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 Dec 17, 2013 17:29:02 GMT -5
you are also going to believe what you are going to believe. i repeat... i've heard no one who was in favor of the ncaa sanctions, or maybe even in part was in favor of it, call this the joe paterno scandal. but yet hordes of psu fans keep inserting paterno as being the guy wronged here. it's ridiculous, and it's sad. spanier/schultz/curley will have their day in court because THEY ARE FACING CHARGES. paterno, if he were alive today, would not have a day in court because prosecutors have said he would not have been charged in this. and yet, you continue to say the same thing over and over and over. that paterno was wronged. you whisper, in essence, about the people who suffered physical/emotional damage that could last a lifetime, but shout from the mountain tops about a man who, even though he was not charged nor found guilty of a crime, said in his last days on earth that he wished he'd done more, like he's in jail. your perspective is so skewed when it comes to this. mark scott tosu 81 before you continue to insinuate that I somehow care more about the legacy of a football coach over the sexual abuse of children, let me just remind you that we are on a fun football message board talking ncaa related topics. it is possible to separate the issues. and considering that no one here knows me in real life, it's not very fair to make assumptions on my perspective. gladwell is saying the same thing as me. gladwell is a smart guy. outliers, blink, tipping point are all books read by everyone I know. yet you don't accuse gladwell of caring more about paterno's legacy than the sexual abuse of children. gladwell is not a penn state fan either. neither is bob costas, joe posnanski, mike krzyzewski, phil knight, bill james...all these guys are at the top of their professions. so before pigeonhole me with "hordes of penn state fans", please consider that i am not alone in this opinion. so, we're on a 'fun' message board. fun. i agree. i like talking sports. the sandusky saga is anything but... but you certainly choose to post an update anytime someone who has some kind of public profile says anything defending paterno. the only thing i know about your perspective, the only thing you share about your perspective, is what you type. i like you. you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. but you keep inserting paterno's name like he's been named enemy #1 by the authorities, the ncaa, the media, the public. and i honestly don't know why. because he's not now, nor was he ever, at the top of anyone's list in all this. he's obviously an element... and if the emails are accurate it appears he at least had tacit knowledge of some things. but i repeat... authorities said there was not enough to file any potential charges against him, like they did the other administrators. and yet you and others keep crying foul. as for your opinion being linked w/gladwell, costas et al? opinion about which tangent of all this? that the ncaa overstepped its bounds? that paterno didn't know anything? that the investigation that psu commissioned was faulty? the penalties too harsh? there are a lot of them. which one? and of everyone you mentioned, no one knew what was going on in the 90s/00s... no one was within the football program, psu athletic dept or exec branch. yet they all know what paterno knew/didn't know? wow. i don't have an agenda to protect paterno at all costs. i would just like to know the complete truth about whether psu leaders in authority, had knowledge of, and/or tried to conceal the actions of sandusky. no one's argued that the ncaa actions weren't historic, or questionable. but you act like it was all an indictment of paterno. and again, i repeat, why? mark scott tosu 81 [/quote] i just don't agree with you on paterno was just an element. looking back, he's just an element. but as the story was unfolding, paterno was all people talked about. the story exploded when the psu bot canceled paterno's press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment leaked. that's when the media started to fill in their own details when psu refused to give any, and prevented paterno from giving his details. then, after the release of the freeh report, the only thing the news networks would talk about was the stupid paterno statue. even the potus gave a public opinion on the paterno statue. why would the president find it necessary to discuss the statue's removal? and you're crazy if you don't believe the removal of every victory since 1998 had nothing to do w/ paterno. there are lots of tangents. gladwell and costas believe in mostly what i believe regarding most aspects. no one knows what paterno knew/didn't know obviously. but i just refuse to believe that he knowingly would endanger a child. i believe it's far more likely he was deceived by a con man. it just makes no sense for him to stay quiet if he knew the monster sandusky was. what did he have to gain by protecting someone he didn't like? avoidance of negative press? has negative press ever bothered paterno before? as we've seen, he had far more to lose than he had to gain. the treatment of paterno is just one of many angles to this story. the psu leaders failure to look out for the best interest of the univ, the ncaa exceeding its authority, the administrators on trial, etc are other parts too. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Dec 17, 2013 20:54:03 GMT -5
before you continue to insinuate that I somehow care more about the legacy of a football coach over the sexual abuse of children, let me just remind you that we are on a fun football message board talking ncaa related topics. it is possible to separate the issues. and considering that no one here knows me in real life, it's not very fair to make assumptions on my perspective. gladwell is saying the same thing as me. gladwell is a smart guy. outliers, blink, tipping point are all books read by everyone I know. yet you don't accuse gladwell of caring more about paterno's legacy than the sexual abuse of children. gladwell is not a penn state fan either. neither is bob costas, joe posnanski, mike krzyzewski, phil knight, bill james...all these guys are at the top of their professions. so before pigeonhole me with "hordes of penn state fans", please consider that i am not alone in this opinion. so, we're on a 'fun' message board. fun. i agree. i like talking sports. the sandusky saga is anything but... but you certainly choose to post an update anytime someone who has some kind of public profile says anything defending paterno. the only thing i know about your perspective, the only thing you share about your perspective, is what you type. i like you. you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. but you keep inserting paterno's name like he's been named enemy #1 by the authorities, the ncaa, the media, the public. and i honestly don't know why. because he's not now, nor was he ever, at the top of anyone's list in all this. he's obviously an element... and if the emails are accurate it appears he at least had tacit knowledge of some things. but i repeat... authorities said there was not enough to file any potential charges against him, like they did the other administrators. and yet you and others keep crying foul. as for your opinion being linked w/gladwell, costas et al? opinion about which tangent of all this? that the ncaa overstepped its bounds? that paterno didn't know anything? that the investigation that psu commissioned was faulty? the penalties too harsh? there are a lot of them. which one? and of everyone you mentioned, no one knew what was going on in the 90s/00s... no one was within the football program, psu athletic dept or exec branch. yet they all know what paterno knew/didn't know? wow. i don't have an agenda to protect paterno at all costs. i would just like to know the complete truth about whether psu leaders in authority, had knowledge of, and/or tried to conceal the actions of sandusky. no one's argued that the ncaa actions weren't historic, or questionable. but you act like it was all an indictment of paterno. and again, i repeat, why? mark scott tosu 81 i just don't agree with you on paterno was just an element. looking back, he's just an element. but as the story was unfolding, paterno was all people talked about. the story exploded when the psu bot canceled paterno's press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment leaked. that's when the media started to fill in their own details when psu refused to give any, and prevented paterno from giving his details. then, after the release of the freeh report, the only thing the news networks would talk about was the stupid paterno statue. even the potus gave a public opinion on the paterno statue. why would the president find it necessary to discuss the statue's removal? and you're crazy if you don't believe the removal of every victory since 1998 had nothing to do w/ paterno. there are lots of tangents. gladwell and costas believe in mostly what i believe regarding most aspects. no one knows what paterno knew/didn't know obviously. but i just refuse to believe that he knowingly would endanger a child. i believe it's far more likely he was deceived by a con man. it just makes no sense for him to stay quiet if he knew the monster sandusky was. what did he have to gain by protecting someone he didn't like? avoidance of negative press? has negative press ever bothered paterno before? as we've seen, he had far more to lose than he had to gain. the treatment of paterno is just one of many angles to this story. the psu leaders failure to look out for the best interest of the univ, the ncaa exceeding its authority, the administrators on trial, etc are other parts too. [/quote] The media prevented paterno from giving his details?  ? You have got to be kidding me that you actually typed that. As I recall, paterno refused to talk to anyone except posnanski (you know, because of the book deal that would make his family money) and I think Christine Brennan of USA today. Reporters were begging to get joepa's side. He didn't. That statement furthers my point that you don't have proper perspective when it comes to this. 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 Dec 18, 2013 16:25:22 GMT -5
Bullshit. It's not unfair to assign a sinister motive to Penn State unless one does the same in every other case out there. The world doesn't revolve around Penn State. As for Paterno? The Penn State BOT threw him under the bus, not the NCAA. For God's sake, after 50 years of service they fired him over the telephone.
But, you want to have it both ways....first you want to criticize the BOT and demand answers while at the same time you want to excuse their actions as being coerced by the NCAA, Louis Freeh, the media and whomever else is a convenient target.
Penn State is a big organization; it is a major corporation and it acts like major corporations do when faced with unpleasant choices. They made a business decision to do what they felt was the best choice re: the NCAA, Joe Paterno, Louis Freeh, etc. And now they are trying to put some of that toothpaste back in the tube. Which is also what major corporations do...they start a PR campaign.
Sympathy for the players? Absolutely. Sympathy for Penn State as an institution? No way. never said the world revolves around psu. just saying it's unfair to blame penn state's desire to protect it's image by enabling Sandusky but at the same time overlook why pedo's are enabled in various communities across the country. it's unfair that psu has been judged in hindsight w/o anyone considering that connecting all these dots are far more difficult to do in real time. and yes, it's unfair that a guy goes 50 plus years w/o an ethical blemish but people condemn him at the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. I honestly don't know if they were coerced by the ncaa. at first I thought they were. but I am beginning to their plan all along was to just surrender and move on asap and that the ncaa happily worked w/ them. but it'd be nice to know how it only took 12 days for the ncaa to determine they not only had the authority to punish penn state, but only 12 days to decide on the punishment.
I don't blame Penn State for wanting to repair its image. I fully expected them to do so. I blame them and a lot of their fans for the "boo-hoo, woe is me, we're victims too" fertilizer that is being spread around. As I said before....I have sympathy for the players, but not the institution. [/quote] i'll give you a hypothetic real quick...lets say that after the sanctions are announced, there is a mass exodus from penn state and they are unable to field a team. as a result, the penn state football program is dead for an undetermined amount of time. would you have sympathy for penn state fans? or the local community and businesses that was dependent on the business that football brought in? my friends divorced mom who makes 20k a year as a high school teachers aid and rents out her 3 bedroom house on football weekends to ease the financial stresses (and probably loneliness) in her life? the ncaa hit the community with a large punch in the gut. whether or not penn state opened the door, or they broke the door down is not relevant. it was the ncaa's punch. after the punch, penn state was still standing. not b/c the ncaa's punch wasn't strong enough, but b/c penn state was fortunate to have a group of loyal guys who ironically stood for everything the ncaa accused them of being against. the ncaa said penn state's academics were corrupt so as a punishment, they told the players they could leave a school that graduates 91% of its players for a school of less academic quality simply to be able to play in a bowl game. think about how ridiculous that is. alrite i'm going off in 100 different directions so i'll stop typing now. |
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 16:54:56 GMT -5
never said the world revolves around psu. just saying it's unfair to blame penn state's desire to protect it's image by enabling Sandusky but at the same time overlook why pedo's are enabled in various communities across the country. it's unfair that psu has been judged in hindsight w/o anyone considering that connecting all these dots are far more difficult to do in real time. and yes, it's unfair that a guy goes 50 plus years w/o an ethical blemish but people condemn him at the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. I honestly don't know if they were coerced by the ncaa. at first I thought they were. but I am beginning to their plan all along was to just surrender and move on asap and that the ncaa happily worked w/ them. but it'd be nice to know how it only took 12 days for the ncaa to determine they not only had the authority to punish penn state, but only 12 days to decide on the punishment.
I don't blame Penn State for wanting to repair its image. I fully expected them to do so. I blame them and a lot of their fans for the "boo-hoo, woe is me, we're victims too" fertilizer that is being spread around. As I said before....I have sympathy for the players, but not the institution. The problem with Costa's comments, which you now hold dear after he changed his opinion, is other than a bully pulpit he doesn't bring a lot to the table. Over the years I've run into him more than a few times here in St Louis. He's ok smart but not overly so, for a college dropout. He speaks well, as he should given his craft, but his intellect, for me, is average, based on the times I've spoken with him. But he does have a pulpit, an opinion and is not afraid to speak his mind. But on the PSU issue, he brings little to the table, imo. Re the NCAA, had they had a "for the good of the game" clause as baseball has, you'd have no basis of complaint. And I think that is the justification they did use with PSU. IMO, PSU agreed. Re Paterno, a decade before I believe he suspected something and kicked the can down the road. He could have and should have done more. He ran a loose ship. With the reductions in the sanctions, past and future, PSU got off easy. The money was a drop in the bucket of revenue, easily replaced. [/quote] 1. it looks like now that the trials won't occur until 2015. there are still a billion pre trial issues to resolve. 2. i don't know i always thought the 80,000 emmys costas has earned meant something about his talent. but it's not just costas. there are a many many others who agree with me, but to me, it's not about what costas said but more so how he has evolved. he admitted that he never read the freeh report when it was released b/c of his olympic tv obligations, but still offered harsh critique of paterno based off what others were saying. once things settled down, he made a more informed opinion. an opinion that is more fair. he believes paterno messed up and doesn't excuse him, but he doesn't buy into the narrative that paterno covered up Sandusky's crimes to protect his teams image. 3. "for the good of the game?" really? that doesn't create a slippery slope? everyday, shit happens that is bad for the good of the game. is it for the good of the game when only the media is paying attention? the objective of baseball's commissioner office and the objective of the ncaa is different. baseball's primary objective is to promote a sport that well paid professionals play at the highest level in the world. the ncaa's primary purpose is to.....i don't know what the ncaa's purpose is. i thought they existed to keep a level playing field. that has nothing to do w/ what allegedly happened in state college. 4. paterno obviously could have done more as he said. but at the same, he wasn't a law enforcement agent. he wasn't a child abuse expert. he was a really popular football coach. did he fail to prevent sandusky? no doubt. is he a terrible person? no, not at all. 5. penn state did not get off easy. penn state hired a great coach and was fortunate to have strong leaders on the team that kept the team afloat. the sanctions were designed to end the football program immediately, or slowly kill the team if it didn't kill the team immediately. penn state held on long enough for the ncaa to reduce the sanctions to diminish the embarrassment after getting involved in the first place. |
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 17:07:28 GMT -5
so, we're on a 'fun' message board. fun. i agree. i like talking sports. the sandusky saga is anything but... but you certainly choose to post an update anytime someone who has some kind of public profile says anything defending paterno. the only thing i know about your perspective, the only thing you share about your perspective, is what you type. i like you. you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. but you keep inserting paterno's name like he's been named enemy #1 by the authorities, the ncaa, the media, the public. and i honestly don't know why. because he's not now, nor was he ever, at the top of anyone's list in all this. he's obviously an element... and if the emails are accurate it appears he at least had tacit knowledge of some things. but i repeat... authorities said there was not enough to file any potential charges against him, like they did the other administrators. and yet you and others keep crying foul. as for your opinion being linked w/gladwell, costas et al? opinion about which tangent of all this? that the ncaa overstepped its bounds? that paterno didn't know anything? that the investigation that psu commissioned was faulty? the penalties too harsh? there are a lot of them. which one? and of everyone you mentioned, no one knew what was going on in the 90s/00s... no one was within the football program, psu athletic dept or exec branch. yet they all know what paterno knew/didn't know? wow. i don't have an agenda to protect paterno at all costs. i would just like to know the complete truth about whether psu leaders in authority, had knowledge of, and/or tried to conceal the actions of sandusky. no one's argued that the ncaa actions weren't historic, or questionable. but you act like it was all an indictment of paterno. and again, i repeat, why? mark scott tosu 81 i just don't agree with you on paterno was just an element. looking back, he's just an element. but as the story was unfolding, paterno was all people talked about. the story exploded when the psu bot canceled paterno's press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment leaked. that's when the media started to fill in their own details when psu refused to give any, and prevented paterno from giving his details. then, after the release of the freeh report, the only thing the news networks would talk about was the stupid paterno statue. even the potus gave a public opinion on the paterno statue. why would the president find it necessary to discuss the statue's removal? and you're crazy if you don't believe the removal of every victory since 1998 had nothing to do w/ paterno. there are lots of tangents. gladwell and costas believe in mostly what i believe regarding most aspects. no one knows what paterno knew/didn't know obviously. but i just refuse to believe that he knowingly would endanger a child. i believe it's far more likely he was deceived by a con man. it just makes no sense for him to stay quiet if he knew the monster sandusky was. what did he have to gain by protecting someone he didn't like? avoidance of negative press? has negative press ever bothered paterno before? as we've seen, he had far more to lose than he had to gain. the treatment of paterno is just one of many angles to this story. the psu leaders failure to look out for the best interest of the univ, the ncaa exceeding its authority, the administrators on trial, etc are other parts too. The media prevented paterno from giving his details? ? You have got to be kidding me that you actually typed that. As I recall, paterno refused to talk to anyone except posnanski (you know, because of the book deal that would make his family money) and I think Christine Brennan of USA today. Reporters were begging to get joepa's side. He didn't. That statement furthers my point that you don't have proper perspective when it comes to this. Mark Scott Tosu 81 [/quote] i didn't say the media prevented paterno from giving his details. i said the penn state board of trustees canceled his scheduled weekly press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment was publically leaked. the media descended in state college anxiously awaiting for paterno to speak. the press conference, as you might remember, was canceled at the last second. people were angry. very angry. the scandal went defcon 1 immediately after. he spoke with sally jenkins of the washington post, not christine brennan of the USA today. his book deal was signed well over a year in advance of all the hell that broke loose and posnanski was already on campus shadowing paterno for months well before November 2011. you make it seem like posnanski access to paterno was for selfish reasons as if no one else in the world tried to financially capitalize off a book. this was all settled well before anyone knew about sandusky's arrest. you omit the critical detail that paterno, who was 85 at the time, was undergoing chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer. i'm pretty certain this limited his availability. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Dec 18, 2013 17:17:16 GMT -5
never said the world revolves around psu. just saying it's unfair to blame penn state's desire to protect it's image by enabling Sandusky but at the same time overlook why pedo's are enabled in various communities across the country. it's unfair that psu has been judged in hindsight w/o anyone considering that connecting all these dots are far more difficult to do in real time. and yes, it's unfair that a guy goes 50 plus years w/o an ethical blemish but people condemn him at the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. I honestly don't know if they were coerced by the ncaa. at first I thought they were. but I am beginning to their plan all along was to just surrender and move on asap and that the ncaa happily worked w/ them. but it'd be nice to know how it only took 12 days for the ncaa to determine they not only had the authority to punish penn state, but only 12 days to decide on the punishment.
I don't blame Penn State for wanting to repair its image. I fully expected them to do so. I blame them and a lot of their fans for the "boo-hoo, woe is me, we're victims too" fertilizer that is being spread around. As I said before....I have sympathy for the players, but not the institution. i'll give you a hypothetic real quick...lets say that after the sanctions are announced, there is a mass exodus from penn state and they are unable to field a team. as a result, the penn state football program is dead for an undetermined amount of time. would you have sympathy for penn state fans? or the local community and businesses that was dependent on the business that football brought in? my friends divorced mom who makes 20k a year as a high school teachers aid and rents out her 3 bedroom house on football weekends to ease the financial stresses (and probably loneliness) in her life? the ncaa hit the community with a large punch in the gut. whether or not penn state opened the door, or they broke the door down is not relevant. it was the ncaa's punch. after the punch, penn state was still standing. not b/c the ncaa's punch wasn't strong enough, but b/c penn state was fortunate to have a group of loyal guys who ironically stood for everything the ncaa accused them of being against. the ncaa said penn state's academics were corrupt so as a punishment, they told the players they could leave a school that graduates 91% of its players for a school of less academic quality simply to be able to play in a bowl game. think about how ridiculous that is. alrite i'm going off in 100 different directions so i'll stop typing now. [/quote] Of course I would have sympathy for those affected through no fault of their own. Still would have no sympathy for the institution itself, and by that I am referring to the powers that be that caused the problem in the first place. I'm not sure why this is (apparently) so hard for you to understand. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 17:24:21 GMT -5
I don't blame Penn State for wanting to repair its image. I fully expected them to do so. I blame them and a lot of their fans for the "boo-hoo, woe is me, we're victims too" fertilizer that is being spread around. As I said before....I have sympathy for the players, but not the institution. i'll give you a hypothetic real quick...lets say that after the sanctions are announced, there is a mass exodus from penn state and they are unable to field a team. as a result, the penn state football program is dead for an undetermined amount of time. would you have sympathy for penn state fans? or the local community and businesses that was dependent on the business that football brought in? my friends divorced mom who makes 20k a year as a high school teachers aid and rents out her 3 bedroom house on football weekends to ease the financial stresses (and probably loneliness) in her life? the ncaa hit the community with a large punch in the gut. whether or not penn state opened the door, or they broke the door down is not relevant. it was the ncaa's punch. after the punch, penn state was still standing. not b/c the ncaa's punch wasn't strong enough, but b/c penn state was fortunate to have a group of loyal guys who ironically stood for everything the ncaa accused them of being against. the ncaa said penn state's academics were corrupt so as a punishment, they told the players they could leave a school that graduates 91% of its players for a school of less academic quality simply to be able to play in a bowl game. think about how ridiculous that is. alrite i'm going off in 100 different directions so i'll stop typing now. [/quote] then i misunderstood b/c i thought you said you only have sympathy for the players. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Dec 18, 2013 17:24:54 GMT -5
i just don't agree with you on paterno was just an element. looking back, he's just an element. but as the story was unfolding, paterno was all people talked about. the story exploded when the psu bot canceled paterno's press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment leaked. that's when the media started to fill in their own details when psu refused to give any, and prevented paterno from giving his details. then, after the release of the freeh report, the only thing the news networks would talk about was the stupid paterno statue. even the potus gave a public opinion on the paterno statue. why would the president find it necessary to discuss the statue's removal? and you're crazy if you don't believe the removal of every victory since 1998 had nothing to do w/ paterno. there are lots of tangents. gladwell and costas believe in mostly what i believe regarding most aspects. no one knows what paterno knew/didn't know obviously. but i just refuse to believe that he knowingly would endanger a child. i believe it's far more likely he was deceived by a con man. it just makes no sense for him to stay quiet if he knew the monster sandusky was. what did he have to gain by protecting someone he didn't like? avoidance of negative press? has negative press ever bothered paterno before? as we've seen, he had far more to lose than he had to gain. the treatment of paterno is just one of many angles to this story. the psu leaders failure to look out for the best interest of the univ, the ncaa exceeding its authority, the administrators on trial, etc are other parts too. The media prevented paterno from giving his details? ? You have got to be kidding me that you actually typed that. As I recall, paterno refused to talk to anyone except posnanski (you know, because of the book deal that would make his family money) and I think Christine Brennan of USA today. Reporters were begging to get joepa's side. He didn't. That statement furthers my point that you don't have proper perspective when it comes to this. Mark Scott Tosu 81 i didn't say the media prevented paterno from giving his details. i said the penn state board of trustees canceled his scheduled weekly press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment was publically leaked. the media descended in state college anxiously awaiting for paterno to speak. the press conference, as you might remember, was canceled at the last second. people were angry. very angry. the scandal went defcon 1 immediately after. he spoke with sally jenkins of the washington post, not christine brennan of the USA today. his book deal was signed well over a year in advance of all the hell that broke loose and posnanski was already on campus shadowing paterno for months well before November 2011. you make it seem like posnanski access to paterno was for selfish reasons as if no one else in the world tried to financially capitalize off a book. this was all settled well before anyone knew about sandusky's arrest. you omit the critical detail that paterno, who was 85 at the time, was undergoing chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer. i'm pretty certain this limited his availability. [/quote] you're right on jenkins instead of brennan. got my national female sports reporters mixed up. my apologies, to you and to sally and her dad dan. but despite his failing health at the time, joepa had plenty of opportunities, emphasis on plenty, to share his version or perspective in the aftermath of his dismissal. he chose not to. he wasn't dependent on permission from psu after being let go. and when the book deal was signed doesn't matter... he spoke to posnanski, he spoke to jenkins right before his death. that's it. 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!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Dec 18, 2013 17:59:23 GMT -5
i'll give you a hypothetic real quick...lets say that after the sanctions are announced, there is a mass exodus from penn state and they are unable to field a team. as a result, the penn state football program is dead for an undetermined amount of time. would you have sympathy for penn state fans? or the local community and businesses that was dependent on the business that football brought in? my friends divorced mom who makes 20k a year as a high school teachers aid and rents out her 3 bedroom house on football weekends to ease the financial stresses (and probably loneliness) in her life? the ncaa hit the community with a large punch in the gut. whether or not penn state opened the door, or they broke the door down is not relevant. it was the ncaa's punch. after the punch, penn state was still standing. not b/c the ncaa's punch wasn't strong enough, but b/c penn state was fortunate to have a group of loyal guys who ironically stood for everything the ncaa accused them of being against. the ncaa said penn state's academics were corrupt so as a punishment, they told the players they could leave a school that graduates 91% of its players for a school of less academic quality simply to be able to play in a bowl game. think about how ridiculous that is. alrite i'm going off in 100 different directions so i'll stop typing now. then i misunderstood b/c i thought you said you only have sympathy for the players. [/quote] Understood. I didn't say (or mean) only the players. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 Dec 19, 2013 9:08:20 GMT -5
The media prevented paterno from giving his details? ? You have got to be kidding me that you actually typed that. As I recall, paterno refused to talk to anyone except posnanski (you know, because of the book deal that would make his family money) and I think Christine Brennan of USA today. Reporters were begging to get joepa's side. He didn't. That statement furthers my point that you don't have proper perspective when it comes to this. Mark Scott Tosu 81 i didn't say the media prevented paterno from giving his details. i said the penn state board of trustees canceled his scheduled weekly press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment was publically leaked. the media descended in state college anxiously awaiting for paterno to speak. the press conference, as you might remember, was canceled at the last second. people were angry. very angry. the scandal went defcon 1 immediately after. he spoke with sally jenkins of the washington post, not christine brennan of the USA today. his book deal was signed well over a year in advance of all the hell that broke loose and posnanski was already on campus shadowing paterno for months well before November 2011. you make it seem like posnanski access to paterno was for selfish reasons as if no one else in the world tried to financially capitalize off a book. this was all settled well before anyone knew about sandusky's arrest. you omit the critical detail that paterno, who was 85 at the time, was undergoing chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer. i'm pretty certain this limited his availability. you're right on jenkins instead of brennan. got my national female sports reporters mixed up. my apologies, to you and to sally and her dad dan. but despite his failing health at the time, joepa had plenty of opportunities, emphasis on plenty, to share his version or perspective in the aftermath of his dismissal. he chose not to. he wasn't dependent on permission from psu after being let go. and when the book deal was signed doesn't matter... he spoke to posnanski, he spoke to jenkins right before his death. that's it. mark scott tosu 81 [/quote] you probably thought of brennan b/c she was one of those self righteous national journalists who made a cheap claim to the moral high ground by calling for the abolition of penn state football after the freeh report was released. usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/story/2012-07-12/paterno-penn-state-shut-down-football/56166544/1 lovely stuff written by christine, and a good reminder of the hysteria at that time. anyway, i am as shocked as anyone that in between getting lethal doses of radiation injected in his body in order to contain the spread of cancer from his lungs, paterno didn't make the time to fly out to new york city in order to speak with matt lauer, pierce morgan, and barbara walters. he probably could have squeezed in jon stewart too. seriously speaking though, the dude was 85. he lost his fast ball over a decade ago. you really think he could have dealt with the vultures in the media? if you're not able to swim in the deep end anymore, especially when the deep end is filled with sharks, you stay in the shallow waters. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Dec 19, 2013 10:38:58 GMT -5
i didn't say the media prevented paterno from giving his details. i said the penn state board of trustees canceled his scheduled weekly press conference a few days after the grand jury presentment was publically leaked. the media descended in state college anxiously awaiting for paterno to speak. the press conference, as you might remember, was canceled at the last second. people were angry. very angry. the scandal went defcon 1 immediately after. he spoke with sally jenkins of the washington post, not christine brennan of the USA today. his book deal was signed well over a year in advance of all the hell that broke loose and posnanski was already on campus shadowing paterno for months well before November 2011. you make it seem like posnanski access to paterno was for selfish reasons as if no one else in the world tried to financially capitalize off a book. this was all settled well before anyone knew about sandusky's arrest. you omit the critical detail that paterno, who was 85 at the time, was undergoing chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer. i'm pretty certain this limited his availability. you're right on jenkins instead of brennan. got my national female sports reporters mixed up. my apologies, to you and to sally and her dad dan. but despite his failing health at the time, joepa had plenty of opportunities, emphasis on plenty, to share his version or perspective in the aftermath of his dismissal. he chose not to. he wasn't dependent on permission from psu after being let go. and when the book deal was signed doesn't matter... he spoke to posnanski, he spoke to jenkins right before his death. that's it. mark scott tosu 81 you probably thought of brennan b/c she was one of those self righteous national journalists who made a cheap claim to the moral high ground by calling for the abolition of penn state football after the freeh report was released. usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/story/2012-07-12/paterno-penn-state-shut-down-football/56166544/1 lovely stuff written by christine, and a good reminder of the hysteria at that time. anyway, i am as shocked as anyone that in between getting lethal doses of radiation injected in his body in order to contain the spread of cancer from his lungs, paterno didn't make the time to fly out to new york city in order to speak with matt lauer, pierce morgan, and barbara walters. he probably could have squeezed in jon stewart too. seriously speaking though, the dude was 85. he lost his fast ball over a decade ago. you really think he could have dealt with the vultures in the media? if you're not able to swim in the deep end anymore, especially when the deep end is filled with sharks, you stay in the shallow waters. [/quote] talk about tangents. lmao... re my 'reasoning' for saying brennan. and your hyperbole about joepa rushing to nyc to do a series of interviews like he's promoting a movie or a book (you know, like what posnanski did for his) is duly noted. yes, i know paterno was up there in age. yes, i realize what being taken off the field as a coach, unceremoniously or not, must have done to his soul, maybe his will, especially combined w/the entire sandusky affair. i thought i recalled his family calling the cancer 'treatable' when it was first announced. i'm painfully familiar w/what treatments can do to a human body. and still... paterno did continue to work with posnanski after his treatments began, and as his body weakened. he did go ahead and agree to an interview w/jenkins. why her? why not someone from the inquirer, or si, or someone from the local media? just because psu cancelled his news conference didn't mean he couldn't talk on his own. my only gauge is what i think i would have done were i in a similar situation, and i'm not sure what i would have done. but it's obvious that the timing of his death means there are many more questions than answers in terms of paterno's true relationship to all this. you said earlier that you refused to believe that paterno would intentionally put a child in danger, and in the strictest definition i would tend to agree with you. but when paterno admitted that he could have done more, should have done more... i don't think he was speaking in polite or politically correct generalities. i think he realized that he, just like the psu administrators, kicked the sandusky can down the road, and wishes now that he'd taken different, or further, action. 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 Dec 19, 2013 11:24:33 GMT -5
you're right on jenkins instead of brennan. got my national female sports reporters mixed up. my apologies, to you and to sally and her dad dan. but despite his failing health at the time, joepa had plenty of opportunities, emphasis on plenty, to share his version or perspective in the aftermath of his dismissal. he chose not to. he wasn't dependent on permission from psu after being let go. and when the book deal was signed doesn't matter... he spoke to posnanski, he spoke to jenkins right before his death. that's it. mark scott tosu 81 you probably thought of brennan b/c she was one of those self righteous national journalists who made a cheap claim to the moral high ground by calling for the abolition of penn state football after the freeh report was released. usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/story/2012-07-12/paterno-penn-state-shut-down-football/56166544/1 lovely stuff written by christine, and a good reminder of the hysteria at that time. anyway, i am as shocked as anyone that in between getting lethal doses of radiation injected in his body in order to contain the spread of cancer from his lungs, paterno didn't make the time to fly out to new york city in order to speak with matt lauer, pierce morgan, and barbara walters. he probably could have squeezed in jon stewart too. seriously speaking though, the dude was 85. he lost his fast ball over a decade ago. you really think he could have dealt with the vultures in the media? if you're not able to swim in the deep end anymore, especially when the deep end is filled with sharks, you stay in the shallow waters. talk about tangents. lmao... re my 'reasoning' for saying brennan. and your hyperbole about joepa rushing to nyc to do a series of interviews like he's promoting a movie or a book (you know, like what posnanski did for his) is duly noted. yes, i know paterno was up there in age. yes, i realize what being taken off the field as a coach, unceremoniously or not, must have done to his soul, maybe his will, especially combined w/the entire sandusky affair. i thought i recalled his family calling the cancer 'treatable' when it was first announced. i'm painfully familiar w/what treatments can do to a human body. and still... paterno did continue to work with posnanski after his treatments began, and as his body weakened. he did go ahead and agree to an interview w/jenkins. why her? why not someone from the inquirer, or si, or someone from the local media? just because psu cancelled his news conference didn't mean he couldn't talk on his own. my only gauge is what i think i would have done were i in a similar situation, and i'm not sure what i would have done. but it's obvious that the timing of his death means there are many more questions than answers in terms of paterno's true relationship to all this. you said earlier that you refused to believe that paterno would intentionally put a child in danger, and in the strictest definition i would tend to agree with you. but when paterno admitted that he could have done more, should have done more... i don't think he was speaking in polite or politically correct generalities. i think he realized that he, just like the psu administrators, kicked the sandusky can down the road, and wishes now that he'd taken different, or further, action. mark scott tosu 81 [/quote] the family of paterno was very careful with joe in his final months. everything was a calculation. the family knew paterno had to speak publically, but at the same time, feared what he would say as he was not very sharp and cognitive at the time. they said the cancer was treatable b/c maybe it was initially or maybe it was the family's wish to not have people worry about joe's deteriorating health. did it seem like paterno was the type of person who wanted that type of attention? we only found out about the gravity of the situation a day or two before he passed. of course he worked with posnanski. not only were they contractually obligated, but paterno and posnanski had already established trust. i don't think the family had trust w/ many others. people were looking for reasons to be critical of paterno. they knew they weren't dealing w/ people that would give him the benefit of the doubt. Jenkins was selected b/c for whatever reason, her work led the family to believe she'd be the most fair. paterno was vehement in his denial of 1998 and shared that his prudish background made it difficult for him to mentally reconcile w/ what sandusky was accused of. hopefully, the upcoming criminal trials share some light on what happened in 1998 b/c unlike others, i'm not convinced based on the available information. the family had a strategy. it was to limit paterno's access to the public while commissioning their own report w/ their own experts. the report didn't provide earth shattering new details but rather educated those who read it on how deceptive and manipulative pedophiles can be. they made a case for ignorance, not malice. once again, people are going to believe what they want to believe. of course paterno wished he had done more. but, he also said w/ hindsight, he wished he'd done more. hindsight is the key term. he basically said had he known what we all now know, he wished he done more. he didn't say i wished i done more w/ the information provided to him by mcqueary. he could have been more vigilant but at the time, he didn't think that was his responsibility. he left it up to people that he felt had more expertise on the subject. remember, paterno told anyone to lie to hide what they knew. paterno did exactly what university procedure required at the time. and remember, the prosecutor initially praised him for his truthful testimony. the attorney general's office was very content with paterno's role. then freeh's report full of suppositions and assumptions backed up by flimsy circumstantial evidence was released. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Dec 20, 2013 8:50:41 GMT -5
you probably thought of brennan b/c she was one of those self righteous national journalists who made a cheap claim to the moral high ground by calling for the abolition of penn state football after the freeh report was released. usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/story/2012-07-12/paterno-penn-state-shut-down-football/56166544/1 lovely stuff written by christine, and a good reminder of the hysteria at that time. anyway, i am as shocked as anyone that in between getting lethal doses of radiation injected in his body in order to contain the spread of cancer from his lungs, paterno didn't make the time to fly out to new york city in order to speak with matt lauer, pierce morgan, and barbara walters. he probably could have squeezed in jon stewart too. seriously speaking though, the dude was 85. he lost his fast ball over a decade ago. you really think he could have dealt with the vultures in the media? if you're not able to swim in the deep end anymore, especially when the deep end is filled with sharks, you stay in the shallow waters. talk about tangents. lmao... re my 'reasoning' for saying brennan. and your hyperbole about joepa rushing to nyc to do a series of interviews like he's promoting a movie or a book (you know, like what posnanski did for his) is duly noted. yes, i know paterno was up there in age. yes, i realize what being taken off the field as a coach, unceremoniously or not, must have done to his soul, maybe his will, especially combined w/the entire sandusky affair. i thought i recalled his family calling the cancer 'treatable' when it was first announced. i'm painfully familiar w/what treatments can do to a human body. and still... paterno did continue to work with posnanski after his treatments began, and as his body weakened. he did go ahead and agree to an interview w/jenkins. why her? why not someone from the inquirer, or si, or someone from the local media? just because psu cancelled his news conference didn't mean he couldn't talk on his own. my only gauge is what i think i would have done were i in a similar situation, and i'm not sure what i would have done. but it's obvious that the timing of his death means there are many more questions than answers in terms of paterno's true relationship to all this. you said earlier that you refused to believe that paterno would intentionally put a child in danger, and in the strictest definition i would tend to agree with you. but when paterno admitted that he could have done more, should have done more... i don't think he was speaking in polite or politically correct generalities. i think he realized that he, just like the psu administrators, kicked the sandusky can down the road, and wishes now that he'd taken different, or further, action. mark scott tosu 81 the family of paterno was very careful with joe in his final months. everything was a calculation. the family knew paterno had to speak publically, but at the same time, feared what he would say as he was not very sharp and cognitive at the time. they said the cancer was treatable b/c maybe it was initially or maybe it was the family's wish to not have people worry about joe's deteriorating health. did it seem like paterno was the type of person who wanted that type of attention? we only found out about the gravity of the situation a day or two before he passed. of course he worked with posnanski. not only were they contractually obligated, but paterno and posnanski had already established trust. i don't think the family had trust w/ many others. people were looking for reasons to be critical of paterno. they knew they weren't dealing w/ people that would give him the benefit of the doubt. Jenkins was selected b/c for whatever reason, her work led the family to believe she'd be the most fair. paterno was vehement in his denial of 1998 and shared that his prudish background made it difficult for him to mentally reconcile w/ what sandusky was accused of. hopefully, the upcoming criminal trials share some light on what happened in 1998 b/c unlike others, i'm not convinced based on the available information. the family had a strategy. it was to limit paterno's access to the public while commissioning their own report w/ their own experts. the report didn't provide earth shattering new details but rather educated those who read it on how deceptive and manipulative pedophiles can be. they made a case for ignorance, not malice. once again, people are going to believe what they want to believe. of course paterno wished he had done more. but, he also said w/ hindsight, he wished he'd done more. hindsight is the key term. he basically said had he known what we all now know, he wished he done more. he didn't say i wished i done more w/ the information provided to him by mcqueary. he could have been more vigilant but at the time, he didn't think that was his responsibility. he left it up to people that he felt had more expertise on the subject. remember, paterno told anyone to lie to hide what they knew. paterno did exactly what university procedure required at the time. and remember, the prosecutor initially praised him for his truthful testimony. the attorney general's office was very content with paterno's role. then freeh's report full of suppositions and assumptions backed up by flimsy circumstantial evidence was released. [/quote] the family was careful, yes. they were protective of paterno then, and continue to be now. the family had a strategy then, and they've had one since his death. and it's to be protective of paterno, first and foremost, not necessarily to reveal the truth. frankly, it's because they don't know. it's funny in a way that you criticize freeh's report for being 'full of suppositions and assumptions', and yet that is the basis for a lot of the defense of joepa... suppositions and assumptions of what he knew, looking back on his actions or non-actions, and trying to rationalize them based on his reputation. right now, circumstantial evidence is really all we know for sure, unless something else surfaces at the trial. 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 Dec 20, 2013 10:24:33 GMT -5
talk about tangents. lmao... re my 'reasoning' for saying brennan. and your hyperbole about joepa rushing to nyc to do a series of interviews like he's promoting a movie or a book (you know, like what posnanski did for his) is duly noted. yes, i know paterno was up there in age. yes, i realize what being taken off the field as a coach, unceremoniously or not, must have done to his soul, maybe his will, especially combined w/the entire sandusky affair. i thought i recalled his family calling the cancer 'treatable' when it was first announced. i'm painfully familiar w/what treatments can do to a human body. and still... paterno did continue to work with posnanski after his treatments began, and as his body weakened. he did go ahead and agree to an interview w/jenkins. why her? why not someone from the inquirer, or si, or someone from the local media? just because psu cancelled his news conference didn't mean he couldn't talk on his own. my only gauge is what i think i would have done were i in a similar situation, and i'm not sure what i would have done. but it's obvious that the timing of his death means there are many more questions than answers in terms of paterno's true relationship to all this. you said earlier that you refused to believe that paterno would intentionally put a child in danger, and in the strictest definition i would tend to agree with you. but when paterno admitted that he could have done more, should have done more... i don't think he was speaking in polite or politically correct generalities. i think he realized that he, just like the psu administrators, kicked the sandusky can down the road, and wishes now that he'd taken different, or further, action. mark scott tosu 81 the family of paterno was very careful with joe in his final months. everything was a calculation. the family knew paterno had to speak publically, but at the same time, feared what he would say as he was not very sharp and cognitive at the time. they said the cancer was treatable b/c maybe it was initially or maybe it was the family's wish to not have people worry about joe's deteriorating health. did it seem like paterno was the type of person who wanted that type of attention? we only found out about the gravity of the situation a day or two before he passed. of course he worked with posnanski. not only were they contractually obligated, but paterno and posnanski had already established trust. i don't think the family had trust w/ many others. people were looking for reasons to be critical of paterno. they knew they weren't dealing w/ people that would give him the benefit of the doubt. Jenkins was selected b/c for whatever reason, her work led the family to believe she'd be the most fair. paterno was vehement in his denial of 1998 and shared that his prudish background made it difficult for him to mentally reconcile w/ what sandusky was accused of. hopefully, the upcoming criminal trials share some light on what happened in 1998 b/c unlike others, i'm not convinced based on the available information. the family had a strategy. it was to limit paterno's access to the public while commissioning their own report w/ their own experts. the report didn't provide earth shattering new details but rather educated those who read it on how deceptive and manipulative pedophiles can be. they made a case for ignorance, not malice. once again, people are going to believe what they want to believe. of course paterno wished he had done more. but, he also said w/ hindsight, he wished he'd done more. hindsight is the key term. he basically said had he known what we all now know, he wished he done more. he didn't say i wished i done more w/ the information provided to him by mcqueary. he could have been more vigilant but at the time, he didn't think that was his responsibility. he left it up to people that he felt had more expertise on the subject. remember, paterno told anyone to lie to hide what they knew. paterno did exactly what university procedure required at the time. and remember, the prosecutor initially praised him for his truthful testimony. the attorney general's office was very content with paterno's role. then freeh's report full of suppositions and assumptions backed up by flimsy circumstantial evidence was released. the family was careful, yes. they were protective of paterno then, and continue to be now. the family had a strategy then, and they've had one since his death. and it's to be protective of paterno, first and foremost, not necessarily to reveal the truth. frankly, it's because they don't know. it's funny in a way that you criticize freeh's report for being 'full of suppositions and assumptions', and yet that is the basis for a lot of the defense of joepa... suppositions and assumptions of what he knew, looking back on his actions or non-actions, and trying to rationalize them based on his reputation. right now, circumstantial evidence is really all we know for sure, unless something else surfaces at the trial. mark scott tosu 81 [/quote] in your opinion, who has been seeking to reveal the absolute truth in this whole mess? do you think freeh was seeking the truth? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Dec 20, 2013 10:48:38 GMT -5
the family of paterno was very careful with joe in his final months. everything was a calculation. the family knew paterno had to speak publically, but at the same time, feared what he would say as he was not very sharp and cognitive at the time. they said the cancer was treatable b/c maybe it was initially or maybe it was the family's wish to not have people worry about joe's deteriorating health. did it seem like paterno was the type of person who wanted that type of attention? we only found out about the gravity of the situation a day or two before he passed. of course he worked with posnanski. not only were they contractually obligated, but paterno and posnanski had already established trust. i don't think the family had trust w/ many others. people were looking for reasons to be critical of paterno. they knew they weren't dealing w/ people that would give him the benefit of the doubt. Jenkins was selected b/c for whatever reason, her work led the family to believe she'd be the most fair. paterno was vehement in his denial of 1998 and shared that his prudish background made it difficult for him to mentally reconcile w/ what sandusky was accused of. hopefully, the upcoming criminal trials share some light on what happened in 1998 b/c unlike others, i'm not convinced based on the available information. the family had a strategy. it was to limit paterno's access to the public while commissioning their own report w/ their own experts. the report didn't provide earth shattering new details but rather educated those who read it on how deceptive and manipulative pedophiles can be. they made a case for ignorance, not malice. once again, people are going to believe what they want to believe. of course paterno wished he had done more. but, he also said w/ hindsight, he wished he'd done more. hindsight is the key term. he basically said had he known what we all now know, he wished he done more. he didn't say i wished i done more w/ the information provided to him by mcqueary. he could have been more vigilant but at the time, he didn't think that was his responsibility. he left it up to people that he felt had more expertise on the subject. remember, paterno told anyone to lie to hide what they knew. paterno did exactly what university procedure required at the time. and remember, the prosecutor initially praised him for his truthful testimony. the attorney general's office was very content with paterno's role. then freeh's report full of suppositions and assumptions backed up by flimsy circumstantial evidence was released. the family was careful, yes. they were protective of paterno then, and continue to be now. the family had a strategy then, and they've had one since his death. and it's to be protective of paterno, first and foremost, not necessarily to reveal the truth. frankly, it's because they don't know. it's funny in a way that you criticize freeh's report for being 'full of suppositions and assumptions', and yet that is the basis for a lot of the defense of joepa... suppositions and assumptions of what he knew, looking back on his actions or non-actions, and trying to rationalize them based on his reputation. right now, circumstantial evidence is really all we know for sure, unless something else surfaces at the trial. mark scott tosu 81 in your opinion, who has been seeking to reveal the absolute truth in this whole mess? do you think freeh was seeking the truth? [/quote] i read the link you provided that the paterno family provided, talking about the typical behaviors of sexual predators. in terms of freeh, that report's come closer, imho, than anything else i've seen or read, when it comes to showing the communication activity within the psu walls. the circumstantial. the conclusions that were drawn from that? i think you and i, and plenty of others, would like to see how much truth is actually there. again, to me, the most revealing aspect in terms of the communication detailed is that there was some knowledge by a number of people in authority that something might be very wrong with sandusky... people with authority who had the power to do a lot more, or a lot different, than what they ended up doing. mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
