What don't you understand? In 2001, like you said, Joewasn't exactly sure what had occurred. By 2010, he knew the charges, what Mike claimed to have seen. I think that's what Misder meant but I don't speak for him certainly.
Why is that complicated?
Lubrano spoke at tonight's PSU Lake Erie Honor Joe Event
- Thread starter PSUEngineerx2
- Start date
Why is that complicated?
That's what the tin foil hat wearers say. There is an excuse for everything. For me, I'll just take Paterno at his word and go with that.
Maybe you should be the one taking a break. Crying about me posting my opinion, which is absolutely reasonable, is pathetic. All you do is bitch and moan about everyone and everything. And it extends all the way to people like Lubrano and demlion who are fighting on your "side". Relax and stop being so pissed off at everything.
Who said anything about "taking a break"?
Not me
You oozed over here from the cesspool you created on TOS, when the format change occurred here
You, and your circle-jerk cohorts (GTASCA etc), should have been tossed that afternoon
Instead the idiocy of you and your fellow MENSA members has been infecting the board every day since
What I can't figure is why the folks who run this site allow you to park here and crap your horse shit all over the board every day.
I wasn't suggesting you should "take a break"....I was wondering why the folks running the board don't toss your idiot ass out
Just to be clear........ciao
Last edited:
Well, I was never banned from here before so I'm not sure why you are referencing the format change.
What reason would you have for "tossing me"? Not agreeing with you? If so, it's time you grow up. Act like an adult for once.
The word is "I don't know what you would call it". Your world is the world of DJ "I'm Leaving forever" for the 21st time Saxy02, where everything is tinfoil and white powder.
You can hold on to that all you want, but that was merely him stating that it was sexual in nature but something that he didn't know what to call. Anything between a man and a boy in the showers that is of a sexual nature should be investigated.
Well I'm relieved to hear that you would call what you would have been told in the hypo sex. So now you understand how Joe could have come to the same understanding after his conversation with Mike even though he "didn't know what you would call it." Also relieved to know that you now understand (or perhaps you always did) that "I don't know what you'd call it" does not relate to the general sexual nature of the Sandusky actions observed by McQueary and relayed to Joe, but rather to the specific type of sexual actions McQueary observed.
So nice to see how you are finally starting to get it.
You're another suffering from pachycephaly. Your case is severe.
getmyjive11 said:
His word of course being "I don't know what you would call it".
GTACSA said:
You again are seeing things that aren't there. Why do you struggle so much with reading a post for comprehension and responding to the content of the post? Please read my post slowly, maybe ask someone to read it to you and explain it, and respond to the content of my post.
So you are now trying to bizarrely argue that based on your terrible "hypo" that Joe knew it was sex but didn't know what to call it? How do you know what something is yet not know what to call it? And out of the blue you somehow are trying to throw in that the "I don't know what you would call it", which clearly relates to the general sexual nature of the Sandusky actions, somehow doesn't. I will say it again, all the twisting you have to do to make your points should really tell you something.
Oh I get it, you know you are wrong and I am right, you are simply here to troll.
I'm sorry, it appears I gave you too much credit.
"How do you know what something is yet not know what to call it?"
You just did in the hypo; you called it sex.
Now please don't insult your intelligence by claiming the use of the word "sex" is different from using the words "sexual nature" to describe activity which McQueary testified he observed.
Doubt it's BS because they tried the same thing on Spanier & we know they fed Victim 4 info about other accusations too.
As Joe mentions in Jay's book, Sally Jenkin's interview & his biography he may've got that impression from Mike but wasn't sure what Mike saw was sexual. When PSU3 made their decision he assumed they had it looked into correctly & accepted their conclusions. Mike never protested to him despite numerous opportunities.
getmyjive is a PL idiot.He knows Joe nor anyone else had to go to the police, nor did they have anything to go the police with in 2001.
Talking football on a football board? What a revolutionary concept.
That doesn't factor in that Joe's story 9 days before was that Mike told him he saw Jerry horsing around with a boy in the shower & he said it looked inappropriate. Joe also may've been commenting from his 2011 perspective when he said it was a sexual nature having learned more info about Sandusky. It seems to me the only way to explain the dual versions is that Joe's hindsight bias caused him to testify that it was "obviously" a sexual nature.
So when was the last time you posted something to this board that was actually on-topic (which is to say: not about Joe Paterno)?
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And you are one.
Guys, please USE. YOUR. IGNORE LIST. 
Can you not see what is happening here? Every thread about Joe, Lubrano, etc. goes down the same path. The same trolls derail these threads with the same old, tired, worthless arguments. They have been doing this for nearly five years now. THREADS. GET. DERAILED. BECAUSE. YOU. ALLOW. IT. TO. HAPPEN.
If everyone would put the trolls on their Ignore List, the trolls would get bored playing with themselves and likely would leave. Meanwhile, discussions would remain legitimate because communication would be only among the legitimate posters.
USE. YOUR. IGNORE. LIST.
Can you not see what is happening here? Every thread about Joe, Lubrano, etc. goes down the same path. The same trolls derail these threads with the same old, tired, worthless arguments. They have been doing this for nearly five years now. THREADS. GET. DERAILED. BECAUSE. YOU. ALLOW. IT. TO. HAPPEN.
If everyone would put the trolls on their Ignore List, the trolls would get bored playing with themselves and likely would leave. Meanwhile, discussions would remain legitimate because communication would be only among the legitimate posters.
USE. YOUR. IGNORE. LIST.
Guys, please USE. YOUR. IGNORE LIST.
Can you not see what is happening here? Every thread about Joe, Lubrano, etc. goes down the same path. The same trolls derail these threads with the same old, tired, worthless arguments. They have been doing this for nearly five years now. THREADS. GET. DERAILED. BECAUSE. YOU. ALLOW. IT. TO. HAPPEN.
If everyone would put the trolls on their Ignore List, the trolls would get bored playing with themselves and likely would leave. Meanwhile, discussions would remain legitimate because communication would be only among the legitimate posters.
USE. YOUR. IGNORE. LIST.
You need to learn what a troll is first of all. To you anyone not sharing your every single opinion is a troll. It's the 70+ year old crowd definition of a troll. Not every single PSU fan has to think JS is a victim of the world or bad PA judicial system. Keep your fingers in your ears if you have to, but others are more than entitled to speak their minds. It is the same GD people rehashing the same things over and over again....you did get that right.
Nothing wrong with that advice.......but wouldn't it be a lot easier (and globally effective) if these two - I assume you are referring to GMJ and GTASCA - were simply set packing?Guys, please USE. YOUR. IGNORE LIST.
Can you not see what is happening here? Every thread about Joe, Lubrano, etc. goes down the same path. The same trolls derail these threads with the same old, tired, worthless arguments. They have been doing this for nearly five years now. THREADS. GET. DERAILED. BECAUSE. YOU. ALLOW. IT. TO. HAPPEN.
If everyone would put the trolls on their Ignore List, the trolls would get bored playing with themselves and likely would leave. Meanwhile, discussions would remain legitimate because communication would be only among the legitimate posters.
USE. YOUR. IGNORE. LIST.
Shipped back to the TOS that they ruined?
Uncluttering the board from their mentally-constipated schtick?
There is absolutely ZERO that would be lost by deep-sixing these one-trick-pony morons.
They are not even grotesguely entertaining
jive certainly doesn't need to go anywhere. He is basically saying he believes MM and Joe which is his right. He's not calling anyone out which BTW is against the board rules unless they have changed. So now he should be banned because you and a few others on this site don't like hearing it....BS. He isn't starting threads daily on this, but simply offering a counter opinion. Weak, very weak IMO.
This thread was about Lubrano at an alumni function. Jives first post says it's all about Paterno. He's the one that turned it into a pissing contest.
It's not worth a ban when you look back through this thread was my point. Others took it to JS's trial which is where these threads to end up from time to time. In fact the guy calling for him to be tossed insults people daily so it's kind of a silly request to begin with.
That word hypocrisy just keeps on popping up...eh?
Agree on Stink. He's the only perfect person on earth. In my opinion Jives entire purpose is to antagonize.
Nice of you to say....thank you. But it is far from true - - - plenty of folks who would give depositions to that fact - - - if necessary
You are certainly correct wrt GMJ though. Absolutely ZERO useful purpose
You're welcome. I agree with a lot you say, the style not so much.Nice of you to say....thank you. But it is far from true - - - plenty of folks who would give depositions to that fact - - - if necessary
You are certainly correct wrt GMJ though. Absolutely ZERO useful purpose
I am mystified by people parsing Joe's words out of context and out of order, just to make specious claims that are not based in reality.
He clearly did not hear a criminal act in 2001 from McQueary. That flies in the face of the dozens of times he reported his own players for minor infractions, or insisted upon players accused of crimes to get their due process in the legal system. He reported what he heard in accordance with University policy and the law.
But he only used the term "sexual nature" ONCE. ONCE. and couched it in between 2 statements of uncertainty. and did not use the words in the police interview prior to his GJ testimony. and only after he was told by prosecutors that Jerry was a serial pedophile with dozens of victims
Wrong. He instigated. What turned it into a pissing contest was some people's insistence on arguing with him instead of ignoring him. It takes at least two to have a pissing contest. If everyone would ignore him, he would be left to piss on himself.
As I alluded to - a person of many faults - and that is just one of them.
Quite frankly, as opposed to many other shortcomings (which I would LIKE to improve upon), this one is not even a fault that - though I recognize it - I care to "correct"
I have simply lost any concern for exhibiting patience with the grotesquely stupid, the morbidly obtuse, the terminally brain-dead, and the incorrigibly deceitful.
There is plenty of each on this board every day - - - so that "fault" manifests itself more often here than anywhere else.
Yep.....it is what it is. Mea Culpa (sorta')
If anyone ever deserved the benefit of the doubt, it was Joe Paterno. Starting in November 2011, no one in the media stopped to ask whether this made any sense based on the type of person Joe was.
By the way, let's take this opportunity to remember that the Office of the Attorney General issued a statement on November 5, 2011 commending Joe Paterno's actions in 2001 and during the grand jury proceeding in 2011.
Getmyjive said either
I am mystified by people parsing Joe's words out of context and out of order, just to make specious claims that are not based in reality.
How is this statement to Sassano out of context?
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on. We didn’t get in to what the inappropriate action was, but it was inappropriate. And that’s how I knew about it.
But he only used the term "sexual nature" ONCE.
Is sexual nature different than inappropriate sexual activity in your mind?
Now none of us know what McQueary told Joe but this is what Joe said he was told in addition to his GJ testimony.
don't perplex the hater insanity with FACTS!!
besides, Jemele Hill said 61 years of Success With Honor wasn't enough for her to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. Same with Sally Jenkins.
now if Joe had doped on the tour de france . . .
