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 Jan 19, 2015 16:20:17 GMT -5
i don't get your rush to judgement and complete disregard of due process. those implicated will have a chance to defend themselves against your accusations in their criminal trial. wouldn't it be prudent to wait to hear what they have to say before we call what happened a "cover up"? Again...you're a gooney...I'm done, and wouldn't have checked in at all if not for your takeover of a section of the board, and your sanctimonious, hypocritical horse shit since this all began. Bye...enjoy knowing that the vast majority of America thinks you're trying to defend the indefensible...of COURSE joe knew.
the thing is i don't really care what the vast majority of americans think. and the thing is i'm not trying to defend the indefensible. i'm just asking people to withhold their judgments until the criminal trial which has not yet begun. i don't know why i that makes me a gooney. as for if joe knew? i have no idea and neither do you. i'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until more evidence comes out in the mean time, i'll take the word of frank fine who was the the prosecutor who put away sandusky and had subpoena power (unlike freeh). he stated that he did not believe paterno was involved in a cover up. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:18:24 GMT -5
Paterno was a great man. Paterno was nearly a saint .......... highly intelligent, diligent and hardworking, and a god among coaches. He definitely knew football, how to interact with his players and assistants, and how to get the best out of them.
Yet he did not know a child molester was in his midst?
BULLSHIT.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by Buckeye Dale on Jan 28, 2015 13:44:16 GMT -5
Saw this today; Not normally a Oberman fan, but that thing they say about blind pigs & acorns got another got proved again...
Goes from around 2:30 till the end -
|
|
|
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 snap infraction on Jan 28, 2015 14:52:59 GMT -5
|
|
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 Jan 28, 2015 14:53:25 GMT -5
Paterno was a great man. Paterno was nearly a saint .......... highly intelligent, diligent and hardworking, and a god among coaches. He definitely knew football, how to interact with his players and assistants, and how to get the best out of them.
Yet he did not know a child molester was in his midst?
BULLSHIT.
it's not as black and white as you think |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jan 28, 2015 17:54:13 GMT -5
1. Great last line. I certainly feel that, in the entire article, that was maybe the only certain verifiable truth; olbermann's wardrobe was hideous. 2. 'Except for a few ambiguous emails'  Maybe standing alone they are, but not in context with what was going on at the time. IMHO those are communications where freeh, nor his detractors, don't have to fill in with any conjecture. 3. So one sports guy's opinion should be shot down because another sports guy's (costas) differs? That's actually part of a counter argument? 4. I certainly agree there's plenty of gray here, but you ('I prefer to give him-paterno-the benefit of doubt' you've said often here) and other paterno supporters have equated gray to innocence. That's just as abhorrent as what you and the author criticize olbermann of... 5. Conveniently left out is the fact that Sandusky continued to have, incredibly, unlimited campus/athletic access, even after the 2nd of accusations/questions surfaced. Again, context. 6. Paterno refusal to be interviewed by freeh (he wasn't the only one) while at the same time choosing to continue his interviews with posnanski for his book, and the female sports columnist... Yes his health was failing but if his reputation was being threatened you'd think he would have officially shared what he did/didn't know. Like many of the other principals here, he chose not to, and now we likely never will know his side of all this. |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jan 28, 2015 20:56:26 GMT -5
1. Great last line. I certainly feel that, in the entire article, that was maybe the only certain verifiable truth; olbermann's wardrobe was hideous. 2. 'Except for a few ambiguous emails' Maybe standing alone they are, but not in context with what was going on at the time. IMHO those are communications where freeh, nor his detractors, don't have to fill in with any conjecture. 3. So one sports guy's opinion should be shot down because another sports guy's (costas) differs? That's actually part of a counter argument? 4. I certainly agree there's plenty of gray here, but you ('I prefer to give him-paterno-the benefit of doubt' you've said often here) and other paterno supporters have equated gray to innocence. That's just as abhorrent as what you and the author criticize olbermann of... 5. Conveniently left out is the fact that Sandusky continued to have, incredibly, unlimited campus/athletic access, even after the 2nd of accusations/questions surfaced. Again, context. 6. Paterno refusal to be interviewed by freeh (he wasn't the only one) while at the same time choosing to continue his interviews with posnanski for his book, and the female sports columnist... Yes his health was failing but if his reputation was being threatened you'd think he would have officially shared what he did/didn't know. Like many of the other principals here, he chose not to, and now we likely never will know his side of all this. |
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 9:01:42 GMT -5
1. Great last line. I certainly feel that, in the entire article, that was maybe the only certain verifiable truth; olbermann's wardrobe was hideous. 2. 'Except for a few ambiguous emails' Maybe standing alone they are, but not in context with what was going on at the time. IMHO those are communications where freeh, nor his detractors, don't have to fill in with any conjecture. 3. So one sports guy's opinion should be shot down because another sports guy's (costas) differs? That's actually part of a counter argument? 4. I certainly agree there's plenty of gray here, but you ('I prefer to give him-paterno-the benefit of doubt' you've said often here) and other paterno supporters have equated gray to innocence. That's just as abhorrent as what you and the author criticize olbermann of... 5. Conveniently left out is the fact that Sandusky continued to have, incredibly, unlimited campus/athletic access, even after the 2nd of accusations/questions surfaced. Again, context. 6. Paterno refusal to be interviewed by freeh (he wasn't the only one) while at the same time choosing to continue his interviews with posnanski for his book, and the female sports columnist... Yes his health was failing but if his reputation was being threatened you'd think he would have officially shared what he did/didn't know. Like many of the other principals here, he chose not to, and now we likely never will know his side of all this. once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jan 29, 2015 10:22:32 GMT -5
once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence.
The Sandusky situation isn't "complex" at all. It's being made that way by those with an agenda at Penn State, but that's what attorneys and PR people do for a living. So, I get that.
Sandusky had free reign on young boys and Penn State actively looked the other way. That isn't complex at all.
Now, fwiw, I agree with some of what you say. No way in hell should Spanier or Schultz talk to Freeh while they had pending charges. That would have been incredibly stupid.
And also fwiw, I never agreed with vacating the wins at Penn State. The games were played and the results are what they are. Nothing changes that. But, this 409 obsession with you and others at Penn State is, to put it mildly, shallow as hell. And the 409 is forever hollow. Paterno's reputation and legacy is shot to hell and no restoration of wins will change that fact.
He was in charge of the program where a pedophile roamed free for at least 20 years and most likely even more. You can play the "Jerry fooled everybody" card or the "Joe was old" card or the "Joe didn't even know men did things like this to boys" card and it's all self serving bullshit imo. Paterno ran the program and he had the juice to step up and be counted. He didn't do so and there is nothing "complex" about that at all.
|
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 11:22:43 GMT -5
1. Great last line. I certainly feel that, in the entire article, that was maybe the only certain verifiable truth; olbermann's wardrobe was hideous. 2. 'Except for a few ambiguous emails' Maybe standing alone they are, but not in context with what was going on at the time. IMHO those are communications where freeh, nor his detractors, don't have to fill in with any conjecture. 3. So one sports guy's opinion should be shot down because another sports guy's (costas) differs? That's actually part of a counter argument? 4. I certainly agree there's plenty of gray here, but you ('I prefer to give him-paterno-the benefit of doubt' you've said often here) and other paterno supporters have equated gray to innocence. That's just as abhorrent as what you and the author criticize olbermann of... 5. Conveniently left out is the fact that Sandusky continued to have, incredibly, unlimited campus/athletic access, even after the 2nd of accusations/questions surfaced. Again, context. 6. Paterno refusal to be interviewed by freeh (he wasn't the only one) while at the same time choosing to continue his interviews with posnanski for his book, and the female sports columnist... Yes his health was failing but if his reputation was being threatened you'd think he would have officially shared what he did/didn't know. Like many of the other principals here, he chose not to, and now we likely never will know his side of all this. once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence. i tire of the 'this is more complex than those of you outside state college can fathom' crap. the paterno family went to court saying the freeh report was inaccurate. paterno was asked to participate in the freeh-led investigation. he could have 'corrected' or at least given his perspective on the series of events, but refused, although after that date he still conducted an interview w/a journalist and continued working on his book w/posnanski, while still 'getting deadly amounts of radiation.' he.... chose... and how the hell am i incorrect re not all the principals chose to speak w/freeh if paterno, schultz and curley, 3 of the principals, chose not to participate? |
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 11:37:29 GMT -5
once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence.
The Sandusky situation isn't "complex" at all. It's being made that way by those with an agenda at Penn State, but that's what attorneys and PR people do for a living. So, I get that.
Sandusky had free reign on young boys and Penn State actively looked the other way. That isn't complex at all.
Now, fwiw, I agree with some of what you say. No way in hell should Spanier or Schultz talk to Freeh while they had pending charges. That would have been incredibly stupid.
And also fwiw, I never agreed with vacating the wins at Penn State. The games were played and the results are what they are. Nothing changes that. But, this 409 obsession with you and others at Penn State is, to put it mildly, shallow as hell. And the 409 is forever hollow. Paterno's reputation and legacy is shot to hell and no restoration of wins will change that fact.
He was in charge of the program where a pedophile roamed free for at least 20 years and most likely even more. You can play the "Jerry fooled everybody" card or the "Joe was old" card or the "Joe didn't even know men did things like this to boys" card and it's all self serving bullshit imo. Paterno ran the program and he had the juice to step up and be counted. He didn't do so and there is nothing "complex" about that at all.
taking away the wins has never been an effective ncaa punishment. and the sandusky affair does not take away all the good things joepa did in his life and in his career at psu. but i still find it flabbergasting, in context of what WAS known about sandusky, his prior investigation (does anyone really think that the head coach wasn't aware of that, w/the lifetime of connections he had? ditto for the other psu execs?) and then the '01 'incident', that this guy was then given that kind of access on campus. it's also amazing to me that paterno supporters don't get how their intense focus on the wins comes off, when you set it alongside the hideous acts done by under the tent of the university, the athletic program and the football program. |
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 11:57:07 GMT -5
once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence.
The Sandusky situation isn't "complex" at all. It's being made that way by those with an agenda at Penn State, but that's what attorneys and PR people do for a living. So, I get that.
Sandusky had free reign on young boys and Penn State actively looked the other way. That isn't complex at all.
Now, fwiw, I agree with some of what you say. No way in hell should Spanier or Schultz talk to Freeh while they had pending charges. That would have been incredibly stupid.
And also fwiw, I never agreed with vacating the wins at Penn State. The games were played and the results are what they are. Nothing changes that. But, this 409 obsession with you and others at Penn State is, to put it mildly, shallow as hell. And the 409 is forever hollow. Paterno's reputation and legacy is shot to hell and no restoration of wins will change that fact.
He was in charge of the program where a pedophile roamed free for at least 20 years and most likely even more. You can play the "Jerry fooled everybody" card or the "Joe was old" card or the "Joe didn't even know men did things like this to boys" card and it's all self serving bullshit imo. Paterno ran the program and he had the juice to step up and be counted. He didn't do so and there is nothing "complex" about that at all.
keep the following in mind: 1. sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys. that was his pipeline for victims. not penn state. this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials. 2. whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly. it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw. he went to his dad and family friend first. this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual. and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky. 3. mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno. 4. paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual. yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky. there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution. 5. no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky. 6. 409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case. it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky. it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno. 7. paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jan 29, 2015 12:01:06 GMT -5
taking away the wins has never been an effective ncaa punishment. and the sandusky affair does not take away all the good things joepa did in his life and in his career at psu. but i still find it flabbergasting, in context of what WAS known about sandusky, his prior investigation (does anyone really think that the head coach wasn't aware of that, w/the lifetime of connections he had? ditto for the other psu execs?) and then the '01 'incident', that this guy was then given that kind of access on campus. it's also amazing to me that paterno supporters don't get how their intense focus on the wins comes off, when you set it alongside the hideous acts done by under the tent of the university, the athletic program and the football program.
I'm with you regarding Paterno....this forever taints his name and legacy, but it does not negate all the other good things he did in his life. The Paterno family is making him out to be a victim and he's not one, imo. He had every opportunity to shed light and he had the juice to not be worried about his job, etc. One word from him would have blown the thing wide open. Instead, he chose to do the minimum that was required. That doesn't make him a victim in my book. |
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 12:45:05 GMT -5
The Sandusky situation isn't "complex" at all. It's being made that way by those with an agenda at Penn State, but that's what attorneys and PR people do for a living. So, I get that.
Sandusky had free reign on young boys and Penn State actively looked the other way. That isn't complex at all.
Now, fwiw, I agree with some of what you say. No way in hell should Spanier or Schultz talk to Freeh while they had pending charges. That would have been incredibly stupid.
And also fwiw, I never agreed with vacating the wins at Penn State. The games were played and the results are what they are. Nothing changes that. But, this 409 obsession with you and others at Penn State is, to put it mildly, shallow as hell. And the 409 is forever hollow. Paterno's reputation and legacy is shot to hell and no restoration of wins will change that fact.
He was in charge of the program where a pedophile roamed free for at least 20 years and most likely even more. You can play the "Jerry fooled everybody" card or the "Joe was old" card or the "Joe didn't even know men did things like this to boys" card and it's all self serving bullshit imo. Paterno ran the program and he had the juice to step up and be counted. He didn't do so and there is nothing "complex" about that at all.
keep the following in mind: 1. sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys. that was his pipeline for victims. not penn state. this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials. he was given an office on campus. In the athletic dept. why did you leave that out?2. whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly. it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw. he went to his dad and family friend first. this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual. and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky. omg. Talk about rationalization. You think the fact that McQueary went to paterno first is proof that 'it wasn't tthat bad'??3. mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno. in an earlier post you claimed McQueary was unreliable because he changed his version 3 times. Now you say THIIS version is reliable? Wow, that's covenient. 4. paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual. yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky. there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution. probably? Does that mean paterno lied under oath? Are you sure this is where you want your argument to go?5. no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky. so that means you don't take this report seriously? Especially when he'd been investigated previously?6. 409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case. it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky. it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno. 409 has nothing to do w paterno's legacy. That's what PSU supporters think. Sure. Ok. 7. paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened. i wish I'd done more. Those were joes words. Does it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, paterno really meant what he said? That he knew he had the position, he power and influence, to have acted and regrets that he didn't? |
|
|
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 Jan 29, 2015 13:39:15 GMT -5
once again, the complexity of this debate makes it hard for people to get on the same page....what louis freeh concluded was not that paterno should have done more....what louis freeh concluded was that paterno along with others covered up sandusky b/c of football...then he went one step further and blamed the fans of the school for this. my argument, along with onward state...is not that paterno should be completely exonerated b/c he's innocent....we just believe that he's not guilty of what freeh concluded. why can't there be difference between believing paterno didn't cover up sandusky to win football games and paterno didn't do enough to stop sandusky but it's not certain as to why? why do we all have to assume paterno messed up b/c he cared more about football? i don't think it's fair to criticize paterno who was suffering with advanced lung cancer for not participating with freeh's investigation. at the end, paterno's advisers made all the decisions and they preferred paterno to speak with those they trusted. besides, freeh's agenda was clear from the very beginning and everybody knew the direction he was going. "mr. paterno, even though you are getting deadly amounds of radiation injected into you weekly, would you like to meet with someone who is currently being paid 8 million dollars to write a report that is ultimately going to blame you for what happened?" and you aren't exactly correct when you say other principles chose not to speak to freeh. the attorney general of pa asked freeh to not speak with mcqueary. spanier DID speak with freeh but freeh ignored everything he said. at the time, there were no charges against spanier. schultz and curley did have charges against them at the time so speaking with freeh would have been dumb as they aren't about to give the state more evidence. i tire of the 'this is more complex than those of you outside state college can fathom' crap. the paterno family went to court saying the freeh report was inaccurate. paterno was asked to participate in the freeh-led investigation. he could have 'corrected' or at least given his perspective on the series of events, but refused, although after that date he still conducted an interview w/a journalist and continued working on his book w/posnanski, while still 'getting deadly amounts of radiation.' he.... chose... and how the hell am i incorrect re not all the principals chose to speak w/freeh if paterno, schultz and curley, 3 of the principals, chose not to participate? you said they chose not to speak. spanier did and was ignored. the others couldn't for reasons i specified. i guess they could have but chose not b/c of their own trials. you made it sound like they didn't talk with freeh b/c they knew freeh was going to be fair as for paterno, would talking to freeh really have mattered? the conclusions for the report was written the day freeh was hired. if paterno had some sort of history of cheating in order to win at all costs, this would all be a different story. but he didn't. and i am supposed to believe that after 50 something years with the most impeccable reputation possible he suddenly decided to put football glory ahead of human decency? cmon. really? what do you think paterno's motive was? b/c to me...it was that he though he was unqualified to handle what mcqueary told me so i passed it along to other who were more qualified. does that not at all seem reasonable? does that make him a bad person all of a sudden? |
|
