It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Carol the Impaler]

Especially, AIUI, since he knew there was a problem in 1998. Or did he think that the 2002 incident was a horrible coincidence?

[Kolga]

It is ASTONISHING to me how many of the board conservatives continue to insist that Paterno did no wrong, legally or morally. I just can't wrap my head around it at all. Paterno was informed that McQueary saw sexually inappropriate behavior on the part of Paterno's former heir. Paterno informed the AD, and then...did nothing. Hired McQueary, the man who had accused Paterno's former heir of sexual improprieties with a child. Keep hanging out with Sandusky, the man so accused. Didn't check with any authority figures other than his boss. Didn't follow up to make sure that the accusation had been investigated by the appropriate people.

What was his thought process? "I'm going to hire this guy who accused my former heir apparent of child molestation, even though I don't believe his accusations?"

This, like the thread on the Texas judge belt-whipping his teenage daughter, is certainly clarifying the character of a number of people on this board.

[Cartooniverse]

+ 1.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

You realize that Penn State is in fact a very large University outside of its football program, right?

This is true, but Penn State games draw a LOT of people who don't live in the immediate area. And by "a LOT", I mean "good luck getting anywhere near State College on a Saturday."

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Kolga

It is ASTONISHING to me how many of the board conservatives continue to insist that Paterno did no wrong, legally or morally.

I have to take exception to this. There are maybe two or three board conservatives defending him. Mr. Moto, magellan01, and several more have been right along with the board centrists and liberals condemning him. You can't really divide the defenders and condemners by political ideology on this one.

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by jayjay

I have to take exception to this. There are maybe two or three board conservatives defending him. Mr. Moto, magellan01, and several more have been right along with the board centrists and liberals condemning him. You can't really divide the defenders and condemners by political ideology on this one.

You know, you're right. There have only a couple of board conservatives that went with the "no culpability" argument.

I apologize for the incorrect generalization.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally Posted by Kolga

It is ASTONISHING to me how many of the board conservatives continue to insist that Paterno did no wrong, legally or morally. I just can't wrap my head around it at all.

See, Joe Paterno is God. The only person in football more God than Joe Paterno is Tim Tebow, Blessed Be His Name and Uniform.

Glad to have cleared that up...

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

[Note: the first paragraph would not stand if in fact JP knew that the kid was being raped. But it's not clear that he knew or should have known, since it's not clear what he was told. The assumption that he must have known is itself part of the child abuse hysteria sanctimony, IMHO.]

Are you kidding? Is there a meaningful distinction to you between "anal rape" and "sexual contact [of ANY kind] with a minor?" Legally? Morally? There is no dispute that JP heard at least the latter. (BTW, I am beginning to suspect that McQuery might be just enough of a careerist scumbag to have been vague about what he told JP (not that there is a meaningful distinction between the two alternatives -- I can't stress that strongly enough) and then be very specific about telling Curley and Shultz "anal intercourse." Maybe that was intentional to give the prosecution some (bogus) basis to treat Paterno differently, and to allow Paterno to in turn be vague, and, most importantly, avoid perjury (which is probably the fundamantal reason for Shultz and Curley being prosecuted -- prosecutors ALWAYS go after easily-demonstrated perjurers).

ADs come and go, university VPs are a dime a dozen. Legendary coaches who have selected you as their protege are a commodity that needs to be protected. I'm not saying McQuery deliberately set up his testimony specifically to protect JP, just that there was ample incentive built in if he were/was/is inclined to do so. Can we agree that if/when JP goes, McQuery will just about have to as well?

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by jayjay

I have to take exception to this. There are maybe two or three board conservatives defending him. Mr. Moto, magellan01, and several more have been right along with the board centrists and liberals condemning him. You can't really divide the defenders and condemners by political ideology on this one.

Hey . . . I'm kind of hurt . . .

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Hey . . . I'm kind of hurt . . .

It's like the Gilligan's Island theme. You're part of "and the rest". Honestly, I only went by memory and didn't go back over the thread to get all the names. It wasn't an intentional slight.

[Cartooniverse]

Problem is the big picture. See, the Attorney General of PA's two brothers, father, uncles, four cousins and the guy from the Wal Mart who plows out her driveway all played for Joe Paterno.

I'm just saying. Things are rather tightly wound up in the Happy Valley.

[billfish678]

FTR I am about a conservative(or at least politically incorrect) as they come (at least in relation to most folks about most things on this board). Also, I am about the last person to jump on the OMG, look out for the pedophiles! bandwagon and think most of it and a significant fraction of date rape/drunk is no excuse is a crock. And yet, even to me, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I guess its possible Paterno will come up with an excuse that flies and the facts will back him up, but for now to me its looking pretty damn bad. I suspect at best things will be shown to be pretty bad, but not just the OMG bad they currently appear to be.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by billfish678

FTR I am about a conservative(or at least politically incorrect) as they come (at least in relation to most folks about most things on this board). Also, I am about the last person to jump on the OMG, look out for the pedophiles! bandwagon and think most of it and a significant fraction of date rape/drunk is no excuse is a crock. And yet, even to me, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I guess its possible Paterno will come up with an excuse that flies and the facts will back him up, but for now to me its looking pretty damn bad. I suspect at best things will be shown to be pretty bad, but not just the OMG bad they currently appear to be.

bill, I think the odds of it being more OMG bad, as opposed to any less, are much higher. Think about it -- the criticism of Paterno is based in large part on his own sworn admissions. Let's say that someone or some video tape comes forward that proves McQuery, the janitor(s), or the victims (also sworn) testimony was perjured, wrong, mis-remembered (there's not been the slightest suggestion of this, nor a single eyewitness who contradicts any of the other witnesses implicating Sandusky, mind you). Even so Paterno (who couldn't have known, and shouldn't have just assumed, the hypothetical/counterfactual innocence of Sandusky) morally needed to do more than what he did.

As some have said, unless all the eyewitnesses were (a) wrong or (b) lying, this isn't really one of those "innocent till proven guilty," "let's see what shakes out, it may not be as bad as it sounds" situations. Really, it can only plausibly be worse than it sounds (I predict before it's all over, at least one or two additional victims, possibly even one of Sandusky's foster children (ewww), will have come forward, and maybe one or two more aspects of the cover-up or non-feasance by PSU officials will have been unveiled.).

Some stories you hear, process, and just say "that shit totally happened," and this is one of them. It's like reading the harassment complaint against Bill O'Reilly: when I got to the point where the complaint recited that in one of his phone sex sessions, O'Reilly was reported to have said "I'd get you down to the Caribbean, then I'd get a couple of daquiris into you -- that's pretty much their modus operandi down there" -- I said to myself -- "that shit totally happened AND she has it on tape."

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Stay classy, Rush.

Actually what he's doing is no different from the posters in this thread who claim I'm defending Paterno due to his politics.

When all this started I had no idea of Paterno's political inclinations. I've been defending him primarily for three reasons: one, we don't know exactly what he was told, how serious it appeared or how unlikely, and we don't know how much credence he gave it. Two, jumping to conclusions about someone's guilt and behaving as though they are the scum of the earth when you don't know all the facts is exactly what Nancy Grace does, and since the general consences around here is that it's wrong for her to that, it should also be wrong for posters here to do it. And three, the hysteria going on with regard to Paterno and the entirety of Penn State University itself, apart from the handful of administrators who are culpable, is responsible for the ridiculous hysteria regarding pedophilia that has been going on in this country that has resulted in such lunacy as adolescent girls being charged for distributing child porn and having to register as a sex offender simply for taking a nude photo of themselves on a cell phone and emailing it to a friend, who for all I know could be charged for receiving it as well.

Child porn and child rape are serious issues and when engaged in by adults they should be punished just as seriously, but as it is now children are being brought up to fear men and a man can no compliment a child to its mother without without drawing suspicious glares. It's ridiculous, and attitudes like the ones on display in thread are what lead to it. So knock it off and let the facts come out and the law and the courts determine what should be done and stop acting like a friggin mob of vigilantes.

Harumph!

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

bill, I think the odds of it being more OMG bad, as opposed to any less, are much higher. ."

Oh, IMO thats certainly possible too. I was just saying AT THE VERY best, given a bunch of improbable stuff, newly revealed facts, and plenty of giving of the benefit of doubt it still won't be very good. And Bill Oreilly never even bothered to buy me any drinks

[MsWhatsit]

You know what's not ridiculous hysteria? Calling 911 when you see a grown man sodomizing a 10-year-old boy.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

the facts come out and the law and the courts determine what should be done and stop acting like a friggin mob of vigilantes.

Harumph!

The facts have come out. In the form of sworn testimony that the grand jury found plausible enough to justify an indictment.

And you continue to suggest that "sexual contact with a child" (which, at a minimum we KNOW Paterno heard about, because he swore to it) could ever be deemed meaningfully less serious, in terms of an appropriate follow up, than some OTHER more specific form of sexual behavior. "How serious it was"=100% freaking serious. Really, I wonder if something's wrong with your thought process. "How much credence did he give?" That fucker KNEW it was true because the same S.O.B. had been (plausibly, accurately) accused of the same thing, years before, by a totally different witness.

[Ian D. Bergkamp]

Per the Philadelphia Fox affiliate, the number of Sandusky's alleged victims has more than doubled and is now close to 20. I suspect there will be more.

[RaftPeople]

Joe (and everyone else involved) should have taken it as seriously as they would if it was their own kid, especially after multiple reports from different people about different victims.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by billfish678

And Bill Oreilly never even bothered to buy me any drinks

Did he also not get in the shower and soap up your back with that thing, whadda ya call it, a falafel?

Also from that complaint, also 100% guaranteed, lead pipe cinch self-authenticating proof that every word of the complaint was true and on tape verbatim.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

You know what's not ridiculous hysteria? Calling 911 when you see a grown man sodomizing a 10-year-old boy.

Call me ghetto, but I don't think my immediate thought upon seeing a child getting anally raped would have been to call 911. It would have been to render first aid.

And by "first aid", I mean delivering a swift kick to the nuts of the guy doing the raping and getting the kid out of harm's way. At the minimum he could have given away his presence by saying something.

It's really sad that his first inclination was to run away, not to put all that muscle he had to some good, practical use for once in his life. Such a waste of testosterone.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

Joe (and everyone else involved) should have taken it as seriously as they would if it was their own kid, especially after multiple reports from different people about different victims.

Paterno calls his players his "kids".

-shudder-

-puke-

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

You know what's not ridiculous hysteria? Calling 911 when you see a grown man sodomizing a 10-year-old boy.

Correct. And the fact that he didn't makes me question, as I described last night, what he actually saw and how he relayed it to Joe Paterno.

Originally Posted by Huerta88

The facts have come out. In the form of sworn testimony that the grand jury found plausible enough to justify an indictment.

And you continue to suggest that "sexual contact with a child" (which, at a minimum we KNOW Paterno heard about, because he swore to it) could ever be deemed meaningfully less serious, in terms of an appropriate follow up, than some OTHER more specific form of sexual behavior. "How serious it was"=100% freaking serious. Really, I wonder if something's wrong with your thought process. "How much credence did he give?" That fucker KNEW it was true because the same S.O.B. had been (plausibly, accurately) accused of the same thing, years before, by a totally different witness.

It hasn't been proven exactly what Paterno was told or how bad he thought it was, or whether he questioned in his own mind if it even happened at all, given what an unlikely scenario it was to begin with. As I said last night, it's entirely possible for coaches to get crosswise and lie about each other.

And speaking of hysteria, yes, there is a hell of a lot of difference in various types of sexual contact with children. Certainly they are all wrong, but there's a good deal more damage done, psychologically and physically, by anally raping a child as opposed to snapping illicit photos of them in the nude. Both are repulsive and both are child sex abuse, but to claim they are equivalent morally or in terms of damage to the child is ridiculous. It's like claiming that knifing someone is as bad as slapping them. Both are assaults and both are crimes and both should be punished, but to say one is as bad as the other is nothing but hysteria.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

As I said last night, it's entirely possible for coaches to get crosswise and lie about each other.

I'm going to leave alone the notion that there is a form of sexual contact with a child (not photos, Paterno used the phrase "sexual contact with a minor") that would militate for a different degree of investigation and follow uo than a report of "anal intercourse" because the notion is, frankly, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin insane.

Coaches may be rivals and might spread tales. You don't know much about college football, or organized sports, if you think an up and coming but wet behind the ears graduate assistant would ever have, or think he had, a plausible chance of bettering his career by badmouthing the guy who had been second-in-command and was still thick as thieves with the head guy. It's not like McQuery could, what, take over the D coordinator job by slandering Sandusky, nor would that thought ever have crossed Paterno's mind unless he was insane. I know all about office politics. The copy boy doesn't try to trash the VP's reputation unless he's a nut case, and no one's said (least of all Paterno) that McQuery was a nut case or that his report was not plausible on its face, or was not in fact believed to be true by them at the time.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Cartooniverse

Paterno calls his players his "kids".

-shudder-

-puke-

And here's another perfect example right here. Paterno calls his players his "kids", therefore he's clearly a perv. Are you really unaware that practically everybody in charge of young people calls them kids? Teachers do it, coaches do it, fast-food restaurant managers do it.

I know I've brought her up several times already but I'm beginning to see why Nancy Grace has been so successful. And it's disgusting!

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And speaking of hysteria, yes, there is a hell of a lot of difference in various types of sexual contact with children. Certainly they are all wrong, but there's a good deal more damage done, psychologically and physically, by anally raping a child as opposed to snapping illicit photos of them in the nude. Both are repulsive and both are child sex abuse, but to claim they are equivalent morally or in terms of damage to the child is ridiculous. It's like claiming that knifing someone is as bad as slapping them. Both are assaults and both are crimes and both should be punished, but to say one is as bad as the other is nothing but hysteria.

What the...I don't... seriously, what? Maybe you could give us your rubric for appropriate levels of outrage for different types of offenses that could be committed by a naked 60-year-old man vs. a naked 10-year-old boy in a locker room.

Better yet, don't. I'm close enough to losing my dinner already from reading this thread.

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Correct. And the fact that he didn't makes me question, as I described last night, what he actually saw and how he relayed it to Joe Paterno.

Continuing your theme of your own experience and knowledge being complete fucking gospel. Can't have happened because the nobody else heard the kid scream which you know he would have. Can't have happened because he didn't call 911. Can't have happened because you can't imagine things happening that way.

It hasn't been proven exactly what Paterno was told or how bad he thought it was, or whether he questioned in his own mind if it even happened at all, given what an unlikely scenario it was to begin with. As I said last night, it's entirely possible for coaches to get crosswise and lie about each other.

So until we know absolutely everything about everything involving this case, it's not fair to make any kind of judgement? When the fuck did your standard of evidence get so high?

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nancy Grace

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

[Typo Negative]

Starving has a point. Not a great point, but a point.

Yes, there is an indictment. But lots of folks get indicted , then aquitted. People have been known to lie to Grand Juries, and proscutors have went gangbusters and tried cases in the media only to find that poor schlubs they bankrupted in the process didn't do anything. Anybody remember McMartin Preschool?

Righteous indignation is fun and all. And yes, I think everyone involved have a LOT to answer for, including JoePa. But maybe can wait a little while before we hoist him from his....whatever we hoist people from.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by spooje

Anybody remember McMartin Preschool?

Worst football program ever. Why they were ever let into the conference is beyond me.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

What the...I don't... seriously, what? Maybe you could give us your rubric for appropriate levels of outrage for different types of offenses that could be committed by a naked 60-year-old man vs. a naked 10-year-old boy in a locker room.

Better yet, don't. I'm close enough to losing my dinner already from reading this thread.

I was talking about the kind of thinking, expressed several times in this thread, which holds that one kind of child sex abuse is as bad as another. Am I supposed to let such nonsense lie simply because its proponent is outraged? The truth is still the truth no matter how righteously motivated its opponent. Are we supposed to be fighting ignorance here or just unthinkingly supporting nonsense because it favors our moral outrage?

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Worst football program ever. Why they were ever let into the conference is beyond me.

OK, THAT one got me laughing. Well played.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I was talking about the kind of thinking, expressed several times in this thread, which holds that one kind of child sex abuse is as bad as another.

You want to give us a scale here? Is fondling not worth reporting? Is masturbating while watching a 10-year-old shower not worth reporting? Is oral sex not worth reporting? What are your criteria for a "reporting threshold"?

[Kolga]

Sandusky admitted to inappropriate sexual conduct in the 1998 incident.

Joe Paterno had admitted that McQueary informed him of the behavior he witnessed between Sandusky and the child in 2002, and has admitted that he informed his superiors but did nothing else.

McQueary has admitted that he informed Paterno of the behavior he witnessed between Sandusky and the child in 2002, and admitted that he didn't follow up with Paterno to see where the investigation had gone from there.

These are the FACTS that have already been admitted to by those three men involved. Even IF Sandusky is found completely innocent of all charges, these facts STILL indicate a shocking lack of "give a shit" about the possibility of child rape on the part of three men.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by jayjay

You want to give us a scale here? Is fondling not worth reporting? Is masturbating while watching a 10-year-old shower not worth reporting? Is oral sex not worth reporting? What are your criteria for a "reporting threshold"?

Yeah, and what's the point of that sliding scale, when there is NO useful argument that physical sexual contact with a minor is ever not reportable, or less reportable, for the purposes of this story, which is, should JP have reported it. For purposes of deciding whether someone legally or morally had a duty of further invetigation, follow-up, it is like a step function or flowchart direction -- "if plausible report of physical sexual contact, then must report/follow-up/verify/falsify." The severity of the criminal contact is really a matter for the prosecution's charging papers and the prosecutor's sentencing argument at trial. Paterno would have no business making such gradations of severity when deciding whether to report further, call law enforcement, follow-up.

Oh, by the way, is Joe wracked with grief, about to apologize or resign? Are the idiot PSU faithful so mortified that they've rallied in outrage? Enquiring minds want to know!

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/11/joe-pat...snt-give-a-fk/

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by jayjay

You want to give us a scale here? Is fondling not worth reporting? Is masturbating while watching a 10-year-old shower not worth reporting? Is oral sex not worth reporting? What are your criteria for a "reporting threshold"?

When did I say that certain forms of child sex abuse should be exempt from being reported? Oh, yeah, it must have been when I said purse-snatching didn't warrant calling the police. I swear though that I can't remember doing either one. Perhaps you could point me to it?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

When did I say that certain forms of child sex abuse should be exempt from being reported? Oh, yeah, it must have been when I said purse-snatching didn't warrant calling the police. I swear though that I can't remember doing either one. Perhaps you could point me to it?

You keep saying that Paterno's contention that he didn't get the details of what actually went on excused his lack of follow-up and reportage to actual law enforcement. That's your whole argument.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

It hasn't been proven exactly what Paterno was told or how bad he thought it was, or whether he questioned in his own mind if it even happened at all, given what an unlikely scenario it was to begin with. As I said last night, it's entirely possible for coaches to get crosswise and lie about each other.

And speaking of hysteria, yes, there is a hell of a lot of difference in various types of sexual contact with children. Certainly they are all wrong, but there's a good deal more damage done, psychologically and physically, by anally raping a child as opposed to snapping illicit photos of them in the nude. Both are repulsive and both are child sex abuse, but to claim they are equivalent morally or in terms of damage to the child is ridiculous. It's like claiming that knifing someone is as bad as slapping them. Both are assaults and both are crimes and both should be punished, but to say one is as bad as the other is nothing but hysteria.

[SnakesCatLady]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I was talking about the kind of thinking, expressed several times in this thread, which holds that one kind of child sex abuse is as bad as another. Am I supposed to let such nonsense lie simply because its proponent is outraged? The truth is still the truth no matter how righteously motivated its opponent. Are we supposed to be fighting ignorance here or just unthinkingly supporting nonsense because it favors our moral outrage?

All types of child sexual assault are ILLEGAL. All kinds. Every bit of it. NONE of it is ok. None of it is legal.

Whether or not JP was told "anal rape" or "sexual interaction" DOES NOT MATTER. Either action is illegal when done by a adult male to a child.

Whether one offense is "as bad as another" makes no difference. It has nothing to do with moral outrage. It should have been reported to the police.

[jtgain]

I'm with Starving Artist here. Joe Pa has been coaching at Penn State since before I was born and I have always had the highest respect for the man. I can't possibly believe that someone ran into his office, told him he saw a 10 year old boy being anally violated, and Joe Pa just shrugged his shoulders.

I'm going to give him every benefit of the doubt until I get the "GOP Senators talk to Nixon" moment where the evidence is overwhelming that he was complicit. I am shocked to say the least.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Oh, by the way, is Joe wracked with grief, about to apologize or resign? Are the idiot PSU faithful so mortified that they've rallied in outrage? Enquiring minds want to know!

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/11/joe-pat...snt-give-a-fk/

That is one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen. Blind allegiance, stupidity, lack of moral character and denial all packed into a couple of minutes.

Talk about wanting to lose your dinner . . .

But then, there are those out there that still worship Hitler.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I'm going to give him every benefit of the doubt until I get the "GOP Senators talk to Nixon" moment where the evidence is overwhelming that he was complicit. I am shocked to say the least.

Are you not getting it? That evidence is already here. Did you even read the indictment? I can't say it more clearly than this: This is what Paterno swore to under oath -- in his own words:

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistants report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paternos immediate superior to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

Game over. The people here who are blaming him, are blaming him not based on speculation (my speculation is that McQuery told him specifically that there was anal intercourse). They are blaming him on the theory that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he knew about at least "fondling or . . . something of a sexual nature to a young boy," and that they (the upset posters) think Paterno had a moral (if not legal) obligation to do something more than report it up the chain and then wash his hands of it, even when it became clear that his "superiors" weren't going to do anything and that this scumbag was still free and still working with kids and still on Penn State premises. You may not agree with this subjective moral judgment (though I can't understand anyone who doesnt't) but the premise that those holding that judgment need to "wait till all the facts are in" or "withold judgment" or "give Joe the benefit of the doubt" is indisputably just wrong. There is NO additional fact that could or would or is necessary to make the "Joe must go" argument -- the only facts that could arise would be ones that only reinforce it, because the argument is based on, and requires, nothing other than his own sworn testimony.

I swear this is like trying to explain Euclid to three year olds.

[monstro]

Everyone who saw the guy raping kids and just walked away? Punk-ass bitches, all of 'em.

A 911 call can be made anonymously, if you're that scared to do something right then and there.

It's just not defensible behavior. And it's a shame that the victimized boys have turned out to be far braver than these so-called "great" men.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Are you not getting it? That evidence is already here. Did you even read the indictment? I can't say it more clearly than this: This is what Paterno swore to under oath -- in his own words:



Game over. The people here who are blaming him, are blaming him not based on speculation (my speculation is that McQuery told him specifically that there was anal intercourse). They are blaming him on the theory that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he knew about at least "fondling or . . . something of a sexual nature to a young boy," and that they (the upset posters) think Paterno had a moral (if not legal) obligation to do something more than report it up the chain and then wash his hands of it, even when it became clear that his "superiors" weren't going to do anything and that this scumbag was still free and still working with kids and still on Penn State premises. You may not agree with this subjective moral judgment (though I can't understand anyone who doesnt't) but the premise that those holding that judgment need to "wait till all the facts are in" or "withold judgment" or "give Joe the benefit of the doubt" is indisputably just wrong. There is NO additional fact that could or would or is necessary to make the "Joe must go" argument -- the only facts that could arise would be ones that only reinforce it, because the argument is based on, and requires, nothing other than his own sworn testimony.

I swear this is like trying to explain Euclid to three year olds.

I think you nailed it. Until anyone retracts anything of substance of their "sworn testimony" it is clear that JP, the Athletic Dept. and anyone else that had any knowledge of the situation are culpable.They've already testified. We, the outraged, are going by that testimony, not stuff that we are imagining. We don't have to make stuff up. It's already on record as sworn testimony. If the testimony is inaccurate then show us why. Don't blame the outraged ones for believing it.

[An Arky]

Man, I'm shocked! I had no idea Penn State was a Catholic school...

[Kolga]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Game over. The people here who are blaming him, are blaming him not based on speculation (my speculation is that McQuery told him specifically that there was anal intercourse). They are blaming him on the theory that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he knew about at least "fondling or . . . something of a sexual nature to a young boy," and that they (the upset posters) think Paterno had a moral (if not legal) obligation to do something more than report it up the chain and then wash his hands of it, even when it became clear that his "superiors" weren't going to do anything and that this scumbag was still free and still working with kids and still on Penn State premises. You may not agree with this subjective moral judgment (though I can't understand anyone who doesnt't) but the premise that those holding that judgment need to "wait till all the facts are in" or "withold judgment" or "give Joe the benefit of the doubt" is indisputably just wrong. There is NO additional fact that could or would or is necessary to make the "Joe must go" argument -- the only facts that could arise would be ones that only reinforce it, because the argument is based on, and requires, nothing other than his own sworn testimony.

I swear this is like trying to explain Euclid to three year olds.

THIS. Jesus christ on a rubber pogo stick, my CAT can follow factual information better than some of the people in this thread.

The FACT that Paterno was told that McQueary witnessed sexual behavior between Sandusky and a child is NOT IN DISPUTE. The fact that Paterno notified his superiors but did nothing else to follow up is NOT IN DISPUTE. The great one himself has admitted to those things.

I don't want to devolve into a wall of Stoid-like text here, but I really do feel that there are some people in this thread who are simply not reading anything anyone is typing, and who have not bothered to read any of the grand jury report at all.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by An Arky

Man, I'm shocked! I had no idea Penn State was a Catholic school...

It's not. It's a Land Grant school. Nonetheless, when Joe Pa is forced out it allows him to be elected Pope. He would be perfect for the job. Old, addled, male, white, Italian, and an enabler of child abuse.

I now understand the signs we used to see, "Paterno for Pope".

Can someone give us a photoshop?

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by Kolga

I don't want to devolve into a wall of Stoid-like text here, but I really do feel that there are some people in this thread who are simply not reading anything anyone is typing, and who have not bothered to read any of the grand jury report at all.

Yes but you know that happens all the time around here. And the scary part? We have to hope that your assumption is true, because the alternative is that there are really people here who think there are some forms of ADMITTED, MULTIPLY-WITNESSED, PLAUSIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A CHILD that would leave someone on the fence over what one was obligated to do or whether follow-up was necessary, make you take a "let's just see where he's going with this sexual contact before doing anything too rash" approach. Fortunately, Occam argues in favor of ignorance and unwillingness to review the facts and arguments based thereon.

I hope that's it.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Huerta88

Game over. The people here who are blaming him, are blaming him not based on speculation (my speculation is that McQuery told him specifically that there was anal intercourse).

I have the same belief because it's the only thing that makes sense. If you're leveling an accusation against someone higher up the food chain than you are, you aren't going to be vague and tip-toe around the big enchilada. No, you're going to lay out exactly what you saw because you don't want your boss to think you're making a big deal out of nothing and trying to sabotage someone's career over petty stuff.

People don't drive out to their boss's house in distress just to pussy-foot.

[Huerta88]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I'm with Starving Artist here. Joe Pa has been coaching at Penn State since before I was born and I have always had the highest respect for the man.

I'm not going to bother addressing the illogic of suggesting that this fact justifies changing the public record.

I'm just going to point out that the more I think of this, the more none of Paterno's real achievements (winning a bunch of games, avoiding NCAA sanctions, trying to make his players act civilized) could EVER (assuming we are in a counterfactual world in which good behavior A excuses bad behavior B) somehow counterbalance his failings here. Putting aside some challenge in his personal or professional life that was remarkably traumatic and difficult and that we don't know about -- THIS situation was the single biggest challenge to Joe Paterno as a man that he's ever faced. That he was too weak, or too stupid, or too old to think that more needed to be done (less could hardly have been done by him without actively covering up) means he FAILED at a challenge that meant more than the Fiesta Bowl, more than all the games he ever won.

Judge not lest ye be judged, but public figures are rightly held to a high standard, and just as I wouldn't make the argument that the worst thing I've ever done is explained away, or not bad, or probably didn't happen, because I'm nice to my Mom and volunteer with charities, I can't let that kind of argument or denial be applied to Joe P. Most of us don't have a statue of us up, and most of us have failed badly, but when I hear people suggesting nothing bad happened or that Paterno should get a pass or some fictitious "benefit of the doubt" (when there is no doubt) I get the urge to deface his statue so the legend reads "Joe Paterno -- He Failed As A Human Being." And feel free to put that on my statue when I get one and if you think and can present an argument for why my worst moment was worse than all my good moments were good, which Lord knows maybe you would.

[Kolga]

My god and goddess, someone please check the temperature down below, because I agree 100% with Huerta88 in post #299. And that's truly a first.

Multiple grown men have admitted that over multiple occasions they either ignored, downplayed, or condoned child rape. Those are facts, admitted by the men in question. I really don't know how much clearer the issues of moral culpability can be.