I just heard that it’s time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program. Have I missed much?
I’d be interested to know exactly just what NAMBLA talking points coincide with mine. Cite?
In regard to determining the specifics of whether a crime has been committed, is it your position that the proper approach should be to throw logic and evidence and the mechanics involved out the window and just go with whatever impulse occurs to you because to do othetwise would simply be too icky? Please don’t ever serve on a jury or consider a career as a medical examiner.
What would be the proper way for me to show sympathy for the victims – do like you are all doing and presume facts not in evidence and seek to blame an honorable man of lifelong integrity who had nothing to do with it?
What I don’t have the capacity to understand is why you people seem to feel it’s perfectly all right to assume the worst and proceed accordingly based on nothing but the nature of the crime, with due process, evidence and the truth be damned! That’s what I don’t get.
I figure this ties in with SA’s “idealistic 1950s” view, I mentioned earlier. Football coaches seem to represent a particular niche in this worldview, from Knute Rockne onward, hence must be protected and defended.
As a side note, I had no idea who Joe Paterno was before this scandal broke. That his reputation is now tainted doesn’t give me any particular sense of injustice.
The findings of the Freeh report were made by a former FBI director based on documents from the period and interviews that you have not a glimmer of.
He does seem to show some of the hallmarks of such, but I’m not sure who to follow it up with.
No, there are a lot of things going on in this thread that have driven my passion for it. I have a very strong decades-long admiration for Joe Paterno. I have a very strong aversion to knee-jerk emotionality, especially when it causes people to completely take leave of their senses. I have a very strong aversion to hysterics and a mob mentality. I have a very strong aversion to people being willing to abandon due process and the other protections built into our legal system because they don’t want to hear about it. I have a strong aversion to the incredible amount of cowardliness and dishonesty and would-be semantic trickery being employed in this thread. And it pisses me right off to be called a pedophile for no other reason than an insistance upon the truth, and not because I take it personally so much as because it’s such an incredibly stupid, low and cowardly accusation whose intent once again is to appeal to people who aren’t thinking straight. It’s like saying, “Hey, all you other idiots, let’s go get him and pretend this is why!”
So basically, this thread is just a perfect storm of SA piss-off fodder, and after a certain point I just decided that if you assholes want a fight, I’ll damn well give you one!
And need I say it’s worked out beautifully? 
Well, strong aversions notwithstanding, who would take pride in a victory dance over people he claims not to care about?
Anyway, you’re free to continue to view Paterno as you wish, obviously. I don’t think the evidence supports it, myself.
Rational people realize the Freeh report doesn’t prove anything and that the jury doesn’t prove anything…and that the paper towel tube also doesn’t prove anything.
Which is why we enjoy mocking you…because you think those types of things “prove” stuff.
Well, he also said he doesn’t enjoy having people disagree with him, but the fight has worked out beautifully.
You might want to inform Robot Arm of his irrationality then, dumbass, because I know it doesn’t prove anything. That’s been my very point…with regard to the Freeh report.
The jury verdict, on the other hand, unquestionably proves that what McQueary described is not persuasive evidence of rape. There’s no way around that but denial, which seems to be the route you’re at least pretending to take.
I’ll acknowledge that I probably overstated the case somewhat when I said the paper towel tube “proved” Sandusky couldn’t have been raping the boy. However given the fact that it shows such an act would have been exceedingly unlikely and difficult to impossible given McQueary’s description of Sandusky’s position (standing) at the time, perhaps I should have said “virtually proves.” 
The reason you mock me is transparent: You don’t like my position, and you have no substantial rebuttal to it. Mockage is the weapon of the lazy and the impotent, which explains of course why you people use it.
Yeah… it does indicate a certain finding-victory-in-hairsplits mentality.
But only if you define hair-splitting as complete and utter victory in every major battle.
But I’m good with that! 
Yeah, I’m not seeing the support for the latter half of your first sentence, there.
And I wouldn’t define hair-splitting in such a manner, in any case.
Well, you wouldn’t. In either case.
You know I’m not, so what are you? 
I think, therefore I am.
I wonder if the paper towel tube was just something he thought of, or if he actually tried it. If so…
Not gonna say it.
A straw, maybe…
Nope, the paper towel tube was meant to force you people to look at facts you were refusing to face. There was no need for me to try it because I already understood the point it was intended to make.
As near I can figure, the paper towel tube argument was about as valid as scientists in the 1930s who used various “scientific” (but in fact pure bunkum) arguments to “prove” that Negros were physically and intellectually incapable of being trained as fighter pilots, i.e. take a few “common knowledge” smidgens, extrapolate as though they were hard fact, ignore counter-evidence, and accept as proven something which has not been demonstrated.