ESPiN hypocrisy is numbing!!!
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
I didn't do such a thing, you did. They made errors at a minimum . They waited 9 days to talk to a witness but called an Atty first. No one does that look good.
Exactly . The multiple three letter agencies need a report of something to do their job. They get information by people reporting to them . Maybe if the admins at psu notified them and the police something would have happened.
At a minimum, you should be specific if you think you have such a good grasp on these issues.
That clunky line about "humane treatment" in Spanier's e-mail really is the best thing that ever happened to you in your entire life, isn't it?
What exactly does that mean anyway? What exactly is something that is described as "it was a sexual nature." It's not sex. Otherwise it would be described as "it was sex" instead of "it was of a sexual nature". It's not sexual. Otherwise it would be "It was sexual" instead of "[it was a sexual nature" You BOTbots apply such incredible weight to those five measly rotten words that all the horror bestowed upon Penn State, it's community, and upon Joe Paterno and his family and admirers, is 100% justified and yet I've never heard even one of you, from Freeh himself on down, offer up a definition or any kind of explanation as to what exactly something that "it was a sexual nature." Exactly what does that mean to you? That is not a rhetorical question. I want to hear your answer.
Do you believe the wrestling championships that will be going on in Madison Square Garden this weekend are something that are of "a sexual nature." Two well-built, young men rolling around on the floor with each other trying to force each other to submit? Seems of a sexual nature to me. Y'know, when the exact same thing happens in George Takei's bedroom, it ain't just of a sexual nature, it's sex. So do you think the police should be called this weekend to the Madison Square Garden for public displays of something of a sexual nature and public indecency charges brought?
Prior to 2011...in all my years.....I had NEVER heard ANYONE describe ANY activity as "something of a sexual nature"
I can't even imagine a situation that in my mind would be best described as being "something of a sexual nature".
And we are supposed to believe that multiple folks somehow, someway, chose to independently use the term "something of a sexual nature" to describe the whole Sandusky Scenario?
Why were those words used? Why did that happen? What are the implications surrounding why that happened? IDK
But the idea that that could have happened independently......is ludicrous.
The odds of that happening are about the same as the odds of:
Winning the POWERBALL......
Twice......
On consecutive weeks......
Without having purchased a ticket......
On the same day that Space Aliens land in your backyard.
Specific , it's pretty obvious who waited. Seriously , the only place this stuff is excused is spot. Outside in the real world people have a much better grasp on this issue.
They don't defend Sandusky's innocence . They realize there were at least errors by the admins at psu . And finally out there , people agent obsessing over it anymore .
You really think that THOSE are the primary issues?
Not only are you a blundering idiot......you - if one is to assume that the stuff you write is an accurate depiction of your thoughts - are completely oblivious to the actual issues.
I have a hard time believing that anyone....ANYONE....can be so intellectually retarded (but I've been wrong before)....so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply a conflicted "astro-turfer" (or whatever the current term is).
What does age have to do with my post? If you weren't there to see it it didn't happen? Moron.
The person who waited was MM. He was free to file a written statement with UPPD whenever he wanted yet he was apparently ok with waiting 9 days to speak with some college admins about an alleged horrific rape he thought he saw, and never once filed a written statement with UPPD. Yeah right. Then a few weeks after his meeting Curley called him to follow up with PSU's action plan (which didn't include JS getting hauled away in cuffs mind you) and MM expressed no dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done.
This further proves my point that in 2001 he wasn't sure about anything other than it was an inappropriate shower that weirded him out.
Grown Man - who is the founder, face and major fundraiser of your children's charitable non-profit. Naked. Young boy - who is most likely a client of your charity. At night. In shower - on the property of the very entity with which your charity has an extremely parasitic relationship.
If it never occured to Dr. Jack Raykovitz that there was the possibility of not just something sinister going on, especially after 1998, but at the very least if a parent wanted to escalate a complaint, then he must not only be dumber than a fence post, but also in violation of state mandate. Raykovitz had a responsibility to the charity, his charity clients and to the community to not only report it to authorities so that a proper investigation could take place, but to implement a written safety plan as per state mandate. Instead, he chose to confer with Heim & Poole, hide Penn State's complaint from the Second Mile board at large & Second Mile staff - and advise Jerry to "just wear swim trunks" the next time he showers with a youth, which put the University, Second Mile & Second Mile clients at risk. Bad decision by Dr. Jack Raykovitz, Bruce Heim and Robert Poole. Which is why the charity imploded.
Last edited:
Last edited:
No need to get all emotional "bro". Sure his son may be "bias" but he also was closer to Joe than anybody on the planet. So maybe, just maybe they discussed it in depth. Regardless, you don't need his son's interpretation of the phrase, you just need a basic grasp of the English language to understand it.
Those of you who have "moved on" are the reason are the entire reason Penn State may always be branded. You'll realize this someday, but at your age you know almost nothing about the world, and you will be glad that we had the guts to keep fighting the false narrative.
I feel sorry for you czar. I really do. What actually are you fighting? What war are you engaged in again? You go on the premise that anyone outside our community gives a damn. Get a grip. No one gives a crap except for us, as in you. The Big Ten is the enemy. The NCAA is a joke. The Big Ten has treated us like a stepchild and that's who I hate. Who else looks down on Penn St besides the NCAA and Big Ten. Keep yourself busy fighting ghosts you don't see and hear. Dumb IMO. You can put me down all you like. And the same 4 nimrods will like it for you. But there are 1000 regular posters that agree with me. Grow up and move on.
Apparently you're not bright enough to grasp that our own BOT looked down on Penn State. They threw their own admins under the bus, assumed their guilt and owned the crimes of an EX employee all before the admins had their day in court and all based on a non factual Grand Jury Presentment. They then brought in a character assassin Freeh, to reinforce the narrative the OG BOT was trying to perpetuate. The OG BOT/Freeh/NCAA/OAG are trying to sell a false narrative that PSU had a culture that valued winning football games over basic humane decency. I am NOT cool with that and any true Penn Stater shouldn't be either because it's complete bullshit.
If you want to move on, then go ahead, stop posing on this board and embrace the pedo enabler narrative the OG BOT is trying to sell. Most of us won't move on, we will fight for the truth to come out about the real enablers of JS (OG BOT/TSM/CC CYS/DPW/Corbett's OAG/et al.).
I have news for you. Step out of Pennsylvania and everyone in the entire country thinks that half a million Penn State alumni believe that football is more important that the welfare of children. They think that because our own GD trustees paid Louis Freeh to say that. Now you may feel comfortable wearing the "pedophile-enabler" label for the rest of your life, but I am not. And those of us who are not cool with it will keep on fighting until these S-heads are exposed as the liars that they are. But hey, Mr. Pedophile-enabler, you just go about your business with your head planted firmly up your....
PENNST34 said:
Take a breath and calm down man. I'm not really sure what your goal is here on this message board. I know your intent with this post was to try and distract me so that I didn't notice you weren't responding to the content of my post. Can't make a valid counterpoint... change the subject!
I can guarantee you that very few people will agree with your misguided youthful opinions about Joe Paterno, granted the same 4 idiots, who are all Pitt trolls, will like you for it. You are in the minority of people who have preconceived notions they refuse to change, or are mentally incapable of understanding simple concepts such as "hindsight". I sure hope you mature in a hurry, or this world will eat you alive when you graduate.
I'm 22. Joe doesn't represent to me what he represents to you. Moron. I respect him and know what a great football coach he was. I'm a Nova hoop guy that grew up inside the football community because of my dad. I've followed and cheered for Penn St football for four years. BTW I respect Geroge Washington and Abraham Lincoln as well. I don't know them either. I thought your post was not engaging. All about you and how you feel. Which BTW is fine but don't beat me up because I wasn't here when Joe was in prime of his career. I got here when the rediculous mess was fresh and raw.
WE fight. Like what did you do to fight the good fight. Absolutely nothing except beat up posters that really don't care. Dude I didn't have to move on. You and those other insecure morons need to move on. I came to Penn St four years ago. I never attended a Joe Paterno game he coached. I love the fact that those returning Seniors saved the program. Period. Not you or anyone else. They bail out and we would have been screwed. You fight LOL. You need to listen to the now generation.
Clue for you Junior Mint: You are a GD idiot - we all know that - no need to continue to prove it.
I think you're overstating what people think and say about us. You can try to label me but I can care less what you think. You're really immature. You have a legit point about defending a good name if that's your point. I get that sir. I'm just saying I think some of you are out of touch with how insignificant this topic really is at this point several years removed of that mess. The process will lead to some kind of vindication so why get so emotional about something you personally had nothing to do with.
I'm sure you'll think of ten things that justifies you in your mind speaking for Joe, admin and Penn St. The Sandusky victims are the only people that should be emotionally charged IMO. Now if you made the argument Joe knew nothing and Penn St made no mistakes or judgement errors then I could see your point quite a bit more. To any reasonable mind it's apparent we made mistakes. We faced consequences and now it's time for the common man, you, to step aside and let the insiders take care of business. We'll be vindicated. In the meantime I refuse to get caught up in the "little people", you, crap.
Buggery and sodomy describe activity of a sexual nature. Because McQueary did not get into specifics in what he told Joe he observed ( but based on his testimony that is what he thought he witnessed) Joe couldn't specifically put a label on the actions reported to him. The quote " I don't know what you'd call it" does not negate the sexual substance of what McQueary reported to him which Joe described as "of sexual nature."
PENNST34 said:
Wow, there is a first, a kid thinking that the adults should shut up and listen to him and his equally ignorant friends. I guess your generation is the first in the history of mankind to surpass their elders. Congrats!
If you haven't noticed, "moving on" has caused nothing but damage to my alma mater. The fight should have started on day 1, but it's never too late to do the right thing.
PENNST34 said:
You are out of touch if you think that anyone believes this is a significant topic outside of the PSU community. That's exactly the point. The move on strategy has cemented the false narrative in the minds of the outside world, and they have moved on. We need to fight to get the truth out there.
So in your fantasy world, MM witnessed something of a sexual nature between a teen and JS. He let it happen, then went home to tell his dad and Dranov what happened. (Even though they didn't testify to hearing that) They also heard that something of a sexual nature occurred between a teen and JS, and decided the best thing to do is to tell the aging football coach. The coach passed the info that something of a sexual nature occurred to the AD, the head of the campus police, and the university president. At least one of which was an abuse victim themselves. They told legal counsel that JS was doing something of a sexual nature with a teen, and they didn't seem to care. They informed Sandusky's employer that something of a sexual nature occurred, and they also decided to ignore it. Because they were all motivated to hide this because they didn't want the good publicity associated with catching a predator that none of them particular even liked? Yep, that's gotta be it! Do you even think before you post?
Let's not forget the fact that Joe's testimony has never been heard to verify accuracy, and it wasn't cross examined. That is what you hang your hat on, in your quest to vilify a great man who acted appropriately, instead of shining the spotlight on the "professionals" at DPW/CYS/TSM that failed those kids. I don't know how you sleep at night.
I have no intent to vilify Joe. I have always said that I admire him and think he is one of the top 3 college football coaches of all time. His Grand Experiment remains the polestar of college football programs. His emphasis on academics was second to nobody. He generally did things the right way. However his testimony and interviews indicate to me that he dropped the ball on this whole situation. To me that does not negate all the great things he accomplished although it would to you; and that is your problem.
I take issue with posters who manufacture contorted scenarios that strain credibility. Inane comments such as "his testimony wasn't subject to cross examination," which you continually point out, are just so ridiculous that I just have to chime in; and that is my problem.
The notion that testimony about a short conversation that happened a decade earlier is reliable is completely laughable.
GTACSA said:
All you do is manufacture contorted scenarios. That is EXACTLY what I pointed out in my last post. For you to be correct, that contorted scenario had to have happened. Please stop projecting your behavior on me.
I'd like you to TRY and explain why his testimony not being subject to cross examination is irrelevant. I certainly would like to have had another attorney try to clarify what "sexual nature" means. It's certainly not a commonly used term. Joe always did the right thing, and the prosecution knew that, so you don't think they could easily lead him to help catch a monster? After you fail at that, address why you seem to ignore that he was 84 years old and dying, trying to remember a conversation that occurred a decade earlier. Also that we've never heard the testimony to know if it was "it was a sexual nature" or "it was a sexual nature?" Lastly, try to justify why not one person's actions are consistent with your fairy tale version? Why do you ignore decades of doing the right thing, yet put so much stock in to such unreliable testimony?
Flail away! (instead of trying to actually help kids instead of vilifying Paterno) This time try not to change the subject.
Admittedly I paraphrase........but Joe said something like this, "The accusations if true, would prove that Jerry Sandusky fooled not only me (or we at PSU) but dozens of TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. This statement was very compelling to me and I believe indicates that Joe never suspected Jerry harmed children. It was also prophetic, in the sense that those who were employed by Commonwealth Agencies and TSM (trained childcare professionals) failed the children. Yet every single one of them has escaped unscathed.
It's laughable to anyone who is educated about the subject.
If you want to claim that people can accurately remember something that happened a decade earlier, then you are either lying or ignorant.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/
Well let me say this; my mother died over 10 years ago and I remember who called me and where I was. My father died over a decade ago and I remember who told me and where I was. So according to you I am lying or am ignorant. Cool.
So what did you have to eat this night 10 years ago? Of course you're going to remember huge, traumatic events in your life like the death of a parent, so I'm assuming you think Joe being told about this was a hugely traumatic event and that's been shown to not be the case.
