This cannot be supported by facts, so we don't really know for sure.Originally Posted by Sea Ray
This cannot be supported by facts, so we don't really know for sure.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
I've never known him to lie nor have I heard of others who know him better than I say that he struggles with telling the truth. Do you find him to be a liar?
Do you take him at his word or do you feel he's lying?
Do you believe your grandparents aren't aware that child molestation happens?
Yeah, Paterno is just making himself look worse in my mind. If this was "his side" of the story he just couldn't wait to get out, then I'm not sure why he thought it would change anyone's perceptions. It's clear he still doesn't get how serious the situation was. He still had that conversation and washed his hands of it. He still let Sandusky in and around the PSU football program.
I think this is a pretty good assessment of the whole thing:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-lions-scandal
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
I'll agree with that MWM and I'm sympathetic to Paterno to a point.
I think the crux of the argument it this.
Did Paterno, when presented with whatever was presented to him, essentially fail to perform his duties due to an enormous error in action and error in judgement.
Or did he see what was going on and actively try to do damage control.
In my mind it seems pretty clear that whatever Paterno was supposed to do, the people he reported it to actively tried to sweep it under the rug.
I'm inclined to believe Paterno was closer to simply coming up impotent rather than evil. Though I should note that it's never all of one or another. I think he came up impotent and failed to fully do what he needed to do because it became easier to just accept that other people were going to handle it and let it go.
There's really no difference to the victims obviously. And whether it was due to failure or maliciousness, neither can be excused and Paterno certainly deserved to be fired(let go.) But I think it simply makes more sense given everything else we've seen about his character over 50 years. That a guy who generally has a reputation for doing things the right way, was presented with a situation where he had no experience, no real guideposts and simply failed. And I think that failure eats at him every day.
That doesn't matter according to the "just the facts" standard that you imposed on the discussion. Kinda unnecessarily hamstrings the discussion, eh? Plus you can't keep the standard yourself, let alone determine what are facts and what aren't.
So, answering your question, I think this is someone who is trying to plead ignorance, which only serves to make him a moral ignoramous. That is the opposite of the moral giant you and his other supporters want him to be. So if his moral compass doesn't include man on boy rape, then lying is certainly on his rationalization radar. Yes, I think he is lying to cover tracks, but sounds like a senile old man by employing that strategy.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Do you know Joe Pa personally or have you had significant interactions with him?
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
I am sticking to my factual standard. You are introducing facts that are not on the table when you say that Sandusky was fired in 1998 due to his "sexual" issues. You also have no factual basis to say the man's a liar.
The facts as we know them today:
--Sandusky resigned, not fired in 1998
--Paterno knew nothing of Sandusky's "issues" until McQueary came to him in 2002
--Paterno reported it to his higher ups within a day of hearing McQueary's story because he felt they were more qualified to conduct the investigation than a 75 yr old football coach
--Paterno says that he didn't know man rape could happen
To this day we still don't know if a crime was committed in that locker room in 2002
I do not. Nor do I know Pete Rose but I have reasons to believe Pete lies. Until I learn the same about JoePa he gets the benefit of my doubt. Do you have any evidence to present that JoePa is not telling the truth? Do you think he was lying?
I disagree. I think the more he talks, the more we remember why he has been such a respected man all these years
As you say yourself, the big difference is Pete actually did the crime and and Paterno not only didn't do "the crime", he didn't even witness it, nor cover it up. At worst he reported it to the wrong people. For you to say that Paterno's "crime" is not even comparable to Pete's is crazy
Your leg to stand on is getting more and more wobbly with each post. As Jojo stated, you do not have adequate "facts" to support your "he's many things, but he's no liar" conclusion. It's simply a conclusion you've reached by limited contact with a public figure. I had the same opinion of Jim Tressel at one time, "facts" proved me wrong. You surely don't claim you "know" Joe Paterno that well, do you?
As for responding to my post, you didn't. I wasn't even talking about the Sandusky firing here, yet you rehashed your argument. I'm sure you'll never concede the failure of your "just the facts" stance, but its failed.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
It's tough to see how you could make any specific conclusion concerning the man's character given you do not know him.
We do know this. He is on record as saying that the allegations made him uncomfortable and acted as he did out of respect for University proceedure. We also know there are several people who are on record indicating that he subverted university procedure when it benefitted the football program or his agenda.
Without knowing the man personally, I find it difficult to accept that he had no knowledge that his defensive coordinator was being investigated for child molestation in 1998. Happy Valley is not Pleasantville afterall...people talk and the pond is a small one so echoes travel.... Or to put it another way, his legacy needs to be reexamined if he legitimately did not know an iconic figure in his storied program (the Dean of Linebacker U no less) was under investigation for child molestation that likely was occuring in the lockerroom of the facilities JoePa was in charge of overseeing. The utter lack of involvement with his program that is implied by such an argument would suggest his win total needs a serious asterisk.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
--Paterno knew nothing of Sandusky's "issues" until McQueary came to him in 2002
Sorry, it is not a "fact" that Paterno knew nothing of Sandusky's "issues" until 2002. It is only a fact that Joe has said he knew nothing of Sandusky's "issues" until then. There is a HUGE difference.
Only if you take the stance that Paterno is incapable of lying and could not have a faulty memory could you argue otherwise.
--Paterno reported it to his higher ups within a day of hearing McQueary's story because he felt they were more qualified to conduct the investigation than a 75 yr old football coach
This is not a fact either. I'm not sure the timeline has been 100% verified and certainly the motivation is based entirely on Paterno's statement.
Last edited by puca; 01-16-2012 at 11:37 AM.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
