People rarely cheer for flawed products irrespective of their position prior to the product's release.
What should they have done?
- Thread starter RentechCEO
- Start date
People rarely cheer for flawed products irrespective of their position prior to the product's release.
What did FSU do that warranted NCAA action? NC was investigated by the NCAA and I think they reopened it later on.
Do you believe the allegations at NC were the same as at PSU?
Meaningless. Joe reported it to Curly, again as policy dictates. While he may not have contact Schultz directly, he knew Curley, or someone, involved Schultz because Joe spoke with him. Finally, Joe followed up with MM to see if everything was OK and MM responded that it was OK.
And how is it that you've come to understand my position about Freeh prior to his report?
Wait. Is RentechCEO the same guy who was posting here with the Florida State profile pic?
I haven't but if you were one (and there were many here) that said that the BOT should not get the report and then release it for fear they would "edit it" then the shoe would fit. However, in your case personally, I do not know if that is the case so I wasn't pointing at you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that way.
Depends who the PR firm is working for...the leaders or the stakeholders. Those PR firms aren't serving the interest of 500,000 alumni.
No, no, no. The notes (specifically exhibit 2G to Freeh's report) says that Paterno doesn't want Sandusky bringing 2nd Mile kids to the facilities. It's quite specific and written twice. Apparently, Paterno had no problem with Sandusky bringing other kids (or he would've written "no kids") such as relatives or next door neighbor's kids or whatever. It was 2nd Mile kids he didn't want on the premises out of "liability" concerns.
Interesting, no?
I would not presume that this proves that Paterno only didn't want Second Mile kids there rather than a reasonable interpretation that 2nd mile kids were who he thought Sandusky was going to bring if he brought anybody, but then again by the Blehar/Ziegler standards of proof, it kind of does.
I believe he is the one but looks like he changed his pic for some reason.......
So are you suggesting that one shouldn't change one's position to accommodate new information?
You should not be able to blame people for doing precisely what you demanded they do.
Do you actually think he remembered any of that? Not a chance
I don't know if you're an idiot or just pretending to be one, but my original comment, which you disagreed with was:
"We know for a fact that Paterno did not want Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids into Lasch." Link
You shouldn't be surprised when people point out that you are blaming the BOT for doing exactly what you demanded they do.
I don't remember hearing any alumni demanding that Freeh scapegoat Paterno and the football program.
Except maybe you.
Should I be surprised that a segment of the population clings to a ridiculous position despite information to the contrary?
Perhaps that was part of the BOT's strategy all along (unbeknownst to us alumni)? The BOT knew the alumni's trust of them after 11/11 was at an all time low so it seems they exploited that by giving us our wish of the BOT not reviewing the report before public release (even though we KNOW that certain members of the BOT--namely the SITF--knew what the report was going to say before it even came out--gee I wonder how that happened??). Even so, that still doesn't absolve the BOT for allowing freeh to have his grandstanding press conference BEFORE the BOT or anyone else even had time to read and digest his "comprehensive and independent" report. What a joke...
Instead of altering the report after it was done, the BOT simply hired a guy and gave him a predetermined outcome to arrive at before the report was even written. Problem solved for the BOT and alumni placated. No one at the time knew that freeh was a con artist character assassin. Boy were we wrong.
Your last post was:
"Yes we do. There is a notation in Paterno's own handwriting saying that he didn't want Sandusky bringing kids into Lasch.
Why didn't Freeh tell us who overruled Paterno?"
You made a reference to Paterno's notes, saying they referred to "kids" when they didn't. They specifically referred to 2nd Mile kids. Twice. That's what I responded to. You're an idiot and don't try to change the subject.
Maybe English isn't your first language. So, I take back the "idiot" part. Sort of.
And Freeh's report makes it clear that Curley was the one who granted Sandusky his privileges to use the facilities.
And why was Paterno so worried about specifically 2nd Mile kids and liability? If the concern was that a football player would accidentally drop a dumb bell on a kid's foot and break a toe, or something like that, why not just make it "kids?"
The preceding letter was about spending more time with TSM and wanted to utlize PSU as part of it. Referencing TSM is just about the context of the letter and requests from JS.
Last edited:
The document in which Paterno hand wrote "no 2nd mile kids" twice is entitled "Retirement Requests" and evidently authored by Sandusky. Request No.5 is "Access to training and work out facilities." No reference to "2nd Mile kids" yet Paterno wrote "no 2nd mile kids." Twice. The request appears to be a request by Sandusky that he be allowed to use training and workout facilities, nothing more.
The "Retirement Requests" is preceded in the exhibits by a rambling letter written by Sandusky. There are references to the 2nd Mile and there are references to Penn State, but there no requests that 2nd Mile kids be allowed to use "training and workout facilities."
My God do you like to conflate things..enough with the semantics. This isn't that complicated. JS, after founding TSM in the late 70's, was ALWAYS seen with kids around him..presumably TSM kids..he even would commonly work out/shower with these kids at PSU as part of the friend fitness program.... Joe hated this and thought the kids were a distraction from JS's coaching duties, liability issue, etc.. He wanted nothing to do with TSM kids, or kids in general, being in and around the football facilities.
One can rationally assume this was because Joe was trying to run a freaking major D1 football program and didn't want to have to deal with JS and his TSM kids all the time.
Hence Joe's "no TSM kids" notation on the retirement requests document. This suggestion from Joe was obviously overruled by someone above him. This also puts to bed the false narrative that Joe was all powerful at PSU and he always got his way, etc. that the haters mindlessly drone on about.
My kid and I go out to dinner. I'm a little concerned about his weight, so on the drive I tell him, "Hey, no root beer with dinner tonight." I mention root beer specifically because that's what he always orders. The waiter comes and my kid asks for a Mountain Dew. When I give him a dirty look, he says, "But Dad, you only said no root beer." Your attaching some special significance to Joe saying "no 2nd Mile kids" rather than just "no kids" is the same sort of pretzel logic.
This is interesting. Do you have a link to such? So Blehar has a document where the BOT told Freeh to blame Joe and CSS? I had no idea.
Exactly. But this dipshit CDW will attach no value to Joe's actual words of "I don't know what it was" and "I don't know what you would call it" and instead will say with no uncertainty that Joe DID know. Why? Because it fits his narrative even though it doesn't fit a 61 year track record of honor and integrity. One of Jim Carnes's buddies no doubt. You can't fix his level of ignorance.
Are you saying that CDW placed greater emphasis on some of Joe's sworn testimony than other parts so that it might fit his narrative? How is that different from what you just did?
First off, as many others have already mentioned--it's silly to place much weight on ANY person's testimony that is related to something that happened 10 YEARS prior. Especially someone as old as Joe was at the time.
Secondly, the only part of Joe's recollection that he was sure about was that MM was upset about a late night inappropriate shower with JS and a kid. That's it and that's the part that should be emphasized. The other parts are couched in equivocation and it's clear b/c Joe repeatedly said things such as "I don't know what you'd call it" or "I don't know what it was".
Is it clear now?
This isn't rocket science.
The statement "It was a sexual nature." is a pretty emphatic statement. No reason to think that he would use that phrase unless he felt it expressed his thoughts.
Kinda difficult to work around that sworn statement. He either meant what he testified or he wasn't truthful to the GJ. You can't pick and choose what pieces to accept as truth and throw the others out because they aren't convenient.
I agree, it isn't rocket science.
Maybe you can point out the part of Paterno's sworn testimony where he testifies that MM called it horseplay in the shower. Because I can't find that part no matter how hard I try.
And, by the way, that's Mr. Dipshit to you.
So what you're saying, Wernher von Braun, is that Paterno couldn't remember what MM said 10 years earlier, so he decided to just go ahead and call Jerry a pedophile.
I know when I can't remember what somebody said, I make up the worst thing I can think of.
Doesn't everybody?
Now you're just being flat-out dishonest. There was nothing "empathetic" about it all. Paterno equivocated throughout that questioning.
I agree with your statement that there was nothing "empathetic" about that statement.
However it was emphatic. As in damning, definitive, no wiggle room...etc.
