Lubrano spoke at tonight's PSU Lake Erie Honor Joe Event

[pandaczar12]

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.

I'm sorry, it appears I gave you too much credit, which is saying a lot considering how little credibility you have around here.

I repeatedly ask you to respond to the content of my post, yet you continually just keep going further down the rabbit hole. The only thing I posted related to your "hypo" was that it was terrible. Why do you have such reading comprehension issues, why do you keep seeing stuff that isn't there?

If you decide you want to be a man, go back and start responding to the content of my previous posts. Until then, I will not respond to the content of yours.

 

[BobPSU92]

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 . . .

61 years not enough? Joe should have succeeded with honor more.

 

[simons96]

61 years not enough? Joe should have succeeded with honor more.

yes at 62 years, Jamele Hill would have taken a softer stance

**rolls eyes**

 

[GTACSA]

I'm sorry, it appears I gave you too much credit, which is saying a lot considering how little credibility you have around here.

I repeatedly ask you to respond to the content of my post, yet you continually just keep going further down the rabbit hole. The only thing I posted related to your "hypo" was that it was terrible. Why do you have such reading comprehension issues, why do you keep seeing stuff that isn't there?

If you decide you want to be a man, go back and start responding to the content of my previous posts. Until then, I will not respond to the content of yours.

I do respond to the content of your posts which is on point; which is a very small percentage.

I could recap this exchange to illustrate but it would be a waste of time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

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.

He was clearly being led by Sassano and he was like 150 years old when he did that interview. Also, his idiot son sat there and let it go on way too long. A good lawyer would have killed that interview pronto

 

[pandaczar12]

I do respond to the content of your posts which is on point; which is a very small percentage.

I could recap this exchange to illustrate but it would be a waste of time.

Live long and prosper.

Oh please do, I would love to see you recap an entire conversation when you can't even follow the discussion from post to post!

 

[getmyjive11]

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.

The thread is about Lubrano at an honor Joe event. My first post was about the A9 (Lubrano) and Joe Paterno. How exactly is that off topic?

 

[Adlee73]

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.

Ironic you're complaining about parsing Joe's words while cherry picking from his interview with Sassano. It's clear when you read the whole interview Joe isn't claiming Mike used those words & Joe was simply speculating as to what the context was of Mike's report. It's been proven that providing witnesses with additional info about an incident can create a hindsight bias in which they see the past event in a context that they didn't see at the actual time of the event. If Joe originally believed Mike told him he saw a sex act then why is that not mentioned in Joe's interview with Baldwin 9 days before he testified? Instead Joe says Mike told him he saw Jerry horsing around with a boy in the shower. He also told Gary Gray & Joe Posnanski the same version. The only time Joe describes sexual activity is when it was brought up to him by investigators. The same term (sexual nature) shows up in Spanier's pre-testimony interview in which once again Eshbach & Fina uncommonly decide to be present at. It's this cherry picking of Joe's words that has created this mess. If you look at everything Joe said as a whole you can not truthfully say with any certainty what Joe was thinking back in 2001.

 

[WDLion]

The thread is about Lubrano at an honor Joe event. My first post was about the A9 (Lubrano) and Joe Paterno. How exactly is that off topic?

Bull! I never said it was off topic. You knew exactly what would happen when you made that post. Your goal was to antagonize.

 

[getmyjive11]

Bull! I never said it was off topic. You knew exactly what would happen when you made that post. Your goal was to antagonize.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to comment ON TOPIC if it doesn't follow the opinion of some here?

 

[GTACSA]

Ironic you're complaining about parsing Joe's words while cherry picking from his interview with Sassano. It's clear when you read the whole interview Joe isn't claiming Mike used those words & Joe was simply speculating as to what the context was of Mike's report. It's been proven that providing witnesses with additional info about an incident can create a hindsight bias in which they see the past event in a context that they didn't see at the actual time of the event. If Joe originally believed Mike told him he saw a sex act then why is that not mentioned in Joe's interview with Baldwin 9 days before he testified? Instead Joe says Mike told him he saw Jerry horsing around with a boy in the shower. He also told Gary Gray & Joe Posnanski the same version. The only time Joe describes sexual activity is when it was brought up to him by investigators. The same term (sexual nature) shows up in Spanier's pre-testimony interview in which once again Eshbach & Fina uncommonly decide to be present at. It's this cherry picking of Joe's words that has created this mess. If you look at everything Joe said as a whole you can not truthfully say with any certainty what Joe was thinking back in 2001.

Ironic you're complaining about parsing Joe's words while cherry picking from his interview with Sassano. It's clear when you read the whole interview Joe isn't claiming Mike used those words & Joe was simply speculating as to what the context was of Mike's report. It's been proven that providing witnesses with additional info about an incident can create a hindsight bias in which they see the past event in a context that they didn't see at the actual time of the event. If Joe originally believed Mike told him he saw a sex act then why is that not mentioned in Joe's interview with Baldwin 9 days before he testified? Instead Joe says Mike told him he saw Jerry horsing around with a boy in the shower. He also told Gary Gray & Joe Posnanski the same version. The only time Joe describes sexual activity is when it was brought up to him by investigators. The same term (sexual nature) shows up in Spanier's pre-testimony interview in which once again Eshbach & Fina uncommonly decide to be present at. It's this cherry picking of Joe's words that has created this mess. If you look at everything Joe said as a whole you can not truthfully say with any certainty what Joe was thinking back in 2001.

One thing we can agree on is that none of us independently knows what Mike told Joe that morning.

There are 3 possible scenarios and under each scenario there are both positives and negatives for how Joe's actions can be viewed.

A. Mike told Joe "that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on." If true, then Joe did what he did and will be subject to criticism by those who say he should have done more, while others will say he did all that he was legally required to do.

B. Mike told Joe about "horsing around in the shower" and did not mention sexual acts. If true then Joe can't be criticized for "not doing more" since there really was no reason to do more. This scenario would mean however that Joe testified under oath and gave statements that he was told about sexual acts which was not true. The reason could very well be the result of hindsight bias which may explain what he did but does not alter the fact that his testimony was not true.

C. Joe had no recollection of what Mike told him. If true, rather than saying he had no recollection he gave statements and testimony referencing sexual acts which again was not true.

It is obviously unfortunate that there appears to be no scenario in which Joe's actions can be viewed without any negatives. While that fact is a burr under the saddle for some, as for me what happened doesn't change the the overwhelmingly positive record which Joe achieved during his life both on and off the field. In the end it was what it was and it is what it is.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Oh, so I'm not allowed to comment ON TOPIC if it doesn't follow the opinion of some here?

That is pretty much it. You shouldn't comment unless you carry their flag is what a few here want. It's odd, but your opinions are not over the top even if I don't agree with all of them. The same core here get pissy anytime any questioned the attention whore JZ who is now off chasing other ambulances after saying he had a plant and then ran away from it as fast as he could.

 

[WDLion]

Oh, so I'm not allowed to comment ON TOPIC if it doesn't follow the opinion of some here?

Never said you weren't allowed to comment. My post was about your motive.

 

[WDLion]

That is pretty much it. You shouldn't comment unless you carry their flag is what a few here want. It's odd, but your opinions are not over the top even if I don't agree with all of them. The same core here get pissy anytime any questioned the attention whore JZ who is now off chasing other ambulances after saying he had a plant and then ran away from it as fast as he could.

Pot/kettle. You go bonkers on any pro JZ post. And I'm not pro JZ or a Jerry is innocent guy.

 

[pandaczar12]

Oh, so I'm not allowed to comment ON TOPIC if it doesn't follow the opinion of some here?

Ironically, this post is off topic.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Pot/kettle. You go bonkers on any pro JZ post. And I'm not pro JZ or a Jerry is innocent guy.

I'm not calling for anyone to be banned....so yeah...not really.

 

[KnightSlayer]

One thing we can agree on is that none of us independently knows what Mike told Joe that morning.

There are 3 possible scenarios and under each scenario there are both positives and negatives for how Joe's actions can be viewed.

A. Mike told Joe "that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on." If true, then Joe did what he did and will be subject to criticism by those who say he should have done more, while others will say he did all that he was legally required to do.

B. Mike told Joe about "horsing around in the shower" and did not mention sexual acts. If true then Joe can't be criticized for "not doing more" since there really was no reason to do more. This scenario would mean however that Joe testified under oath and gave statements that he was told about sexual acts which was not true. The reason could very well be the result of hindsight bias which may explain what he did but does not alter the fact that his testimony was not true.

C. Joe had no recollection of what Mike told him. If true, rather than saying he had no recollection he gave statements and testimony referencing sexual acts which again was not true.

It is obviously unfortunate that there appears to be no scenario in which Joe's actions can be viewed without any negatives. While that fact is a burr under the saddle for some, as for me what happened doesn't change the the overwhelmingly positive record which Joe achieved during his life both on and off the field. In the end it was what it was and it is what it is.

Or what Mike told Joe was ambiguous and unclear and Joe did exactly what he should have done and connected Mike with the proper authorities. The testimony, 10 years later by a man with declining mental capabilities asked about an unclear and ambiguous account, was Joe just trying to answer the questions to the best of his abilities, hence the multiple qualifiers.

 

[WDLion]

I'm not calling for anyone to be banned....so yeah...not really.

I didn't call for anybody to be banned. I consider you a good person and agree with most of your posts. But we need to practice what we preach.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I didn't call for anybody to be banned. I consider you a good person and agree with most of your posts. But we need to practice what we preach.

This wasn't about you, but you chimed in. You may want to take it up with sss who said GMJ needed to be banned. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

 

[WDLion]

This wasn't about you, but you chimed in. You may want to take it up with sss who said GMJ needed to be banned. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

My point was about you blasting posters over the same thing you're guilty of on any pro JZ or Sandusky post.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

My point was about you blasting posters over the same thing you're guilty of on any pro JZ or Sandusky post.

Wow, you really don't get it. Do me a favor...dig up a post where I called them to be banned because I don't agree with them. I also don't act like a 2 year old and put everyone on ignore that doesn't think exactly like me either. If you can't see the difference in what I'm saying here and what you are talking about, so be it. If you are saying I'm not a saint either...well no kidding. I'm not saying that I am.

 

[WDLion]

Wow, you really don't get it. Do me a favor...dig up a post where I called them to be banned because I don't agree with them. I also don't act like a 2 year old and put everyone on ignore that doesn't think exactly like me either. If you can't see the difference in what I'm saying here and what you are talking about, so be it. If you are saying I'm not a saint either...well no kidding. I'm not saying that I am.

I never commented on sss post or advocated banning anybody. My only point was criticizing others for the same thing you are guilty of. You don't seem to want to address my point and keep changing the subject.

 

[crm114psu]

That is pretty much it. You shouldn't comment unless you carry their flag is what a few here want. It's odd, but your opinions are not over the top even if I don't agree with all of them. The same core here get pissy anytime any questioned the attention whore JZ who is now off chasing other ambulances after saying he had a plant and then ran away from it as fast as he could.

Just for that over-the-top statement I'm putting you on ignore. That means for the next 20 or so posts that you make I'm going to respond that you are now on my ignore list. After that I'm going to put your name in my signature as being ignored. At the same time I'm going to call for you to be banned for posting on MY board and having the gall to disagree with ME because I'm a genius and you are not.

That is how to work the ignore feature.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I never commented on sss post or advocated banning anybody. My only point was criticizing others for the same thing you are guilty of. You don't seem to want to address my point and keep changing the subject.

No I never changed the subject. You jumped into something and apparently got lost along the way. Someone called for him to be banned and I said that is a bunch of BS. You are making it about me somehow and are lost.

This is the post YOU replied to.

"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."

I get you're one of the guys who can't stand hearing jive apparently. Too bad...boohoo. When you start pointing our your own hypocrisy, I'll start to take you seriously.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Just for that over-the-top statement I'm putting you on ignore. That means for the next 20 or so posts that you make I'm going to respond that you are now on my ignore list. After that I'm going to put your name in my signature as being ignored. At the same time I'm going to call for you to be banned for posting on MY board and having the gall to disagree with ME because I'm a genius and you are not.

That is how to work the ignore feature.

 

[WDLion]

No I never changed the subject. You jumped into something and apparently got lost along the way. Someone called for him to be banned and I said that is a bunch of BS. You are making it about me somehow and are lost.

This is the post YOU replied to.

"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."

I get you're one of the guys who can't stand hearing jive apparently. Too bad...boohoo. When you start pointing our your own hypocrisy, I'll start to take you seriously.

No I never changed the subject. You jumped into something and apparently got lost along the way. Someone called for him to be banned and I said that is a bunch of BS. You are making it about me somehow and are lost.

This is the post YOU replied to.

"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."

I get you're one of the guys who can't stand hearing jive apparently. Too bad...boohoo. When you start pointing our your own hypocrisy, I'll start to take you seriously.

Wrong. This is the post i replied to.
That is pretty much it. You shouldn't comment unless you carry their flag is what a few here want. It's odd, but your opinions are not over the top even if I don't agree with all of them. The same core here get pissy anytime any questioned the attention whore JZ who is now off chasing other ambulances after saying he had a plant and then ran away from it as fast as he could.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Since people keep misquoting the Sassano interview here it is in its entirety:

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."
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
J. PATERNO: Touching…. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
SASSANO: Okay, the key element is, do you remember if you told Mr. Curley whether in person or over the phone, that McQueary witnessed a sexual incident between Sandusky and a boy?
J. PATERNO: To my knowledge yes I think Tim was aware of the fact that Mike had seen this inappropriate action.
SASSANO: Sexual action?
J. PATERNO: Well yea, I guess you’d call it sexual.
SASSANO: Okay, so now it’s quite clear to Mike so, oh I’m sorry, to Mr. Curley. So if Mr. Curley would have told us some…
J. PATERNO: I can only tell that he was... it was transmitted to him that there was inappropriate action. To what degree I didn’t, I never asked Mike. All I know was that it was basic… it was something we would probably take, uh, probably call sexual. What Tim got out of it I have no way of knowing. But Tim was aware of the fact that we felt we had a problem.
SASSANO: And do you know what happened after that with regards to Mr. McQueary and/or Mr. Curley?
J. PATERNO: Nope.
SASSANO: Did Mr. Curley get back to you at some point in time after that to advise you what actions were taken…
J. PATERNO: No, no, I didn’t, I had other things to do, we had… As I said, Jerry was not working for me.
SASSANO: Right.
SASSANO: Subsequent to Mr. McQueary coming to you and you advising Mr. Curley of this inappropriate sexual action, whatever that may be
J. PATERNO: Mr. Curley did not come to me, I went to Mr. Curley, I got in touch
S. PATERNO: You misheard what he said, he said Mr. McQueary came to you.
J. PATERNO: Who?
S. PATERNO: He said Mr. McQueary came to you.
SASSANO: Mike.
S. PATERNO: You misheard him
J. PATERNO: He did not come to me.
S. PATERNO: Mike McQueary.
J. PATERNO: Ohhh, McQueary, I thought you said Curley.
S. PATERNO: Not Curley. He’s not used to hearing Mike called Mr. McQueary.
J. PATERNO: No no no. Mike McQueary. Mike McQueary saw it on a Friday, came over here and sat at the very table we’re doing this interview, alright, and was very upset. I said what’s your problem and he said I saw something yesterday, I was in the shower, I was in the locker room, Jerry Sandusky was taking a shower with a person. And he said they were doing things that, ya know, and I never got in to know hey what did he do, did he do this, did he do that, but obviously there was a sexual kind of activity. I said hey Tim we got to let the other people know because I have no responsi… I have no authority over Jerry.
SASSANO: Did any police department ever get ahold of you about this?
J. PATTERNO: Nope.
SASSANO: Did anybody from the University, well, anybody from the University Police Department contact you?
J. PATTERNO: Well, not till ten years later.
SASSANO: Coach, how long have you known Mike McQueary?
J. PATERNO: Since he was a high school kid.
SASSANO: And you’ve known him for a long number of years now, correct?
J. PATERNO: I would, he played for me, played for Penn State is what I should say, he.. when he graduated from high school he came here, what year he got out of high school I can’t say..
SASSANO: Okay, but you’ve known him for quite a number of years.
J. PATERNO: Oh, yeah
SASSANO: He’s been on your staff for a long period of time.
J. PATERNO: Twelve, fifteen years probably.
SASSANO: Do you know him to be a trustworthy individual?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely.
SASSANO: If he came and told you something
J. PATERNO: Absolutely…
SASSANO: Would you automatically believe it?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely. He was very upset when I…
SASSANO: Knowing him as you know him, and dealing with stress and pressure like he does in his system, do you know him to be one that over-reacts or does he appropriately handle that and report the same thing?
J. PATERNO: Well, he’s a competitor, a fiery guy in that sense. But I can’t, in his relationship with people I don’t remember him over-reacting. Once in a while with one of his players he’ll foul up and he’ll, and I’ll have to say, you know, are you sure he’s the guy, and you know that kind of thing. But in something like that I don’t think I’ve ever seen him overreact.
SASSANO: In your appraisal of him then if he was upset about something it would be for an appropriate reason, correct?
J. PATERNO: It was legitimate. It was legitimate.
SASSANO: It was what?
J. PATERNO: He would have been legitimately upset.

 

[Misder2]

Since people keep misquoting the Sassano interview here it is in its entirety:

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."
J. PATERNO: Well he, well he, to be frank with you it was a long time ago, but I think as I recall he said something about touching.
J. PATERNO: Touching…. whatever you want to call them, privates, whatever it is.
SASSANO: Okay, the key element is, do you remember if you told Mr. Curley whether in person or over the phone, that McQueary witnessed a sexual incident between Sandusky and a boy?
J. PATERNO: To my knowledge yes I think Tim was aware of the fact that Mike had seen this inappropriate action.
SASSANO: Sexual action?
J. PATERNO: Well yea, I guess you’d call it sexual.
SASSANO: Okay, so now it’s quite clear to Mike so, oh I’m sorry, to Mr. Curley. So if Mr. Curley would have told us some…
J. PATERNO: I can only tell that he was... it was transmitted to him that there was inappropriate action. To what degree I didn’t, I never asked Mike. All I know was that it was basic… it was something we would probably take, uh, probably call sexual. What Tim got out of it I have no way of knowing. But Tim was aware of the fact that we felt we had a problem.
SASSANO: And do you know what happened after that with regards to Mr. McQueary and/or Mr. Curley?
J. PATERNO: Nope.
SASSANO: Did Mr. Curley get back to you at some point in time after that to advise you what actions were taken…
J. PATERNO: No, no, I didn’t, I had other things to do, we had… As I said, Jerry was not working for me.
SASSANO: Right.
SASSANO: Subsequent to Mr. McQueary coming to you and you advising Mr. Curley of this inappropriate sexual action, whatever that may be
J. PATERNO: Mr. Curley did not come to me, I went to Mr. Curley, I got in touch
S. PATERNO: You misheard what he said, he said Mr. McQueary came to you.
J. PATERNO: Who?
S. PATERNO: He said Mr. McQueary came to you.
SASSANO: Mike.
S. PATERNO: You misheard him
J. PATERNO: He did not come to me.
S. PATERNO: Mike McQueary.
J. PATERNO: Ohhh, McQueary, I thought you said Curley.
S. PATERNO: Not Curley. He’s not used to hearing Mike called Mr. McQueary.
J. PATERNO: No no no. Mike McQueary. Mike McQueary saw it on a Friday, came over here and sat at the very table we’re doing this interview, alright, and was very upset. I said what’s your problem and he said I saw something yesterday, I was in the shower, I was in the locker room, Jerry Sandusky was taking a shower with a person. And he said they were doing things that, ya know, and I never got in to know hey what did he do, did he do this, did he do that, but obviously there was a sexual kind of activity. I said hey Tim we got to let the other people know because I have no responsi… I have no authority over Jerry.
SASSANO: Did any police department ever get ahold of you about this?
J. PATTERNO: Nope.
SASSANO: Did anybody from the University, well, anybody from the University Police Department contact you?
J. PATTERNO: Well, not till ten years later.
SASSANO: Coach, how long have you known Mike McQueary?
J. PATERNO: Since he was a high school kid.
SASSANO: And you’ve known him for a long number of years now, correct?
J. PATERNO: I would, he played for me, played for Penn State is what I should say, he.. when he graduated from high school he came here, what year he got out of high school I can’t say..
SASSANO: Okay, but you’ve known him for quite a number of years.
J. PATERNO: Oh, yeah
SASSANO: He’s been on your staff for a long period of time.
J. PATERNO: Twelve, fifteen years probably.
SASSANO: Do you know him to be a trustworthy individual?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely.
SASSANO: If he came and told you something
J. PATERNO: Absolutely…
SASSANO: Would you automatically believe it?
J. PATERNO: Absolutely. He was very upset when I…
SASSANO: Knowing him as you know him, and dealing with stress and pressure like he does in his system, do you know him to be one that over-reacts or does he appropriately handle that and report the same thing?
J. PATERNO: Well, he’s a competitor, a fiery guy in that sense. But I can’t, in his relationship with people I don’t remember him over-reacting. Once in a while with one of his players he’ll foul up and he’ll, and I’ll have to say, you know, are you sure he’s the guy, and you know that kind of thing. But in something like that I don’t think I’ve ever seen him overreact.
SASSANO: In your appraisal of him then if he was upset about something it would be for an appropriate reason, correct?
J. PATERNO: It was legitimate. It was legitimate.
SASSANO: It was what?
J. PATERNO: He would have been legitimately upset.

Nice job Scott

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Wrong. This is the post i replied to.
That is pretty much it. You shouldn't comment unless you carry their flag is what a few here want. It's odd, but your opinions are not over the top even if I don't agree with all of them. The same core here get pissy anytime any questioned the attention whore JZ who is now off chasing other ambulances after saying he had a plant and then ran away from it as fast as he could.

Maybe you should go back to page 8 and see where you first replied to me. You are going in circles for no reason at all. You agree jive doesn't need to be banned and agree he can speak his mind...right? Ok, then we can move on.

 

[WDLion]

Maybe you should go back to page 8 and see where you first replied to me. You are going in circles for no reason at all. You agree jive doesn't need to be banned and agree he can speak his mind...right? Ok, then we can move on.

I have no problem with your page 8 post. That wasn't the subject of my recent posts. Of course we can move on.

 

[BobPSU92]

So folks are continuing to argue with the trolls. Good job, guys.

Duh.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So folks are continuing to argue with the trolls. Good job, guys.

Duh.

Bob you came to this site a year ago....who is the troll again? Some of us actually still talk football on this site and can listen to other opinions.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Nice job Scott

World class legal representation right there. Someone like Wick would have killed it before it even started

 

[Misder2]

World class legal representation right there. Someone like Wick would have killed it before it even started

Agree

 

[Adlee73]

One thing we can agree on is that none of us independently knows what Mike told Joe that morning.

There are 3 possible scenarios and under each scenario there are both positives and negatives for how Joe's actions can be viewed.

A. Mike told Joe "that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on." If true, then Joe did what he did and will be subject to criticism by those who say he should have done more, while others will say he did all that he was legally required to do.

B. Mike told Joe about "horsing around in the shower" and did not mention sexual acts. If true then Joe can't be criticized for "not doing more" since there really was no reason to do more. This scenario would mean however that Joe testified under oath and gave statements that he was told about sexual acts which was not true. The reason could very well be the result of hindsight bias which may explain what he did but does not alter the fact that his testimony was not true.

C. Joe had no recollection of what Mike told him. If true, rather than saying he had no recollection he gave statements and testimony referencing sexual acts which again was not true.

It is obviously unfortunate that there appears to be no scenario in which Joe's actions can be viewed without any negatives. While that fact is a burr under the saddle for some, as for me what happened doesn't change the the overwhelmingly positive record which Joe achieved during his life both on and off the field. In the end it was what it was and it is what it is.

I have to point out your B scenario is incorrect. Joe never testified under oath Mike told him those words. He was asked to speculate what Mike may've meant. Whether he was talking about his 2001 perception of what Mike meant or his 2011 perception of what Mike meant is debatable as you have pointed out due to hindsight bias but there's no certainty in his testimony as to what he was actually thinking in 2001. This case was never investigated properly. The OAG approached it from the beginning like they would investigate a cover up instead of investigating a sex crime which is how they should've been doing it. That's why we have so many tainted testimonies. It's a big mess.

 

[Adlee73]

World class legal representation right there. Someone like Wick would have killed it before it even started

Scott was at the pre-testimony interview along with Joe's lawyer Josh Locke. Locke was the only one in the courtroom with Joe. Neither seemed to think it was a bad idea to let their client speculate on things he clearly didn't remember. Ironically Joe may've been better off in the long run if he'd have accepted Cynthia Baldwin's offer to represent him at his testimony.

 

[simons96]

I have to point out your B scenario is incorrect. Joe never testified under oath Mike told him those words. He was asked to speculate what Mike may've meant. Whether he was talking about his 2001 perception of what Mike meant or his 2011 perception of what Mike meant is debatable as you have pointed out due to hindsight bias but there's no certainty in his testimony as to what he was actually thinking in 2001. This case was never investigated properly. The OAG approached it from the beginning like they would investigate a cover up instead of investigating a sex crime which is how they should've been doing it. That's why we have so many tainted testimonies. It's a big mess.

THIS^^^^^

I don't know why the circle-jerkers cannot grasp this

 

[StinkStankStunk]

THIS^^^^^

I don't know why the circle-jerkers cannot grasp this

I know why.

They don't want to - - - 'cause it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

[simons96]

I know why.

They don't want to - - - 'cause it doesn't suit their agenda.

yeah but still . . .

 

[BobPSU92]

THIS^^^^^

I don't know why the circle-jerkers cannot grasp this

They don't want to grasp it. They are trolls, plain and simple. They have an agenda and they want to stir the pot. They have been presented the same arguments (the truth) for nearly five years, yet they continue to argue the false narrative because they want to. Everyone should put them on their Ignore List and stop wasting their time with them.