And we could test it on 100 12-year olds! Yes man, I like the way you think.
Did you miss the part where they explained what they meant by “failure of leadership”? From the CNN article:
That’s the basis for much (possibly most) of the criticism about Paterno that has been made in this thread.
It might help to know that Fotheringay-Phipps doesn’t believe Paterno had a moral responsibility to call police based on the evidence provided, that it didn’t rise to the level of requiring action beyond informing his supervisors.
It seems like now would be a good time to raise the minimum legal requirement. And while Paterno did indeed fail at leadership, that in no way lets Curley or McQueary off the hook for their failures as well.
Anyone seen Godot yet?
Let’s hope it’s deader than Godot.
In fact, I was inspired to write my own version of Sammy Beckett’s play (now with less existentialism!).
It only runs three minutes now, because his friends leave him a note that says they’re down in the pub.
Pretty big twist released by Sara Ganim today.
[SIZE=“4”]Patriot-News Exclusive:
Psychologist’s report might be reason Ray Gricar declined to bring charges against Jerry Sandusky in 1998[/SIZE]
SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News | 03/21/2012 5:00 AM
Since Jerry Sandusky’s November arrest and the revelation that now-missing district attorney Ray Gricar declined to prosecute a case brought to police in 1998, there have been hundreds of theories about why a seasoned district attorney would decide not to bring a case that state prosecutors would later pursue.
Information made public in a searing grand jury presentment showed that Sandusky allegedly admitted to touching the boy known as Victim 6 while they were both naked and saying, “I wish I were dead.”
What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky.
The psychologist – John Seasock – was identified in court… continue reading
It’s worth clicking through to the article (not sure why the link goes to the messageboard rather than the article directly) as it goes on to say
I’m not sure how much credence to give to “a source, who has a law enforcement background” but nonetheless, the Seasock view is not the only professional opinion in play.
Also worth noting, though, that “a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim” is a far cry from “this kid was abused”. (It’s also unclear whether this psychologist too actually interviewed the kid, or just spoke to his mother.)
[FTR, I personally don’t put a whole lot of stock in the ability of psychologists to determine whether some kid was or was not molested.]
Lots of discussion on the Sandusky scandal today on BWI. I bet the members over there would find your third-party opinions to be of great interest.
I bet the members over there would prefer not to have members of other messageboards encouraged to join up en masse just to weigh in on a particular topic. I know the SDMB certainly isn’t thrilled when it happens.
I’ve reported the post for that reason.
Frankly, I’ve also asked that the thread be closed. It’s had it, as far as I’m concerned. I think that any further comments on news that comes from the case against Sandusky can be a new thread in an appropriate forum (which very well could be the Pit) .
It’s impossible to make a fresh start here.
Shouldn’t we let SA post “Last!” before you close it?
“Winning!!”
I disagree.
What is the purpose of closing a thread?
Those that want to continue posting here if something comes up that’s relevant can, those that would prefer to create a new one can.
Just because you don’t want to, don’t presume you know what others want or what is good for others. That is exactly the type of problem that certain moderators have when closing threads too early or generally trying to influence things too much instead of just letting things follow a natural course.
(As you may have noticed this is kind of a pet peeve of mine, it bothers me that others try to screw around with stuff presuming they know what is right for everyone).
It’s not over 'til the fat lady sings.
Mercy.
If it does get closed, I liked CannyDan’s post as The Last Word on the subject. If SA posts it, the mods could be lying in ambush and close this a nanosecond later. I’ll quote it after this, so just in case…
I’ll presume what I like. This thread long ago reached the point of diminishing returns. There is nothing that is going make the people participating in it move one inch from the positions they’ve been steadfastedly defending for some 3500 posts. All it’s doing now is serving as bait for someone trying to start a board war.
You may not think that threads should ever be closed, but you’re wrong.
Sure, we all do, initially. But do you take that extra step to analyze your presumptions to see if they a good fit to the particular context in which you made them?
In this case, I would argue that you didn’t, you just assumed that any conclusion you came to must be valid for everyone that reads or participates in the pit. Or that you have some higher knowledge the rest of us don’t that trumps our point of view.
Even if 90% of the pit readers thought this thread should be closed and 10% wanted it to remain open - what is gained by closing it? You can ignore it. This is the home for train wrecks, it’s entertaining.