Phila. Inquirer Editorial about Letterman, JoePa statue, etc.

[Tom McAndrew]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them difficult for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate team students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.



.

You should pen a response to them.

 

[wensilver]

I have to agree. I think they are trying to construct an opinion in order to link the two schools & their issues together. Using "football" as a common denominator.

This piece should be sent to the Board at large & PSU PR - illustrating how they need to get their head out of their ass and start making strong statements defending the Lettermen & the larger PSU community.

 

[LafayetteBear]

What ever happened to the notion that critical thinking skills were a valuable asset for a journalist? Or even the average college graduate? That was a truly lazy and lamentable specimen of "journalism," which is notable only for its poor quality.

 

[step.eng69]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them a challenge for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

Lot of drama in a sentence and a half...
"and unsealed at the urging of the Inquirer and other news organizations - the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable pattern of serial crimes and willful institutional ignorance. The fierce rearguard effort to rehabilitate Paterno to gridiron godhood springs from the same misguided impulse to glorify a football program at every expense."

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You should pen a response to them.

I will steal a phrase from one of the FaceBook folks I read........"We are not jackass whisperers"

The idea that we can "convert" jackasses like this is a waste of time. Better that we become much more "offensive minded" wrt those things we control - - - than to waste time and effort trying to play Dutch Boy plugging the leaks in the dam with these conflicted, idiotic, c$cksu$ckers.
It won't hurt, and if it is all one can do - it is worth doing......but there are better ways to fight this situation.

 

[kgilbert78]

You should have seen the one in the Columbus Dispatch that compared the removal of the statue to the removals of those after the fall of communism and Saddam.

I quote (July 2012):

The scene of former football coach Joe Paterno’s statue being dismantled at Penn State over the weekend was reminiscent of the way that monuments to deposed dictators around the world have been removed after a coup. It’s a fitting image, since it’s now clear that university officials kowtowed to Paterno instead of doing the right thing by the institution, the community and children who were being victimized.​

 

[Obliviax]

I've said it 1000 times and believe it now more than ever....the press is bought and paid for. There is no analytical thinking, no "research". The good news is not too many people believe them anymore. If I lived in Philly and subscribed, that subscription would be canceled.

BTW, didn't they have a sports writer that was a pedo for many years and used his access to gain victims?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Someone refresh my memory, which trustee and member of the committee that approved the settlements has connections to the Inquirer?

 

[kgilbert78]

I'll also note that our community association got raked over the coals yesterday in the paper. A guy wrote a column about one of our residents who was complaining about speeding and that the association and cops "did nothing". The writer failed to talk with any of us--and has no idea how much time we did spend on the issue--for a resident who wasn't even a member. Same thing. It made a good story, so they didn't bother fact checking.

 

[kgilbert78]

I've said it 1000 times and believe it now more than ever....the press is bought and paid for. There is no analytical thinking, no "research". The good news is not too many people believe them anymore. If I lived in Philly and subscribed, that subscription would be canceled.

BTW, didn't they have a sports writer that was a pedo for many years and used his access to gain victims?

Yes, they did.

 

[mhentz]

I have to agree. I think they are trying to construct an opinion in order to link the two schools & their issues together. Using "football" as a common denominator.

This piece should be sent to the Board at large & PSU PR - illustrating how they need to get their head out of their ass and start making strong statements defending the Lettermen & the larger PSU community.

As if Temple building an on campus football stadium necessarily means that Temple football will sink to the depths of despicability of Penn State football.

 

[Obliviax]

As if Temple building an on campus football stadium necessarily means that Temple football will sink to the depths of despicability of Penn State football.

What these idiots, in the press, don't know is that football drives a lot of revenue. Even without the cold cash, it drives the brand. That is what is so silly....PSU is now one of the top universities in the nation while Temple (despite being in a very large city) lags PSU in every meaningful category. Build a stadium, build fan loyalty, build endowments....money drives colleges which makes even more opportunities for those that attend. Some idiot writer that never did anything but criticize other people's work don't understand this. Writers are, IMHO, the worst of the worst. Do something, for God's sake. Don't just criticize.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

BTW, didn't they have a sports writer that was a pedo for many years and used his access to gain victims?

Not quite. That was Bill Conlin, who worked for the Philadelphia Daily News. The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News were totally separate until 1957, when Matthew McCloskey sold the paper to Walter Annenberg. They then were owned by the same individual, but operated independently. While the ownership has changed several times since then (Knight Ridder, then a series of local ownership groups), the papers catered to a different market, and operated as separate entities during each ownership. The separation between the papers has been somewhat broken in the latest ownership.

As for Conlin using "his access to gain victims," I don't recall that being part of what was alleged. I believe that most/all of his victims were family members, or kids from his neighborhood in South Jersey.

 

[artsandletters]

Someone refresh my memory, which trustee and member of the committee that approved the settlements has connections to the Inquirer?

I keep hearing that Lubert's son is connected to the Inquirer. I want to believe that but I haven't found the connection. Jonathan Lubert? If not ownership involvement it would have to be influence. Anyone?

 

[jubaaltman]

The article was worse than tripe, it looked like a 10th grader wrote it for the school newspaper.

 

[artsandletters]

Not quite. That was Bill Conlin, who worked for the Philadelphia Daily News. The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News were totally separate until 1957, when Matthew McCloskey sold the paper to Walter Annenberg. They then were owned by the same individual, but operated independently. While the ownership has changed several times since then (Knight Ridder, then a series of local ownership groups), the papers catered to a different market, and operated as separate entities during each ownership. The separation between the papers has been somewhat broken in the latest ownership.

As for Conlin using "his access to gain victims," I don't recall that being part of what was alleged. I believe that most/all of his victims were family members, or kids from his neighborhood in South Jersey.

I will disagree about any separation between the Daily News and the Inquirer under the Knight Ridder ownership. Different audience, yes. Otherwise, same outfit, same paycheck.

 

[mhentz]

What these idiots, in the press, don't know is that football drives a lot of revenue. Even without the cold cash, it drives the brand. That is what is so silly....PSU is now one of the top universities in the nation while Temple (despite being in a very large city) lags PSU in every meaningful category. Build a stadium, build fan loyalty, build endowments....money drives colleges which makes even more opportunities for those that attend. Some idiot writer that never did anything but criticize other people's work don't understand this. Writers are, IMHO, the worst of the worst. Do something, for God's sake. Don't just criticize.

Those who can....do. Those who cannot do.....teach. Those who cannot teach....criticize.

 

[dawgduice]

Well, TWO observations. The "Inquirer" is no more a "major" newspaper than the "Enquirer" is. That ship began to sink with the demise of the Bulletin in Philadelphia. They are the "only" game in town and can "create" whatever they think will "sell" papers. As for me I have not purchased any newspaper for the last 10 years, why kill more trees ?? Yet I read a number of real "newspapers" every day.
Number TWO: The article is a very poor opinion piece and is not balanced, especially in a City that has paid out "false claims" in the millions to Septa passengers "injured" in "accidents". Sorry to say I am very aware of payouts to avoid the MUCH HIGHER cost of "going to court". I have actually known people that have made a living from "false claims". Insurance payout is the easy out, plus the insurance companies recover/plus more of these payouts by increasing costs for all those they "cover".
PS, I do agree that "college football" costs are WAY out of control. It has little to nothing too do with the "mission" of a University. I firmly believe the IVY league is doing it the best right now.

 

[psu7113]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them a challenge for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

This is the current state of journalism and a by-product of our social media driven culture. One could argue that the media is cynically milking this story for clicks, but I believe there are great many members of the media who are so shallow and reactionary in their thinking that actually believe the drivel that they are writing and further believe that they are serving society well by writing it.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

I keep hearing that Lubert's son is connected to the Inquirer. I want to believe that but I haven't found the connection. Jonathan Lubert? If not ownership involvement it would have to be influence. Anyone?

Perhaps there are members of the Inquirer's board who are clients of Lubert's firms.

 

[YorkCoLion]

Those who can....do. Those who cannot do.....teach. Those who cannot teach....criticize.

Speaking of people with the heads in their a$$es - so says someone who owes everything to a teacher or teachers. Only the most ignorant actually believe this nonsense.

 

[psu7113]

It goes deeper than just the media being lazy. Not many people know that most laws are actually authored by lobbyists and or members of the public. Congressional members sponsor bills but they are written by lobbyists. They don't have time for it since a substantial portion of their day is spent soliciting campaign funds for reelection.

Lazy, poorly educated, narcissistic, mis or uniformed about our history and system of government, living in a bubble, passing off group think as profound commentary...The list goes on and on. None of it good.

 

[PSU Dave]

Not quite. That was Bill Conlin, who worked for the Philadelphia Daily News. The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News were totally separate until 1957, when Matthew McCloskey sold the paper to Walter Annenberg. They then were owned by the same individual, but operated independently. While the ownership has changed several times since then (Knight Ridder, then a series of local ownership groups), the papers catered to a different market, and operated as separate entities during each ownership. The separation between the papers has been somewhat broken in the latest ownership.

As for Conlin using "his access to gain victims," I don't recall that being part of what was alleged. I believe that most/all of his victims were family members, or kids from his neighborhood in South Jersey.

Plus I believe one alleged family member was employed in the judicial system.

 

[BobPSU92]

I have to agree. I think they are trying to construct an opinion in order to link the two schools & their issues together. Using "football" as a common denominator.

This piece should be sent to the Board at large & PSU PR - illustrating how they need to get their head out of their ass and start making strong statements defending the Lettermen & the larger PSU community.

It's in a Philly paper. The bot is about to be "led" (more like lead, as in weight) by ira lubert. From his point of view, devoid of foresight though it is, this is exactly what a Philly paper should be publishing.

 

[MtNittany]

You could have a victim completely recant, return money, and apologize - and the media would barely acknowledge it. JZ is right - the media is too invested in their narrative and nothing (and I mean NOTHING) will change it.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Not quite. That was Bill Conlin, who worked for the Philadelphia Daily News. The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News were totally separate until 1957, when Matthew McCloskey sold the paper to Walter Annenberg. They then were owned by the same individual, but operated independently. While the ownership has changed several times since then (Knight Ridder, then a series of local ownership groups), the papers catered to a different market, and operated as separate entities during each ownership. The separation between the papers has been somewhat broken in the latest ownership.

As for Conlin using "his access to gain victims," I don't recall that being part of what was alleged. I believe that most/all of his victims were family members, or kids from his neighborhood in South Jersey.

Yeah, but it was his notoriety as an esteemed Sports-Writer for the Daily News that provide him with entrée.





If not for that damn Daily News worshipping......think of how many children would have been saved!

 

[mn78psu83]

Plus I believe one alleged family member was employed in the judicial system.

His niece, who accused him of sexually molesting her, was a prosecutor in Atlantic City. By the time she and others came forth the statue of limitations had run out.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Plus I believe one alleged family member was employed in the judicial system.

Not exactly sure if you're implying that this family member protected Conlin, or what.

The family member that was employed in the judicial system was Kelley Blanchet. She was a niece of Conlin. As an adult, she was an Assistant Municipal Prosecutor in Atlantic City. (A month after the abuse allegations became public, she became the Chief Municipal Prosecutor in Atlantic City.) She was abused by Conlin when she was around 7. Her father later confronted Conlin.

She was part of bringing the allegations to the public. Reportedly, she did not see Conlin for years, but she attended the funeral of his wife, and learned that Conlin had grandchildren. Out of concern for the grandkids, she confided in a female relative of what Conlin had done to her as a kid, and the female relative responded that Conlin had sexually abused her for years when she was a child.

 

[Aoshiro]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them a challenge for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

There is nothing to be done as long as the Trustees and Old Main refuse to defend Penn State.

Not. One. Penny. For. PSU.
No. Way.
No. How.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

It's a disgusting editorial even for that paper this is a low blow

 

[pandaczar12]

Lot of drama in a sentence and a half...
"and unsealed at the urging of the Inquirer and other news organizations - the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable pattern of serial crimes and willful institutional ignorance. The fierce rearguard effort to rehabilitate Paterno to gridiron godhood springs from the same misguided impulse to glorify a football program at every expense."

Nice circular logic. The unproven allegations have to be true because PSU has a pattern of "serial crimes and willful institutional ignorance". PSU has a pattern of "serial crimes and willful institutional ignorance" because of unproven allegations.

 

[jjsocrates]

What ever happened to the notion that critical thinking skills were a valuable asset for a journalist? Or even the average college graduate? That was a truly lazy and lamentable specimen of "journalism," which is notable only for its poor quality.

Here's the biggest problem I have with Journalism these days...Ooops. Sorry. I meant "journalism." It's this idea that just because ANYBODY can have an opinion, then ANYBODY can be an expert.

False.

It's funny when a commercial says "No, I'm not a brain surgeon, but I DID sleep in a Holiday Inn last night" but its not so funny when people actually think they ARE experts.

Does this "journalist" or "opinion maker" know ANYTHING about legal proceedings. Do they understand depositions? Do they realize that "the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable..." is a logically BAD leap? That statement - RIGHT THERE - is the modern day version of "I'm not a legal expert, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn" last night.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the BAD things about the internet. Everybody has a keyboard, and a modem - and a blog - so EVERYBODY thinks they are an expert. It's not just the comments sections from obvious trolls. Its the social media posts from people offering their opinion on a subject that they obviously know NOTHING about. Hey, if you're not a scientist, maybe don't comment or offer an opinion on the latest scientific story making the rounds on the internet.

You wouldn't turn in a history term paper on the Colonization of the Western World by starting off saying "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562, he wasn't expecting to discover Alaska, but that's exactly what he did" and expect to get anything but a bad mark. But NO - today? People will be OUTRAGED if you call them out on their lack of facts or accuracy. Why? Because EVERYBODY has an opinion nowadays, and the "facts" don't matter - because everything has become so politicized that people learn to think that facts are biased, and that opinions matter as much as facts and that my side deserves "equal time" - great, another failure of the media today.

You could literally have experts from NASA on a program talking about orbital dynamics, and then the media would present "an opposing view" from The Flat Earth Society in the interest of presenting "both sides" and giving each opinion equal time.

NO. No, no, no, no, no. Facts are important and objective, and if your opinion is based on lies, untruths or a complete lack of understanding of the nuances and key principles of a field - here's an idea, um - DON'T OFFER a DAMN OPINION.

GOD DAMN - it really makes me sound like an elitist snob, but I don't care - I am SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS. Its getting to the point where people are saying stupid crap like "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562..." and you call them out and point out that their facts are wrong, they actually get MAD at YOU and call you a snob, or worse - an intellectual!

 

[jubaaltman]

Here's the biggest problem I have with Journalism these days...Ooops. Sorry. I meant "journalism." It's this idea that just because ANYBODY can have an opinion, then ANYBODY can be an expert.

False.

It's funny when a commercial says "No, I'm not a brain surgeon, but I DID sleep in a Holiday Inn last night" but its not so funny when people actually think they ARE experts.

Does this "journalist" or "opinion maker" know ANYTHING about legal proceedings. Do they understand depositions? Do they realize that "the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable..." is a logically BAD leap? That statement - RIGHT THERE - is the modern day version of "I'm not a legal expert, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn" last night.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the BAD things about the internet. Everybody has a keyboard, and a modem - and a blog - so EVERYBODY thinks they are an expert. It's not just the comments sections from obvious trolls. Its the social media posts from people offering their opinion on a subject that they obviously know NOTHING about. Hey, if you're not a scientist, maybe don't comment or offer an opinion on the latest scientific story making the rounds on the internet.

You wouldn't turn in a history term paper on the Colonization of the Western World by starting off saying "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562, he wasn't expecting to discover Alaska, but that's exactly what he did" and expect to get anything but a bad mark. But NO - today? People will be OUTRAGED if you call them out on their lack of facts or accuracy. Why? Because EVERYBODY has an opinion nowadays, and the "facts" don't matter - because everything has become so politicized that people learn to think that facts are biased, and that opinions matter as much as facts and that my side deserves "equal time" - great, another failure of the media today.

You could literally have experts from NASA on a program talking about orbital dynamics, and then the media would present "an opposing view" from The Flat Earth Society in the interest of presenting "both sides" and giving each opinion equal time.

NO. No, no, no, no, no. Facts are important and objective, and if your opinion is based on lies, untruths or a complete lack of understanding of the nuances and key principles of a field - here's an idea, um - DON'T OFFER a DAMN OPINION.

GOD DAMN - it really makes me sound like an elitist snob, but I don't care - I am SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS. Its getting to the point where people are saying stupid crap like "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562..." and you call them out and point out that their facts are wrong, they actually get MAD at YOU and call you a snob, or worse - an intellectual!

That describes the trolls and haters. Notice how they disappeared after being put on ignore. I urge everyone to avail themselves of the ignore button when called for.

 

[Obliviax]

Here's the biggest problem I have with Journalism these days...Ooops. Sorry. I meant "journalism." It's this idea that just because ANYBODY can have an opinion, then ANYBODY can be an expert.

False.

It's funny when a commercial says "No, I'm not a brain surgeon, but I DID sleep in a Holiday Inn last night" but its not so funny when people actually think they ARE experts.

Does this "journalist" or "opinion maker" know ANYTHING about legal proceedings. Do they understand depositions? Do they realize that "the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable..." is a logically BAD leap? That statement - RIGHT THERE - is the modern day version of "I'm not a legal expert, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn" last night.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the BAD things about the internet. Everybody has a keyboard, and a modem - and a blog - so EVERYBODY thinks they are an expert. It's not just the comments sections from obvious trolls. Its the social media posts from people offering their opinion on a subject that they obviously know NOTHING about. Hey, if you're not a scientist, maybe don't comment or offer an opinion on the latest scientific story making the rounds on the internet.

You wouldn't turn in a history term paper on the Colonization of the Western World by starting off saying "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562, he wasn't expecting to discover Alaska, but that's exactly what he did" and expect to get anything but a bad mark. But NO - today? People will be OUTRAGED if you call them out on their lack of facts or accuracy. Why? Because EVERYBODY has an opinion nowadays, and the "facts" don't matter - because everything has become so politicized that people learn to think that facts are biased, and that opinions matter as much as facts and that my side deserves "equal time" - great, another failure of the media today.

You could literally have experts from NASA on a program talking about orbital dynamics, and then the media would present "an opposing view" from The Flat Earth Society in the interest of presenting "both sides" and giving each opinion equal time.

NO. No, no, no, no, no. Facts are important and objective, and if your opinion is based on lies, untruths or a complete lack of understanding of the nuances and key principles of a field - here's an idea, um - DON'T OFFER a DAMN OPINION.

GOD DAMN - it really makes me sound like an elitist snob, but I don't care - I am SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS. Its getting to the point where people are saying stupid crap like "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562..." and you call them out and point out that their facts are wrong, they actually get MAD at YOU and call you a snob, or worse - an intellectual!

Totally agree. We've accepted that we can and will be lied to without consequence. As a result, the lies continue. There is no baseline for ethics any longer.

I read a study on millennials. They don't trust anyone. They've been lied to for so long they expect it. As such, they are very skeptical and are really hard to break into (for marketing and sales purposes).

 

[Langmuir]

Here's the biggest problem I have with Journalism these days...Ooops. Sorry. I meant "journalism." It's this idea that just because ANYBODY can have an opinion, then ANYBODY can be an expert.

False.

It's funny when a commercial says "No, I'm not a brain surgeon, but I DID sleep in a Holiday Inn last night" but its not so funny when people actually think they ARE experts.

Does this "journalist" or "opinion maker" know ANYTHING about legal proceedings. Do they understand depositions? Do they realize that "the accounts were given under oath but not tested in court. Nevertheless, they fit an unmistakable..." is a logically BAD leap? That statement - RIGHT THERE - is the modern day version of "I'm not a legal expert, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn" last night.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the BAD things about the internet. Everybody has a keyboard, and a modem - and a blog - so EVERYBODY thinks they are an expert. It's not just the comments sections from obvious trolls. Its the social media posts from people offering their opinion on a subject that they obviously know NOTHING about. Hey, if you're not a scientist, maybe don't comment or offer an opinion on the latest scientific story making the rounds on the internet.

You wouldn't turn in a history term paper on the Colonization of the Western World by starting off saying "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562, he wasn't expecting to discover Alaska, but that's exactly what he did" and expect to get anything but a bad mark. But NO - today? People will be OUTRAGED if you call them out on their lack of facts or accuracy. Why? Because EVERYBODY has an opinion nowadays, and the "facts" don't matter - because everything has become so politicized that people learn to think that facts are biased, and that opinions matter as much as facts and that my side deserves "equal time" - great, another failure of the media today.

You could literally have experts from NASA on a program talking about orbital dynamics, and then the media would present "an opposing view" from The Flat Earth Society in the interest of presenting "both sides" and giving each opinion equal time.

NO. No, no, no, no, no. Facts are important and objective, and if your opinion is based on lies, untruths or a complete lack of understanding of the nuances and key principles of a field - here's an idea, um - DON'T OFFER a DAMN OPINION.

GOD DAMN - it really makes me sound like an elitist snob, but I don't care - I am SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS. Its getting to the point where people are saying stupid crap like "When Christopher Columbus made his initial voyage to the Americas in 1562..." and you call them out and point out that their facts are wrong, they actually get MAD at YOU and call you a snob, or worse - an intellectual!

We have raised a whole generation telling them that their opinions matter. Even if their opinion was complete nonsense, nobody wanted to hurt little Timmy's feelings and tell him. Everybody thinks they are special.

The irony here is that I am posting my opinion on a message board as if anybody actually wants to know what I think.

 

[step.eng69]

I got a laugh from some of the comments to this Cosby article: (Cosby's counter suing for breach of confidentiality) didn't some of our accusers breach their contracts?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/judge-lets-bill-cosby-sue-rape-accuser-but-not-for-talking-to-law-enforcement/ar-BBussU0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

A few comments to the above article.
Blaine Jackson
Arcane Instructor at Ar-Cane Weapons

As a retired attorney, I think that I understand the legal points described, but that is not easy because of the poor writing and English usage of the writer.

Chris Boulware ·
Charlotte, North Carolina

Blaine....you are correct that the writing is terrible. But, from a legal perspective this is a ruling that he can sue for breach of contract....as she signed a Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreement as part of a financial settlement. No matter what he did, she is not allowed to then breach that contract without penalty. Which is exactly what she did.

Butch Wurster

lmao.......insert your comment into any article on msn.....4th grade journalists!

 

[nits74]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them difficult for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate team students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

This is the only part with which I disagree. I've seen countless editorials from large circulation newspapers that don't fit this profile.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

I have to agree. I think they are trying to construct an opinion in order to link the two schools & their issues together. Using "football" as a common denominator.

This piece should be sent to the Board at large & PSU PR - illustrating how they need to get their head out of their ass and start making strong statements defending the Lettermen & the larger PSU community.

The University, it's alumni, faculty and all the great accomplishments in any arena, especially sports and the football program all have one thing in common. None of us have any paid representation and only a small handful of Plebeian level power BOT represent our fiduciary or otherwise honorable interests, accomplishments and future. PSU has a new chant....
"We Are" ........ "Near Leaderless"

 

[mrtailgate]

I had to read this editorial three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Editorial pieces from papers with large circulations should, and in most cases are, well crafted, and even if you disagree with them you have to admit they make a strong argument. In this case, I don't find the editorial to be well thought out, or making any type of cogent argument.

For the most part, even editorials that I disagree with are written in a manner that would make them difficult for even Law Review students to challenge. With this article, I think it would be batting practice for L1 law students to address, and even pretty easy for most college students to take apart. Heck, this editorial wouldn't even be that difficult, IMHO, for high school debate team students to defeat.

You can read it at THIS LINK. Let me know if you think my analysis is faulty.

The biggest stooge at the Inquirer is PSU grad Dianne Mastrull. A total clapping seal. She is a vermin. She threw PSU under the bus because the Inky told her to do so. Then she did a slight turn about when the Inky wanted to do a piece on retirement communities at PSU. I am sure after the latest stories that the Inky will tell her to flip again and she fall right in line.