(09-04-2016 01:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Reasonable doubt established. Not guilty.

How is there any doubt when in his own words Joe Paterno said he had been told of Sandusky sexually fondling a kid in the PSU showers?

(09-04-2016 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  krup,

You can and will think you "know" whatever it is you want to "know". That's fine if you want to condemn him for being a "bad man", whatever that means. But I already addressed that.

My point, which continues to hold true, is that you don't get to say he's guilty, without sufficient proof. You can't.


I also think it's completely absurd and bogus beyond all belief to pretend like Paterno had all this great power, such that he could mind control every day-to-day action of every individual associated with Penn St football in some fashion.

And you're trying to tell me that my bar is too high???

People such as yourself can try and argue that Joe Paterno didn't have the power/responsibility to do any more than he did to make sure Sandusky was held legally accountable for the shower incident.

However, it takes a special level of cult-like delusion to argue (like you just did) that he didn't have the power to stop his players/coaches from attending events with someone he knew was a child predator.

So that's it, huh?

All of you guys are basing your guilty judgements of Paterno based on the "fact" that he was capable of controlling every day-to-day action of every person having an association with Penn St football?


You're allowed to make up whatever opinion you want. But that's an easy win in the court room.

(09-05-2016 10:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So that's it, huh?

All of you guys are basing your guilty judgements of Paterno based on the "fact" that he was capable of controlling every day-to-day action of every person having an association with Penn St football?


You're allowed to make up whatever opinion you want. But that's an easy win in the court room.

Nobody is in a court room. Applying legal standards to non-legal environments doesn't work. Joe isn't actually facing criminal charges and staring down the barrel of jail time.

Anyway, in some instances where there is less on the line (i.e. civil cases), the standard is a preponderance of evidence. I think that it would be hard to argue that Joe probably did the right thing, and that there was nothing material that he could have realistically done to better protect the kids, given what he either definitely knew or probably knew, and the power that he had.

I haven't gone through all of your posts, but I don't disagree with the basic sentiment that everyone should get a fair shake. After all, anybody can allege anything of anyone, and it's important to punish those who actually did something bad, and not just a fall guy. Therefore everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. However, a standard of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is appropriate for a courtroom, and pretty much only a courtroom. outside the courtroom, every situation has its own standard.

For instance:
*If it's whether or not to let him watch your kid, then a more appropriate standard would be "any reasonable suspicion." And yes, I get the Joe never touched kids, but in my mind, it's very hard to argue that Joe cared about kids very much - at least not relative to his program. So if something happened, I think that it's hard to argue that Joe would have done everything that he could to protect the kids.
*If it's a group of people sitting in a cafe (or internet forum) talking about whether or not Joe was probably a good guy, then the most appropriate standard is a preponderance of evidence standard because that is based on having a probability of greater than 50%.

Yes I know it's not a court room.

But then none of you get to pretend he's guilty. So moderate your statements, attitudes and opinions as such, and we're done. Thanks


As I've already addressed before: I have nothing against you having an opinion that you wouldn't let your kids go to his camp or that he is a "bad man" or whatever. But you all go far beyond that in your attitudes and tones of your posts.


nzm, I appreciate your post though. Very fair and level headed. Thank you

(09-02-2016 10:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  [...] The AD and the head football coach have no comment. They can't stop this fiasco, and they are too ashamed of it to comment, and/or they know they would be run out of town if they said what they really think about this.

Quote: Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour also declined to comment. As did Nittany Lions coach James Franklin, who also was not asked about the decision on his weekly radio show Thursday night.

The anniversary thing looks like a sop being thrown by the university's new leadership to some Paterno nuts still walking among the boosters and trustees.

You can't always suppress kookery. Sometimes you have to give it a valve to let off some of the pressure it makes. Here the kooks get a brief anniversary announcement at a ball game, for whatever that's worth, in return for not making a scene over being denied one. Still, a directive obviously went out that the less said about this, the better. Just get it over with.

Penn State's new president knows a few things about having crazy relatives in the university family. This looks like in-house kook management.

I really liked Paterno. Well until I heard about all of the sexual abuse. The bottom line is that he knew. He knew and didn't do anything or enough to stop it. He was the most powerful person on that campus, and he could have put an end to this abuse, but he did not. Therefore he is guilty, and I have zero respect for him. Penn State still honoring an individual that allowed this to gone on and on and on, is revolting.

(09-05-2016 11:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes I know it's not a court room.

But then none of you get to pretend he's guilty. So moderate your statements, attitudes and opinions as such, and we're done. Thanks


As I've already addressed before: I have nothing against you having an opinion that you wouldn't let your kids go to his camp or that he is a "bad man" or whatever. But you all go far beyond that in your attitudes and tones of your posts.


nzm, I appreciate your post though. Very fair and level headed. Thank you

I don't pretend, I entirely believe that bastard is guilty of protecting a child rapist to protect his "Grand Experiment" and his football program.

That opinion is mine. I own it, not you. You don't get to tell me what I believe.

Enablers find a way, don't they?

Sandusky's enablers did, and now their enablers do.

(09-04-2016 07:12 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 01:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Reasonable doubt established. Not guilty.

How is there any doubt when in his own words Joe Paterno said he had been told of Sandusky sexually fondling a kid in the PSU showers?

And about 8 other university people heard about it in 2001.

And the State College police department was reported about Sandusky in 1998. And did nothing.

But the story that was fed to the masses by the political powers in the state of PA was the Paterno was to blame...and this whole thing is about football. Nonsense.

Paterno is not innocent...but neither are dozens of others who could have done "something" to Sandusky over the course of a decade (or more).

(09-05-2016 02:44 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:12 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 01:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Reasonable doubt established. Not guilty.

How is there any doubt when in his own words Joe Paterno said he had been told of Sandusky sexually fondling a kid in the PSU showers?

And about 8 other university people heard about it in 2001.

And the State College police department was reported about Sandusky in 1998. And did nothing.

But the story that was fed to the masses by the political powers in the state of PA was the Paterno was to blame...and this whole thing is about football. Nonsense.

Paterno is not innocent...but neither are dozens of others who could have done "something" to Sandusky over the course of a decade (or more).

Absolutely agree. This was a massive failure by way too many people.

(09-05-2016 02:44 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  But the story that was fed to the masses by the political powers in the state of PA was the Paterno was to blame...and this whole thing is about football. Nonsense.

Then please enlighten us, with the real story or links to it.

Clearly Paterno was not, and could not have been, the sole enabler. But he was an enabler all the same, and to exalt him now is to exalt the act of a large, middle aged man forcefully and repeatedly ramming his ***** into the rectum of a small boy, while the child screams and cries and the Penn State staff covers their ears.

If you're going to raise a statue to Penn State's history and tradition, that should be the statue.

(09-05-2016 11:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes I know it's not a court room.

But then none of you get to pretend he's guilty. So moderate your statements, attitudes and opinions as such, and we're done. Thanks


As I've already addressed before: I have nothing against you having an opinion that you wouldn't let your kids go to his camp or that he is a "bad man" or whatever. But you all go far beyond that in your attitudes and tones of your posts.


nzm, I appreciate your post though. Very fair and level headed. Thank you

You going to keep ignoring what happened in 1976 then? Of course you are. He could have at the very least fired Sandusky in the mid-70's. He had that power, now once again and stick your head in the sand and pretend that that didn't happen and that that witness didn't testify in court under oath that he told Paterno and that Paterno blew him off.

(09-05-2016 02:44 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  But the story that was fed to the masses by the political powers in the state of PA was the Paterno was to blame...and this whole thing is about football.

No, that's not 'the story that was fed to the masses.'

A grand jury investigation revealed that the Penn State university president, the chief financial officer, the athletic director, and the head football coach all had an eyewitness report of a child rape at campus football facilities by a former assistant football coach who still had access. The four chose not to report the matter to police, telling the culprit only to keep his activities with children away from the campus. Failure to alert police allowed the behaviour to continue for several more years and affect more victims.

All four officials lost their jobs—as well they should have. The head football coach was singled out neither for special blame nor for special protection. He was not treated as special at all.

And boy, does that make some people mad.

allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Paterno is not innocent...but neither are dozens of others who could have done "something" to Sandusky over the course of a decade (or more).

For so long, I have said this has been a top to bottom failure. The athletic programming, the security administration and services, the institution, the county, state, NCAA, and federal DoE have ALL failed on this one.

I still feel this way.

But, knowing how long this had been happening, knowing it was a problem back when Joe was the AD, and the implications that the Associate AD, to become Joe's successor in that role, Jim Tarman, were also faced with this, yes, still a total failure, but now the spotlight and heat lamps must hang over Joe and the athletic department.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation between Paterno and Curley after the shower incident. A true "passing of the baton" of athletic administrative failure. Spanier should have brought it out of the dark immediately thereafter; not letting Tweedle-Dee Curley and Tweedle-Dum Schultz "handle it" after talking to the old geezer.

Honestly, I'm wondering why nobody is slamming on Tarman's door demanding some conversations. Probably the remaining living link to know the crap that went on there.

Sad and revolting cultists continually reveal themselves with their own words and actions, but not all Penn Staters are cultists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spor...f?section=

How about Penn State honoring the teams Paterno coached? Paterno is tainted.

Yeah paco, just another little pipsqueak trying to rile people up in order to get clicks. Same old cheap tactics that no name internet "journalists" use to try making a name for themselves.

Who can't pile on the Paterno bandwagon??? Hell I could write a "story" condemning Paterno and you jokels would click on it.

Scapegoat. Bandwagon. To the nth.

(09-07-2016 10:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah paco, just another little pipsqueak trying to rile people up in order to get clicks. Same old cheap tactics that no name internet "journalists" use to try making a name for themselves.

Who can't pile on the Paterno bandwagon??? Hell I could write a "story" condemning Paterno and you jokels would click on it.

Scapegoat. Bandwagon. To the nth.

Outed by your own words, over and over.

LOL! Like I was hiding.