Pittsburgh blog is about to make you blow a gasket (selling "Joe Knew" shirts)
- Thread starter bmw199
- Start date
No you aren't, you are obviously cherry-picking and it's getting old and stale.
We have no idea what he knew. You're going by testimony he gave years later, not at the time it happened. He was trying to be helpful and who knows what he actually remembered and what was fed to him. Unlike the popular narrative, Joe was not trying to help Jerry when he was testifying.
Sorry, I'm not. I am taking his full testimony into consideration. Clearly, he was not told all of the details from MM, but it was enough for him to conclude that it needed to be reported.
If he didn't remember he should have "tried to be helpful". He screwed PSU and CSS if that was the case. I don't think that was the case.
I don't think he knew that was going to be the case. No one could have predicted the backlash and the the lynch mob mentality that came at PSU from putting away a monster.
No, I can't believe I have to explain this.
When they say "Joe Knew" they mean "Joe knew JS was raping kids and covered it up for some reason to protect the football program. That is not factual. They do not mean “Joe knew JS was potentially abusing kids and promptly reported it.” That statement is factual.
I'm not explaining that one again. No one outside of this board understands what Paterno meant when you combine "I don't know what you would call it" and "of a sexual nature" together with the fact that Paterno and MM said that MM was a vague with details.
...and all getmyjive11 wants to do is obfuscate the truth to fit his own personal opinion on what happened
You and I (like pretty much everyone else) don't know enough to determine what he could have said or should have said...that's my point. I'll side with the 60 years of doing the right thing over one time when no one really knows what the truth is and the one person who does is dead.
Thank you for finally giving up your agenda and admitting that Joe's qualified, non-cross examined testimony that we've never heard to verify its accuracy... is completely useless.
See... that wasn't so hard!
Why should he have to know anything about the reaction? Just be honest and say exactly what you know/feel. And I believe, based on Paterno's past of doing the right thing, that he was honest and transparent on the stand. Meaning, MM told him a non specific, inappropriate, sexual event was witnessed. I'm not going to look to spin it as anything other than that.
He was old and not exceptionally clear headed discussing an incident that happened years before and was, to be quite frank, not that big of a deal at the time because of the limited details MM gave him. You Pitt folks act like this was the biggest event in Joe's life, but we don't know what he was told or how he thought of it at the time or remembered it later. Unlike the "experts", I don't claim to be omniscient and know what everyone was thinking and what everyone said years ago when I wasn't even there, but people don't change their character (scorpion and the frog)...Joe gave no indication over a 60 year span that he was either evil enough or lacking in character enough to not do something to stop someone who was harming children if he indeed felt that was going on. Therefore, using the laws of human nature, I will have to think that he was not told enough to cause him any real concern at the time.
So much for that heroic "take down" on Aug 19. Just sayin...
Your whole case revolves around MM quotes and his ability to tell the truth, something he clearly didn't do, which means you have nothing. The case you're talking about was the only child abuse case that was thrown out due to lack of evidence. Do you understand that? To quote one person and fixate so completely on one statement betrays your true desire to paint Joe in a certain light. You're not concerned about the children, you're not concerned about Sandusky--both would be worthwhile ventures. What you are concerned about is a football coach and tying this whole sorted tale to a football program of which you clearly have an inferiority complex, just like all your brethren.
Enjoy your 4 games in the limelight in the next 4 years. Hopefully, if my brethren and I have anything to do about it, we won't have to play the likes of you vultures and hyenas for the next 40 years. The truth is you've realized there is no rotting carcass on which to feed, to further your own agenda. We haven't gone away and we aren't going anywhere. We'll be back to full strength soon and you all will be nothing to talk about once again.
He and his minions have been polluting PL with this nonsense for 5 years, and anywhere else they haven't bee banned on. When there's no tripe on PL, some of them gravitate here, to pollute this Board with their repetitious tripe and spin.
Actually his entire case revolves around the fact that he's an a**hole who can't stop yapping and repeating the same old, tired, stale nonsense over and over and over and over. He's one of those obnoxious turds who relishes the fact that nobody can stand him. I'm sure there's some psychiatric term for that.
I'm only here for 3 months, so I've only gotten to see a few hundred posts worth of his repetitive manure. I feel for the people who had to endure all 9.400.
"You Pitt folks..." ??
If it was no concern, he would not have even told Curley about it.
1) I'm not a Pitt fan.
2) The "case [I am] talking about" was not "thrown out". One of the five charges he was found not guilty of (Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse). He was still found guilty of Indecent assault, Unlawful contact with minors, Corruption of minors and Endangering welfare of children based on the GJ testimony of Paterno and the testimony of MM. They found both of them credible. The reason that Sandusky was found not guilty of the first charge was because there was not enough evidence to convict... that doesn't mean it didn't happen. He was still convicted of indecent assault which means that a sexual assault occurred, but rape could not be verified.
3) Why do you say I am not concerned about the children or Sandusky? Sandusky is where he belongs and I have said several times on here that the victims should not be attacked like they are on this board. You are barking up the wrong tree.
To be fair, probably 9000 (or more) of my posts came before rivals switched to the new boards.
I'll just take a stab at #3
Anyone who repeatedly tries to keep the focus on Joe when he did exactly what he should have with the information he had in his role at that time (which has been proven btw), also simultaneously misdirects the focus on where it should be and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume, does not show concern for the children!
"Concern for the children" and concern for the victims are not the same thing btw
Last edited:
1. Have no idea where you stand on the issue or what you post about the victims.
That said, every single day Sandusky's victims are attacked this board. Pulling out the "It's making fun of child abuse" card doesn't hold water when the details of known victims become private jokes on this board.
2. Thanks for proving my point.
They're a rival, that's what rivals do. Instead of simply ignoring a tasteless shirt you're justifying violence, why? Because they're slandering your hero.
3. I'm not defending the tasteless shirt. I'm defending the right to make and wear them without real life harassment, threats, and violence.
And you keep ignoring there's a very real chance "I don't know what you'd call it" was about a specific sex act rather than simply "a sexual nature".
In other words, he wasn't qualifying the premise of "sexual nature". He was told of something sexual, but he couldn't define the act.
BTW, I don't criticize Joe for how he handled the MM incident at all. I also believe he was told of something sexual and his testimony was accurate.
You obviously disagree on the finer points.
I'm not misdirecting anything. I said that Joe did the minimum. I don't have a problem with it. I wish he would have taken a better route which would have been to tell MM to go to police, but what he did was fine. That's not we are talking about here... we are talking about the "Joe Knew" slogan on the shirt. He did know to a certain degree, that's why he reported it to Curley. Just because he knew doesn't mean he did something right or wrong. But he knew that MM saw something sexual and inappropriate. At least, he knew that is what MM told him.
Again, it's a stupid shirt that will just invoke problems, and I don't know why you would want to pay money to wear it.
The Irony is all this attention given has actually sold more Joe Knew t-shirts. By making a huge deal out of this brought publicity to the shirts to people who never would have heard of it. While one kid is no longer selling the t-shirts there are now about half a dozen people selling them just on Amazon for even cheaper. So congratulations on taking this from some obscure blog and advertising on mainstream media.
Pitt had about 43,000 season tickets including no student season tickets. So the 10,000 student tickets is included in that 43,000 number. They sold about 12,000 more season tickets this year.
There is no better way than the exact right way to handle something
If you take the entire situation in the proper context you are still misdirecting to Joe
iF MM saw what he says he thinks he saw and he conveyed this to his dad and DrD then there is no way it even should get to Joe....
If he saw something less and conveyed that then Joe did not do the minimum-he did exactly what he should have
They will never get this because they don't want to get this. McQueary, Dr. McQueary, and Dr. Dranov get a pass. Joe doesn't because he's Joe. Joe doesn't get a pass for doing the right thing because of 23-7-1, 409, and Success With Honor.
Dad and Dr D deserve criticism as well. The Dr. testified that MM was to shaken up to even talk about it. The clearly shows that what he witnessed was something serious. Sending him to Joe was a joke.
Just like many things, there are right ways and better ways to do things. Joe advising MM to go to police would have clearly been a better way.
All I can say is that even though you are entitled to your opinion, you would be wrong
And that has been proved already. You will not find a professional in the field who will tell you that Joe didn't do exactly what he should have, with the information he had, in his role, at that time
