Penn State scandal (merged)

#4,151
#4,151
therealUT said:
No.
Click to expand...

That's interesting to hear you say that. That definitely makes it easier for me to understand your position as to whether or not Paterno could have done more.

It's also another thing we disagree on, but I do appreciate your responses.
 
#4,153
#4,153
LawVol13 said:
That's what I have proposed from the very beginning. Part of that investigation would include seeking criminal indictments on Joe Paterno, the athletics director, the president of the University, and McQreary for conspiracy to commit child rape, as I believe there is currently enough evidence to show probable cause that that took place.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.
 
#4,155
#4,155
NWGVol said:
That's interesting to hear you say that. That definitely makes it easier for me to understand your position as to whether or not Paterno could have done more.

It's also another thing we disagree on, but I do appreciate your responses.
Click to expand...

I have done my best to give the most clear and honest answers I can provide. Not everyone appreciates my point of view; I know that. I do not always appreciate everyone else's points of view, either. I do appreciate the discussion though.
 
Last edited:
#4,157
#4,157
utvolpj said:
Grand Jury: It has come to my attention that your friend and a 10yo boy have engaged in sexual intercourse in the locker room showers. Is that correct?

Paterno: Who said that?

GJ: McQueary did.

Paterno: Was that wrong? Should he not have done that? I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to plead ignorance on this thing, because if I had known that sort of thing was frowned upon...
Click to expand...

SNL material. This is such a tragedy for those kids and their families that I have had trouble sleeping after reading about it, but that is still top shelf sarcasm/irony.
 
#4,158
#4,158
therealUT said:
To clear up anything that looks hypocritical:

1. I am not attempting to defend Paterno because he followed protocol; I am attempting to defend him because I feel he should have felt as though he could trust the AD when the AD told him it would be investigated and dealt with.

2. I do think that there is no way to put Sandusky on administrative leave without defaming him. At least his wife would ask, "Why are you not going to work?", in which case the honest answer would have to be "Because they are investigating me for pedophilia". If it had turned out that Sandusky never acted inappropriately (this is a hypothetical if), then he has still had to tell his wife that he is being investigated for pedophilia (or lie to her). I do not think it is right to put someone in such a situation without more substantial evidence.

3. Do to regression I cited earlier, I think that this policy opens the door to the possibility of every employee being barred from premises due to uncorroborated accusations.

4. I think it should have been reasonable to expect Penn State to have efficiently conducted the investigation; if done with due diligence and appropriate expediency, I think the investigation could have and should have either reached more substantial and corroborated claims (in which Sandusky would then be barred from the premises) or no further claims within a matter of a few months to half a year (in which case, less kids would have been victimized).
Click to expand...

1. Why trust anyone will do the right thing when you, yourself can't do the right thing?
2. Who gives a flip if he has to tell his wife? That's ridiculous.
3. I haven't noticed rampant child molestation false allegations bringing down businesses. Dramatic comment.
4. What you think has been apparent on this forum and it's disgusting.
 
#4,159
#4,159
NWGVol said:
Some former players are sending money to Sandusky for his defense.

ESPN NCAAF Former players rally around program

Interesting to see Former penn state players views on Paterno
Click to expand...

Pathetic. I noticed one of the guys emailed 800 former players trying to get them to come to the game, and 75 are coming. I'd say that's about the percentage of support those ass holes have.
 
Last edited:
#4,160
#4,160
pl3 said:
1. Why trust anyone will do the right thing when you, yourself can't do the right thing?
2. Who gives a flip if he has to tell his wife? That's ridiculous.
3. I haven't noticed rampant child molestation false allegations bringing down businesses. Dramatic comment.
4. What you think has been apparent on this forum and it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

**** you. You seem to be the only one who has decided not to be civil. So, stop ****ing responding.
 
#4,162
#4,162
LawVol13 said:
Pathetic. I noticed one of the guys emailed 800 former players trying to get them to come to the game, and 75 are coming. I'd say that's about the percentage of support those ass holes have.
Click to expand...

I got out my magnifying glass and read it, and it seems more like two different things: 75 or so players are coming to the game to support the program and the current players, and the second half of the article mentioned that a handful of players have donated money to Sandusky for his legal expenses, led by a 75 (or something)-year-old who gave $100.

I'm disgusted by the whole program, too, but I can understand former players wanting to stand up for the current players. Sad all the way around.
 
#4,163
#4,163
LawVol13 said:
Pathetic. I noticed one of the guys emailed 800 former players trying to get them to come to the game, and 75 are coming. I'd say that's about the percentage of support those ass holes have.
Click to expand...

"I told him he's going to need a million dollars to defend himself," the 73-year-old Stellatella said. "He called me back and said, 'What am I going to do with this money?' I said, 'Use it for your lawyer because you're going to need it.'

Stellatella sent Sandusky $100.
Click to expand...

my favorite from that article

:eek:lol:
 
#4,165
#4,165
Originally Posted by therealUT View Post

2. I do think that there is no way to put Sandusky on administrative leave without defaming him. At least his wife would ask, "Why are you not going to work?", in which case the honest answer would have to be "Because they are investigating me for pedophilia". If it had turned out that Sandusky never acted inappropriately (this is a hypothetical if), then he has still had to tell his wife that he is being investigated for pedophilia (or lie to her). I do not think it is right to put someone in such a situation without more substantial evidence...

pl3 said:
2. Who gives a flip if he has to tell his wife? That's ridiculous...
Click to expand...

+1

Besides, remember those vows? "To have and to hold, for better and for worse..." If someone is innocent and is falsely accused, why wouldn't they want to tell their spouse? That's the person who's supposed to have your back.

Might be different if the accusations were true, of course. :ermm:
 
#4,166
#4,166
VolNExile said:
Originally Posted by therealUT View Post

2. I do think that there is no way to put Sandusky on administrative leave without defaming him. At least his wife would ask, "Why are you not going to work?", in which case the honest answer would have to be "Because they are investigating me for pedophilia". If it had turned out that Sandusky never acted inappropriately (this is a hypothetical if), then he has still had to tell his wife that he is being investigated for pedophilia (or lie to her). I do not think it is right to put someone in such a situation without more substantial evidence...


+1

Besides, remember those vows? "To have and to hold, for better and for worse..." If someone is innocent and is falsely accused, why wouldn't they want to tell their spouse? That's the person who's supposed to have your back.

Might be different if the accusations were true, of course. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could see that happening. "Hey Hon, I'm not going to work for a few days, Joe Pa thinks I've been buggering little boys and has the police looking into it, but no worries it will blow over. By the way, I've canceled the paper and cable television for a little while. Wait, where are you going?"
 
#4,167
#4,167
NWGVol said:
I couldn't care less about your perspective of Ringgold as well I couldnt care less if you so choose to give that perspective.

I also love the logic that State college is not a metropolis, but those of us who live in a town similar to state college, in size only, would in no way undertand how a small town works.

Pure brilliance.
Click to expand...

No, the argument was made yesterday that ALL octogenarians in State College, including Paterno, were "familiar" with the subject of pedophilia. I thought that was interesting cause I aint 80 years old and I dont know much about the subject, had to look up the definition to see what all it covered, and its pretty broad...unfortunately.


Visiting College Station is sort of like stepping onto the set of Ozzie and Harriet. Its a small town, I'm from a small town, but my home town doesnt have a university with 44,000 students. The university IS State College and there is no distinction from the school and the town. That was my only point, restated.
 
#4,169
#4,169
ItsDarwinism said:
No, the argument was made yesterday that ALL octogenarians in State College, including Paterno, were "familiar" with the subject of pedophilia. I thought that was interesting cause I aint 80 years old and I dont know much about the subject, had to look up the definition to see what all it covered, and its pretty broad...unfortunately.

Visiting College Station is sort of like stepping onto the set of Ozzie and Harriet. Its a small town, I'm from a small town, but my home town doesnt have a university with 44,000 students. The university IS State College and there is no distinction from the school and the town. That was my only point, restated.
Click to expand...

Let me simplify it for you. If you are touching a kid and get aroused it's pedophilia. If you make a kid touch you for arousal, it's pedophilia. Pretty simple.
 
#4,171
#4,171
ItsDarwinism said:
No, the argument was made yesterday that ALL octogenarians in State College, including Paterno, were "familiar" with the subject of pedophilia. I thought that was interesting cause I aint 80 years old and I dont know much about the subject, had to look up the definition to see what all it covered, and its pretty broad...unfortunately.


Visiting College Station is sort of like stepping onto the set of Ozzie and Harriet. Its a small town, I'm from a small town, but my home town doesnt have a university with 44,000 students. The university IS State College and there is no distinction from the school and the town. That was my only point, restated.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter? Would you want a man fondling you? Whether or not its considered rape?
 
#4,172
#4,172
HSVol said:
Darwinism, what's up? Can't explain how Joe Paterno's presence as an honorary BoT member for the Second Mile doesn't support your "disassociation" claim?

That's ok. I didn't think you could.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I dont have a laptop lashed to my hip.

Personal disassociation doesnt apply here, its that simple. Second Mile is a statewide charity with a seemingly noble purpose. Have you looked at the list of "honorary" board members? I'm guessing if you ever contributed a certain amount of money, you got that title.

BTW, Sandusky resigned from whatever activities he supported with Second Mile in 2010. Big deal, now go find me a pic of Paterno having coffee with Sandusky in the last 12 years.
 
#4,173
#4,173
ItsDarwinism said:
No, the argument was made yesterday that ALL octogenarians in State College, including Paterno, were "familiar" with the subject of pedophilia. I thought that was interesting cause I aint 80 years old and I dont know much about the subject, had to look up the definition to see what all it covered, and its pretty broad...unfortunately.


Visiting College Station is sort of like stepping onto the set of Ozzie and Harriet. Its a small town, I'm from a small town, but my home town doesnt have a university with 44,000 students. The university IS State College and there is no distinction from the school and the town. That was my only point, restated.
Click to expand...
I kind of figure Ozzie knew better than to pork a 10 year old boy (or girl for that matter).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top