logical actions of someone covering it up.

The most logical thing he could have done to cover it up was not report it. Yet he did. Your appeal to logic is misplaced.

We keep talking about reporting it, but all he really did was discuss the matter with other high ranking officials that already knew about the 1998 incident. Reporting it would entail contacting the authorities.

 

[Christo]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

We are talking about Joe Paterno. A man who told the university he would discipline his players and they should stay out of football affairs. He didn't have to show McQueary anything.

You're right. He didn't have to. He could have told him to #### or his name was dirt in the CFB community.You realize that you're starting to make arguments that support my position, right?

 

[Christo]

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.

Actually these are very logical actions of someone covering it up.

The most logical thing he could have done to cover it up was not report it. Yet he did. Your appeal to logic is misplaced.

We keep talking about reporting it, but all he really did was discuss the matter with other high ranking officials that already knew about the 1998 incident. Reporting it would entail contacting the authorities.

 

[ICON211]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

We are talking about Joe Paterno. A man who told the university he would discipline his players and they should stay out of football affairs. He didn't have to show McQueary anything.

You're right. He didn't have to. He could have told him to #### or his name was dirt in the CFB community.You realize that you're starting to make arguments that support my position, right?

Not at all and this is going nowhere. Your position is that he was in denial. Mine is that he we not and was an integral part of covering it up. My position is supported by the report that was released Thursday. I will end it there.

 

[Christo]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

We are talking about Joe Paterno. A man who told the university he would discipline his players and they should stay out of football affairs. He didn't have to show McQueary anything.

You're right. He didn't have to. He could have told him to #### or his name was dirt in the CFB community.You realize that you're starting to make arguments that support my position, right?

Not at all and this is going nowhere. Your position is that he was in denial. Mine is that he we not and was an integral part of covering it up. My position is supported by the report that was released Thursday. I will end it there.

Your position that Paterno was part of the cover up is supported by Freeh's report. No one here, including me, denies that. The report does not shed any light on the issue of whether Paterno was in denial.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

 

[RBM]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

Dont you think, after a second mention of Sandusky doing this stuff; this time actually witnessed by someone Paterno probably cared about, he would have looked into it even if he was in denial? And if he was in denial and didnt believe the accusations, wouldnt he have disciplined McQueery for making up something so horrible about his friend?

 

[Christo]

Or he believed McQueary was overreacting. After all, if someone really saw a kid getting molested in a shower wouldn't he try to stop it?

If he believed McQueary was overreacting he does not even bother going to the AD.

Why not? It shows McQueary he's taking him seriously even if he doesn't believe him.

Dont you think, after a second mention of Sandusky doing this stuff; this time actually witnessed by someone Paterno probably cared about, he would have looked into it even if he was in denial? And if he was in denial and didnt believe the accusations, wouldnt he have disciplined McQueery for making up something so horrible about his friend?

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[ICON211]

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.

Where are you getting this? Do you know what is in the Freeh report? The report concludes he convinced Curley not to report McQueary's claims to anyone.