Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 3, 2014 14:50:32 GMT -5
exactly. which makes it hard for me to believe that he could be so smart and savvy as to 'cya' legally, yet his apologists would have you believe he was 100% in the dark when it came to protecting his program from the potential damage from sandusky's issues before they became formally known. mark scott tosu 81 the anti paterno crowd would have you believe that paterno conspired to conceal sandusky in order to protect his football program. this is exactly what freeh concluded, and it is the exact talking point that was parroted by nearly every media outlet for months. but no one who believes this can tell me why paterno testified that mcqueary told him he saw something sexual. if paterno was so sinister that he'd allow a child molester to roam freely around his program for a decade, why wouldn't he simply just lie to a grand jury that he was never told of anything sexual in that locker room in order to avoid backlash? do you see what i'm saying? if you want to pigeon hole me as an apologist, that's fine. but i never said paterno was 100% in the dark. but i do think he was unfairly scapegoated. i'm not anti-paterno. i've never in my life said paterno was sinister, either. your words, not mine. him telling the truth, or what he believed to be the truth, in front of a grand jury, which i think he did, makes him neither guilty nor innocent. but his program was his legacy, and i keep circling back to the email the a-d sent to his superiors, saying (paraphrasing) joe thinks we should go a different route, when it comes to sandusky. in a thread directly about the assistant coach... joe was anything but dumb, and even though he didn't use email-one of those space age contraptions-i would guess that he knew it constituted a paper trail. i've tried to think what else the a-d or paterno could have been referencing, and maybe it's possible it was something else. but within that context, i don't know what else the two could have been pointing to, other than how to address sandusky. mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Someone who needs to post more
|
Post by ihs82 on Jun 3, 2014 16:17:29 GMT -5
the anti paterno crowd would have you believe that paterno conspired to conceal sandusky in order to protect his football program. this is exactly what freeh concluded, and it is the exact talking point that was parroted by nearly every media outlet for months. but no one who believes this can tell me why paterno testified that mcqueary told him he saw something sexual. if paterno was so sinister that he'd allow a child molester to roam freely around his program for a decade, why wouldn't he simply just lie to a grand jury that he was never told of anything sexual in that locker room in order to avoid backlash? do you see what i'm saying? if you want to pigeon hole me as an apologist, that's fine. but i never said paterno was 100% in the dark. but i do think he was unfairly scapegoated. i'm not anti-paterno. i've never in my life said paterno was sinister, either. your words, not mine. him telling the truth, or what he believed to be the truth, in front of a grand jury, which i think he did, makes him neither guilty nor innocent. but his program was his legacy, and i keep circling back to the email the a-d sent to his superiors, saying (paraphrasing) joe thinks we should go a different route, when it comes to sandusky. in a thread directly about the assistant coach... joe was anything but dumb, and even though he didn't use email-one of those space age contraptions-i would guess that he knew it constituted a paper trail. i've tried to think what else the a-d or paterno could have been referencing, and maybe it's possible it was something else. but within that context, i don't know what else the two could have been pointing to, other than how to address sandusky. mark scott tosu 81 sinister is what louis freeh concluded, which was parroted by most of the media and adopted as fact by the ncaa and less than a handful of members of the psu bot. regarding the ad e-mail...there are one of many possibilities: 1. paterno was told by mcqueary that sandusky was raping a boy and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity. (very unlikely but what freeh concluded) 2. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity (possible but not likely) 3. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (likely) 4. paterno was told by mcqueary something weird but it was just jerry being jerry in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (possible but not likely) 5. tim curly wanted to bolster his opinion so he named dropped joe knowing that paterno was not going to see the e-mail chain (not likely but more likely than freeh's conclusion) |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by Buckeye Dale on Jun 3, 2014 16:28:42 GMT -5
...there are one of many possibilities:
IHS is going to continue down this path until there is an S-t. in front of JoePa's name, and the 21st of Dec and 22 of Jan are recognized as PA State Holidays .....
|
|
|
Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by Lee The Locksmith on Jun 3, 2014 16:43:30 GMT -5
...there are one of many possibilities: IHS is going to continue down this path until there is an S-t. in front of JoePa's name, and the 21st of Dec and 22 of Jan are recognized as PA State Holidays ..... My kid sisters b/day is Jan. 22 ! Does that count ?  |
|
|
Free Mutt from political asylum
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by Buckeye Dale on Jun 3, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
...there are one of many possibilities: IHS is going to continue down this path until there is an S-t. in front of JoePa's name, and the 21st of Dec and 22 of Jan are recognized as PA State Holidays ..... My kid sisters b/day is Jan. 22 ! Does that count ? Well, it should, but I may have misfigured the devotion... JoePa PASSED on the 22nd, and three days later would be...
|
|
|
Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 4, 2014 6:30:54 GMT -5
i'm not anti-paterno. i've never in my life said paterno was sinister, either. your words, not mine. him telling the truth, or what he believed to be the truth, in front of a grand jury, which i think he did, makes him neither guilty nor innocent. but his program was his legacy, and i keep circling back to the email the a-d sent to his superiors, saying (paraphrasing) joe thinks we should go a different route, when it comes to sandusky. in a thread directly about the assistant coach... joe was anything but dumb, and even though he didn't use email-one of those space age contraptions-i would guess that he knew it constituted a paper trail. i've tried to think what else the a-d or paterno could have been referencing, and maybe it's possible it was something else. but within that context, i don't know what else the two could have been pointing to, other than how to address sandusky. mark scott tosu 81 sinister is what louis freeh concluded, which was parroted by most of the media and adopted as fact by the ncaa and less than a handful of members of the psu bot. regarding the ad e-mail...there are one of many possibilities: 1. paterno was told by mcqueary that sandusky was raping a boy and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity. (very unlikely but what freeh concluded) 2. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity (possible but not likely) 3. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (likely) 4. paterno was told by mcqueary something weird but it was just jerry being jerry in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (possible but not likely) 5. tim curly wanted to bolster his opinion so he named dropped joe knowing that paterno was not going to see the e-mail chain (not likely but more likely than freeh's conclusion) I've read "sinister" in your posts much more than i did in any media reports re paterno. |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Someone who needs to post more
|
Post by ihs82 on Jun 4, 2014 7:50:34 GMT -5
sinister is what louis freeh concluded, which was parroted by most of the media and adopted as fact by the ncaa and less than a handful of members of the psu bot. regarding the ad e-mail...there are one of many possibilities: 1. paterno was told by mcqueary that sandusky was raping a boy and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity. (very unlikely but what freeh concluded) 2. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house to avoid bad publicity (possible but not likely) 3. paterno was told by mcqueary something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable occurred in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (likely) 4. paterno was told by mcqueary something weird but it was just jerry being jerry in the locker room and paterno thought it was best to handle it in house b/c he didn't quite understand the seriousness of the situation and the best way to handle (possible but not likely) 5. tim curly wanted to bolster his opinion so he named dropped joe knowing that paterno was not going to see the e-mail chain (not likely but more likely than freeh's conclusion) I've read "sinister" in your posts much more than i did in any media reports re paterno. alrite lets try to get on the same page here. freeh said that "it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University— Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley—repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the board of trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large." Mr. Paterno, an iconic figure who set the major-college football record for career victories, "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal," Mr. Freeh told reporters. would you not consider covering up of a child molester in order to avoid bad publicity to be a sinister act? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 4, 2014 8:33:17 GMT -5
I've read "sinister" in your posts much more than i did in any media reports re paterno. alrite lets try to get on the same page here. freeh said that "it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University— Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley—repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the board of trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large." Mr. Paterno, an iconic figure who set the major-college football record for career victories, "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal," Mr. Freeh told reporters. would you not consider covering up of a child molester in order to avoid bad publicity to be a sinister act? i repeat... you are using the word. i'm not. i don't see freeh using it in your quotes either. but linking freeh w/calling paterno 'sinister' makes it much easier to oppose that kind of extreme description. i get why you're doing that. are you saying that the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky? that they didn't keep authorities, the psu bot, the state college community et al in the dark? i sure do remember you claiming the bot got railroaded. which is it? the quote on paterno? if you were to ask the typical psu fan in the late 90s/early 2000's, is paterno an integral part of the decision-making process in anything related to the football program, what would the answer be? if you ask psu students? faculty? staff? administration? would the answer be different? i'm amazed that you are of the mindset that joe would be left out of the loop of ANYTHING that could connect to/affect his program at that time in his life, when in the context of his entire career, he was THE go-to person. hell, mcqueary and his father deferred to telling paterno first, instead of the POLICE!!! do you really think that was the first time that anyone ever did that? mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Someone who needs to post more
|
Post by ihs82 on Jun 4, 2014 9:34:10 GMT -5
alrite lets try to get on the same page here. freeh said that "it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University— Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley—repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the board of trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large." Mr. Paterno, an iconic figure who set the major-college football record for career victories, "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal," Mr. Freeh told reporters. would you not consider covering up of a child molester in order to avoid bad publicity to be a sinister act? i repeat... you are using the word. i'm not. i don't see freeh using it in your quotes either. but linking freeh w/calling paterno 'sinister' makes it much easier to oppose that kind of extreme description. i get why you're doing that. are you saying that the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky? that they didn't keep authorities, the psu bot, the state college community et al in the dark? i sure do remember you claiming the bot got railroaded. which is it? the quote on paterno? if you were to ask the typical psu fan in the late 90s/early 2000's, is paterno an integral part of the decision-making process in anything related to the football program, what would the answer be? if you ask psu students? faculty? staff? administration? would the answer be different? i'm amazed that you are of the mindset that joe would be left out of the loop of ANYTHING that could connect to/affect his program at that time in his life, when in the context of his entire career, he was THE go-to person. hell, mcqueary and his father deferred to telling paterno first, instead of the POLICE!!! do you really think that was the first time that anyone ever did that? mark scott tosu 81 freeh didn't specifically use the word "sinister" but he sure as hell insinuated it. it is clear as day that freeh concluded that the administrators, including paterno, acted with sinister motivation. covering up for a child rape to avoid bad publicity is sinister. this is the extreme conclusion ascribed by freeh to paterno. it cannot be any more clear. i never said the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky. i just said they didn't conceal critical facts "to avoid the consequences of bad publicity." that part is absolutely speculation and is absolutely not proven by any evidence released to the public. yes of course paterno was the most involved person in the decision making processing related to the football program. did he know that investigators were looking into an incident about 1998? maybe he did and based on what he was told, it wasn't a big deal. or maybe those who liked jerry knew paterno would go ballistic and purposely left paterno in the dark regarding specifics. maybe since did paterno respond properly in 2001? no. he should have instructed mcqueary to call the police immediately. why did't he do that? probably for the same reasons communities all across the country give pedophiles the benefit of the doubt... not b/c of some "sinister" desire to avoid negative backlash to his football program. did paterno instruct anyone to destroy evidence? - no did paterno instruct anyone to not talk? - no to keep quiet about what they knew about sandusky? - no did paterno testify honestly? - yes was paterno praised by the attorney general for how he handled everything - yes why did mcqueary go to paterno first instead of the police? - maybe b/c he was a graduate assistant and was worried that outing sandusky could jeopardize his chances at getting a full time assistant job? and maybe he wasn't willing to risk his career for something he wasn't sure he witnessed? maybe it's stupid to blame a poor decision by mcqueary on psu's football culture? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 4, 2014 11:14:21 GMT -5
i repeat... you are using the word. i'm not. i don't see freeh using it in your quotes either. but linking freeh w/calling paterno 'sinister' makes it much easier to oppose that kind of extreme description. i get why you're doing that. are you saying that the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky? that they didn't keep authorities, the psu bot, the state college community et al in the dark? i sure do remember you claiming the bot got railroaded. which is it? the quote on paterno? if you were to ask the typical psu fan in the late 90s/early 2000's, is paterno an integral part of the decision-making process in anything related to the football program, what would the answer be? if you ask psu students? faculty? staff? administration? would the answer be different? i'm amazed that you are of the mindset that joe would be left out of the loop of ANYTHING that could connect to/affect his program at that time in his life, when in the context of his entire career, he was THE go-to person. hell, mcqueary and his father deferred to telling paterno first, instead of the POLICE!!! do you really think that was the first time that anyone ever did that? mark scott tosu 81 freeh didn't specifically use the word "sinister" but he sure as hell insinuated it. it is clear as day that freeh concluded that the administrators, including paterno, acted with sinister motivation. covering up for a child rape to avoid bad publicity is sinister. this is the extreme conclusion ascribed by freeh to paterno. it cannot be any more clear. i never said the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky. i just said they didn't conceal critical facts "to avoid the consequences of bad publicity." that part is absolutely speculation and is absolutely not proven by any evidence released to the public. yes of course paterno was the most involved person in the decision making processing related to the football program. did he know that investigators were looking into an incident about 1998? maybe he did and based on what he was told, it wasn't a big deal. or maybe those who liked jerry knew paterno would go ballistic and purposely left paterno in the dark regarding specifics. maybe since did paterno respond properly in 2001? no. he should have instructed mcqueary to call the police immediately. why did't he do that? probably for the same reasons communities all across the country give pedophiles the benefit of the doubt... not b/c of some "sinister" desire to avoid negative backlash to his football program. did paterno instruct anyone to destroy evidence? - no did paterno instruct anyone to not talk? - no to keep quiet about what they knew about sandusky? - no did paterno testify honestly? - yes was paterno praised by the attorney general for how he handled everything - yes why did mcqueary go to paterno first instead of the police? - maybe b/c he was a graduate assistant and was worried that outing sandusky could jeopardize his chances at getting a full time assistant job? and maybe he wasn't willing to risk his career for something he wasn't sure he witnessed? maybe it's stupid to blame a poor decision by mcqueary on psu's football culture? you know, for someone ultra-critical of the freeh report's 'speculation', you sure do use a lot of 'maybe's and 'probably's in your explanation. curious. except for joepa, in which you apparently know absolutely that he didn't instruct anyone to destroy evidence, or not to talk/keep quiet, etc. as for why mcqueary did what he did? well, i thought he testified that he went to his dad first, and his dad suggested that he talk to joe. a father, whose son has possibly seen a crime involving a child, tells his son he should go to the head football coach. first. yet you claim football culture had nothing to do w/anything in this? now this is my speculation; i don't think what mcqueary's dad mindset was back then was an isolated incident, either within psu's athletic dept or state college or old main. whenever something happened that either directly or indirectly touched the program, i think the common, almost instinctive reax was to 'run it by joe', first. whether he wanted it or not, deserved it or not, abused it or not, paterno had that kind of influence. i'm guessing most of the stuff run by him over his career was what you'd expect a coach to have to deal with; this wasn't. maybe the upcoming trial will confirm your speculation, or mine, or something inbetween. or we might not learn anything more and be left only w/what's been uncovered already; that dozens of children were abused by a man who was granted access to university/athletic property even after his retirement, and after he'd been investigated for similar crimes, allowing him to use a charity organization and psu as bait to seek out more victims. mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Someone who needs to post more
|
Post by ihs82 on Jun 4, 2014 12:27:00 GMT -5
freeh didn't specifically use the word "sinister" but he sure as hell insinuated it. it is clear as day that freeh concluded that the administrators, including paterno, acted with sinister motivation. covering up for a child rape to avoid bad publicity is sinister. this is the extreme conclusion ascribed by freeh to paterno. it cannot be any more clear. i never said the most powerful leaders at psu did not conceal critical facts re sandusky. i just said they didn't conceal critical facts "to avoid the consequences of bad publicity." that part is absolutely speculation and is absolutely not proven by any evidence released to the public. yes of course paterno was the most involved person in the decision making processing related to the football program. did he know that investigators were looking into an incident about 1998? maybe he did and based on what he was told, it wasn't a big deal. or maybe those who liked jerry knew paterno would go ballistic and purposely left paterno in the dark regarding specifics. maybe since did paterno respond properly in 2001? no. he should have instructed mcqueary to call the police immediately. why did't he do that? probably for the same reasons communities all across the country give pedophiles the benefit of the doubt... not b/c of some "sinister" desire to avoid negative backlash to his football program. did paterno instruct anyone to destroy evidence? - no did paterno instruct anyone to not talk? - no to keep quiet about what they knew about sandusky? - no did paterno testify honestly? - yes was paterno praised by the attorney general for how he handled everything - yes why did mcqueary go to paterno first instead of the police? - maybe b/c he was a graduate assistant and was worried that outing sandusky could jeopardize his chances at getting a full time assistant job? and maybe he wasn't willing to risk his career for something he wasn't sure he witnessed? maybe it's stupid to blame a poor decision by mcqueary on psu's football culture? you know, for someone ultra-critical of the freeh report's 'speculation', you sure do use a lot of 'maybe's and 'probably's in your explanation. curious. except for joepa, in which you apparently know absolutely that he didn't instruct anyone to destroy evidence, or not to talk/keep quiet, etc. as for why mcqueary did what he did? well, i thought he testified that he went to his dad first, and his dad suggested that he talk to joe. a father, whose son has possibly seen a crime involving a child, tells his son he should go to the head football coach. first. yet you claim football culture had nothing to do w/anything in this? now this is my speculation; i don't think what mcqueary's dad mindset was back then was an isolated incident, either within psu's athletic dept or state college or old main. whenever something happened that either directly or indirectly touched the program, i think the common, almost instinctive reax was to 'run it by joe', first. whether he wanted it or not, deserved it or not, abused it or not, paterno had that kind of influence. i'm guessing most of the stuff run by him over his career was what you'd expect a coach to have to deal with; this wasn't. maybe the upcoming trial will confirm your speculation, or mine, or something inbetween. or we might not learn anything more and be left only w/what's been uncovered already; that dozens of children were abused by a man who was granted access to university/athletic property even after his retirement, and after he'd been investigated for similar crimes, allowing him to use a charity organization and psu as bait to seek out more victims. mark scott tosu 81 i never claimed that i was correct! penn state hasn't paid me 8.5 million dollars to speculate about paternos motives and the ncaa hasn't used my speculations as the basis for unprecedented sanctions against penn state. i am just proposing very plausible alternatives to the current narrative that i admit may not be true. do you have evidence that paterno instructed people to destroy evidence or not to talk? did freeh uncover any in the 3.5 million documents he said he reviewed? or the 400 plus people he interviewed? did mcqueary not offer glowing testimony about how he believed paterno handled things? the lack of evidence into keeping people quiet about sandusky completely undermines freeh's conclusion that paterno actively concealed to hide sandusky's crimes. if freeh, who conducted this "thorough" investigation actually found further evidence that paterno engaged in a cover up, wouldn't he have released it? and to suggest that mcqueary went to paterno instead of the police b/c of paternos ominipotent influence over the program is unfair. you could easily make the case that mcqueary ambitions to be a coach someday was a factor in his and his fathers decision making that night. he could have easily been thinking "if i go to the police about this, this whole thing may backfire and i lose an opportunity to coach here." to blame paterno for mcqueary going to him instead the police initially makes little sense to me. |
|
