Well, it makes perfect sense - SA’s stomach was growling; Sandusky was making flesh-on-flesh slapping sounds. They’re both NOISES, AND ALL NOISES ARE THE SAME! IT’S DECIBELS AND STUFF! WHY YOU SO STUPID?!
This is the first thing I thought when reading the story.
No, can’t you read? The money was for the soda. Obviously, you’ve gone out of your way to twist his words and obscure the totally relevant and valid point he was making. But then, he’s come to expect nothing less from the leaping lizards of liberalism, Grace Jones-ian posters that infest this message board. That’s exactly how they always behave when they know they’re losing the argument. And now he has something more important to do.
How’s that?
This Onion article is hilarious, especially the last line, given the circumstances. I don’t care if you love or hate him, we can at least all laugh at the situation. I’m glad somebody wrote this before all this stuff went down
No. The heart of the problem here and in all cases was the culture of “quietness” about troubling or embarrassing allegations, especially against respected figures. Allowing Paterno to have a soft landing after his omissions in being “quiet” instead of going to the police or following up would send exactly the wrong signals.
Besides, it’s factually ridiculous to imagine how a “quiet resignation at the end of the season” would go, based on the facts. The allegations against Sandusky come out and are publicized worldwide, as is Paterno’s minimalist response. His clinging to his job when the university clearly needed to send a signal that they were going to impose consequences on anyone who responded tepidly to sex abuse reports would have been anything but “quiet” – it would have ignited on ongoing firestorm, and would have amounted to not some dignified exit but an openly defiant F-you to the world.
Somehow the family statement seems strange: “His loss leaves a void … that will never be filled.”
Given the allegations of anal rape on the Penn State campus, this could have been worded a bit better.
Just to avoid mocking responses like Filling voids seems to have been something they did well at Penn State.
Obviously Paterno’s family doesn’t share the sort of perverse mentality that would lead to such mockage - mockage which would be pretty stupid, btw, since we know of only one person on Penn State’s campus of tens of thousands of people who has even been accused of creating such voids. Illegally anyway.
Just a coupl’a bad apples.
You understood the joke, hence your mentality is just as perverse.
Nonsense. It’s not difficult to understand the meaning of such remarks, the perversity lies in the mentality that would think of them in the first place.
And yet, according to you, Joe Paterno couldn’t figure them out – had nooooo idea what “man and rape” was all about.
Nonsense. If you were perversity-free, your reaction would have been “Yeah, I guess Penn State was as good at filling voids in the staff as any place, but Paterno himself will indeed be hard to replace.”
Have you heard any of that interview? Paterno was hoarse and so weak that his voice was little more than a forced whisper (yeah, yeah, he was a hoarse whisperer ;)). I think he meant to say “…a man and child rape,” or something along that line and either said it so weakly that the interviewer didn’t hear it or that for whatever reason the word simply never got out and he felt to weak to go back and restate it. He was really in bad shape by that time, and it should be obvious that he never meant to say that he never heard of a man and rape. Who are believe he thought rape almost always involved…woman on woman forced sex? :rolleyes: Anyone who pretends to take that statement literally as reported is simply being silly.
But … you just said the words are easy to understand; the perversity lies with the person who puts them into action. So you’re saying you can understand it, but Paterno couldn’t? What was he? Mentally challenged as well as morally challenged?
If only there were a better way to figure out what a person means than by using their own words. Oh I know, we could just ask Starving Artist.
Hmmm.
I would have thought the perversity lies in doing them, or in allowing them to continue to be done.
[quote=“Starving_Artist, post:2254, topic:602167”]
…I think he meant to say… it should be obvious that he never meant to say… QUOTE
This is really strange. You’ve moved beyond defending Paterno to actually reinventing his statements.
Which coincidentally brings us back to the moral of the 7-11 story, which is that when you jump to conclusions based not on fact but upon superficial appearances and the results of your own fevered imaginings, you may very well be wrong.
Which is why I suggested way back in the early stages of this thread that we wait until we have actual evidence before we accuse Joe Paterno of intentionally trying to cover up for Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse of children, of being a pedophile enabler, of being a pedophile himself, or any of the other nonsense being bandied about at that time.
This is exactly correct, however you have the roles reversed. Nobody jumped to any conclusions but you, the guy didn’t even fucking say anything to you, but you assumed he was thinking you’re a pedophile. Project much?