Afraid not. I am truth bombing you.
Sanctions still there
Some staffers thought that but the fact is they did.
Documents: NCAA doubted its authority to sanction Penn State
Internal NCAA emails released as part of a lawsuit over sanctions given to Penn State for the Jerry Sandusky scandal reveal that the organization doubted it had the authority to punish the school, even characterizing its attempts as a 'bluff.'www.si.com
My opinion is just a valid as theirs. As is yours. You place way too much confidents in the courts. The Supreme Court has also nothing to do with the law and everything to do with politics.
Franklin knows the truth and has hinted about it before. He also knows he has nothing to gain by talking about it. He's a smart man.
I don't frequent their boards, but there are definitely those saying the "Bo didn't know anything, don't you dare tear down the statue" (including their current head coach) even as former players are contradicting him and camping outside the university president's house.
Wrong. Teenagers. Who were varsity athletes (football and wrestling) who could have pounded the 58 year old man.
You wouldn't know the truth if it sexually assaulted you.
Take your own advice. It ain't relevant unless you consider a guy who spent one night in jail to be the same as one who spent thirty years. LOLOLOLOL
Then your statement is BS
Then your statement is BS
No it isn't
You disregard them when they don't suit your purposes.
Opinion
Yeah he knows the truth and it ain't what you believe.
Not like you crazies. Plus they were adults not children
BS
You are sexually assaulting the truth. I'm intervening.
Dude, all you have to do is clarify what you want. Use code words, IDGAF. I am who I say I am and I can prove it. You will never accept being wrong because you are a hypocrite and a liar. You've slung so much shite at me that it would take you years to apologize for each instance of calling me a liar and saying that I participate in stolen valor (which is super insulting and untrue).
It mentions the bylaws and constitution which the sanctions were based doesn't it? Your point is stupid.
Transparency
I'm waiting
Projecting
It is true
You have not
Yep, just like a jury's findings. Not fact, opinion.
he does know the truth and it is exactly what I know (not believe) to me true.
Which part??? Their ages??? Their athletic status? You are wrong on this one.
You have no idea what the truth even looks like.
Doesn't mention infractions. That's my point. No infractions were discovered. That's it. Just admit that.
A verdict is not a mere opinion
Proof?
All of it
Well, it sure ain't you
All you have to do is show me a couple of examples of successful prosecution of an assault of an adult woman on an adult male. That disproves my negative. That's the way logic works. You can't ask someone to prove a negative because it cannot be done. If I say "there is no such thing as a purple fish", the disproof of that is showing a purple fish. God, you are bad at logic.
To me it seems very possible that a Pa. resident might know a friend or relative that was on the case. It's very plausible that a member of the PSP might have friends or relatives in Pa. too. then it's pretty possible that they might know more than has been publicly shown.
I cannot get to the Emmert letter from work.
More plausible than a "congressional medal" 🤣 😝💩
Google is your friend
3. You cannot have sanctions without infractions.
What's even worse is why can't you see a possibility that an investigator would say that their findings support the verdicts? You know, real life decisions? And the actual chain of events was not something PSU wants to talk about anymore? I'm thinking if there was strong evidence supporting Jerry as innocent and PSU was blameless they would have handled it differently.
Yes, actually it is.
Read between the lines:
Alan Meyers played football (Sandusky stood with him on senior night, which was BTW, after alleged abuse) and was 14 at the time of his assault. Not a helpless child.
A person cannot be "the truth", so technically you are correct.
No it is not
I don't see it. Your opinion and speculation. ESPN gave him the opportunity to say what he believed and he didn't. Plus Joe's philosophy on his program is not unique to him. Other coaches have said similar things.Read between the lines:
Penn State coach James Franklin comments on Joe Paterno's legacy
The Nittany Lions coach was asked about Paterno on Saturday.www.lehighvalleylive.com
He's describing success with honor.
He was not victim 2
And you are wrong in that it can sexually assault me.
It's better than what you got and you're not worth more. This doesn't sound like football talk to me. Also, is this a football only board? Better get back to school. Truancy is against the law. 🤣
A verdict most certainly is an opinion. That a verdict was reached is a fact. That the verdict is proof of a crime is an opinion.
What is the possibility that your "friend" is a good cop or a crooked cop?
I've explained it before and won't waste time repeating it much more. The jurors are sworn, subject to legal penalty for misconduct in reaching the decision and are given strict legal rules to follow in reaching that verdict. To equate that to a mere opinion "Tom Brady is the GOAT" is stupid. Also, "facts" are often disputed. Often calling something a "fact" is in fact an opinion (like fingerprints and even DNA). You denigrate the verdict cause you don't like it but that too is opinion.
Is this topic relevant to Penn State?
Silly boy
Why are you here defending a pedophile and his enablers?
How do you know I have no PSU connection?
You have no clue who I am. But if you can't get past this message board pushing this narrative how will you turn around a public narrative? Answer is, you never will because the truth is not on your side.
Then please show me the infractions listed out. Or in the database. They do not exist.
So the 11th hour document dump by the prosecution didn't happen? And don't say "that's common practice" because so it granting a continuance. It's absurd how quickly this case was adjudicated.
In error.
One of your boilerplate answers for when you have no answer.
Which is just as much proof as there is that anyone was abused.
Being "part of the deal" does not preclude it from being unfair.
How the eff is that vague? I have the exact date (I would just have to look it up in old files and don't have time to do that right now), the approximate time (within an hour) and the exact street address of where the assault occurred. That's orders of magnitude more information that was available at trial.
Lack of political will to do so.
He lied at trial. Not my source.
How so? One kid's complaint was "he put his hand on my knee." That's pretty tame compared to my experience.
Haven't told a lie about myself yet and I don't plan to start.
Happy to be transparent. Tell me what you want to know.
You have to place your order before the bartender can serve you, dummy.
So when I prove it isn't, what are you going to do to correct your months of insults?
Then tell me what you want to see.
First of all, if you do know someone, they aren't unbiased. Anything they say will be slanted towards the OAG.
If I accept that you might know someone who has told you this (I'm not saying they are telling the truth, just that this person might exist), will you accept (and tell your buddy Nole) that I am who I say I am, so he can cut all this stolen valor, shite?
