Where did I say I didn't want to read what you had to say? I just wish I had a better context for your remarks.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Where did I say I didn't want to read what you had to say? I just wish I had a better context for your remarks.
Misder, if you would please indulge me, I have a question for you. Do you personally know of someone that was abused by Sandusky? Please, understand that I realize that this is sort of a ridiculous question and I'm certainly not asking you to call anyone out; however, your tone suggests that you have some intimate knowledge of this sordid affair, on which you are not willing to get into the details, presumably for very good reason. Regardless of your response to this post, or lack there of, I appreciate you offering your thoughts on this issue.
Actually yes but no personal relationship with any. I get what you're asking and have no problem with the question. That aspect of it has no real impact on me.
What specifically did I say about Joe Paterno for you to say that?
Is that located in the Forum or in Williard?
I'd say the COB but I doubt few would remember which building that was.
I love it when trolls break out the, "Who, me?" routine.
A poster (lurker) noticed all your hard work and acknowledged it, and you didn't even thank him. A simple "thank you" to him for noticing and acknowledging your hard work would be the polite thing to do.
Again, please tell me what specifically I said about Joe Paterno that makes you say that. Don't skirt around the simple question.
Now that is funny! However, maybe you should sit in on a few seminars.
You seem a little upset that another poster made such an astute and accurate observation of your post and posting history when in fact you should be flattered and thanking him. All these subsequent posts and you haven't thanked lurker yet? Don't be rude, thank the good man for noticing and recognizing your hard work.
All these words yet not one example. It's cute I guess, but if you can't back up your claim then it's pretty worthless.
I've been more than fair to Joe Paterno.
Because I was asleep at 2:11 AM.
I think you suggested that maybe Joe went into the locker room with McQ that night. Sound about right?
Redirecting from this mess a bit; You've often posted that the Janitor (victim #8) story had been around in town for a long time, but you've never said exactly what the story was that was around and I've often been very curious as to exactly what version of the story was known in SC before 2011. Even with regard to the GJ and trial proceedings in 2011 there are at a minimum three different versions of this story. My question, if you'll indulge me, is exactly how did the story go pre-GJ from what you always heard? That is, if at any point between 2000 and 2010 I met you and said that I had heard there was a rumor that a janitor saw Jerry messing around with a boy in the Lasch Building showers and asked you what did you know about it and you knew and/or trusted me enough to tell me everything you knew, what would you have said about it?
All these posts and you still haven't thanked lurker for his astute observation of your hard work? Thank him, you'll feel much better and show manners that would make Dear Abbey proud. Good manners can seem in short supply these days. How about I offer you a compromise? Instead of an open display of gratitude, you simply "like" his post. That seems fair, no? I'll even show you how its done by liking a few of your posts.
Well, of all the people Mike might have brought into the locker room with him, you chose Joe. Not a friend, girlfriend, wife of a friend, coed -- no. You chose Joe. Bad choice.
Well, my posts are quite likable and accurate, so you should be giving them likes. I will thank you for them.
But you've shown neither the intellectual honesty or cleverness in the past for people to conclude that about you and your posts in general. Don't get mad, I'm going to "like" your post.
It wouldn't have made for a good sarcastic post if I would have said his gf, now would it? The reason I posted it is because that was just another baseless theory as to "what really happened" that gets thrown around here all the time. The problem with that is that many people start taking those theories and accept them as truths. They then attack people for saying something contradictory to those manufactured "truths".
Again making claims that you can't back up. Not surprising though, that is par for the course by many around here.
You are the truth. I don't know how we've been missing it all this time. Still, you should thank lurker.
I'm guessing you missed it because of all the victim blaming that you guys were busy with.
I reject the facts, and instead substitute your own. Have you thanked lurker yet? I'm beginning to think you have no intention of doing so. How rude.
Things to take care of right now but I will get back to you later today
I would have said to you that there is talk the JS was seen by a janitor molesting a kid in the east locker room shower.
Question for you, do any of the versions you've heard include any names?
This thread was begun as a way to share information pertaining to the legal efforts of PSU to squash a subpoena served on President Barron in Paterno v NCAA.
Worth noting is the fact that Trustees Masser, Lubert and Silvis have also been subpoenaed, among others, in this matter.
Worth noting is the fact that Trustees Masser, Lubert and Silvis have also been subpoenaed, among others, in this matter.
Just so there is no misunderstanding...
Are you saying A) That you remember hearing in 2009 or earlier (i.e. before Fisher's complaint) rumors about a janitor seeing Sandusky molesting a kid; or B) That someone has said to you that they remember hearing something like that before 2009.
Last edited:
Making claims that can't be backed up? What you mean like the OAG's Presentment and Indictments that claimed Mike McQueary eyewitnessed and saw Sandusky having sexual contact with anybody in that shower? It would seem that none other than the OAG's self proclaimed "star" eyewitness to this event says that he NEVER TOLD THE OAG ANY SUCH THING - not only did he say this, but said it in a Pennsylvania COURT OF LAW WHILE UNDER OATH. Said under oath in a Pennsylvania Court of Law that HE NEVER SAW SANDUSKY HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH THE BOY AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE THAT HE DID. Beyond that he said he never saw anything but the "upper bodies" of the people he saw in the shower and never saw anything below either parties' waist. You mean making claims like these that the the "supposed witness" themselves says are absolutely untrue and that he never said he SAW ANY SUCH THINGS (e.g., the star witness says the OAG is lying about these statements and that he never told them any such thing)? Are those the types of unsupported claims we're talking about @sshole?
Technically, yes. Ron Petrosky and Jim Calhoun. But then again I never heard of the story before the grand jury proceedings, so I'm referring to that.
My suspicion on the whole janitor / victim 8 fiasco was that Petrosky's initial personal account of his own eyewitness of the event is 100% true; that sometime during the 2000 football season he saw a pair of legs in the EALR shower, one a man's and one a child's, but that the owner's of the legs were blocked from view by an obstruction (the shower curtain that vic 4 testified was there, for instance) and that he later saw JS and a child leaving the building walking hand in hand. And furthermore that anything to do with Calhoun was made up by the prosecution team who then bullied Petrosky into telling that story.
I was wondering if the story you always heard matched up with that or not. I can't decide. Would Petrosky's story alone have been bandied about town being termed as JS molesting a kid? Maybe. Perhaps if Petroskey was doing some dot connecting he may have told people that. Would Calhoun's story have been bandied about town being termed as JS molesting a kid? Seems like what he was said to have seen seems a bit beyond what you might call molesting. I would have bet that exactly what Calhoun was said to have seen would have been way to juicy to leave out of the story. I was just wondering if what you always heard would shed more light on the whole thing.
Last edited:
Perhaps you should advise them to bring their book when they give testimony in case their memory gets a little faulty.
