The numbers just keep piling up... Thanks BOT
- Thread starter bwifan
- Start date
Philly.com is still in the business of fabricating its own facts.
The figures reported Wednesday don't include a recent $2.4 million fine by the U.S. Department of Education over the university's handling of sex abuse allegations against Sandusky.
Let the university burn at this point - who cares. Here's hoping philly.com burns as well.
This entire article is a total fiction. The "Sandusky oversights" committed by Penn State were NOT as headlined and reported by Philly.com.
Of the $2.4M in fines - $27,000 is what was "fined" as a result of PSU's handling of the Sandusky matter! The majority of the fines (over $2M) are the result of 2008-2011 issues with record keeping - PAPERWORK irregularities!!!! .This is something 99% of all Universities would fail.
The authors of this KNOW that what is being reported to the public is WRONG! WHY???? The entire article is beyond misleading - in total, it is a total factual fabrication! WHY???
Can't wait until they add in Mike's settlement, plus any other future ones against Freeh.
Philly.com has to keep the narrative going.... I have yet to see much of any type of truth or fact come out of this rag...
I suggest a 2nd grade vocabulary and writing course for you first....
That's why I will no longer give a dime to the University .
All they will do is use it to settle a claim vs fighting some sleazy people looking for a cheap payday
Last edited:
By now ALL Penn Staters should be EXPERT on how corrupt the media is and how the media reports ONLY what meets an agenda which (I believe) is SOLD like Pork Bellies on the commodity market.
If media "gets it right" it is only the result of the law of large numbers!
Here we see a media source which has been "bought" by someone (Lupert could be one of them) and has AGAIN reported NON-TRUTHS to the public as a means of promoting a "Criminal Penn State" image. This image was created to cover REAL crimes and would only continue so obviously 5+years later if the threat of exposing these crimes did not still exist.
The problem we still have is:
- the Politically connected and controlled BOT STILL is the legal entity which can speak for Penn State officially and they continue to promote actions which enforce a highly negative public image. This is the LAW protecting the CROOKS! AND.... PLEASE...do not make excuses for the actions of the BOT - EVERY "strange" action by our BOT is carefully and PROFESSIONALLY assisted - this is the by-product of too much State of PA political ties and therefore access to corrupt portions of PA government. We need to accept this piece of reality!!!
- Media will NOT publish anything to the public which exposes the CRIMINALITY of those who actually created the "Penn State Scandal". They may not be the direct crooks...but they are driving the get-away car!! They are a major part of the criminality of those who created this public illusion of "Criminal Football".
- Our State government and its protection agencies - legal and criminal - are corrupted to a point where the assist - IF NOT CONTINUOUSLY CREATE - the public cover that hides real crimes from the public. This continuing abuse of power is required because by making the public believe that "we got the criminals.... Penn State Football...... the public needs to NOT look any further"!!! This is another "get-away" driver in this scandal.
As long as the corrupt court system in PA is the only "official" source of information on "THE TRUTH", the media will report any fiction its wants and the "Story" will continue as "Public Truth".
It will be years before more details of the absurdity of the allegations promoted by the OAG crimes become public...that is why it is a "PROFESSIONAL" crime of collusion. Unfortunately.... all of this is just the facts.
I keep reading that here but no one has linked me evidence of its truth. I've looked more than once and couldn't find any but I'm not much of a Googler. Ira could have influence on editorial content without any official capacity.
Think there is absence of malice in their reporting? Doubtful! Should be easy to prove they ignored the facts. Short of that their ignorance and their journalism school should be exposed publicly. Ignorance is unacceptable, stupidity is expected, dishonesty is criminal
Can you spell "Malicious Intent"....Civil Charges in a court of law go up by ???Can you GUESS??? Percentage.
Remember, this article was based upon a public document that CLEARLY SPELLED OUT that Sandusky was NOT a major contributor to the "fines" Penn State was assessed!!! To report that the entire fine was the result of Sandusky crimes and Penn State's negligence in handling the Sandusky situation to the public can have no other legal interpretation than MALICE!
Last edited:
Claims of malice are more effective when you spell the word malice correctly.
Reminds me of the Woody Allen character in Take the Money and Run. He attempted to rob a bank but the note he gave to the teller, 'I have a gun', was read by her to read 'I have a gub'. An argument ensued about whether the note said gun or gub. Was that last letter an n or a b? All the tellers and even the bank manager got involved. Gun or gub, they couldn't agree. The Woody Allen character left the bank more convinced than ever that he was a failure.
Good story on a sad comment applying to posting here....Lessons in Spelling/grammar/typing/presentation style are not the purpose of anyone's post - the intent is the meaningful exchange of IDEAS and comments.
Based upon your posting, this core concept "illudes" (eludes) you. Please feel free to down grade this post based upon any typing/spelling issues and ignore the content. You failed to provide your comments on the content
For the future, I will try to refocus away from content/opinions and instead target improving the multitude of irrelevant technical presentation details which occur in posting. Need to improve my "test grades" obtained here.
Better yet, try improving your disposition. I notice that you made the correction. Which reminds me of the novel, 'The Corrections', by Jonathan Franzen. It's excellent. Give it a try.
