'He cared enough to perform his responsibilities as he was supposed to." and not one
iota more.
Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
'He cared enough to perform his responsibilities as he was supposed to." and not one
iota more.
And was leaked to the public illegally and intentionally.
He's not using it correctly. He's using it to mean something it doesn't.
You can think anyone you want to is a POS. That's on you. My point was that being pedophile isn't a crime; having child porn or being a pederast is.
It's the only explanation that makes sense to you and those of your ilk. Most call
that being in denial.
Of which ilk am I? I’m intrigued by what your response will be. I don’t believe you really have paid attention to me.
You and your "ilk" are so invested in the current (false) narrative that you think we are the ones in denial.
Is it possible that all of these upstanding academic and community leaders heard about a child rape and swept it under the rug? Sure, it's possible, in the same way it is possible that you are actually my father (he also lives in Florida...refute that evidence!).
But when you consider the likelihood of a cover up (which, by the way, a court found was NOT a cover up), especially in the context of "what did they have to gain by doing that", it is staggeringly unlikely that this many people turned a blind eye.
You are right that being a pedophile is not a crime. But in the statement you quoted
to make that point, pedophile was correctly used.
Those that believe either nothing happened or that Sandusky's actions weren't adequately
conveyed to PSU officials (C/S/S/P).
Earlier, he referred to him as being a 'serial pedo.' That is not a correct usage of the word/abbreviation. I was referring the way he generally uses the term, not that particular usage. But thanks for playing, Dad.
So since we know that
Joe followed all the required laws, policies and guidelines, what exactly did he do to
get knocked off the his pedestal? (Other than the obvious... being
knocked off and thrown under the bus by the BOT)
He cared enough to take the he first step but not to go any further. That is an accurate statement.
Sandusky was convicted of those other charges. They were accurate. ~90% of the charged were accurate.
I’m so sorry to have offended you by calling a pedo with multiple victims a serial pedo.
Jesus, I can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining this to you AGAIN.
Your are stuck in a logic loop.
How do you know he abused boys? Because he was convicted.
Why was he convicted? Because he abused boys.
The second part of the statement could be accurate, but the first part should never, ever be taken as a fact.
A serial pedo would mean "one who likes children repeatedly." Which is almost nonsensical, but also not a crime, therefore you cannot have victims of a pedo, unless the pedo is also a pederast.
I'm sure your English 15 TA is weeping.
It would have been totally inappropriate for Joe to have involved himself any more than he did. He saw and heard nothing. He had no authority over or responsibility for Jerry. It was in the hands of Curley and Schultz. They interviewed the witness and involved the president of the university, who approved the course of action ultimately taken. Joe followed up with Mike (his direct report), who expressed no displeasure with how the administrators handled the matter. He had no reason to believe they had fumbled the ball, which they did not.
Their minds are too feeble to understand what you are saying. I've been saying this for ages. They think he did it because he was found guilty, he was found guilty because he did it. It's certainly possible he committed some of the crimes that occurred off campus, but we don't know enough to make that call today.
"It would have been totally inappropriate for Joe to have involved himself any more than he did."
I'm sure Sandusky's subsequent victims feel much differently about Paterno's lack of involvement.
Have you asked any of the victims if they blame Paterno? I can't imagine he is too high up of their list of people to blame.
Their answers are predicated on who writes the checks and what needs to be said/done to qualify.
You are entitled to your opinion, but unless you have asked the victims this question, your opinion isn't any more valid than mine.
Given that Paterno had no knowledge of most of the victims (we know he knew about one, and it is possible that he knew about a second, but it is unclear what he knew), your opinion seems poorly grounded in fact.
And yet if the state professionals would have done more in 1998, ALL the victims could have been avoided. Why do they get a free pass? So you think that if Joe would have called the same people who messed up 1998, that there would have been a different outcome? That would have stopped what... maybe 1 victim from being abused?
The only other explanation for it would be a cover-up, and that’s already been denied in the courts.
A few victims spoke out against the sanctions. They loved PSU football and the sanctions were more punishment for them. None have ever spoken out against PSU football or Paterno, likely because they weren't actually abused, or because they understand the facts of the case.
That’s such a rabbit hole.
He did exactly what he should have. Exactly. As we’ve discussed before, in my role as a social worker I would have shaken his hand and said thanks for doing exactly what he should have done.
he also followed up with Mike M. Again, what else should he have done? these guys never answer that question.
I've always wondered if some of these guys that were in the loop about 98 and knew that the fix was already in, worried that no matter they did about JS in 01, that it would just get swept under the rug again.
So now Joe didn't care about his grandchildren and the administrators didn't care about PSU. Interesting theory.
They say that Joe should have grabbed little Mikey McQueary by the ear and dragged him to the police station, then insist that he sit in while he gave his report.
On the other hand MM is a hero and JM/Dranov didn't do anything wrong.
ski,
thanks for the like but I just copied an earlier post.
I thought it needs to be repeated and repeated. The "pedophilia", in this whole discussion, is a red herring, to quote Hitchcock. 1.)It is to deflect and divert the public's attention from the state and county malfeasance in the Second Mile. 2.) It is to separate and divert state and local politicians undue direct involvement with the "charity". 3.) It is to separate and divert attention of the incestuous nature of The Second Mile, The Board of Trustees, and Jerry Sandusky.
All of these institutions wanted to "help the children". So they came up with a plan to do good, and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. And like a bunch of children with cookie crumbs around their feet, and melted chocolate on their hands and faces, they started to point fingers at anyone that was standing close to them. Just happened to be Graham and PSU football. Go into the desert and find a General, He'll show you where the cultural problem is and whose feet are standing on the evidence. It is a hot, dry and lonely place; Carlos found his answers, for truth and wisdom on a spirit quest in the desert.
The dry heat of the desert is where the desperadoes of this ordeal should endure eternity.
