Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Joe Paterno has his side of this story to tell and he's anxious to tell it according to his son:
I don't know if he's going to live to tell it but if he does I hope you folks have an open mind to receive it
His son was on ESPN today and thought the cancer may actually help keep him fighting rather (if Cancer can be a twisted silver lining his exact words) than drift into retirement. Another quote was (paraphrasing this) that he has always been a fighter and that cancer is just the new fight he has. I only caught the very tail end of it though. That
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
As you state, it's an inference. I stick with facts
Uh huh. Ok, I have a good memory. That is the standard I'll hold you to, that you're a "just the facts" type of guy. Duly noted.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Joe Paterno has his side of this story to tell and he's anxious to tell it according to his son:
I don't know if he's going to live to tell it but if he does I hope you folks have an open mind to receive it
It isn't out there yet, and you've already made up yours LOL...you can't make this stuff up.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
traderumor
Uh huh. Ok, I have a good memory. That is the standard I'll hold you to, that you're a "just the facts" type of guy. Duly noted.
Fair enough. It's OK to discuss opinions and inferences but we have to keep that in mind while we're doing so. In this case, I'm discussing facts and you are not.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dom Heffner
It isn't out there yet, and you've already made up yours LOL...you can't make this stuff up.
You don't know that. You have no basis to say that I've already made my mind up. :nono: I would think you'd know better than that. I change my opinions when more facts come out and I'll give you an example:
Pete Rose
I supported him and his version of facts throughout the Dodd Investigation up until that Aug 1989 Presser where he was announcing his acceptance of the lifetime ban. At that point I knew he was guilty and have supported his being barred from the Hall ever since.
If I see evidence that Paterno has hidden something I'll turn on him quicker than I did on Pete. I'm not even a Penn State fan.
Next time know what you're talking about before mouthing off on what's going on in my mind...:thumbdown:
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Thanks for that info but I didn't learn anything new. What's your point in posting it?
Well, apparently you must have, because just a few posts earlier you said:
Quote:
Just to be accurate, include that he told more than the AD. The chief of Campus Police was also informed
That was blatantly not accurate. Schultz was not chief of police. He was not a law enforcement officer at all. He was a bureaucrat.
If we find out that Paterno had only this one meeting and never followed up with Curley or Schultz... Never said "Hey, I don't want this guy around our football program anymore. We need to take this guy's keys away from him. Something more must be done." Well, that makes him as culpable, from a moral standpoint, as Curley or Schultz. Sexual abuse of a child is not something I'd be comfortable passing the buck on.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Fair enough. It's OK to discuss opinions and inferences but we have to keep that in mind while we're doing so. In this case, I'm discussing facts and you are not.
That would be incorrect. I am making a conclusion based on the facts. While it is an inference from factual information, it is still a conclusion based on facts. I'm not pulling stuff out of the air, or making irrational jumps in conclusions. It isn't like you are not making assumptions, even if you are only "discussing facts."
Fact: There were charges considered related to similar incidents in the current indictment that were dropped for reasons. Of course, now that more information is out, people are rightly looking at the 1998 non-indictment as fishy.
Fact: Despite the lack of an indictment, Paterno let his star assistant go for reasons that were made public. The known facts point to the inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior that his assistant was engaging in as the reason for dismissal.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dabvu2498
Well, apparently you must have, because just a few posts earlier you said:
That was blatantly not accurate. Schultz was not chief of police. He was not a law enforcement officer at all. He was a bureaucrat.
Clearly Mcqueary felt Schultz was in a position of power to report it:
Quote:
McQueary said the two men appeared to take his report seriously and promised to "investigate (it) closely and follow up with me."
McQueary testified that he believed the two men because "in my mind it was like speaking to a DA (district attorney)." (McQueary stated this because he knew Schultz to be the boss of the university police). Four or five days later, McQueary received a telephone call from athletic director Curley "say(ing) they followed up and looked into it." McQueary testified that Curley informed him they'd "contacted the Second Mile (charity) and reported the incident. Told Jerry not to have kids around program or facility." McQueary also said, "I think they told me they took his keys away, but I’m not totally sure."
If your intention is to differentiate between "boss" of police or chief, fine but since you gave no comment I had no idea what point you were trying to make
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Razor Shines
There is plenty of evidence that Paterno knew what was going on. You can play the game that you're only going to discuss facts, or whatever you decide are facts, if you want.
Here's a fun fact: Paterno was told that a boy was sexually molested in the shower in the locker room at Penn St by one of Paterno's long time friends and he was so concerned about it that he waited until Monday to tell his boss about it because he didn't want to interrupt anyone's weekend. He was very sorry that McQueary had to witness it though.....he was sorry for the boy too just not enough to call anyone right away...come on, he didn't know the boy. How concerned can a man be for a boy being raped when the boy is nameless and faceless. Thank God for Paterno that McQueary didn't step and find out who the boy was, whew that made it much easier to just push it back in the closet. I mean he's a damn legend, should child rape really be enough to tear down his life's work?
That's not accurate. He called his boss on a Sunday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1084204.html
That's pretty urgent wouldn't you agree or are you sticking to your version of facts that he waited until Monday?
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
traderumor
That would be incorrect. I am making a conclusion based on the facts. While it is an inference from factual information, it is still a conclusion based on facts. I'm not pulling stuff out of the air, or making irrational jumps in conclusions. It isn't like you are not making assumptions, even if you are only "discussing facts."
Fact: There were charges considered related to similar incidents in the current indictment that were dropped for reasons. Of course, now that more information is out, people are rightly looking at the 1998 non-indictment as fishy.
Fact: Despite the lack of an indictment, Paterno let his star assistant go for reasons that were made public. The known facts point to the inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior that his assistant was engaging in as the reason for dismissal.
Ahh, don't change your story now. I'll get dizzy following the bouncing ball. I agree with how you put it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
traderumor
You don't think its a reasonable inference that the 1998 incident that did not result in an indictment but did result in a mysterious firing to the heir apparent and wildly successful coach of "Linebacker U" isn't "on the record?" While that may not rise to the level of evidence in a court of law, I don't pretend that opinions expressed on a message board need to meet that criteria of evidence.
Don't screw up our common ground
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
Ahh, don't change your story now. I'll get dizzy following the bouncing ball. I agree with how you put it here:
Don't screw up our common ground
I would call it clarification. We are both interpreting facts and making conclusions based on facts. Don't pretend that you're the only one dealing with "facts."
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
traderumor
I would call it clarification. We are both interpreting facts and making conclusions based on facts. Don't pretend that you're the only one dealing with "facts."
We don't know for a fact why Sandusky was fired.
Re: Incredible ugliness at Penn State
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Razor Shines
Whatever day it was is not really the point and you know that. The point is he testified that he didn't call anyone the day that McQueary told him because he didn't want to interrupt anyone's "weekend" or "Saturday" I can't remember which one he used. That's how urgent it was.
Don't say you can't remember. Show us the quote and let's look at it. I don't remember such a quote so I'd like to see it