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.