Detroit Free Press writer on Joe Paterno: "Some think he did not take enough personal action."

[psu1969a]

I just sent the following to the Detroit Free Press. Posting here is very cathartic, but does not get the message to the right people.

In regard to Mark Snyder’s comments regarding Joseph V Paterno and the Sandusky Incident in Centre County, Pennsylvania. First, this incident had nothing to do with State College (PA), Pennsylvania State University and or the head football coach at the time in 2011, namely: Joseph V Paterno.


Mr. Snyder your comment: “Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.”


I strong suggest you do additional research on the incident. In regards to this incident: the right answer is "Joe Paterno followed protocol exactly as it was written. He was under no legal obligation to follow up with either JS (Jerry Sandusky) or the showervictim. His actions were honorable". As a matter of fact the NCAA who openly condemned JVP, now uses his actions as the template for reporting/handling suspected/reported acts of sexual misconduct with children.

 

[Nosoj]

I just sent the following to the Detroit Free Press. Posting here is very cathartic, but does not get the message to the right people.

In regard to Mark Snyder’s comments regarding Joseph V Paterno and the Sandusky Incident in Centre County, Pennsylvania. First, this incident had nothing to do with State College (PA), Pennsylvania State University and or the head football coach at the time in 2011, namely: Joseph V Paterno.


Mr. Snyder your comment: “Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.”


I strong suggest you do additional research on the incident. In regards to this incident: the right answer is "Joe Paterno followed protocol exactly as it was written. He was under no legal obligation to follow up with either JS (Jerry Sandusky) or the showervictim. His actions were honorable". As a matter of fact the NCAA who openly condemned JVP, now uses his actions as the template for reporting/handling suspected/reported acts of sexual misconduct with children.

Just to clarify, you read the quote and know that the writer is not advocating that Paterno didn't do enough, right? Is it arguable that the scandal complicated his legacy? Is it arguable that some people out there think he didn't do enough?

 

[Misder2]

It was pretty obvious that Joe didn't remember what happened in 2001 based on his comments and what we have seen about the 2001 incident.. He may not have remembered the 1998 incident either. I have too many questions about the Freeh 'evidence' on 1998 to counter anything that Joe said. However, Joe's mental state during the time of questioning is enough for me to question whether he remembered anything.

And your questioning of that is well founded.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Under God's law?

Who the f are the porn brigrade and the corrupt scumbags on the BOT to be speaking for God and rendering his opinions? These are the last hypocrites on earth who should be invoking morals and "God's laws" in an attempt to spin their lies into a character assissnation propaganda campaign. These f'ing cretins self-righteously and hypocritically yammering about "God's Law" is truly rich! I've heard it all now from these exclusively self-engratiating liars, thieves and whores.

 

[Marshall30]

Just to clarify, you read the quote and know that the writer is not advocating that Paterno didn't do enough, right? Is it arguable that the scandal complicated his legacy? Is it arguable that some people out there think he didn't do enough?

No. Only boneheads think that...and trolls.

 

[royboy]

Under God's law?

Feel free to explain God's judgment and how it applied to Joe Paterno.

We lowly, sinning mortals don't have your connections.

 

[BobPSU92]

Don't have a problem with Harbaugh's answer because the question is asking him to comment on a rather complex situation and essentially he is saying he is not well versed enough on the details of the very specific question to register a "judgement" about something he doesn't know much about.

Really can't fault Harbaugh's answer given the nature of the reporter's extremely leading question asking for a judgemental opinion regarding a topic Harbaugh did not feel qualified to render a judgemental opinion upon.

bushwood, what if they had asked harbaugh about FLO?

 

[GTACSA]

There is no "God's Law" applicable to Joe. You're being a clown. If any one had the non existent "moral obligation" it was Mike, his dad and Dranov.

There was no reference in my post or yours to Joe. You are being obtuse.

 

[Marshall30]

There was no reference in my post or yours to Joe. You are being obtuse.

The implication was there. Man up and admit it.

 

[Nosoj]

No. Only boneheads think that...and trolls.

I bet there's a whole lot of people out there that think that, and they're neither boneheads nor trolls. They're people that don't watch college football, don't go on message boards, don't care about Penn State or Joe Paterno because they don't have the time or desire to follow every detail of a scandal that is, at this point, 4 years old.

My point was that nothing the writer said was factually wrong.

 

[GTACSA]

Feel free to explain God's judgment and how it applied to Joe Paterno.

We lowly, sinning mortals don't have your connections.

I'm not privy to God"s judgment on anything. I merely challenged the general assertion that there are no moral obligations under the law. It now appears we all agree that there are moral obligations under God's law; that is if one believes in God.

 

[royboy]

I'm not privy to God"s judgment on anything. I merely challenged the general assertion that there are no moral obligations under the law. It now appears we all agree that there are moral obligations under God's law; that is if one believes in God.

And exactly how does that apply to the issue here....what Joe Paterno did or should have done?

By what standard are you judging him? And just who are you to judge him other than in a legal fashion?

 

[GTACSA]

The implication was there. Man up and admit it.

Me thinks you confuse inference with implication. Look to your own thought process.

 

[Marshall30]

Me thinks you confuse inference with implication. Look to your own thought process.

No, your agenda is well known.

 

[m.knox]

I will never understand why some of you "live and breathe this topic". Joe is dead and gone and you aren't going to change anyone's opinion of him.
Especially since he admitted that he should have done more. Some love him, some hate him and some don't care. Such is life.

You are such a twit.

The issue is far bigger than a football coach.

We can all agree with mistakes were made and that signs were missed. Now is it just that, or is it the collective of Penn State KNOWINGLY covered up for a pedophile in the name of football.

I think the subject is well worth clarifying. Especially since it was originally addressed in such haste.

 

[GTACSA]

And exactly how does that apply to the issue here....what Joe Paterno did or should have done?

By what standard are you judging him? And just who are you to judge him other than in a legal fashion?

I left that issue during my subsequent discussion with Madsol on his assertion that no one would tolerate being judged by a moral standard.

Just an interesting departure from the same ole same ole.

 

[Marshall30]

I left that issue during my subsequent discussion with Madsol on his assertion that no one would tolerate being judged by a moral standard.

Just an interesting departure from the same ole same ole.

There is no "moral standard".

 

[royboy]

I left that issue during my subsequent discussion with Madsol on his assertion that no one would tolerate being judged by a moral standard.

Just an interesting departure from the same ole same ole.

....or just a cute, little passive-aggressive tidbit in a thread about Joe Paterno's actions

Not only a low blow, but now the "who, me?" denial. Your BS doesn't fly.

 

[indynittany]

He admitted he should have done more IN HINDSIGHT...is that so hard to understand? Holy sh!t, some people are really stupid. The "in hindsight" part of what he said changes everything. We all wish we would have done more in hindsight. In hindsight I wish I would have shot Sandusky in the head when I was an undergrad. He never said he wished he would have done more, he said he wished knowing what he knows now he would have done more. That's what "in hindsight" means.

There's a huge difference between being stupid and being intentionally obtuse. This clown knows exactly what Joe said. He also knows that Joe made his remarks while believing the lies put forth in the GJ presentment were true.

 

[royboy]

There's a huge difference between being stupid and being intentionally obtuse. This clown knows exactly what Joe said. He also knows that he said it while believing the lies put forth in the GJ presentment were true.

Too many "he" references here; unclear.

 

[GTACSA]

....or just a cute, little passive-aggressive tidbit in a thread about Joe Paterno's actions

Not only a low blow, but now the "who, me?" denial. Your BS doesn't fly.

Some of us have more mental dexterity than others; no big deal. As in carrying on more than one conversation within the parameters of the initial one.

 

[Marshall30]

Some of us have more mental dexterity than others; no big deal.

Excluding you.

 

[bdgan]

I will never understand why some of you "live and breathe this topic". Joe is dead and gone and you aren't going to change anyone's opinion of him.
Especially since he admitted that he should have done more. Some love him, some hate him and some don't care. Such is life.

Some of us don't like having our reputations unfairly destroyed. The truth should matter.

For the record, Joe said ""With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.". He did not admit that he should have done more.

 

[indynittany]

Too many "he" references here; unclear.

Fixed it.

 

[royboy]

....or just a cute, little passive-aggressive tidbit in a thread about Joe Paterno's actions

Not only a low blow, but now the "who, me?" denial. Your BS doesn't fly.

Some of us have more mental dexterity than others; no big deal. As in carrying on more than one conversation within the parameters of the initial one.

It's remarkable how you share characteristics of many of the BOT apologists/Joe bashers here --- "slimy" is probably the best description, though disingenuous or intellectually dishonest would work, also.

 

[psu1969a]

For your information Joe was cited by the head of the state police as a hero for his actions. He acted honorably and was under no obligation to follow up with either JS or the kid identified as the "victim". He was far from evil. The only evil in this case was the BOT and the NCAA.

Actually Noonan, head of PA State Police threw Joe under the bus went around the block and ran him over again! Noonan essentially called Joe a pedifile.

 

[psu1969a]

Just to clarify, you read the quote and know that the writer is not advocating that Paterno didn't do enough, right? Is it arguable that the scandal complicated his legacy? Is it arguable that some people out there think he didn't do enough?

No I did not JUST read the quote! I read the article. Have been following this saga for 4 years. If you believe that Joe did not do enough, then please enlighten us. BUT, be specific with your response. Provide action and the PSU policy, legal (applicable PA law), moral citation to back up your statements.

 

[CDW3333]

Okay, one more time slowly...
hind·sight
ˈhīn(d)ˌsīt/
noun

1. understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed.
   
   The key being "only after it has happened or developed". Do you understand that or do I need to explain it? AFTER something happens that you didn't know about, you wished you would have done something different. That means Joe is saying he didn't know about it until after and knowing what he knows now (after the fact) he wished he would have done more. I hope you don't have to take the SAT any time soon.

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

 

[Nosoj]

No I did not JUST read the quote! I read the article. Have been following this saga for 4 years. If you believe that Joe did not do enough, then please enlighten us. BUT, be specific with your response. Provide action and the PSU policy, legal (applicable PA law), moral citation to back up your statements.

Okay...well the quoted part was the entirety of the Paterno discussion, so in this context and the context of your letter, that's semantics.

Perhaps a reading comprehension course would be in your best interest. Perhaps you'd like to quote where I said that Paterno did not do enough or that there was something else he should have done. Instead, I'd like you to provide proof that no one thinks he should have done more. Your quarrel with the article, I assume, is the same as the thread title "some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems." Please provide proof that this is not true.

Neither the Free Press writer, nor myself, have made any claims about the actions of Joe Paterno and whether he did enough to satisfy any legal, moral or ethical responsibilities.

 

[BobPSU92]

Amazing that the moderators allow so much horse-assery.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

This is Joe falling on his sword because he couldn't anticipate that Mike would have a different version of events in 2011 than he did in 2001. In other words, had he known what a colossal f*** up this would become, he probably would have told Mike to go to the police ASAP regardless of Mike's interpretation of events.

 

[Marshall30]

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

Ridiculous.

 

[royboy]

It's remarkable how you share characteristics of many of the BOT apologists/Joe bashers here --- "slimy" is probably the best description, though disingenuous or intellectually dishonest would work, also.

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

And, on cue....

 

[BobPSU92]

The horse-assery continues.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Actually Noonan, head of PA State Police threw Joe under the bus went around the block and ran him over again! Noonan essentially called Joe a pedifile.

Yea, that would be the same Noonan who was identified by Kane as being on Fina's Porn Brigade email distribution list....

 

[LionFan87b]

I

have to disagree. His non-answer is implicit that Joe did something wrong.

I disagree completely. At the very least, it seems that you are assuming that he actually had an opinion and chose to withhold it. I find it perfectly plausible that many people outside the program have no idea what to think of JoePa's role in the scandal, because it's not that important to them.

 

[mhentz]

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

Sometimes I really do wonder how you've managed to avoid being a Darwin Award winner to this point in your life, but I'll indulge you anyway. Here are your answers:

1. The knowledge Joe had in 2011 that gave him the benefit of hindsight that he did not have in 2001 was that Sandusky was a serial pedophile.
2. Had Joe known that with certainty when Mike came to him in 2001 then he would have told Mike to give his report to the UPPD instead of taking it upon himself to report it to Curley and Schultz.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

....or just a cute, little passive-aggressive tidbit in a thread about Joe Paterno's actions

Not only a low blow, but now the "who, me?" denial. Your BS doesn't fly.

The level of hypocrisy, douche-bagery and anti-force among the corrupt BOT and their bootlicking toadies is quite strong among these evil ones.....

 

[Mixolydian]

Yes, by saying that with hindsight he would've done more, Paterno raised two quesrtions:

1. "With hindsight" suggests that Paterno knew something in 2011 that he didn't know in 2001 and if he knew in 2001 what he would eventually know in 2011, he would've acted differently. So, what was it? Since Scott Paterno prepared the statement, perhaps he can let everybody know.

2. And what does "done more" mean? According to most of the people on this board, Paterno did everything he was supposed to do. So, what did he mean by "more?"

Just when I think you can't outdo yourself, you set a new standard. This is by far the dumbest post you have ever made on so many levels, and lord knows you have left a trail of stiff competition. Good grief how do you get through the day?

 

[BobPSU92]

Sometimes I really do wonder how you've managed to avoid being a Darwin Award winner to this point in your life, but I'll indulge you anyway. Here are your answers:

1. The knowledge Joe had in 2011 that gave him the benefit of hindsight that he did not have in 2001 was that Sandusky was a serial pedophile.
2. Had Joe known that with certainty when Mike came to him in 2001 then he would have told Mike to give his report to the UPPD instead of taking it upon himself to report it to Curley and Schultz.

I respect you for trying to reason with a horse's ass, but anyone with common sense or not hell-bent on trolling can readily understand these two points.