FYI Scott Paterno went into more detail about how Joe was fed the term "sexual nature" by Fina & Eshbach minutes before he was to testify.
And here's Fina & Eshbach trying the same trick on Spanier months later.
Lubrano spoke at tonight's PSU Lake Erie Honor Joe Event
- Thread starter PSUEngineerx2
- Start date
FYI Scott Paterno went into more detail about how Joe was fed the term "sexual nature" by Fina & Eshbach minutes before he was to testify.
And here's Fina & Eshbach trying the same trick on Spanier months later.
There's a reason why scam artists target the elderly.
So every single victim is a liar? Everyone that Jerry had clear access to, got alone, and they all testified as adults against a man that helped them? Yeah, not really buying that.
The irony of you using that GIF is....well....ironical. To say the least.
Nothing gets by you there.
Funny thing that irony is....like you replying to that signature and pic.
Last edited:
The point being that Joe should have hung it up long before if his mind could be manipulated so easily.
Or it's BS. Either way, it's not a good thing.
getmyjive11 said:
You act like he was hypnotized to rob a bank. People are easily influenced, and putting a phrase in someone's head (i.e. sexual in nature) is easy, especially if they are elderly. If you are employed, next time you are in a meeting, fold your arms and see how many people subconsciously imitate you... You'll be shocked.
You know all of this, you know nearly everything you post is BS. Why bother?
And since you know everything he posts is bullshit, put him on your Ignore List.
So now we've come to the point where: a) having a phrase put in ones head by a third party and then repeating that phrase and b) subconsciously imitating the physical behavior of another employee in a business meeting are equivalent to fabricating testimony as to a conversation one held years ago which would result in criminal charges being filed against a man Joe had known for 30 years for sexual assaults against children.
No, I actually think that he meant what he said. MM told him (without much detail) that something of a sexual nature occurred. MM's and Paterno's testimonies line up well with each other. I have no need to try and make up theories on how Paterno could have gotten it wrong.
Semantics. Obviously Joe thought there was something going on or else he wouldn't have reported it as he did to the people at the school that are in charge of handling such reports. And he certainly didn't know what to call it because Mike admittedly did not tell him any specifics. I really don't see why the argument is about.
The argument is that the usual hate crowd is trying to put words in Joe's mouth. They know nothing about qualifiers.
And once again, Joe followed:
1. Penn State's policy in 2001 (unchanged today).
2. Pennsylvania state law in 2001 (unchanged today).
3. The ncaa's policy issued in 2014 (i.e., emmert in 2012 condemned Joe for doing what the ncaa two years later said he should have done).
Absolutely Bob. Not sure why the argument about his statement. If he didn't think there was something sexual in nature then he probably would not have followed to protocol, right?
Joe did not know that "something sexual" happened. He reported it up the chain, because that's what protocol in house required. There was nothing that required Joe or anyone else in 2001 to "make a police report".
Joe had no business attempting to conduct an investigation. He did exactly as he should have done with whatever information McQeary gave him.
Those here who continue to insist otherwise are playing to an an agenda, and a component of that agenda is to contaminate this board with negative posts about Joe. Draw your own conclusions as to how such posters should be treated.
Last edited:
This has gotten so convoluted that I can't even tell who agrees with whom anymore or who is arguing against whom.
I'm not even sure if the last couple of posts that quoted me are in agreement or disagreement with what I posted.
I'm not even sure if the last couple of posts that quoted me are in agreement or disagreement with what I posted.
No one knows how you arrive at your seemingly arbitrary points. Your a) and b) are two examples of the same behavior. Then you make some sort of ridiculous leap that defies logic solely to fit your agenda.
It's possible for someone to subconsciously mimic the behavior, in the case a phrase, from someone else without fabricating testimony. "It was a Sexual nature" is not a phrase that means anything really, it's not commonly used, it's completely up to interpretation for general society, let alone someone in their 80s. He also qualified that ambiguous phrase multiple times with things like "I don't know what you would call it".
Ever wonder how you have to try so hard to come up reasons for everything? How you have to twist so much? That should tell you something.
I agree... "I don't know what you would call it". That lines up well with everyone's testimony but MM. Why do you need to make up these crazy theories? The simplest explanation is usually the best.
You don't use the " Reply" feature so it is not always apparent who you are directing your remarks to. However, that being said, you are engaging some real idiots which helps explain some of your confusion.
I occasionally use the quote feature, like when I am replying directly to one person. Other times I am just making a general statement.
That said, I am having trouble separating the real idiots form the other idiots. I need a nap.
Well there aren't many on here would don't agree Joe should have retired earlier. [2005 for me]. The point is Joe liked Mike. He wasn't particularly fond of Jerry. He has nothing to hide and thinks they are investigating Jerry not C&S.. So if the police say "here is what Mike said" he would have absolutely no reason not to believe them and could easily have used the same words.Nothing to see here except possibly Franky boy playing fast and loose with the law again.
GTASCA must have entered the conversation
Why that GetMyJive moron is still allowed to contaminate the board is just bewildering
And contaminate they do.GTASCA must have entered the conversation
Why that GetMyJive moron is still allowed to contaminate the board is just bewildering
The statements of a and b were not mine, they were yours.
I assume they were meant to show how Joe could testify (after Fina used the term sexual in nature prior to Joe testifying) that McQueary told him of activity that was sexual in nature when in fact McQueary never told him of any activity that would be so described.
I only posted that we have reached the point that some people, including you, think a and b are equivalent to Scott's explanation.
If you can't see how bizarre that is; that's fine.
As for your even more bizarre point relating to the phrase "I don't know what you would call it" let me ask you this. If you were told by someone you knew that they observed a man and a woman, naked as jaybirds, rolling around inverted on a bed with hands all over each other, could you then later relate that you were told the happy couple was doing something of a sexual nature, although you wouldn't know what you'd call it?
That should tell you something.
Just because you have a different opinion as mine doesn't mean that I am doing anything against the board rules by posting my own. If you don't like it, you are free to put me on ignore. I feel that if my views were given outside this board, the vast majority would think that they are correct or, at worst, plausible.GTASCA must have entered the conversation
Why that GetMyJive moron is still allowed to contaminate the board is just bewildering
Exactly what I have said. Joe understood the nature of what was he was told MM saw, just not exactly what it was.
And I have said before that I have no problem wth the actions Paterno took as they have been reported. It should have resulted in Sandusky being arrested. I personally feel that a better action would have been to both inform TC and advise that MM go to the police.
Last edited:
Is anyone EVER going to take out the trash and deep six GetMyJive?
You added the a) and b) to them, hence "your". You of course either know this obvious fact, or are the dumbest person alive.
Can you please rewrite this paragraph in English and on topic?
So now you are adding Scott to the mix out of the blue... have you ever had a coherent thought in your life? Please stay on topic.
You described sex, so I wouldn't call it of a sexual nature, I would call it sex. What a bizarre point. Is this something you routinely observe? Do the people you observe know? What an odd thing to bring up. When you see a car, do say "you wouldn't know what to call it, but it was of a vehicle nature?"
Have you ever met someone that you couldn't tell their gender? So if you were asking some probing questions trying to ascertain their sex, would those questions be of a sexual nature?
Why do you constantly avoid responding to any of my post, only to post complete and utter nonsense? The fact that you can't respond to anything should tell you something.
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting 2025 Penn State Football Transfer Portal Tracker- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-