ADVERTISEMENT

Breaking Curley News, WTAE.

"If your kids coach said he wanted your kid to come over after the school was closed and everyone was gone for a work out and shower would you let him or her?"

When I was in school, this happened all the time. Now this was the 70's but the time when this all changed was 2002 after the Boston Globe blew up with the institutional issues of the Catholic Church.

In my school, coaches had unfettered access to the gym. Often, coaches would stay late to work with players in all sorts of athletics. Then, they were supposed to shower. Some schools had separate facilities for players and coaches, others did not. It was pretty common. I, as a teen, participated but don't recall ever being approached by a man at all. I do recall being groped by a dude who used to cut my hair (he'd drop his comb on your lap) and a local tailer (who'd check to see if you had enough room in your crotch). We used to laugh about it.

+1. In 7th-8th grade (75-76) our gym teacher showered with us.
 
+1. In 7th-8th grade (75-76) our gym teacher showered with us.
So you think it would be perfectly normal for a coworker to bring random kids into your work place after it closed to shower? You think this is not a cause for concern or behavior that would possibly lead to bad consequences? How about after police were called because a parent complained? You think it perfectly normal for that behavior to continue on?
 
I've got a single guy down the road from me with a drinking problem. He's also got a drinking problem with a young teen age son. I see teen aged kids, under driving age, walking in and out at all times of the day and night. I know this happens when he is home and when he is not, same as his adult house guest. Should I call the cops? I am also good friends we two married guys (to each other) who adopted three young sons. They give the sons baths. Should I call the cops?

Can you clarify what you just typed?

I bolded the sentences that are confusing to me.

I'm trying to determine, based on your second sentence, whether the teen -aged son also has a drinking problem and how this relates to your last sentence, which is borderline indecipherable
 
So you think it would be perfectly normal for a coworker to bring random kids into your work place after it closed to shower? You think this is not a cause for concern or behavior that would possibly lead to bad consequences? How about after police were called because a parent complained? You think it perfectly normal for that behavior to continue on?

It is now, looking back on it at that time I didn't think anything about it.
Please don't try to "wring" anything else out of it.
And please try and keep up I'm talking about something that happened in '75. and looking at it in those optics.:rolleyes:
 
Think about how delusional you have to be to go and see Jerry in prison, yet some here let this nut job keep their hopes up. Of course the defense tells everyone they have a shot, how else are you going to get paid. The victims will sink Jerry again IF he gets a new trial.

Sadly Tim decided to go to Jerry instead of making the right decision which was a bad move. That was what sunk PSU. F Jerry already. He has had his trial and will stay where he belongs. I'm not sure Tim going there doves anything but he did make a boneheaded decision. Cry me a river how unfair the molestor was treated. Yawn.
I agree. I don't see what good it does to put a dying man in jail when he truly tried to do the right thing.

We're always looking for people to blame outside of the guilty party. Society has gotten to a point where we're conditioned to think all bad things can be prevented. There are evil people in the world and you can't stop everyone of them a 100% of the time.

Everybody lost in this situation.
 
+1. In 7th-8th grade (75-76) our gym teacher showered with us.

It was the same way all through high school for me (in the 60s).

Plus, when I was a freshman at Penn State, all freshmen were took a mandatory phys ed course in swimming and were required to pass a swim test at the end of the course. We swam in the nude and no one ever thought that there was anything the least bit unusual about that.
 
Proven wrong by whom and where PL clown and Jockstrap acolyte?
That Spanier knew about 98 in 2001 and lied.

Unless you think Snedden kept quiet about it when Spanier told the New Yorker he wasn't aware of 98?

That would be a big red flag for determining his clearance, no?
 
Proven wrong by whom and where PL clown and Jockstrap acolyte?
That Spanier knew about 98 in 2001 and lied.

Unless you think Snedden kept quiet about it when Spanier told the New Yorker he wasn't aware of 98?

That would be a big red flag for determining his clearance, no?
 
Proven wrong by whom and where PL clown and Jockstrap acolyte?
Talk about dense.

Spanier claimed he didn't know about 98 in 2001. Schultz testimony, along with the other evidence, proved he was lying.

Unless Snedden was sitting on that fact Spanier was lying his conclusions were worthless.
 
Please document how/where/by who Snedden was proven wrong.
Spanier lied about having knowledge of 98 in 2001.

From his New Yorker interview:

"Honest to goodness, I had no recollection of 1998, didn’t in 2001, have no recollection now, what I’m telling you I’m only for the sake of not wanting people to think that I’m hiding something. I apparently was copied on those two e-mails, but it obviously didn’t raise any awareness in my mind to the point where I went back and said, “Who are we talking about? What’s the issue? Is there a problem with somebody, do we need to push further?” I don’t recall any conversations, and it was also obviously not on my radar screen when, in 2001, something popped up again."

That was a lie. Do you think he told Snedden something different and he let blatant dishonesty slide?

C/S/S lied about what they knew and when. It doesn't mean they conspired to hide Sandusky's crimes to protect football. It means they didn't want to admit how badly they screwed up.
 
Talk about dense.

Spanier claimed he didn't know about 98 in 2001. Schultz testimony, along with the other evidence, proved he was lying.

Unless Snedden was sitting on that fact Spanier was lying his conclusions were worthless.


You're an imbecile. Things slow up on the idiot den?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pomppomp01
That Spanier knew about 98 in 2001 and lied.

Unless you think Snedden kept quiet about it when Spanier told the New Yorker he wasn't aware of 98?

That would be a big red flag for determining his clearance, no?

If you believe in reality, it's a hard pill to swallow. When confronted with things like this, he just yells names as he can't refute them.
 
You are welcome to you own opinions. I just don't happen to share them.
Except I'm stating fact.

Pendergast is attempting to draw parallels between AF's case and RMT to fit his assertion. It simply doesn't apply.

Just like JZ he ends up attacking AF and his mother's character.

The real question is why would someone who has always been focused on RMT do this? This isn't an RMT case.

Sandusky's behavior is documented over a decade and the allegations were completely independent of one other with witnesses.

It makes you question his real motives. The fact is he's an accused abuser that belonged to an organization that had to boot one of it's founders after for being a pedo advocate is unsettling.
 
Last edited:
You're an imbecile. Things slow up on the idiot den?
So I make an argument and you hurl insults?

I guess I'd be bitter if I kept being proven wrong over and over again.

For the record, C/S/S have had their day in court and we found out they were lying about having knowledge of 98.

We also found out Joe knew about 98 and he was in fact "Coach" in the emails.

Now the Paterno's have dropped their suit against the NCAA. There's no doubt it's related to what came out at Spanier's trial.

Face it, the truth is uglier than you were ever willing to admit.
 
So I make an argument and you hurl insults?

I guess I'd be bitter if I kept being proven wrong over and over again.

For the record, C/S/S have had their day in court and we found out they were lying about having knowledge of 98.

We also found out Joe knew about 98 and he was in fact "Coach" in the emails.

Now the Paterno's have dropped their suit against the NCAA. There's no doubt it's related to what came out at Spanier's trial.

Face it, the truth is uglier than you were ever willing to admit.


And all of it is you parroting the bullshit of Jacobs, another clown.
 
And all of it is you parroting the bullshit of Jacobs, another clown.
WTF are you talking about?

Oh, you're the crazy guy that thinks everyone on the internet is the same 3 people.

Well crazy guy, how about actually countering my argument with a logic based reply?
 
WTF are you talking about?

Oh, you're the crazy guy that thinks everyone on the internet is the same 3 people.

Well crazy guy, how about actually countering my argument with a logic based reply?


How do you counter made up bullshit? You toss it out hoping it sticks. There is no proof Spanier lied and/or Snedden. You and Streppe made it up. There is proof Erickson is a liar, and you and Jocko.
 
So you think it would be perfectly normal for a coworker to bring random kids into your work place after it closed to shower? You think this is not a cause for concern or behavior that would possibly lead to bad consequences? How about after police were called because a parent complained? You think it perfectly normal for that behavior to continue on?

Here's the problem with your usual pile of dog coiled sausage.

1. It wasn't Jerry's "workplace".

2. Who would think about "consequences" if they had no knowledge of activity you and other trolls ascribe to.

3. If the police were "called" and nothing came of it, what is one left to think?

4. Your normal pattern of behavior again goes back to #2.

Your attempt to link a campus to "workplace" is complete crap. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to take a kid to a locked business "after hours" to shower. If you have privileges at an athletic facility, that's a completely different scenario. What's "late at night"? 9pm? 9:30? I doubt it. What is the kid doing out "late at night"? Where are the parent(s)?

You continue to prove yourself to be an insufferable troll and jackass.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget. We all grew up in the age of asbestos. Drop ceilings, insulation around pipes, floor paneling. It's easy to get lung cancer.
The Beaver Stadium Press Box is loaded with suspicious looking substances in the ceilings, around pipes, etc.
 
Except I'm stating fact.

Pendergast is attempting to draw parallels between AF's case and RMT to fit his assertion. It simply doesn't apply.

Just like JZ he ends up attacking AF and his mother's character.

The real question is why would someone who has always been focused on RMT do this? This isn't an RMT case.

Sandusky's behavior is documented over a decade and the allegations were completely independent of one other with witnesses.

It makes you question his real motives. The fact is he's an accused abuser that belonged to an organization that had to boot one of it's founders after for being a pedo advocate is unsettling.

LT - If you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then there is no reason in trying to have a civil discussion with you.

Please continue to believe what you want to believe.
 
LT - If you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then there is no reason in trying to have a civil discussion with you.

Please continue to believe what you want to believe.
I know for a fact that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. I also know for a fact that this crusade of yours makes you look like an idiot.
 
Can someone show me "proof" where JVP knew about 1998 and that he was in fact "Coach" in the emails. There is a poster on this thread who says it was proven, but I have never seen it.
Do you believe Tim Curley was telling the truth when he testified to that at Spanier's trial? What motive would he have to lie about that?
 
I know for a fact that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. I also know for a fact that this crusade of yours makes you look like an idiot.

Jive - I will say the same thing to you as I said to L.T. If you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion then there is no reason to have a civil discussion with you.

Believe what you what to believe. I personally don't care what you think.
 
Can someone show me "proof" where JVP knew about 1998 and that he was in fact "Coach" in the emails. There is a poster on this thread who says it was proven, but I have never seen it.

I believe Curley stipulated to it in his testimony.

It doesn't really matter, though. They both had enough information to know that Sandusky wasn't really a sexual predator.

That they told TSM/Raykovitz about an incident of any nature was going above and beyond what was needed.
 
Jive - I will say the same thing to you as I said to L.T. If you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion then there is no reason to have a civil discussion with you.

Believe what you what to believe. I personally don't care what you think.
It's not an opinion, it is a proven fact beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't want to accept it... that's your problem.
 
I know for a fact that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. I also know for a fact that this crusade of yours makes you look like an idiot.
I know for a FACT...that the Sandusky investigation was a distortion of the legal process and that the word from Corbett was to convict "BY ANY MEANS" Sandusky. The "script" for the GJP "Story" was created over a number of weeks by some professional "spin masters" - often known as "fixers" in the world of black ops Politics. The story follows EXACTLY the formula used consistently to "take down" political opponents where a politician is threatened/running against another person. Honestly....revisit this and look at the suspicious actions taken in PA regarding similar situations. Too perfect a fit for this not to be true!

So...you "...know for a fact..." that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. You don't support that with anything but..."That is what GMJ says".

Using anything that comes from GJP, the "Sandusky Trial"....generally anything that is publicly known about Sandusky....ALL have suspicious elements attached to them. I am NOT supporting Sandusky as innocent - I am just saying Justice has not been served by convicting Sandusky on a "Story" created by a PA OAG that had "skin in the game" (a motive for how the investigation was conducted and why the legal actions found in the trials occurred as they did) and a mandate to "convict by any means".

There is something SIGNIFICANTLY WRONG with the informational premise of your "certainty"- I am certain based on what is now known as FACTS - that Sandusky, Penn State, Paterno and C/S/S are the victims of PA Government Corruption.

My Reason is....I was told DIRECTLY by a "political fixer" (not on Corbett's "Team" but someone who knew some of them) that this was the case... and everything we have seen in the past 6 years supports this fact.
 
I know for a FACT...that the Sandusky investigation was a distortion of the legal process and that the word from Corbett was to convict "BY ANY MEANS" Sandusky. The "script" for the GJP "Story" was created over a number of weeks by some professional "spin masters" - often known as "fixers" in the world of black ops Politics. The story follows EXACTLY the formula used consistently to "take down" political opponents where a politician is threatened/running against another person. Honestly....revisit this and look at the suspicious actions taken in PA regarding similar situations. Too perfect a fit for this not to be true!

So...you "...know for a fact..." that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. You don't support that with anything but..."That is what GMJ says".

Using anything that comes from GJP, the "Sandusky Trial"....generally anything that is publicly known about Sandusky....ALL have suspicious elements attached to them. I am NOT supporting Sandusky as innocent - I am just saying Justice has not been served by convicting Sandusky on a "Story" created by a PA OAG that had "skin in the game" (a motive for how the investigation was conducted and why the legal actions found in the trials occurred as they did) and a mandate to "convict by any means".

There is something SIGNIFICANTLY WRONG with the informational premise of your "certainty"- I am certain based on what is now known as FACTS - that Sandusky, Penn State, Paterno and C/S/S are the victims of PA Government Corruption.

My Reason is....I was told DIRECTLY by a "political fixer" (not on Corbett's "Team" but someone who knew some of them) that this was the case... and everything we have seen in the past 6 years supports this fact.

I'm willing to go a step further. Jerry Sandusky is innocent of being a sexual predator.

It may be possible that he's guilty to the letter of the law of some minor unlawful contact or EWOC, but all you have to do is look at the actions of all involved before Corbett went on the warpath against Spanier and the checkbooks opened up.

Sandusky was around campus and the football team for decades, and all that ever came out against him was a completely unfounded allegation in '98 and a confused (if not outright fabricated) report of "uncomfortableness" in '01. On the contrary, all the children that did come into contact with Sandusky had nothing to say other than that he was a father figure to them.

It was only due to a political vendetta and greedy attorneys (and their "victims") that brought down a fine, upstanding man, and Penn State's reputation with it (along with the reputations of many good people).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT