Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Feb 2, 2015 16:41:30 GMT -5
wait. you're saying the ncaa's actions against psu 'trivalized' the abuse against children perpetrated by psu's legendary assistant coach? a man who was awarded an office on psu's campus? are you reading what you say before you hit 'create post'? oh cmon. he was awarded an office as part of a deal for retiring well before the mcqueary episode. answer this question...do you believe that quantifying bowls, vacated wins and scholarships to knowingly protecting a child molester trivializes sandusky's crimes? do you think protecting a child molester is about equivalent to the benefits reggie bush received? i don't recall usc being fined $60m for the bush caper... maybe somebody can correct me if my memory is fading on that.  |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Feb 2, 2015 16:47:19 GMT -5
oh cmon. he was awarded an office as part of a deal for retiring well before the mcqueary episode. answer this question...do you believe that quantifying bowls, vacated wins and scholarships to knowingly protecting a child molester trivializes sandusky's crimes? do you think protecting a child molester is about equivalent to the benefits reggie bush received? i don't recall usc being fined $60m for the bush caper... maybe somebody can correct me if my memory is fading on that. for the one million'th time... what the ncaa did in terms of punishing psu for all things related to sandusky is certainly debatable. it meted out a punishment that, rightly or wrongly, it felt was due for was happening at the time. if psu did either cover up or look the other way/ignore taking appropriate action against sandusky, both when he was an employee and when he wasn't (yet still was given an office on campus and unlimited access around the athletic facility), i can certainly see where that could be viewed as a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting. for you to spend years saying the ncaa did too much against penn state and then, now, suggest what they did actually demeaned the kids who were abused? that is one long lap around the track. |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 2, 2015 17:01:34 GMT -5
i don't recall usc being fined $60m for the bush caper... maybe somebody can correct me if my memory is fading on that. for the one million'th time... what the ncaa did in terms of punishing psu for all things related to sandusky is certainly debatable. it meted out a punishment that, rightly or wrongly, it felt was due for was happening at the time. if psu did either cover up or look the other way/ignore taking appropriate action against sandusky, both when he was an employee and when he wasn't (yet still was given an office on campus and unlimited access around the athletic facility), i can certainly see where that could be viewed as a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting. for you to spend years saying the ncaa did too much against penn state and then, now, suggest what they did actually demeaned the kids who were abused? that is one long lap around the track. once again i disagree. #1. i've stated from the get go that the ncaa's intervention into this scandal trivialized sandusky's crimes. you can't say that i just recently suggested this. #2. the recruiting advantage is b.s. if they received a recruiting advantage, why was penn state will able to recruit well after the fall out at the end of 2011 but prior to the sanctions? why did they continue to recruit well after the sanctions? and if psu was so concerned about recruiting well, why the hell would they have a 85 year guy coaching the team? and finally...do you really think turning in a child molester would have hurt their ability to recruit? how does that work exactly? this argument that psu had a recruiting advantage is so comical b/c it makes so little sense. and even if you do make this argument....it's not tangible! do you really want the ncaa going down these slippery slopes? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Feb 2, 2015 17:16:39 GMT -5
for the one million'th time... what the ncaa did in terms of punishing psu for all things related to sandusky is certainly debatable. it meted out a punishment that, rightly or wrongly, it felt was due for was happening at the time. if psu did either cover up or look the other way/ignore taking appropriate action against sandusky, both when he was an employee and when he wasn't (yet still was given an office on campus and unlimited access around the athletic facility), i can certainly see where that could be viewed as a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting. for you to spend years saying the ncaa did too much against penn state and then, now, suggest what they did actually demeaned the kids who were abused? that is one long lap around the track. once again i disagree. #1. i've stated from the get go that the ncaa's intervention into this scandal trivialized sandusky's crimes. you can't say that i just recently suggested this. #2. the recruiting advantage is b.s. if they received a recruiting advantage, why was penn state will able to recruit well after the fall out at the end of 2011 but prior to the sanctions? why did they continue to recruit well after the sanctions? and if psu was so concerned about recruiting well, why the hell would they have a 85 year guy coaching the team? and finally...do you really think turning in a child molester would have hurt their ability to recruit? how does that work exactly? this argument that psu had a recruiting advantage is so comical b/c it makes so little sense. and even if you do make this argument....it's not tangible! do you really want the ncaa going down these slippery slopes? until an hour ago, i don't remember you ever using 'trivialized', 'sandusky' and 'crimes' all in the same sentence. maybe i'm not remembering correctly, but that sure would have popped out to me previously. i find it fascinating that you think one of the largest punishments in the organization's history equaled trivializing psu's role in all this. i really, truly do. as for a possible recruiting edge? let's see. let's say it gets out that the psu execs were, indeed, knowledgeable of sandusky's activities and looked the other way. let's say paterno wishing he'd done more was a literal interpretation of him wishing he'd been more pro-active looking into, or helping authorities look into what was going on. you're saying that all those actions simply dovetail into what psu represents itself to be? what the nittany lion football programs purports itself as? that's entertaining. the ncaa diving into all this? like i said from the outset, it's debatable. it was precedent-setting, and w/o subpoena power you could argue the odds of getting the straight scoop is next to impossible. |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 3, 2015 8:31:26 GMT -5
once again i disagree. #1. i've stated from the get go that the ncaa's intervention into this scandal trivialized sandusky's crimes. you can't say that i just recently suggested this. #2. the recruiting advantage is b.s. if they received a recruiting advantage, why was penn state will able to recruit well after the fall out at the end of 2011 but prior to the sanctions? why did they continue to recruit well after the sanctions? and if psu was so concerned about recruiting well, why the hell would they have a 85 year guy coaching the team? and finally...do you really think turning in a child molester would have hurt their ability to recruit? how does that work exactly? this argument that psu had a recruiting advantage is so comical b/c it makes so little sense. and even if you do make this argument....it's not tangible! do you really want the ncaa going down these slippery slopes? until an hour ago, i don't remember you ever using 'trivialized', 'sandusky' and 'crimes' all in the same sentence. maybe i'm not remembering correctly, but that sure would have popped out to me previously. i find it fascinating that you think one of the largest punishments in the organization's history equaled trivializing psu's role in all this. i really, truly do. as for a possible recruiting edge? let's see. let's say it gets out that the psu execs were, indeed, knowledgeable of sandusky's activities and looked the other way. let's say paterno wishing he'd done more was a literal interpretation of him wishing he'd been more pro-active looking into, or helping authorities look into what was going on. you're saying that all those actions simply dovetail into what psu represents itself to be? what the nittany lion football programs purports itself as? that's entertaining. the ncaa diving into all this? like i said from the outset, it's debatable. it was precedent-setting, and w/o subpoena power you could argue the odds of getting the straight scoop is next to impossible. i don't know how to better explain that quantifying vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation. the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit." had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense. instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator. regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state. christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing. lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty. and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet. there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand." penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time. also, they usually have pretty good coaching. protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Feb 3, 2015 10:03:34 GMT -5
i don't know how to better explain that quantifying vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation. the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit." had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense. instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator. regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state. christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing. lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty. and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet. there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand." penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time. also, they usually have pretty good coaching. protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this.
Got it. None of this had anything to do with the football program. Why do you think McQueary went to Paterno with his information? Because he was concerned about the anthropology department? |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 3, 2015 10:15:45 GMT -5
i don't know how to better explain that quantifying vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation. the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit." had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense. instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator. regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state. christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing. lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty. and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet. there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand." penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time. also, they usually have pretty good coaching. protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this.
Got it. None of this had anything to do with the football program. Why do you think McQueary went to Paterno with his information? Because he was concerned about the anthropology department? dr dranov, a mandated reporter, instructed mcqueary to contact paterno and not the police. do you believe dr. dranov did so b/c he wanted to conceal sandusky's child sex abuse too? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Feb 3, 2015 11:33:52 GMT -5
Got it. None of this had anything to do with the football program. Why do you think McQueary went to Paterno with his information? Because he was concerned about the anthropology department? dr dranov, a mandated reporter, instructed mcqueary to contact paterno and not the police. do you believe dr. dranov did so b/c he wanted to conceal sandusky's child sex abuse too?
Gee, you mean this guy immediately recognized that "ex-employee" Jerry Sandusky was connected to the football program at Penn State? Color me shocked. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 3, 2015 11:46:50 GMT -5
dr dranov, a mandated reporter, instructed mcqueary to contact paterno and not the police. do you believe dr. dranov did so b/c he wanted to conceal sandusky's child sex abuse too?
Gee, you mean this guy immediately recognized that "ex-employee" Jerry Sandusky was connected to the football program at Penn State? Color me shocked. you didn't answer my question. the head of the 2nd mile, jack raykovitz is also a mandated reporter. he heard mcqueary's story too. he, like dranov, either didn't believe a crime occurred or dr. raykovitz was in on the conspiracy to conceal child sex abuse so penn state could continue to attract four star linebackers from western PA. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Feb 3, 2015 13:16:31 GMT -5
Gee, you mean this guy immediately recognized that "ex-employee" Jerry Sandusky was connected to the football program at Penn State? Color me shocked. you didn't answer my question. the head of the 2nd mile, jack raykovitz is also a mandated reporter. he heard mcqueary's story too. he, like dranov, either didn't believe a crime occurred or dr. raykovitz was in on the conspiracy to conceal child sex abuse so penn state could continue to attract four star linebackers from western PA. Actually, I did answer your question. He told him to talk to Paterno because he believed it involved Penn State and more specifically, the football program. Which it did BTW and which you finally admit after repeatedly insisting that as an ex-employee Sandusky had nothing to do with Penn State. This does not mean this guy had nefarious motives, but it does mean that he saw this as a football program issue first and foremost from the get go. You keep trying to separate the football program and Penn State from all of this and as I've said before, it can't be done. The connections between Sandusky and Penn State went back 40 years. And the business connections between Second Mile and Penn State, including Joe Paterno, were well established. And are you seriously sticking up for the head guy at the Second Mile? Oh, let me guess. You aren't, but it's really, really complicated. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Feb 3, 2015 15:57:15 GMT -5
until an hour ago, i don't remember you ever using 'trivialized', 'sandusky' and 'crimes' all in the same sentence. maybe i'm not remembering correctly, but that sure would have popped out to me previously. i find it fascinating that you think one of the largest punishments in the organization's history equaled trivializing psu's role in all this. i really, truly do. as for a possible recruiting edge? let's see. let's say it gets out that the psu execs were, indeed, knowledgeable of sandusky's activities and looked the other way. let's say paterno wishing he'd done more was a literal interpretation of him wishing he'd been more pro-active looking into, or helping authorities look into what was going on. you're saying that all those actions simply dovetail into what psu represents itself to be? what the nittany lion football programs purports itself as? that's entertaining. the ncaa diving into all this? like i said from the outset, it's debatable. it was precedent-setting, and w/o subpoena power you could argue the odds of getting the straight scoop is next to impossible. i don't know how to better explain that quantifying vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation. the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit." no it's not. that's your interpretation, or maybe more accurately your positioning of the ncaa in order to accentuate your point/opinion. big difference there. had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense. instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator. so you're saying it would have made MORE sense for the ncaa to hand out the death penalty? boy that's a 180 from your reaction when the punishment was handed down. and the irony of your characterization of the ncaa bullying a weakened entity, side by side w/what sandusky did to young boys, bullying them in the ultimate way, in real life, is telling.regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state. christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing. hm. i could swear that hackenberg committed to psu prior to all the news coming out. commendable that he chose to honor that afterwards, but i see you failed to also mention the psu rb who transferred because of the fallout. and the performance of psu in the last 3 years; 8-4/6-2 in '12, 7-5/4-4 in '13, 7-6/2-6 this past year, would certainly seem to contradict your claim that the best players have continued to flock to state college. worse record each year, significantly worse in league play.lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty. and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet. there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand." penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time. also, they usually have pretty good coaching. protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this. hm. i could swear you were complaining about the effect of the ncaa sanctions on all things psu football-related previously. it certainly seemed to affect attendance at the games... an unprecedented (imho) number of empty seats at numerous games inside beaver stadium. |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 3, 2015 16:29:21 GMT -5
you didn't answer my question. the head of the 2nd mile, jack raykovitz is also a mandated reporter. he heard mcqueary's story too. he, like dranov, either didn't believe a crime occurred or dr. raykovitz was in on the conspiracy to conceal child sex abuse so penn state could continue to attract four star linebackers from western PA. Actually, I did answer your question. He told him to talk to Paterno because he believed it involved Penn State and more specifically, the football program. Which it did BTW and which you finally admit after repeatedly insisting that as an ex-employee Sandusky had nothing to do with Penn State. This does not mean this guy had nefarious motives, but it does mean that he saw this as a football program issue first and foremost from the get go. You keep trying to separate the football program and Penn State from all of this and as I've said before, it can't be done. The connections between Sandusky and Penn State went back 40 years. And the business connections between Second Mile and Penn State, including Joe Paterno, were well established. And are you seriously sticking up for the head guy at the Second Mile? Oh, let me guess. You aren't, but it's really, really complicated. if mcqueary told dr. dranov that he witnessed a crime, do you believe dr. dranov would have instructed him to go to the police? i'm not sticking up for the head of the second mile...using him to illustrate my point that mcqueary probably didn't witness something criminal in the shower. and yes, that complicates things. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Feb 3, 2015 16:46:07 GMT -5
Actually, I did answer your question. He told him to talk to Paterno because he believed it involved Penn State and more specifically, the football program. Which it did BTW and which you finally admit after repeatedly insisting that as an ex-employee Sandusky had nothing to do with Penn State. This does not mean this guy had nefarious motives, but it does mean that he saw this as a football program issue first and foremost from the get go. You keep trying to separate the football program and Penn State from all of this and as I've said before, it can't be done. The connections between Sandusky and Penn State went back 40 years. And the business connections between Second Mile and Penn State, including Joe Paterno, were well established. And are you seriously sticking up for the head guy at the Second Mile? Oh, let me guess. You aren't, but it's really, really complicated. if mcqueary told dr. dranov that he witnessed a crime, do you believe dr. dranov would have instructed him to go to the police? i'm not sticking up for the head of the second mile...using him to illustrate my point that mcqueary probably didn't witness something criminal in the shower. and yes, that complicates things. yet another assumption on your part, yet when others draw conclusions, let's say from a string of email correspondence, you call them vague and therefore not an indicator of prior knowledge, cover up, etc. interesting. i'm curious why you now claim he likely didn't see anything criminal. didn't mcqueary also inform his father about what he witnessed? didn't his dad also suggest he 'tell joe'? |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
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 snap infraction on Feb 3, 2015 16:49:02 GMT -5
i don't know how to better explain that quantifying vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation. the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit." no it's not. that's your interpretation, or maybe more accurately your positioning of the ncaa in order to accentuate your point/opinion. big difference there. had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense. instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator. so you're saying it would have made MORE sense for the ncaa to hand out the death penalty? boy that's a 180 from your reaction when the punishment was handed down. and the irony of your characterization of the ncaa bullying a weakened entity, side by side w/what sandusky did to young boys, bullying them in the ultimate way, in real life, is telling.regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state. christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing. hm. i could swear that hackenberg committed to psu prior to all the news coming out. commendable that he chose to honor that afterwards, but i see you failed to also mention the psu rb who transferred because of the fallout. and the performance of psu in the last 3 years; 8-4/6-2 in '12, 7-5/4-4 in '13, 7-6/2-6 this past year, would certainly seem to contradict your claim that the best players have continued to flock to state college. worse record each year, significantly worse in league play.lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty. and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet. there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand." penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time. also, they usually have pretty good coaching. protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this. hm. i could swear you were complaining about the effect of the ncaa sanctions on all things psu football-related previously. it certainly seemed to affect attendance at the games... an unprecedented (imho) number of empty seats at numerous games inside beaver stadium.yes if the ncaa gave psu the death penalty, it would have made a ton more sense. if the ncaa truly believes that psu was concealing these hideous crimes against children and they truly thought they had jurisdiction to act...then how do they not give penn state the death penalty? how do you compare protecting a child molestor with receiving free tattoos or a free house? and all of a sudden, are we suppose to believe that b/c of a few vacated bowl games and a thin offensive line, psu learned their lesson and will never shield a child molester again? hackenberg committed to penn state after bill o'brien was hired, which was after the fall out in nov 2011. that psu rb who transfered? i forget his name? was he any good? :-) yea psu is not as good. of course they aren't. and they have a lot less scholarship players than everyone. a team witih 50 highly recruited players < a team with 85 highly recruited players. it's common sense. yea psu attendance has been down. but i believe lower attendance has been a trend across the country. and i think psu was still ranked 5th in the country for avg attendance this year. not bad for a stadium that's in a college only town that's not easy to get to. state college PA has a population around 45k. columbus ohio has a population of 800k plus. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Feb 3, 2015 17:37:17 GMT -5
if mcqueary told dr. dranov that he witnessed a crime, do you believe dr. dranov would have instructed him to go to the police? i'm not sticking up for the head of the second mile...using him to illustrate my point that mcqueary probably didn't witness something criminal in the shower. and yes, that complicates things.
And I think the same is true for McQueary. Had it been someone he didn't know in that shower, I think he would have intervened right then and called the cops to let them sort out what was going on.
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
