I agree. I’ll give a pass to women unless the economy is damn strong, but men, no way.
For some people, child rape is a kind of stimulus program.
So I guess our good friend, Starving Artist isn’t going to bother to pop in, is he?
He ran out of cardboard tubes before the testing was done.
You have more restraint that i do.
I’d be stirring that pot again with a very large spoon, if i were in your position.
:rolleyes:
I used “men” both generically and expositorily. I had a quote in mind along the lines of “this will never cease until man ceases to do evil to his fellow man” or something. I apologize if this was confusing to you.
I think you might be missing an important aspect.
Lets say you see something horrific. And you have a damn good idea that if you report it only a few not so good things will happen. Nobody will believe you. Nothing will be done. You’ll also likey be fired. And perhaps worst of all YOU will be labeled the bad guy for doing it and in deep social shit.
And BTW you are a janitor (most likely with a family to support with no major socioeconomic safety ladder), not someone who can get any damn good job anytime they want anywhere they want.
This is why IMO the Penn State football program should be burned to the damn ground. It eventually created an atmosphere where its reputation took priority over any other consideration where IMO that’s almost the exact opposite of how things should actually work.
Kill that fucker dead and start from scratch.
There is a mystery here. According to the report (pg. 65), the first janitor (the war veteran) who saw Sandusky raping a boy did not know who Sandusky was at the time. Why he did not intervene or immediately call the police is the mystery, since he couldn’t have known he would be accusing a powerful member of the football program. What was he afraid of? Was child rape a perk of the entire Penn State staff or something?
Apparently yes 
But, joking aside, good point there. I keep forgetting all the various sordid details of this whole mess. But even the fact it happened on campus and had something to do with the holy football program probably gave him pause.
On the flip side, expecting the janitors to be morally upstanding citizens but higher ups not so much is a bit much I think.
Personally I think what’s weaselly is when people say “somewhere in these several hundred pages of documents is the evidence that proves I’m right”, without specifying any actual evidence. You evidently disagree, for reasons which are not hard to imagine.
You need to distinguish between what the report concludes and what’s clear from the evidence.
The report concludes that. But they published their evidence and anyone can draw their own conclusions.
Since the beginning of this case, the crux of the issue has been how much detail the others got from McQueary. The report shed little new light on this. The weight of evidence at the trial tended to suggest that McQueary was vague.
The Freeh report did go into some detail on what was known of the first investigation, in which an ostensible expert looked into the incident and concluded that it was not child molestation, that Sandusky was not a molestor, and that his conduct amounted to a “boundary issue”. That’s what these guys knew at the time.
Hindsight is always 20/20. The hindsight of sanctimonious pricks is more like 200/20.
I tend to agree with this. It should be noted, that from a quick read of the GJ indictment, ISTM that the abuses at PSU all predated the 2001 incident. (Possibly some later incidents emerged at the trial.) The later incidents involved Second Mile and Sandusky facilities, and SM was in fact notified.
But I agree that these guys should have been more proactive.
You need to pay attention to the context of things you are responding to. I don’t think what RCC did was OK. But I can understand why to teir minds it made sense.
Some poster was trying to prove from RCC that it would be rational though immoral for JP to cover up for Sandusky, and I was pointing out that the proof is not valid.
What I said is that if his overriding goal was to protect himself and his football program it would not be rational for him to cover up without strong protective measures someone who he knew to be a child molestor. That stands. If you can respond to this without distorting it, feel free.
Is there anything else that this lawyer says that you believe, or only this one assertion that serves your purpose?
What does this even mean? When I quoted the report I said that given the source is has to be questionable, but if true is absolutely devastating to the concept that Penn officials wanted to conduct their own investigation before contacting law enforcement.
Do you dispute this?
Just having fun with your wording.
No, I don’t dispute this.
But I don’t believe that you - or anyone else on this thread - takes that claims seriously at all.
The point of that claim was to exonerate Sandusky, by pointing out that he was a man with nothing to hide, and had obviously done nothing untoward with that kid. And such an action - if true - would indeed be evidence of this, which is why Amendola is making that claim.
If Sandusky was still a major focus of this thread, I don’t believe anyone would be taking that claim seriously at all. No one would impact any significance to the fact that “the source is questionable but if true it does tend to suggest that Sandusky was just horsing around with that kid”.
It’s only because Sandusky is safely convicted and now the name of the game is to impart the maximum blame to the maximum number of people that this claim now begins to get some weight, because it serves that purpose.
I realize I can’t see inside your mind or anyone else’s but that’s how I see it.
[BTW, FTR, I do think they should have made an effort to interview the kid, even if Sandusky did not offer.]
What “they” are you referring to? Because it reads like you mean Paterno and the administration. Which is fucking crazy. Their duty was to report the incident to law enforcement. It wasn’t to investigate. It wasn’t to discuss it with Sandusky. It wasn’t to discuss whether to inform Sandusky’s charity. It was to tell an authority above themselves. The report makes it appear that they didn’t believe such an authority existed. So yeah, I guess if you agree with that mindset, it’s not as crazy to suggest that they should have made an attempt to interview the kid.
And as an aside, I hope that they do keep the statue up. And I hope that it becomes a monument to the hubris of the recent leadership at that school and forever represents the monstrous situation “they” created.
I can also imagine that it might end up as a target for eggs and toilet paper.
They actually have a 24-hour campus security detail guarding it to forestall that, from what I’ve read.
Man, I sure am glad Penn State has got the important shit covered.
How perfectly symbolic of the university’s handling of the whole matter… :rolleyes::smack::mad:
I’ve seen the remodeling plans. They will be papering over everything and installing lots of rugs to sweep things under.