I would be glad to see that you’re catching up, were that possible, but based on your comments to this and other threads, there’s not much hope of that.
Your “So was this” implies that we are referring to two different questions, but in reality it’s the same question. Like you, I asserted that RaftPeople’s question - the one that you quoted - was a rhetorical question, in contrast to his claim that it was merely a question.
So though you obviously don’t understand the implications of what you’re saying, you’re actually agreeing with me, in your befuddled way.
You have an interesting track record of assigning motivation to me on a few different occasions:
When SA answered my question about other cases and he said he had no opinion or something like that - you attempted to tell me what my motivation was despite the fact that your were wrong about my actual motivation
Recently when I posted something, forgetting one of the details of your position, you stated that my reason for doing that was dishonesty (as opposed to not committing to memory all of the details of each posters position)
And now here with this question you jump to the incorrect leap that I was attempting to prove the incident occurred (you stated I claimed to have proved), despite telling you that I didn’t think it proved the incident occurred
You appear to want to appear unbiased in these discussions, yet each of these incidents, in my opinion, are clearly motivated by emotion.
What is it about my posts that bothers you?
The fact that I don’t agree with you?
I’m wondering if you have the kind of self-awareness and unbiased intellect required to even evaluate this issue and answer this post.
Kind of like a have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question - hard to answer without accepting the premise.
If you don’t accept that people can determine your intention by reading your words, then you shouldn’t be posting on a MB. (Though you apparently do grant yourself this ability and more, since you attribute motivation to me in the same post in which you decry me doing it to you.)
I stand by my assertion that your “question” was completely rhetorical, intended to highlight the supposed inconsistency of SA’s alleged “proof” with the current lawsuit. Which was a mistake by you, since the “proof”, (such as it was) was in no way inconsistent with the lawsuit. But you shouldn’t try to weasel out of it by pretending that you were only asking a question.
I always get a bit of a kick reading the title of this thread…“It’s time to Officially pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State Football program”. I know it was started way back when, but now it seems satirical…“FINALLY, somebody is talking about the Penn State Child Abuse Scandal.”
You don’t have to accept the premise, but you can’t escape the facts that you have written posts stating what my motivation is despite it being unknowable via a message board and more importantly incorrect.
Why do you continue to do that?
I think you can determine meaning, and I think you can guess at motivation and sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong.
There is a big difference between me saying there is some sort of emotion involved and you claiming dishonesty.
Care to explain yourself?
Check the original news reports and pull out a calendar. The story broke on a Saturday (a football Saturday BTW) and the thread was posted on Monday. I thought, “Isn’t anybody going to Pit these guys?”
Paterno family plans on appealing NCAA sanctions: appeal
PSU plans on appealing then federal lawsuit: appeal
If there is a federal lawsuit, do sanctions get lifted until end of trial?
Can NCAA punish them further for lawsuit?
Penn State isn’t behind this; four members of the 32 member board of trustees are. Story here. I can’t imagine the NCAA doing anything more to the university because a handful of disgruntled trustees are making noise.
Actually, yeah, Penn State is behind this - absent clear evidence to the contrary from the other 28 trustees and the administration. This is a bullshit end-run around PSU’s agreement to accept the sanctions and the penalty should be expulsion from the NCAA for a minimum of 10 years.
At this point? All sports. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Penn State (and the “Nittany Nation”) hasn’t learned a fucking thing from this debacle. Time to teach them. Every little maneuver, every little tactic makes it apparent that PSU and their fans actually are okay with little kids getting raped as long as it results in a winning team. Those 4 trustees need to be fired post-haste, or the University needs to accept the consequences - which need to be severe.
Yeah, that’s a totally fair assessment. Four trustees did a thing, therefore the roughly 100,000 current students and millions of alumni are all okay with child rape.
Look, if this had been four students, no biggie. Hell, four professors, no biggie. Notice I didn’t say anything about holding PSU responsible for the Paterno family’s appeal. But these are the guys IN CHARGE. At what point does PSU generally become culpable for the actions of its leadership? 8 trustees? 12? All of them, none of them? Note that I gave PSU an out: fire the trustees. If you don’t disassociate from them, you endorse their actions.
Which is exactly how PSU wants it. This is a passive/agressive attempt to mitigate the sanctions. PSU, as an organization, has learned nothing. The culture that allowed these terrible events is still in place and fighting back.
Um, why do individual trustees and private citizens think they have standing to appeal? The whole board might, but then they’d have to also vote to retroactively overrule (and probably fire) the president. Never mind that the NCAA is a private organization whose arrangements with member schools are matters of *contract *law.
