ADVERTISEMENT

Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

Simmons blew right through that...I don't think he even referenced it...just tried to change the subject to something else when Gladwell brought it up. Interesting that a sports commentator would spend more time on Cuban spies than on Paterno.

Deadspin has to be one of the worst rags out there. Tom Ley of Deadspin shows his ignorance in his review of Bill Simmons's interview of Malcolm Gladwell. He thinks he knows what exactly happened when he doesn't know anything. Paterno absolutely was not given a vivid description of child rape!
---------------

There’s no good reason to consider Malcolm Gladwell a serious writer or thinker anymore, thanks in large part to the things Gladwell continues to write and think. Despite this, he was allowed to write a new book—if you want to know more about it, I suggest clicking on this review in The Atlantic and doing a Ctrl+F search for “poets die young”—the press tour for which brought him to Bill Simmons’s podcast. There, while receiving no pushback from Simmons, he deployed a truly dogshit defense of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

Gladwell’s never been very rigorous in constructing his arguments and theories, but he possesses enough rhetorical flair that you would at least expect him to come up with a novel argument about Paterno, and one that could at least sound true and convincing for the three-second interval before you actually started thinking it over. But no, Gladwell couldn’t even give us that. His argument that Paterno was wrongfully blamed for not having done anything to stop Jerry Sandusky from raping children is as old and simple and small-brained as such arguments get. From the podcast (the conversation starts about the 50-minute mark):

Gladwell: You know I have that chapter on Jerry Sandusky in my book, and it’s all about how I feel the leadership of Penn State was totally, outrageously attacked over this. I think they’re blameless.

Simmons: Yeah.

Gladwell: But with Joe Paterno... Joe Paterno essentially did nothing wrong. He hears the allegation and immediately tells his superiors, and the critique of Joe Paterno was essentially, “Why was a 75-year-old football coach not behaving towards a suspected pedophile with the savvy and insight of a psychiatrist?”

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He’s a football coach! He doesn’t even know what the word—there was this hilarious—[regretful sigh] hilarious—there was this moment in, I think one of the trial transcripts, where someone was asked, “Did you use, when you went to”—the quarterback who goes to Paterno, McQueary, the former quarterback, goes to Paterno to tell him this allegation—“Did you use the word sodomy?” And he’s like, “No I didn’t use the word sodomy.” And then there’s this sort of thing, I think, where they’re wondering whether Paterno actually knew what the word sodomy was [laughing].

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He doesn’t! He’s been thinking football 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 60 years. He is not going to be alert to the darkness inside the heart of one of his former coaches. You can’t ask him to do that. That’s why you have mental health professionals or fit, trained psychologists in the world to handle those kind of problems. We do this thing sometimes when a crisis happens, when we suddenly expect our leaders to be skilled at absolutely every job under the sun. They’re not.

Gladwell isn’t doing anything here that Joe Posnanski and Sally Jenkins didn’t already do years ago, which is to excuse Paterno’s failure to call the cops by rendering him as a doddering old simpleton who couldn’t possibly be expected to understand or properly respond to being told that his longtime assistant coach was seen raping a boy in the Penn State showers. It only holds water if you believe that old people are children, and that football coaches are incapable of understanding anything other than football.

If Gladwell has added anything to this standard defense of Paterno, it’s his willingness to move the goalposts a few hundred yards down the field. At what point in time was the critique of Paterno based on the fact that he didn’t respond to what Mike McQueary described to him with the “savvy and insight of a psychiatrist”? As far as anyone who is not compelled to make up a bunch of dumb bullshit for the sake of writing and selling a book is concerned, the critique of Paterno has always been that he should have called the ****ing cops.

Gladwell tries to go in for some of his signature pop-psychology razzle-dazzle at the end of his rant, pivoting away from the very basic set of undisputed facts that he’s half-heartedly tried to muddy up—Joe Paterno was confronted with a vivid description of child rape carried out by one of his former assistant coaches and did not alert the police—and into some deep thinking about what We As A Society expect from our leaders. The fact that he’s even trying this song and dance with something as plainly obvious as Joe Paterno’s moral failure is as good of evidence as anything else in his book that he’s completely out of ideas.

https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwell-goes-on-bill-simmonss-podcast-to-dust-1838218193
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
Not arguing here, just curious. Do you think the following could possibly explain Jerry's behaviors?

Had Sandusky testified, he could have explained the aspects of his behavior that some parents and even some children found “creepy.” He had spent much of his youth living on the second floor of a recreation center managed by his father, himself a charitable man who cared about helping underprivileged children. Jerry had wanted to emulate him in every way. In Art Sandusky’s facility, communal showers and prankish romping after exercise had been routine. The roughhousing had been play, but it had also offered a heartening, asexual token of solidarity between athletically inclined men and boys. Even Jerry’s most unsettling practice, squeezing the knees of a boy passenger in a car, was inherited from his father. It meant something like “Don’t forget that you can rely on my support.” As Jerry’s son Jon, now Director of Player Personnel for the Cleveland Browns, has commented,

[My father’s] whole picture of the world was stuck in the 1950s and 1960s, with no concept of what was politically correct or what is taboo nowadays…. To him, horsing around in the shower, snapping towels or throwing soap wasn’t out of the realm of normality…. But people’s view of the world is different now…. I don’t think he really understood that.

No. The communal shower thing is not the issue. It was showering alone with children and having physical contact with them. It’s never been OK. I don’t know any man-whether they grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc...- that thinks that is OK to do. I think that is something people point to when they want to believe he did not do these things.
 
No. The communal shower thing is not the issue. It was showering alone with children and having physical contact with them. It’s never been OK. I don’t know any man-whether they grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc...- that thinks that is OK to do. I think that is something people point to when they want to believe he did not do these things.
"Not OK" =/= sexual.
"Not OK" =/= criminal
 
Deadspin has to be one of the worst rags out there. Tom Ley of Deadspin shows his ignorance in his review of Bill Simmons' interview of Malcolm Gladwell. He think he know what exactly happened when he doesn't know anything. Paterno absolutely was not given a vivid description of child rape!
---------------

There’s no good reason to consider Malcolm Gladwell a serious writer or thinker anymore, thanks in large part to the things Gladwell continues to write and think. Despite this, he was allowed to write a new book—if you want to know more about it, I suggest clicking on this review in The Atlantic and doing a Ctrl+F search for “poets die young”—the press tour for which brought him to Bill Simmons’s podcast. There, while receiving no pushback from Simmons, he deployed a truly dogshit defense of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

Gladwell’s never been very rigorous in constructing his arguments and theories, but he possesses enough rhetorical flair that you would at least expect him to come up with a novel argument about Paterno, and one that could at least sound true and convincing for the three-second interval before you actually started thinking it over. But no, Gladwell couldn’t even give us that. His argument that Paterno was wrongfully blamed for not having done anything to stop Jerry Sandusky from raping children is as old and simple and small-brained as such arguments get. From the podcast (the conversation starts about the 50-minute mark):

Gladwell: You know I have that chapter on Jerry Sandusky in my book, and it’s all about how I feel the leadership of Penn State was totally, outrageously attacked over this. I think they’re blameless.

Simmons: Yeah.

Gladwell: But with Joe Paterno... Joe Paterno essentially did nothing wrong. He hears the allegation and immediately tells his superiors, and the critique of Joe Paterno was essentially, “Why was a 75-year-old football coach not behaving towards a suspected pedophile with the savvy and insight of a psychiatrist?”

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He’s a football coach! He doesn’t even know what the word—there was this hilarious—[regretful sigh] hilarious—there was this moment in, I think one of the trial transcripts, where someone was asked, “Did you use, when you went to”—the quarterback who goes to Paterno, McQueary, the former quarterback, goes to Paterno to tell him this allegation—“Did you use the word sodomy?” And he’s like, “No I didn’t use the word sodomy.” And then there’s this sort of thing, I think, where they’re wondering whether Paterno actually knew what the word sodomy was [laughing].

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He doesn’t! He’s been thinking football 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 60 years. He is not going to be alert to the darkness inside the heart of one of his former coaches. You can’t ask him to do that. That’s why you have mental health professionals or fit, trained psychologists in the world to handle those kind of problems. We do this thing sometimes when a crisis happens, when we suddenly expect our leaders to be skilled at absolutely every job under the sun. They’re not.

Gladwell isn’t doing anything here that Joe Posnanski and Sally Jenkins didn’t already do years ago, which is to excuse Paterno’s failure to call the cops by rendering him as a doddering old simpleton who couldn’t possibly be expected to understand or properly respond to being told that his longtime assistant coach was seen raping a boy in the Penn State showers. It only holds water if you believe that old people are children, and that football coaches are incapable of understanding anything other than football.

If Gladwell has added anything to this standard defense of Paterno, it’s his willingness to move the goalposts a few hundred yards down the field. At what point in time was the critique of Paterno based on the fact that he didn’t respond to what Mike McQueary described to him with the “savvy and insight of a psychiatrist”? As far as anyone who is not compelled to make up a bunch of dumb bullshit for the sake of writing and selling a book is concerned, the critique of Paterno has always been that he should have called the ****ing cops.

Gladwell tries to go in for some of his signature pop-psychology razzle-dazzle at the end of his rant, pivoting away from the very basic set of undisputed facts that he’s half-heartedly tried to muddy up—Joe Paterno was confronted with a vivid description of child rape carried out by one of his former assistant coaches and did not alert the police—and into some deep thinking about what We As A Society expect from our leaders. The fact that he’s even trying this song and dance with something as plainly obvious as Joe Paterno’s moral failure is as good of evidence as anything else in his book that he’s completely out of ideas.

https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwell-goes-on-bill-simmonss-podcast-to-dust-1838218193

This Deadspin moron is the equivalent of someone walking in on an astronomers conference and trying to argue geocentrism.

On the bright side, I don’t think the site has been relevant since 2013 and I’m surprised it still even exists.
 
Last edited:
Deadspin has to be one of the worst rags out there. Tom Ley of Deadspin shows his ignorance in his review of Bill Simmons's interview of Malcolm Gladwell. He thinks he knows what exactly happened when he doesn't know anything. Paterno absolutely was not given a vivid description of child rape!
---------------

There’s no good reason to consider Malcolm Gladwell a serious writer or thinker anymore, thanks in large part to the things Gladwell continues to write and think. Despite this, he was allowed to write a new book—if you want to know more about it, I suggest clicking on this review in The Atlantic and doing a Ctrl+F search for “poets die young”—the press tour for which brought him to Bill Simmons’s podcast. There, while receiving no pushback from Simmons, he deployed a truly dogshit defense of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

Gladwell’s never been very rigorous in constructing his arguments and theories, but he possesses enough rhetorical flair that you would at least expect him to come up with a novel argument about Paterno, and one that could at least sound true and convincing for the three-second interval before you actually started thinking it over. But no, Gladwell couldn’t even give us that. His argument that Paterno was wrongfully blamed for not having done anything to stop Jerry Sandusky from raping children is as old and simple and small-brained as such arguments get. From the podcast (the conversation starts about the 50-minute mark):

Gladwell: You know I have that chapter on Jerry Sandusky in my book, and it’s all about how I feel the leadership of Penn State was totally, outrageously attacked over this. I think they’re blameless.

Simmons: Yeah.

Gladwell: But with Joe Paterno... Joe Paterno essentially did nothing wrong. He hears the allegation and immediately tells his superiors, and the critique of Joe Paterno was essentially, “Why was a 75-year-old football coach not behaving towards a suspected pedophile with the savvy and insight of a psychiatrist?”

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He’s a football coach! He doesn’t even know what the word—there was this hilarious—[regretful sigh] hilarious—there was this moment in, I think one of the trial transcripts, where someone was asked, “Did you use, when you went to”—the quarterback who goes to Paterno, McQueary, the former quarterback, goes to Paterno to tell him this allegation—“Did you use the word sodomy?” And he’s like, “No I didn’t use the word sodomy.” And then there’s this sort of thing, I think, where they’re wondering whether Paterno actually knew what the word sodomy was [laughing].

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He doesn’t! He’s been thinking football 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 60 years. He is not going to be alert to the darkness inside the heart of one of his former coaches. You can’t ask him to do that. That’s why you have mental health professionals or fit, trained psychologists in the world to handle those kind of problems. We do this thing sometimes when a crisis happens, when we suddenly expect our leaders to be skilled at absolutely every job under the sun. They’re not.

Gladwell isn’t doing anything here that Joe Posnanski and Sally Jenkins didn’t already do years ago, which is to excuse Paterno’s failure to call the cops by rendering him as a doddering old simpleton who couldn’t possibly be expected to understand or properly respond to being told that his longtime assistant coach was seen raping a boy in the Penn State showers. It only holds water if you believe that old people are children, and that football coaches are incapable of understanding anything other than football.

If Gladwell has added anything to this standard defense of Paterno, it’s his willingness to move the goalposts a few hundred yards down the field. At what point in time was the critique of Paterno based on the fact that he didn’t respond to what Mike McQueary described to him with the “savvy and insight of a psychiatrist”? As far as anyone who is not compelled to make up a bunch of dumb bullshit for the sake of writing and selling a book is concerned, the critique of Paterno has always been that he should have called the ****ing cops.

Gladwell tries to go in for some of his signature pop-psychology razzle-dazzle at the end of his rant, pivoting away from the very basic set of undisputed facts that he’s half-heartedly tried to muddy up—Joe Paterno was confronted with a vivid description of child rape carried out by one of his former assistant coaches and did not alert the police—and into some deep thinking about what We As A Society expect from our leaders. The fact that he’s even trying this song and dance with something as plainly obvious as Joe Paterno’s moral failure is as good of evidence as anything else in his book that he’s completely out of ideas.

https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwell-goes-on-bill-simmonss-podcast-to-dust-1838218193

Worthless!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
No. The communal shower thing is not the issue. It was showering alone with children and having physical contact with them. It’s never been OK. I don’t know any man-whether they grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc...- that thinks that is OK to do. I think that is something people point to when they want to believe he did not do these things.
You miss the point. Nobody cared what happened in the shower because nobody thought Sandusky capable of sexually abusing a child. What they did care about was the potential "downside" should Sandusky be alone with a boy in the PSU facilities and he later accuse Jerry of CSA. It was the he said/he said scenario they were trying to avoid because PSU would be the deep pockets. Read the notes and emails. It's all there.
 
You miss the point. Nobody cared what happened in the shower because nobody thought Sandusky capable of sexually abusing a child. What they did care about was the potential "downside" should Sandusky be alone with a boy in the PSU facilities and he later accuse Jerry of CSA. It was the he said/he said scenario they were trying to avoid because PSU would be the deep pockets. Read the notes and emails. It's all there.

That’s not even the point being discussed Indy.
 
I don't know what kind of readership Deadspin has, but....


Deadspin used to have some relevance at the beginning of the decade because they were the outlet to break the Brett Favre penis pics scandal and the revelation that Manti Teo’s dead girlfriend was fake. But the only thing they have been known for in recent years have been several attempts at political smears that ended up being embarrassing failures.
 
Deadspin used to have some relevance at the beginning of the decade because they were the outlet to break the Brett Favre penis pics scandal and the revelation that Manti Teo’s dead girlfriend was fake. But the only thing they have been known for in recent years have been several attempts at political smears that ended up being embarrassing failures.
Deadspin is mostly a humor site (i.e. humorous columns on sports and pop culture) rather than a news site. However, they still like to try to demonstrate at every turn how "woke" they are. It's really gotten bad.
 
The problem is it is now impossible to be both humorous and “woke”, and that is why deadspin is failing.

I still browse Deadspin now and then, but they refuse to budge on anything remotely resembling an exoneration for Joe (they really don't care about anything else wrt this story). A Google search of their Penn State coverage reveals they've dedicated about 1/100th of the same energy to Michigan State and Ohio State.
 
I still browse Deadspin now and then, but they refuse to budge on anything remotely resembling an exoneration for Joe (they really don't care about anything else wrt this story). A Google search of their Penn State coverage reveals they've dedicated about 1/100th of the same energy to Michigan State and Ohio State.

I actually expected them to go after Ohio State because of the alleged involvement of Republican congressman Jim Jordan. But that whole scandal is mostly BS as well. A doctor supposedly sexually abuses hundreds of college football players and wrestlers but never gets his ass kicked. The truth is the “victims” were just guy’s uncomfortable being examined by a gay doctor, so maybe that’s why Deadspin doesn’t want to touch it.

By the way, I’m not saying Strauss was innocent. There does appear to be legit cases of guys allowing him to touch them in exchange for drugs. But they were consenting adults and I’m not going to shed any tears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Deadspin has to be one of the worst rags out there. Tom Ley of Deadspin shows his ignorance in his review of Bill Simmons's interview of Malcolm Gladwell. He thinks he knows what exactly happened when he doesn't know anything. Paterno absolutely was not given a vivid description of child rape!
---------------

There’s no good reason to consider Malcolm Gladwell a serious writer or thinker anymore, thanks in large part to the things Gladwell continues to write and think. Despite this, he was allowed to write a new book—if you want to know more about it, I suggest clicking on this review in The Atlantic and doing a Ctrl+F search for “poets die young”—the press tour for which brought him to Bill Simmons’s podcast. There, while receiving no pushback from Simmons, he deployed a truly dogshit defense of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

Gladwell’s never been very rigorous in constructing his arguments and theories, but he possesses enough rhetorical flair that you would at least expect him to come up with a novel argument about Paterno, and one that could at least sound true and convincing for the three-second interval before you actually started thinking it over. But no, Gladwell couldn’t even give us that. His argument that Paterno was wrongfully blamed for not having done anything to stop Jerry Sandusky from raping children is as old and simple and small-brained as such arguments get. From the podcast (the conversation starts about the 50-minute mark):

Gladwell: You know I have that chapter on Jerry Sandusky in my book, and it’s all about how I feel the leadership of Penn State was totally, outrageously attacked over this. I think they’re blameless.

Simmons: Yeah.

Gladwell: But with Joe Paterno... Joe Paterno essentially did nothing wrong. He hears the allegation and immediately tells his superiors, and the critique of Joe Paterno was essentially, “Why was a 75-year-old football coach not behaving towards a suspected pedophile with the savvy and insight of a psychiatrist?”

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He’s a football coach! He doesn’t even know what the word—there was this hilarious—[regretful sigh] hilarious—there was this moment in, I think one of the trial transcripts, where someone was asked, “Did you use, when you went to”—the quarterback who goes to Paterno, McQueary, the former quarterback, goes to Paterno to tell him this allegation—“Did you use the word sodomy?” And he’s like, “No I didn’t use the word sodomy.” And then there’s this sort of thing, I think, where they’re wondering whether Paterno actually knew what the word sodomy was [laughing].

Simmons: Right.

Gladwell: He doesn’t! He’s been thinking football 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 60 years. He is not going to be alert to the darkness inside the heart of one of his former coaches. You can’t ask him to do that. That’s why you have mental health professionals or fit, trained psychologists in the world to handle those kind of problems. We do this thing sometimes when a crisis happens, when we suddenly expect our leaders to be skilled at absolutely every job under the sun. They’re not.

Gladwell isn’t doing anything here that Joe Posnanski and Sally Jenkins didn’t already do years ago, which is to excuse Paterno’s failure to call the cops by rendering him as a doddering old simpleton who couldn’t possibly be expected to understand or properly respond to being told that his longtime assistant coach was seen raping a boy in the Penn State showers. It only holds water if you believe that old people are children, and that football coaches are incapable of understanding anything other than football.

If Gladwell has added anything to this standard defense of Paterno, it’s his willingness to move the goalposts a few hundred yards down the field. At what point in time was the critique of Paterno based on the fact that he didn’t respond to what Mike McQueary described to him with the “savvy and insight of a psychiatrist”? As far as anyone who is not compelled to make up a bunch of dumb bullshit for the sake of writing and selling a book is concerned, the critique of Paterno has always been that he should have called the ****ing cops.

Gladwell tries to go in for some of his signature pop-psychology razzle-dazzle at the end of his rant, pivoting away from the very basic set of undisputed facts that he’s half-heartedly tried to muddy up—Joe Paterno was confronted with a vivid description of child rape carried out by one of his former assistant coaches and did not alert the police—and into some deep thinking about what We As A Society expect from our leaders. The fact that he’s even trying this song and dance with something as plainly obvious as Joe Paterno’s moral failure is as good of evidence as anything else in his book that he’s completely out of ideas.

https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwell-goes-on-bill-simmonss-podcast-to-dust-1838218193

I know MM spoke with Paterno about Sandusky molesting a child but I didn't know you were present during that conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I still browse Deadspin now and then, but they refuse to budge on anything remotely resembling an exoneration for Joe (they really don't care about anything else wrt this story). A Google search of their Penn State coverage reveals they've dedicated about 1/100th of the same energy to Michigan State and Ohio State.
Various sources will never exonerate Joe, it's a dead issue. Hell the NYT screws up and they barely acknowledge their mess up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
I normally ignore you because you are such a horse’s ass, but to further state the obvious, you weren’t there either.

As in everyone here. the parties over and the lights have been out for years. The only place this lives on is here in what I would call fan fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
As in everyone here. the parties over and the lights have been out for years. The only place this lives on is here in what I would call fan fiction.
Yep, the only place that this lives in on is here. And in Gladwell's book (which is currently #1 on the NYT Bestseller list). And in the Wall Street Journal.

Please see yourself out.
 
Yep, the only place that this lives in on is here. And in Gladwell's book (which is currently #1 on the NYT Bestseller list). And in the Wall Street Journal.

Please see yourself out.
Fan fiction for the deluded. Some will be fooled by such folk, but some get two heads ups and do nothing causing a huge crisis when it finally blows up. Gladwell proves nothing in this case, but carry on. This has no traction outside of this place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Fan fiction for the deluded. Some will be fooled by such folk, but some get two heads ups and do nothing causing a huge crisis when it finally blows up. Gladwell proves nothing in this case, but carry on. This has no traction outside of this place.
Yes, the Wall Street Journal's new business plan is to cater to us "deluded few" to boost their subscription sales.

Moron.
 
Yes, the Wall Street Journal's new business plan is to cater to us "deluded few" to boost their subscription sales.

Moron.

I'm not the guy leading the charge for you and your deluded buddies, but carry on. Come get me when something out there changes and these fellows are exonerated and Jerry is declared innocent. Jerry did it, and they knew about it.

Moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Except it's pretty clear that's not what Mike said to Joe. But carry on.

Clear to who? Clear to those who wish it so? If I remember correctly,even Paterno said MM described "something sexual in nature" When an adult is doing "something sexual in nature"
with a child, it is a crime. And no matter how much spinning, twisting of words, hypotheticals or other BS you come up with, that fact isn't going to change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I didn't claim that I was 100% sure about any part of that conversation unlike the leader of the "free Jerry" movement. Learn to read.

I can read fine. And I have some advice...don’t ever claim you’re 100% sure of anything. You’re a dumbass.
 
Clear to who? Clear to those who wish it so? If I remember correctly,even Paterno said MM described "something sexual in nature" When an adult is doing "something sexual in nature"
with a child, it is a crime. And no matter how much spinning, twisting of words, hypotheticals or other BS you come up with, that fact isn't going to change.
Paterno had hundreds of press conferences and gave thousands of interviews thru the years. I challenge you to find another instance where he used the "...in nature" phrase. That's something he never used. But, "sexual in nature" was frequently used by a guy that's about to have his law license suspended. It's not hard to connect those dots.
 
Paterno had hundreds of press conferences and gave thousands of interviews thru the years. I challenge you to find another instance where he used the "...in nature" phrase. That's something he never used. But, "sexual in nature" was frequently used by a guy that's about to have his law license suspended. It's not hard to connect those dots.

He actually said “it was a sexual nature(?)” according to the transcript, which I always thought was really bizarre phrasing. I’m not sure anyone in the history of mankind has ever used those 5 words in succession. And of course surrounded by several “I don’t know what it was/I don’t know what you’d call it” vague qualifiers.

It seems obvious he was groping for a recollection of what he was told 10 years earlier. When someone actually knows something, they generally don’t keep repeating that they don’t know.
 
Clear to who? Clear to those who wish it so? If I remember correctly,even Paterno said MM described "something sexual in nature" When an adult is doing "something sexual in nature"
with a child, it is a crime. And no matter how much spinning, twisting of words, hypotheticals or other BS you come up with, that fact isn't going to change.

Have you heard a recording of Paterno's words to verify their accuracy? Why do you ignore the multiple qualifiers (I don't know what you'd call it) he used? Why do you ignore every other time when Paterno contradicts your narrative?

If MM told Joe Paterno of a crime as you allege... which has never been testified to or proven, and not one single person's actions align with that being true... then MM failed, along with everyone he told that night. One doesn't simply get left off the hook for telling someone else about a crime. Not only did he fail by not calling the police, he failed by obviously not conveying the severity of the situation to his superiors.

What you believe is an absolute fairy tale. How many people needed to ignore the well being of the teen in the shower for your version to be true? 7-8? PSU simply handled a vauge and untimely report of potential abuse the best they could, and TSM dropped the ball. No matter how much spinning, twisting of words, hypotheticals or other BS you come up with, that isn't going to change.
 
Paterno had hundreds of press conferences and gave thousands of interviews thru the years. I challenge you to find another instance where he used the "...in nature" phrase. That's something he never used. But, "sexual in nature" was frequently used by a guy that's about to have his law license suspended. It's not hard to connect those dots.

There it is. You don't remember Joe saying "in nature" before so Jerry must be innocent. You have successfully connected the dots to the satisfaction of others of your ilk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT