I am somewhat surprised that Dem has neither provided any comment on the Freeh Report (as I believe he said he was going to), or responded to the many posts questioning why he went silent on the subject. I do not understand it.
Trustees walked out on Lubrano today
- Thread starter Richard the LIONhearted
- Start date
13 I believe, not counting one missed altogether in 2006. The first 3 of 2011are included in that 13.
I think he earned the right to go out on his own terms. That said, he was definitely a bit selfish in pursuing the record.
He kept getting injured doing basic things that are required to be a head coach. Without the record I doubt Paterno puts himself in that situation.
JMO.
First, we never made any such deal with Ira.
Second, the 50th Anniversary celebration was organized by Sue Paterno and the letterman without the assistance of PSU. In fact, they did not require the university's help. Medlar Field is leased to a third party that has operating control of the venue.
Finally, Ira's primary goal as we saw it was to resolve the Paterno dispute. He did not although he could have orchestrated that resolution. He chose not to. Shame on me for ever thinking he would.
In July, 2012, when Rod Erickson asked each Board member for his/her thoughts on the Paterno statue, Ira's response was to suggest the statue remain. However, he thought a sign should be placed at the statue with the statement, "With the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more."
Because his previous words will look completely stupid if he now tells what he knows?
Who wants to come out after all he said and then say, "Freeh was being a judgmental, sanctimonious prick, but essentially, his facts are correct, and there don't appear to be any significant additional facts out there."
Who wants to say that?
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the the term "fiduciary duty."
Penn State needs its alumni base to support it with their time, talents and treasures. With such a divided alumni community, we need to. Ring them together. Recognizing Joe Paterno's 61 years of service, in my view, would do just that.
I feel no shame for thinking Ira Lubert actually wanted to achieve the same objective. Nonetheless, I was wrong in that belief.
I'm just surprised that you trusted him. From our point of view, he seems like the last guy on earth that could be trusted, particularly with how badly he had treated the alumni trustees up to that point already. He would seem to be eminently untrustworthy.
What part do you think isn't correct or is irrational? I think that Dem had one view that he was very vocal about going in, and upon seeing all the facts, now has a very different view.
You tried. Better than 99% of us did. Good for you.
I do wish you would state as simply as possible, what additional facts, IF ANY, you've come across.
Recognizing Joe's 61 years is just a small part of bringing alums together.
We hike on in search of the truth...and we want those BOT members and their cronies exposed and held accountable for their self-serving betrayal of OUR university.
Unfortunately, absolute power and money corrupts absolutely. There are now two parallel, never intersecting, paths: (1) a corrupt, mutual admiration BOT society who will continue to serve their own interests at the expense of OUR university (2) and a much larger in number real Penn State community whose lives will swell the fame of PSU. Success with Honor will thrive.
The members of the BOT and the individuals who empower them can not and will not ever understand the ideals of values-based servant leadership.
Seriously? That any member of the BOT or PSU admin wanted to use those words in that way speaks volumes to the craven leadership infesting the university.
Louis Freeh is a fraud.
I continue to review the materials.
Patience is not my strong suit the same, I suspect, as most on this board. Nevertheless, please be patient. Unlike Freeh, I'm actually looking at ALL the material.
Measure twice but cut once.
Sorry for such a cryptic response.
As cryptic a response as that was, and as cynical as most of us are, we appreciate your efforts. Hopefully they will bear fruit eventually to justify what you have gone through at the hands of those assholes.
Facts? Freeh himself has already admitted that his conclusions are opinion-based, not fact-based. His statements regarding Paterno directly conclict with the lead OAG Prosecutor, Fina's, statement that he is unaware of even any evidence that Paterno did anything wrong whatsoever.
Thanks Mr. Lubrano, I continue to hope we will win in the end. I know it's coming, everyone will call me naive, stupid or probably worse! These despicable skunks may steal my school but they will not steal my soul. Thanks again.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
You would be mistaken.
No, but I don't want to comment on the efforts of any others.
Ira's suggestion for the plaque tells me all that I need to know about him. He's a sanctimonious coward just like the rest of them.
This is the single most repeated and memorable phrase used on this board from several "sources" since November 2011. And it just never dies.
Last edited:
Was he in favor of memorializing all the hypocritical BOT Members who were the actual supporters and enablers of Sandusky and his FRAUDULENT Personal Charity specifically repeatedly using PSU Assets and Resources to enable him? Things such as effectively deeding over 40 Acres of PSU Land adjacent to the campus in April 2002 directly after PSU's highest-ranking Officers running the day-to-day operations of PSU's Campus (which is a recognized independent, unincorporated "PA municipality") had TERMINATED JS's right to bring his personal charity on campus AND notified The Charity they were kicked off campus, so Sandusky could build the massive "Campus HQ - Education, Athletic Infrastructure including dorms Center" ("Victim Factory" according to no less than the PA OAG) that he'd always dreamed of??? Or Trustee Ira Lubert himself allowing to Sandusky to use his Properties to host Summer Camps for years and years (as well as serving on the Board of one of Sandusky's Second Mile Boards)????
And if you think so, then you are mistaken.
The cryptic responses are your weak spot. People take them to mean one of two things.
I have something, but can't say because of politics/law issues.
I don't have anything, so I want to delay while I keep building my case.
If 1 is true, fine. But remember, if it isn't, you eventually end up looking bad if you can't come up with the goods.
If 2 is true, also fine. But you will be amazed at the people who will defend honesty, even if it is not what they want to hear.
So, if the word is "there are really no new facts", I think you should say so and if you're continuing to look, say that as well.
Please feel free to enlighten us. I am fine with being wrong. But if you simply say there's some mysterious "thing to come later" that will show me wrong...well, that's why so many have lost faith on this board.
So late in the game, few even care any longer about whatever "facts" are introduced.
The public's view is cemented.
The bastards are winning still or have already won.
The public's view is cemented.
The bastards are winning still or have already won.
I don't speak for @demlion, but I have spoken with him. And he won't be addressing this subject until he gets the green light to do so.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I believe the problem here for some was a lack of communication not that every step needs to be accounted and published here. I believe some thought the review of materials had been over for awhile now and nothing stated publically. When in fact they are still reviewing the materials.
The latter. And all of the delaying and waiting for "green lights" certainly did nothing to help the cause. Absolutely none of this matters at this point. Heck, even I don't care what information they have any more.
I care about the information. The truth has value all its own.
Waiting for more than a couple years for a "green light"?
Who is withholding the "green light"?
It is tough to understand how it can take so long to review the Freeh review and associated documents.
