And I’m still not sure why you won’t stoop to confirm what you’ll stoop to imply.
Awwww, poor widdle moron is being laughed at by too many people at once. Such a pity.
I’m not making a point, buttpipe (snerk, what a stupid insult), I’m Pointing And Laughing At The Retard.
Well, if that’s all ya got then that’s all ya got.
I do not know the answer, that’s the whole point. And I have never professed to know, so that would be a lie on your part.
You’ve said that the answer is clear to anyone who cares enough to look. But the question has been repeated enough times that you obviously have not made your meaning clear. When you say you have, that’s another lie.
And you’ve not answered the point that you, yourself, raised; what response do you owe to those who ask the question politely and in good faith?
That’s all yer worth. Or worthy of.
You accused me of lying, which clearly implied that you knew the truth which you just admitted you don’t know.
No, it’s a difference of opinion. The information necessary to ascertain the answer can be found throughout the thread.
Why do you think that might be?
-
His post concluded with “more reasonably he should have called police”
-
You firmly planted those goal posts multiple times over the last 60 or so pages regarding not calling police due to interfering with investigation
Are you unaware of your own position?
Perfectly, thanks.
SA why didn’t Paterno question Sandusky about then incident in your opinion?
I don’t think he felt it was his proper place to do so. Sandusky hadn’t worked for him for three years; Paterno wasn’t a trained investigator and had no investigative authority. Sandusky could have told him anything and Paterno would have had no way to determine the truth, and he would have known that; he felt Curley and Schultz were in the proper role to determine what happened and how it should be dealt with.
I also doubt he gave it that much thought. Most people just automatically follow established procedures. If the law says report suspected crime to university officials and years of precedent makes it standard procedure, he probably just did what he what he thought he was supposed to do and never even thought to do anything else. How many people hearing on the job that another employee has been embezzling or breaking the law in some other way immediately jump on the phone and call the police? Almost everyone would report it to their supervisor in the belief that the supervisor would be in a better position to determine what should be done. I doubt Paterno was any different.
Let me amend that statement slightly and see if we can come to some other view shall we?
How many people being told by an eye witness that another employee has been embezzling or breaking the law by engaging in unlawful sexual activity with a ten year old boy in the shower at night immediately jump on the phone and call the police?
Well, not you obviously. You’d reach for the nearest cardboard tube, crouch and whip your dick out, but the rest of us …? Sure we would. In a cold second.
Or we could amend it even further and say that if someone was told by an eye witness that they saw some vague, ill-defined activity that they presumed to be sexual taking place the day before, the person to whom this was described thought that maybe it would be better to report the incident to the head of its entity’s own fully accredited (including SWAT team members) police department for investigation as the law and longstanding accepted practice dictated?
As for the rest of your idiotic little scenario let me just state:
Winning!
It is everyone’s ‘proper place’ to protect the weak - this is what makes society, well, society and not just a bunch of animals sharing some land.
Paterno reported it so he thought something wasn’t quite right do you agree? If he thought nothing was up he wouldn’t have done anything, correct? So here we have a man who thought a person, whom he had known for years, was potentially using the facilities at his college to do something worth reporting and he says nothing to the man?
My theory is this - he didn’t want to know if anything was going on. By passing it on up the chain he managed to avoid finding out if his abhorrent suspicions were correct. This counts, to me, as a moral failure.
If you hear of an old man naked in a shower with a young kid here’s a tip - you give it some fucking thought. The first fucking thought should be IS THE KID SAFE.
If I hear of a similar scenario at my office I will report it to my superiors yes. I will then make damn sure it has been followed up because I am well aware my responsibility as a human being is not to do just what’s required but to do the right thing. Which in this scenario, just in case you haven’t got it yet, is to make sure the kid is safe.
If you, or indeed Paterno, think that only doing what is required of you and not that little bit extra to look out for the weak and potentially at risk is enough then shame on you.
Schultz was not “the head of its entity’s own fully accredited (including SWAT team members) police department”, he was the senior vice president of the university. If you see a crime you don’t call the mayor’s office even if technically they have oversight of the police. The fact that Schultz was charged with failing to report the allegations rather supports the idea that he wasn’t the guy allegations were supposed to be reported to. Of course, McQueary made the same mistake:
The guy in charge of the university police was Chief Tom Harmon, who has testified that Schultz never came to him about McQueary’s report of the incident. Which is a pity, because Harmon also testified that “as an officer with the department he received a report in 1998 from a mother who was upset that Sandusky showered with her son in a Penn State locker room.” Just think what might have happened if he’d been told about the later incident as well.
It’s also fun to recall that the eyewitness went on to become an assistant coach at Penn State. Even though he (incorrectly*) accused a long standing, respected member of the Penn State community of committing a perverted criminal act against a child while ON Penn State property, he was still trusted enough to be hired. I must commend Paterno for looking past Mc Queary’s poor judgement in this matter, and make him part of the coaching staff.
*I would assume that he incorrectly accused Sandusky of raping the child. I mean, the fully accredited police department conducted a thorough (if unnoticed) investigation into the matter and deemed (silently) the charges unsubstantiated.
We could do - if that scenario didn’t exist purely in your own head. And stop saying ‘Winning.’ Shit - even I’m getting embarrassed for you.
Well, see, here’s the thing. Maybe it was just an honest mistake, maybe you somehow innocently got it in your head that the lights were off and were happy to accept the correction. Ok, fine, it happens. And then maybe you said you mentioned FinnAgain’s name in the first sentence of your response to him/her, but it was actually in the second paragraph (or whatever the details of that back-and-forth were; it was pretty dumb) and you made another innocent mistake. You take the correction, with a rather petty “Eh, close enough” (my paraphrase). But surely we can overlook that dialogue, because it’s quite minor. And OK, so El_Kabong went through your first few posts in this thread and found not one mention of Paterno, but rather skepticism about what Sandusky was actually doing in that shower… despite your repeated, vehement insistence that the only reason you joined this thread was to defend due process and Paterno’s good name. So wrong there, but hey, it was months ago. And then Kimstu applies, of all things, the Pythagorean theorem to show that, with feet at shoulder’s width, Sandusky barely had to crouch to do what McQueary said he did. Fine, you concede, you said “impossible” all those (several? dozen?) times when you should have said “highly improbable.” But hey, heat of the moment and all. And then there was that time you called Huerta “pro-Nazi” because he made an allusion to Rommel, which is about as silly as calling me Buddhist because I think you’d try the patience of the Buddha. Oh, and I still haven’t forgotten how you have failed to provide even the barest hint of a cite for how Guin and AustinJane promote a lock-em-up-just-in-case policy for pedophiles. And then…
Well, surely I’ve made my point. You’ve made a lot of “honest mistakes,” which you are generally happy to admit but do nothing to shake your core conviction. That’s the mark of zealotry, and for some reason you’ve decided to point your zeal towards "defending "one instance of a repeated sex offender. Whatever, it’s your reputation. But I am reminded of that old expression, which Wikipedia tells me is from Goldfinger, of all places: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” And so I can only conclude that you’re the enemy of combating ignorance.
You can call them “honest mistakes,” excuse them due to faulty memory or being caught up with emotion, Huerta can call them lies. It doesn’t really matter, because at the end of the day you’re just plain wrong so often on so many points that you have absolutely no credibility. A reasonably intelligent Doper just popping into this thread could do worse than assuming the opposite of anything you say is true.
So, in short, I think Hentor said it best: you don’t value the truth. You just value… what’s the word… “winning.” And if that’s so, why don’t you just declare yourself the winner (as you’ve done innumerable times already), slink off (after informing us, of course), and let your posts speak for themselves?
Um, maybe after we get to the next page. Because I don’t think anyone wants this sordid thread to end on the 69th page.
Some excellent points made by q78; I’ll just add that of course it’s hard for SA to keep track of everything he said, when, as I believe someone said a while back, he is responsible for mor than ten percent of all the posts to an enormous thread such as this one. many of them little more than tedious, excessivly wordy restatements of information previously provided. He really does seem to think that repetition somehow increases the validity of something he says, but he’s like the guy at the party who, say, won’t shut up about how we should go back on the gold standard; eventually evereyone just rolls their eyes and drifts.
Cite??
Bitch, you should have learned long ago I’m not going to let you get away with making up facts and testimony that have no basis in the record.
“Years of precedent?”
You made that shit up.
Stop doing it little bitch.
Bitch,
Cite for the fact that there was anything vague or ill-defined about McQueary’s consistent and exclusive sworn testimony that, from six feet away, he saw “intercourse,” “extreme sexual conduct, way over the line.”
Bitch, I told you you aren’t getting away with making shit up here. Why after 70 pages does your retarded ass still think you can?