Schultz OUT for 2017 BOT race.
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
LukeIamYourFather: I do not know what posts from Demlion you are alluding to, but I believe that you have somehow miscontrued some things. Larry sometimes says some provocative things, but to suggest that he is dishonest or anything similar is unfair and inaccurate. I think I know him better than you do.
Finally, I am personally not still "in the fight" as I believe Ryan Bagwell is. He has found some useful avenues for his efforts, and I applaud him for that. Unfortunately, I don't see any legitimate opportunities for me to do the same. I am not interested in being another Sisyphus: trying to roll a huge rock up a hill and then, close to the top, watching it roll down the hill again. If I ran for the BOT again I would lose again, and my time and money are better spent doing other things. I still really want the truth to emerge, but I see no role for me in trying to effect that. Others may have a clearer vision or a good plan, and I wish them good fortune.
Finally, I am personally not still "in the fight" as I believe Ryan Bagwell is. He has found some useful avenues for his efforts, and I applaud him for that. Unfortunately, I don't see any legitimate opportunities for me to do the same. I am not interested in being another Sisyphus: trying to roll a huge rock up a hill and then, close to the top, watching it roll down the hill again. If I ran for the BOT again I would lose again, and my time and money are better spent doing other things. I still really want the truth to emerge, but I see no role for me in trying to effect that. Others may have a clearer vision or a good plan, and I wish them good fortune.
David,
I can only go by what I have personally witnessed with regard to Larry. However, through the years I have witnessed him personally misrepresenting others including myself and being dishonest in defending positions in threads on this website that quite honestly are inconsequential and would present no reason to lie or misrepresent. I have had to quote my own previous posts in threads to expose Larry purposely misrepresenting things I have written.
Most recently, about 2 weeks ago in a thread about Mike Tomlin that Larry himself claimed that he could care less about, I had to quote Larry's own post in that thread where he strongly implied that another poster was racist after in a later post in the same thread Larry claimed that he has never called anyone racist. Interestingly these two posts were only separated by maybe an hour in the exact same thread. Everyone who read that thread could see Larry's 2 posts side by side, one in which he made a claim of never in his life doing exactly what we all read that he had done maybe an hour early in that very thread.
My point is that there is no reason to misrepresent the truth in any argument that you make. But many of us on this board have seen direct evidence of this in Larry's own posts and for nothing more than feeble attempts to say he was right. Once you have lost your integrity, it is not easily earned back. I simply don't want someone with a record of posting purposefully dishonestly on this site representing us, particularly when it is the unfettered truth that we seek. You may have a different experience with Larry in person. That is something to which I cannot speak.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
LIAYF is a conservative who likely has or had an issue with Dem's politics at some point. Makes a lot more sense when viewed in that context, right? Ignore him.
If only the professionals would have done their job in 1998... or when Sandusky adopted many times... or throughout Sandusky's tenure at TSM... we wouldn't be a quarter of a billion in the hole. Oh... and even more importantly, there would be less risk of this happening to other children. Glad to see where your priorities lie.
The best you can do is say that LS implied racism on someone's part. That's your judgement; maybe others might disagree with you. Maybe it's because, as Midnighter has said, that the two of you are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, who knows? But your strongly implied means nothing, it's just your opinion. By using strongly implied you're admitting that to your knowledge LS has never point blank called anyone a racist on this board, and here you are now bitching about Larry saying he's never called anyone a racist on this board. Seriously? You want to hang someone based just on your opinion? The majority of us have a PSU education and we have no problem thinking our way through complex issues; spotting bullshit comes easy to us.
Just to play Devil's advocate here:
I have no idea what Lubrano's politics are, maybe I could figure it out easily with a little research... but he doesn't allude to his preferred political party in his screen name, he doesn't come here to discuss politics, he doesn't make it part of the equation.
Hope you are correct Tom, but I have been disappointed by the A-9. Now Dem is out, sounds like David M. is out, Ryan is a maybe. I understand the logic of fighting battles you can win but for many of us who never paid attention to the BoT it is important to at least give appearances occasionally and quite honestly I haven't seen that recently.
Understandably a stretch but I am struck on this MLK day that sometimes people need to fight battles they may not win just to demonstrate the importance of an issue.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I'm saying one poster likely got into disagreements with dem about issues related to politics and formed his opinion about him as a fair and trustworthy candidate on that basis alone. That is all.
I'll add that I respect A Lubrano, but I am not him. I do things my way. Not your cup of tea? So what? This ain't about you OR me. It is about what is best for PSU. If what Lukie thinks about me is dispositive, I lose anyway. Moreover, not interested.in representing him in any event. He deserves what he got in November 2011. It's the rest of us I care about.
Last edited:
Laughable coming from the guy who has tried to post stuff from Breitbart as if it was a legitimate news organization.
I understand, all I'm saying is that right or wrong, people form opinions based on what you put out there.
I have never posted from Breitbart of which I am aware. Care to quote even one post where I have done so? I don't go to Breitbart for news.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Of course. I don't go to Breitbart. I don't listen to conservative radio. Yet because I hold mostly conservative views I'm constantly being accused of this as a means to sidestep the actual argument. When you are losing the argument and have no other recourse, you tend to personally attack the other person. Some defer to this tactic immediately because they know that they can't present a logical argument.
So yet again, another accusation that has no basis in reality.
Nominate Ryan Bagwell anyway, whether he asks for it or not. He has done more on his own than everyone but a number of individuals that can be counted on only one hand. Draft him.
Good chance I'm moving back to the area. I have military background, I'm a 2007 alum, and I am a physician. What does a position on the BOT entail?
I feel like some common sense and a good work ethic could make a difference.
I feel like some common sense and a good work ethic could make a difference.
Not in your world, I'm sure. The fact that I don't have it doesn't make it a fiction. This wasn't -and isn't-about politics to me. My point was that if you're going to call somebody a liar you ought to have established a reputation as somebody who tells the truth.
Your post defies logic. First you have accused me of posting something from Breitbart while another liberal poster has since told you that this was TJ that you are thinking of. But you have brushed this off and claim that I don't have a reputation of telling the truth apparently because I hold mostly conservative views? You are just not making any sense.
I missed the post saying it was TJ. I owe you an apology, I did think it was you but apparently I was mistaken- please accept my apology.
I would request that you say 'aw hell, I change my mind. I'm running.'
Go for it please.
LOL! GMJ, you bring your brand of silliness to every thread you post on. 1500+ times over the past 5 years your: "They didn't go to police" faux argument has been busted out of the water with facts.
The info will be public soon enough.
Candidates have a tendency to like to control when and where their message is delivered. It would be inappropriate for me to jump the gun, and speak before they wish to go public.
No one can until the PSUBOT reform bill gets sprung out of hiding by Senators Corman and Scarnati. But they can make a huge difference, and already have.
I applaud Demlion for his assistance with the review of the Freeh source material. He has been a big help.
Louis Freeh deceived us all-- but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. And, in my opinion, Barry is spot on when he points to governance as the BOT's greatest failings. But the solution lies outside the boardroom.
Sadly, the BOT has no interest in true reform.
Litigation is costly and time consuming. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only approach that gets anyone's attention.
We sued to gain access to the unredacted Freeh source materials-- and we won without exception. But the review has been slow and methodical.
The tortoise won the race, not the hare.
Louis Freeh deceived us all-- but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. And, in my opinion, Barry is spot on when he points to governance as the BOT's greatest failings. But the solution lies outside the boardroom.
Sadly, the BOT has no interest in true reform.
Litigation is costly and time consuming. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only approach that gets anyone's attention.
We sued to gain access to the unredacted Freeh source materials-- and we won without exception. But the review has been slow and methodical.
The tortoise won the race, not the hare.
Larry. I completely understand where you are coming from. Most of us have personal and professional lives that make it next to impossible to make a 100% commitment to an endeavor such as this.
Just the fact that you offered your assistance in the review of the Freeh Report is enough for me to be convinced of your seriousness, loyalty, and commitment to make Penn State a better place. I think we all owe you a debt of "Thanks" for your efforts. If you ever DO decide to run for BOT in the future, you will have my full support. Good luck with whatever you decide going onward!
As for all those who complain as to why we aren't hearing more about the conclusions of the Freeh review, I have the fullest confidence that the people that did the Review will let us know what the conclusions are when the time is right. There is a time and place for everything. With all the litigation that is flying around left and right, it is best right now to be patient. I have a hunch there is still a LONG way to go in this thing.
