CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
I don't necessarily disagree with that. There seems to be quite a bit of viewing this with blinders on, on the extremes. Like most things , the vast majority are in between those extremes.
And that is why you have spent 13 pages trying to demean the man at every turn.
You are clearly motivated, and it isn't from the "love of our University", or trying to temper those that appreciate the contributions of Paterno.
How do you put Mike at a lower tier of responsibility than Joe?
WTF does that word-salad even mean? Typical.
You're attempting to compare the Criminal Felony of "Accessory After the Fact" and "Aiding & Abetting" the Sexual Assault Anal-Rape of a 10 year old child via seeing and eyewitnessing "the child being subjected to anal rape" AND INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY DOING NOTHING to somebody who did precisely what their employer's HR Protocol, Policies and Procedures specified for a well after the fact "Administrative Report" of a subordinate and who broke no law whatsoever! Talk about not letting facts get in the way of your nonsense. You're such an agenda-driven pud-whacker, it isn't even funny!
Agree with this as well, for the general population. Here, the vast majority seem to sport blinders, and seem to fall on one side.
Some go way beyond blinders, such as the poster just above.
Last edited:
Shouldn't you be out baiting deer tonight? Archery season is coming soon.
Last edited:
This clown has a hard-on for the party who received a well after the fact Administrative HR Report from a subordinate and then proceeded to handle the report PRECISELY as his employer's HR Manual specified. BUT he has no problem with the supposed eyewitness who was an "Accessory After the Fact" and "Aided & Abetted" the anal-rape of a 10 year old child via Felony Obstruction of Justice in PA by INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY NOT CALLING AUTHORITIES despite directly seeing and eyewitnessing the 10 year old victim "being subjected to anal rape" (ditto his father and family friend Dr. Dranov who he told while the event was still in progress and did nothing)????
So to summarize, he has no problem that 3 separate adults who clearly committed Felony "Accessory" as well as "Aiding & Abetting" in the anal-rape of a 10 year old child (crimes prosecuted under OoJ in PA) were not charged by the AG.....and he has called the eyewitness a "hero" on here, but he's hell bent on decimating an individual that broke absolutely no laws and merely followed his employer's HR Protocol on a well after the fact report from his subordinate??? Huh? WTF?
A man walks away from the act and gets the low rung of the ladder? Wow. Just wow.
i clearly said he was more responsible than Paterno. That means he wasn't on the low rung.
Just curious why this is the first thread on the McAndrew board you posted in in months.
sadly, I am done with the "Daily Show" crew (Oliver, Bee, etc) for these persistent attacks. Glad our University is defending itself . . . #sarcasm
And this is why all of the JoeBots continue to embarrass the university. The rest of the world, and most Penn State fans, are laughing at you.
"I don't know what you'd call it"
Stop being a GJ testimony truther.
No, he did the right thing. The BOT not defending him caused all the damage.
Uh... because he's a troll.
I have no idea who Corey Cohen or John Oliver are. But what I now know about them is that they are CSA enablers. Using inaccurate information for a cheap laugh, shaming a reporter (JVP) and ignoring the those that actually failed those victims (CYS/DPW/TSM) will not fix any of the problems that lead to abuse, only continue to mask them. Sad!
The board isn't guilty of simply not defending him, they turned him into a sacrificial offering.
In summary: They made the worst possible business decisions at the worst possible time and then executed them in the worst possible manner.
So, since MM failed that night and is largely responsible for not only letting JS continue for ten years but tons of damage to the university and area....do you think he might embellish or twist facts to lessen his guilt and participation in this fiasco?
Who might he blame things on?
"It was of a sexual nature. I don't know what you would call it."
OR
"It was of a sexual nature? I don't know what you would call it."
Which way did Joe say that??
You need to demonstrate otherwise. You haven't. Your idea of an objective and comprehensive assessment of Sandusky's crimes is "Paterno failed".
How about "Was it (transpose first two words) .of a sexual nature? I don't know what you would call it."
Anyone who signs up to the belief that "everyone" at PSU "knew" Sandusky was sodomizing and fellating young boys and did nothing about to protect football did indeed make the worst possible decision.
And that's what the BOT effectively did. Instead of rebuking that belief, they cowered, and accepted it. Now it is dogma, and evidently not worth fighting......
Until GMJ11 retrieves a copy of the tape and shares it with us all, he can no longer rely on that non-cross examined testimony. Since that is pretty much his one trick hopefully that means he just goes away.
I think a better, much more accurate way to say this is that Joe Paterno was part of a system that failed. Within that system, I am convinced from what I have seen that he did what he was supposed to do.
The Fact Freeh report is being avoided like the aftermath of a prune, sauerkraut, raisin, corn and peanut slushie.
I wonder why that is?
One of the major reasons systems fail is because they are managed by humans who are imperfect. Joe should require zero defense by anyone because 1) he was never charged with anything! and 2) his actions over the course of 85 years speak far more loudly than a few words that people are now viewing under a microscope.
The greater lesson in all this is that people don't "see" predators ("see" Larry Nassar) and to criticize someone for being human (see Joe, Gary, Tim, countless numbers of coaches, players, assistants, family members, a spouse, yada, yada, yada) is absurd. We are all one interaction away from not "seeing" something that is right in front of us. GMJ11 is as guilty as everyone he's holding responsible (we all are).
That would be 100X more objective than getmygive11.
Thanks for responding to my post. Our basic point of disagreement is that you see Joe as a victim. I do not.
Nor do I see him as the cartoonish villain depicted in so much of the national media.
The reality, as I tried to say, is more complicated and, in a way, scarier: a good man faces a Moment of Truth, a brutal ugliness that repels the normal human mind, and his response falls short.
I say "scary" because for all the brave talk on the part of so many about what they would have done in Joe's place, nobody can know such a thing. They may know what they think they would do, what they hope they would do -- but that's it.
Joe's failure, which he himself, in so many words, acknowledged during the last weeks of his life, was not due to him being a bad man -- but rather just a man, subject to human pressures and weaknesses.
One final point, and I say this as a lifelong Catholic: there are some uncanny parallels between what happened in numerous dioceses around the country and the events at Penn State. The bureaucratic impulse is to cover up and thereby protect the leadership, protect the brand, protect the institution. The result is catastrophe.
Listen, it's not my aim here to win an argument. Nor do I have any intention of engaging in pissing contests. You have your view of things. I have tried, respectfully, to present mine.
The english language is somewhat unique in that a question can be created via "structure" or voice inflection (i.e., the OP's sentence structure which basically matched that of the the transcript can be phrased as a question or a statement depending on the voice inflection of the speaker - the difference in a transcript is recorded with either a "." or a "?"). Your suggestion that a question needs to be structured with the verb first by a speaker or writer of the english language is false.
You touch on the very point I tried to make earlier. Humans are responsible here, and no one really knows what they were THINKING at the time this went down. Was it inconceivable that Jerry, an outstanding community member at the time, was actually harming these boys?
The narrative is this, PSU knowingly covered for Sandusky while he raped young boys over and over again, and they did nothing to protect football and the legacy of JVP. I find it ridiculous.
We NOW know they made a mistake. They squandered a real chance to catch a pedophile (who could have been caught 3 years earlier.... D'oh). That doesn't mean they covered it up in the name of football. That doesn't mean they knew precisely what Sandusky was doing and turned a blind eye......
Are you suggesting that Mr. McQueary made a clear report of child sexual victimization to Joe?
Last edited:
