I say this about very few people, but Sandusky is one of them:

He deserves the "2 guys, 1 horse" treatment.

And his enablers don't deserve much better.

(05-07-2016 01:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that Sandusky's charity was created after 1976. Where have the kids come from to be on campus in 1971 and in 1976?

The Second Mile Foundation was created in 1977, not before. So, anything before 1977 is suspect at the best.

I am trying to be polite but this is ******* gibberish.

The kids at Second Mile are the only ones who have ever been raped on this planet?

You don't have DavidSt on ignore?

First, I don't agree with David in this thread, but he has a passion for (and knowledge about) smaller schools that would otherwise be overlooked. This forum wouldn't be the same without him. It wouldn't be as good. Beyond that, though, he's a genuinely pretty nice guy. Ignore him if you want (it's your loss), but there's no need to publicly put the guy down.

Second, touching on the original post, I disagree. I think that Sandusky was probably abusing kids all along, and I think that Joe probably knew about it for a long time. I honestly think that they both defined the term "POS," along with several other university employees, assistant coaches, and local government officials. However, echoing one of my earlier posts on this thread, there's not too much else to be said about the past. Whether you like him or hate him, Joe is dead and Sandusky is (rightfully) behind bars for the rest of his life, and most of the rest of everyone else has also been punished by the public in one way or another. This bigger issue in my mind is the future. How can we stop future abuses* at PSU and beyond PSU? Where are the blind spots in the system? Those are the questions that needs to be asked.

IMHO, PSU is just the poster child for corruption and dysfunction. However, PSU is not alone. Therefore, the national discussion should be about the whole system, and not just about one school. I think that gets lost a lot of the time.

*Abuses should be interpreted broadly. I mean it with regard to kids, women, other students, the athletes themselves, teammates, and so on.

Solid Post! I never understood why any of our schools erect statues of past coaches and key players. It's truly a form of idolatry that when done for someone who is still living only becomes an invitation to possible future embarrassment for the institution depending upon how that individual completes their life.

But more to the point of my reply. While I agree with your sentiments above, Penn State should stand out, not for the crimes however, but as an example of what not to do in the midst and aftermath of a scandal.

Joe Pa did not abused any of the kids. Second, he is not here to defend himself. Third, false accusations about a dead man seems to be nothing but for money. 4th, the cases that happened in the 1970s happened so long ago, and the victims thought they have told Joe Pa could turned out they reported the incident to someone else. 5th, many of the victims don't tell anybody because they are locked themselves up inside and are too afraid to tell anybody what happened to them.

(05-07-2016 10:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Joe Pa did not abused any of the kids. Second, he is not here to defend himself. Third, false accusations about a dead man seems to be nothing but for money. 4th, the cases that happened in the 1970s happened so long ago, and the victims thought they have told Joe Pa could turned out they reported the incident to someone else. 5th, many of the victims don't tell anybody because they are locked themselves up inside and are too afraid to tell anybody what happened to them.

6th if he would have reported Sandusky he could have stopped it. He is guilty by(at minimum) by doing nothing.

DavidSt is a great poster. Good man, who cares about the small schools.

Hogan's Heroes is a great show. Watch it.

As of right now, the 1970's claim is alleged. Innocent until proven guilty is my stance on this claim. I just wonder it took so long for it to come out.

(05-07-2016 10:26 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 10:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Joe Pa did not abused any of the kids. Second, he is not here to defend himself. Third, false accusations about a dead man seems to be nothing but for money. 4th, the cases that happened in the 1970s happened so long ago, and the victims thought they have told Joe Pa could turned out they reported the incident to someone else. 5th, many of the victims don't tell anybody because they are locked themselves up inside and are too afraid to tell anybody what happened to them.

6th if he would have reported Sandusky he could have stopped it. He is guilty by(at minimum) by doing nothing.

The questionable thing about this is that Paterno did tell McQueary to report the incident up to higher authorities. Paterno did the appropriate thing in 2001. Paterno's failure was then ignoring it when it was obvious nothing was done.

So did he ignore it in 1976 but not in 2001? Its possible. There was a lot more public discussion about this sort of thing. His former players were AD and head of campus police in 2001. But to believe this you have to come up with a reason that his earlier behavior was different.

Was JoPa of 76 the untouchable icon that the JoPa of 2001 was?

Well, as one of the resident Penn State fans here, I guess I have to chime in.

The CNN story? Honestly, not that "interesting." It's the same basic story as before (someone told Joe that Sandusky committed sexual assault, but nothing happened because of such). All that's different is the year.

The NBC story? Considerably more interesting. Now, we're talking --- allegedly --- about assistant coaches.

Now, for what I think is the really interesting question (and not being talked about in this thread): why is this flaring up again all of a sudden? The PSU vs. Insurance Company ruling comes Thursday, and then we have TWO MAJOR news stories released within 24 hours??? That's a little coincidental.

My hypothesis to the above: all of the stories are based on people who reached settlements with Penn State. However, part of their settlement: confidentiality is mandatory. So who the hell is leaking here? Probably not the victims, they risk forfeiting a lot of $. The insurance company, why would they leak? Their interest is ultimately 100% dollars and cents. So, process of elimination, the leaker has to be someone on the Penn State side.

But who? And why?

(05-07-2016 02:48 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  Well, as one of the resident Penn State fans here, I guess I have to chime in.

The CNN story? Honestly, not that "interesting." It's the same basic story as before (someone told Joe that Sandusky committed sexual assault, but nothing happened because of such). All that's different is the year.

(05-07-2016 02:48 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  Well, as one of the resident Penn State fans here, I guess I have to chime in.

The CNN story? Honestly, not that "interesting." It's the same basic story as before (someone told Joe that Sandusky committed sexual assault, but nothing happened because of such). All that's different is the year.

The NBC story? Considerably more interesting. Now, we're talking --- allegedly --- about assistant coaches.

Now, for what I think is the really interesting question (and not being talked about in this thread): why is this flaring up again all of a sudden? The PSU vs. Insurance Company ruling comes Thursday, and then we have TWO MAJOR news stories released within 24 hours??? That's a little coincidental.

My hypothesis to the above: all of the stories are based on people who reached settlements with Penn State. However, part of their settlement: confidentiality is mandatory. So who the hell is leaking here? Probably not the victims, they risk forfeiting a lot of $. The insurance company, why would they leak? Their interest is ultimately 100% dollars and cents. So, process of elimination, the leaker has to be someone on the Penn State side.

But who? And why?

Well, CNN and other news media outlets have been wrong in the past. For example? They made the Duke LAX players found guilty of rape before a trial came about, and then it turned out that woman was a lying prostitute who had sex after the rape. It ruined 3 young LAX players their lives. As of today, some people still think of them as being a rapists instead of victims of that woman and from the news media. They like to put news out so quickly without fact checking, or to make it sound like someone is guilty of the fact just to sell ads, and get viewers to watch. These types of articles is like click bait for people to click on and damned to what is actually the truth.

(05-07-2016 10:56 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That about nails it.

(05-07-2016 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, CNN and other news media outlets have been wrong in the past. For example? They made the Duke LAX players found guilty of rape before a trial came about, and then it turned out that woman was a lying prostitute who had sex after the rape. It ruined 3 young LAX players their lives. As of today, some people still think of them as being a rapists instead of victims of that woman and from the news media. They like to put news out so quickly without fact checking, or to make it sound like someone is guilty of the fact just to sell ads, and get viewers to watch. These types of articles is like click bait for people to click on and damned to what is actually the truth.

Implying that this is false because the media has gotten things wrong in the past is not a solid argument.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../84046678/

It gets worse. Not only did Joe know, but he railed against the victim when told.

(05-08-2016 09:29 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../84046678/

It gets worse. Not only did Joe know, but he railed against the victim when told.

Welcome to Friday.

(05-08-2016 09:36 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 09:29 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../84046678/

It gets worse. Not only did Joe know, but he railed against the victim when told.

Welcome to Friday.

Yeah I forgot I posted that. Yesterday was cinco de mayo/ bday party. So after a few blue moon Belgian whites and a couple of not your fathers root beer, oops. Both of those I highly recommend.

(05-07-2016 08:10 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 01:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 02:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that Sandusky's charity was created after 1976. Where have the kids come from to be on campus in 1971 and in 1976?

The Second Mile Foundation was created in 1977, not before. So, anything before 1977 is suspect at the best.

I am trying to be polite but this is ******* gibberish.

The kids at Second Mile are the only ones who have ever been raped on this planet?

You don't have DavidSt on ignore?

First, I don't agree with David in this thread, but he has a passion for (and knowledge about) smaller schools that would otherwise be overlooked. This forum wouldn't be the same without him. It wouldn't be as good. Beyond that, though, he's a genuinely pretty nice guy. Ignore him if you want (it's your loss), but there's no need to publicly put the guy down.

This part of your post is an excellent insight that I agree with.

Unlike many on here, I have never given DavidSt negative rep points for his many "headscratching" posts. Nor do I make a habit of attacking him.

After I got a sense that reading DavidSt was a waste of my time and that he was not someone whom I cared to reply or engage, I simply put him on ignore. That's what we're supposed to do, right?

However, when he posts something asinine in defense of Sandusky, he needs to be publicly ridiculed. Period. No matter how nice a guy he is or what he brings to the table in terms of small school discussion.

TerryD was right. His post about SecondMile was pure horse dung.

(05-08-2016 09:29 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../84046678/

It gets worse. Not only did Joe know, but he railed against the victim when told.

I am not defending the monster Sandusky. I am just pointing out that the 1970s cases could not be true or factual. Yes, there could be victims, but it have been a long time ago that the victims may not remember who they actually told what happened to them to.

Second, about these supposed coaches? We should look into the background of these coaches as well. Are they coming out now and sandblasting Joe Pa for a reason? Could it be revenge that they were fired for doing something bad themselves? We tend to want to believe alledge allegations and say a person is guilty of something. Joe Pa is innocent until proven guilty. All these support is just hearsay and nothing more. The leakers could be the insurance companies themselves so that they don't pay the victims any money, and want to make sure that Penn. State pay the full blunt of the money. Remember, Joe Pa is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Since he is dead, he can't defend himself. Just let Joe Pa rest in peace and only concentrate on keeping Sandusky behind bars where he belongs.