Spoken like a true Pitter. That's exactly the kind of thing a Pitt fan would say.
Paterno's drop lawsuit vs NCAA
- Thread starter Brad908
- Start date
F U and your cult member insults. Who was in charge moron? How about second mile, the organization responsible for the kids. You pathetic losers are the reason these things continue to happen in every area of our society. This was a sad opportunity to learn how nice guy offenders operate. That was lost because losers like you and your obsession with football and conspiracies. Congrats.
I know you don't need me to defend you but don't let Osprey get to you. That's what he wants. He's simply acting out of the immense guilt he feels for knowing all about who Sandusky really was in the early 2000s and not saying anything to anyone. He's a despicable pedo enabler who desperately wants to keep the focus on Paterno so that maybe, just maybe, no one will look too closely at the skeletons in his closet.
Besides, they remove the statue, and the very clouds bear Joe's personage to Happy Valley in the statue's absence.
And you a$$holes are such a$$holes.
Now you are just babbling like the twit you obviously are. And since Joe is so important
to you, why don't you tell us about your relationship?
Joe's not that important to me, I just can't overlook 61 years of doing the right thing and suddenly he just decided to overlook children being harmed. Not everyone who uses common sense is a cultist. Now go follow Pitt you f'n moron. I would get into a battle of wits with you but I wouldn't feel right taking advantage of the mentally challenged.
He has stated that his condemnation of Paterno is based on the fact that he (Osprey) knew all about who Sandusky was in the early 2000s so of course, Paterno had to know. When I've challenged Osprey who he told about Sandusky he never responds, ostensibly because he told no one, yet he condemns Paterno regularly. So he's a pedo enabler and a hypocrite. A real treat of a human being.
So you never even met Paterno. No big deal because the same is true for most of the other cult members.
You and common sense have only a passing relationship. And you have no idea what Paterno did for
sixty one years. Neither do I but only a twit would claim to know everything about someone he never met.
There's way more evidence pointing to doing good than bad and if you can't see that then you're even dumber than you seem. And using the term twit means you're either an idiot or your about 75 years old and don't realize that term hasn't been used for years.
If you don't like twit, then I say you are a dolt. Just because you had to Google twit doesn't mean
it isn't applicable to you.
I certainly didn't have to Google it, I remember when people used it....it's just been about 40 years, that's all. If you like something do you call it "swell"? Do you still use groovy as well?
It is clear he is a misanthrope and may very well be an OGBOT member or one of their tittie suckers. Keeping the focus on JVP and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fuel the fable has kept the malfeasance of many hidden for 6 years now. He is likely a cult member of a much more sinister nature.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere and repeatedly, given the laws of the Commonwealth on this topic, there would be no permanent record of it 10 years later. The truth is that we don't know if they did or didn't.
That is basically the answer to everything. "There is no written record of <event> so we do not know for sure! Ignore testimony!!!" Then when we have emails and billing statements showing things against the narritive here... "oh, but we don't know what they were really thinking!!! We need more proof!!!"
Last edited:
I'm pointing out the logical fallacy in the reasoning on this specific point--specifically "if they had reported it we would know". Not true. I do believe that at least one person involved has stated for the record that they thought they had reported it. Add to that the situation where PSU had changed their e-mail system completely during that time and the old system was no longer available. What we had was a couple of printouts of three or four e-mails.
We tend to forget just how far technology has come in recent years. Heck, just this weekend I was chatting with friends in Dublin via Skype or a similar service (some one elses' computer, so I have no idea which). When I was in college overseas, such a contact would have cost $10. A minute. And no video. And it wasn't that long ago.
The point is that to get to some of the old e-mail files from (now) 16 years ago is almost impossible. If you read the story about the original emoticon (ca. 1982), it took a large amount of work--and the sheer luck that some of the machinery was restorable and some of the tapes still extant--to be able to retrieve the original e-mail 20 years later. But we hear all the the time that "the internet is forever". Kinda. But not as much as we think.
I'm also not convinced that a report would have changed anything. Look at the Central Mountain case.
Not really. You don't forget calling the cops or DPW on a long time former employee and saint in the community. I mean it will pass the foil sniff test here, but it doesn't fly in the real world. Either that or these men have the memory of a flea. If you have ever reported something at work not even half as serious you know this. Forget something like this where you actually reached out to WC for advice. Not to mention they state they would tell Jerry and TSM in their emails.
Last edited:
I believe it was Schultz that had expressed that he had thought everything had been reported to DPW/CYS in the original Grand Jury proceedings for the Sandusky trial (though I think he was somewhat vague in that). However, Curley and Schultz's testimony from the Spanier trial all but confirmed that they did not (though it would be nice to see the transcripts of their testimony sometime...).
The fact still remains that decision executed by Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to not pass along the 2001 "report" to DPW/CYS was the right decision to protect the University (and Sandusky) from undue scrutiny and bad publicity. They knew better than anyone that Sandusky abusing children in any way was an impossibility.
In addition, I think Schultz reached out to Wendell Courtney for counsel to determine if there was anything in the law that compelled them to contact DPW/CYS about the "report". With Courtney's response that contacting DPW/CYS was not compulsory, they knew their decision was in the clear legally.
The only action that would have changed anything was MM keeping his mouth shut when the OAG came calling so many years later.
Last edited:
Only a moron, "with the benefit of hindsight"
)) would still believe that not contacting the authorities was the right call.JS abusing kids was an impossibility?
MM should have kept his mouth shut?
WC's advice was to report it. Based on Schultz's email to TC, it seems that was the plan but Tim changed it. Gary and Graham signed off on that. What we don't know is why Tim didn't report it after JS initially denied the situation. And what professional help did JS agree to and get?
I don't think Joe had anything to do with any decision outside of notifying the folks he did notify at the time. Which is standard for these situations in real life. It was PSU's protocol then--and the current NCAA protocol now.
At 30 or 40, I would have agreed with you. At 61?? I'm finding out I've forgotten a lot of things that were quite significant to me at the time. Recent example--I was looking for some old photos last week as there was a Xoggz reunion we were attending (old USISL soccer team) and I'd taken a fair amount of photos back in the day. I came across some shots of the USAF Thunderbirds. I had no idea that I'd seen them before I saw them at the Gathering of Mustangs in 2007. No memory of it at all--and I really love aircraft and aerobatics dating back to my childhood when the Blue Angels used to fly over my house on a regular basis (they used the Johnsville runway for practice back in the old F11 Tiger days). But photos don't lie--yet I still can't figure out when or where I saw them (likely an airshow at Rickenbacker) and I tried to look up the old Thunderbirds schedule to find out. All I know it that it was at least 10 years ago as it was before the GoM show.
There is protocol and then there is a higher responsibility that all decent human beings have. Question is did McQueary tell Joe something that would have called on that higher responsibility? I haven't heard or read anything that convinces me yet.
What e-mails? The three or four in the Freeh report? As I recall, those were paper copies fro Schultz' file. Look it's well known that PSU changed their e-mail system between 2001 and 2011--making it difficult if not impossible to go back and see what was there then. Different systems use different storages. I once had an account with a provider no longer in existence--as I recall around that time. Bet it would be really difficult to retrieve those e-mails now. Might be a trace on my wife's old Pentium--that has not been turned on in a decade. But maybe not. That's the case we have here.
Again, I suggest you look up the story of finding the original e-mail that started the use of emoticons.
I am not saying they did--and I am not saying the didn't. I'm saying that it is almost impossible to prove one way or another for many factors. It's not the slam dunk--either way--that some are making it out to be.
It's the "argument from silence". And that's always considered, at best, logically weak.
Tim said he was going to talk to Jerry and TSM. That wasn't even refuted by him ever. You can pretend whatever you want too, but had they made a call they sure as hell would have said so instead of falling on a sword for no reason. This is one topic where the gray doesn't exist except for some saying TSM was the equivalent of calling DPW.
Not the equivalent--but as the for certain no. 1 mandated reporters in this whole mess, how did TSM ever escape scrutiny or prosecution???
I apologize, but JVP was Sandusky's direct supervisor for the first investigation in 1998. Many years ago I was a manager of a fast food restaurant and lost my job because of the actions of an assistant manager. I did not argue because I knew full well that I was responsible for the operation of that unit whether I was there or not when something happened. That's what being a manager, or in this case, head coach means. It's a moot point to me whether he knew (Personally I do find it hard to believe that UP police would not inform him in 1998) or did not know. He was in charge and Sandusky was his employee. Just my $.02.
In 1998 the Sandusky incident was investigated by the Centre County DA and PA state agency and deemed "unfounded" by the PA state agency.
