I’d amend the last bullet point to also include the reputational cost of a prolonged legal battle.
Which is not to say that the BoT knew or didn’t know whether Paterno or Sandusky or whomever were guilty or not. The question they would be asking is not “Were they culpable?” but “What course of action is likely to be in the best long-term interest of the university?”. Sometimes the least worst choice is to settle out of court.
Even this isn’t an example of “unlimited legal exposure”. Sure, the university can expect to pay heavily, possibly as much as the low tens of millions, but maybe five or ten years from now “scandal” won’t be the word most associated with “Penn State”.
Now, if they fight the action:
Well, one assumes they chose to ask the opinions of their lawyers, financial advisers and media consultants. I’m sure they were meaning to talk to you eventually, but just plain forgot.
Whenever I envision SA’s pleasant and enjoyable off-board activities I imagine him in front of a homemade shrine to Joe Paterno, high-fiving a big picture of his idol as he vigorously screws a cardboard paper towel tube
This image is what keeps me coming back to this thread
You know who you remind me of NoLittlePlans*? You remind me of that guy who used to defend Sandusky on pennlive.
Interesting choice of user names btw, as I thought you always had little plans, such as biking around the lake, going Christmas shopping, making yourself a big breakfast 
And a huge thanks to everyone who continues to engage SA in this thread, as at least it keeps him from grooming young boys and giving them naked hugs. Consider it a public service.
At this point I’m imagining that SA’s pleasant and enjoyable activity is donning Groucho Marx glasses and coming back into this thread.
Actually, that was a goal-post shift. When it was demonstrated that his beloved paper towel tube test conclusively proved the opposite of his contention that an old man couldn’t fuck a kid in the butt without falling on his own ass, he had to go and reinterpret the meaning of McQueary’s words. “Standing” now means what the Army calls “standing at attention”. Feet together and knees locked. Unfortunately for that argument, there’s no one who would describe “at ease” as anything other than “standing”, and that’s already half way to the paper towel tube. Add a few degrees of knee-bend and there’s your tube, fuck away. And almost no one would change from “standing” to some other word just because of those few degrees of knee-bend.
He looks like a loser.
NoLittlePlans, I’d like to explore your position on this matter and ask you to address certain points. Note that this is separate from the lengthy philosophical discourse you presented in Post 5075. And not the “what could McQueary have seen or not seen” from Post 5051. Just simple answers to simple questions.
Given your “A” vote, I presume you have formed an opinion on the shower room incident that aligns with the opinion of Starving Artist. I’d like you to actually state what your own opinion is, and reference specific reasons for reaching that conclusion.
Toward that end: Was the shower room incident anal rape? Why or why not?
Was anal rape physically possible or impossible? Was there a height problem, or a crouching problem, or some other physical impossibility? Do you accept that rape might have happened, either before or after McQueary’s interference, or is this precluded by some physical barrier?
Or do you just not believe McQueary’s testimony? Or find it incomplete and thus not definitive of rape?
Thanks in advance.
I was thinking more along the lines of Lamb Chop or Señor Wences’ Johnny.
In the interest of accuracy, I don’t believe NoLittlePlans ever specifically said “I vote A”. In my tallies, I was assuming his vote would be A if he expressed a preference, in part as a gesture of being magnanimous to Starving Artist, letting him have an implied A count of two, while C remains a solid zero.
Actually, it might be interesting if NLP specifically voted while SA specifically refused to (i.e. they show some distinction from each other), although there was some argument that SA shouldn’t get a vote at all since the question was to find people who agreed with SA. Whether or not that should include SA himself is a matter of definition.
In any case, I see no reason why those who agree with SA (other than himself “and” NLP) should remain silent. As time passes, I figure the likelihood that such people do not exist increases.
You might want to hold off on that. NLP has not been terribly responsive to questions.
I stand corrected, thank you.
This though does not change my questions, only my assumption that a firm rather than an undefined position had been taken.
Are your feet at shoulder length width and your knees locked so that you’re at your full height?
You could always just ask for a photo, you know. 
Okey, I’ll bite. My responses in bold red italic letters:
*Relevant response:
So, how did I do & more importantly, what do I get? Box-tickets to a D1 Penn State football game w/Sandusky & Paterno?
Oh…wait! :smack:
For the sake of accuracy, which I know no one in the thread save for me and NoLittlePlans has the slightest interest in, it should be noted that this silly “locked and tight” bullshit is iiandyiiii’s dodge. As I have gone about my daily life for all my life about the only time I’ve ever seen anyone standing with their knees “locked and tight” was if they were in a cast.
Further, there was nothing in McQueary’s otherwise detailed statement to the grand jury or the trial itself which might lead us to conclude that Sandusky’s knees were bent to anywhere near the degree they’d have had to be in order to acheive penetration and carry out copulatory movement. Such a position would be called “squatting” by any reasonable person. When have any of you maroons ever seen people standing outside a post office, on in a mall, or in line at a theater, with their knees bent sufficiently to lower their waistlines a foot or more from what would be their fully upright position?
Again, it is to laugh!
If Sandusky were posed in the position McQueary described, with the boy in front of him bent at the waist with his hands on the wall and Sandusky’s arms around the boy’s waist, it’s likely his knees would have been bent slightly but not enough so that he couldn’t be accurately described as standing. There is another version where Sandusky instead has both hands on the boy’s waist. I haven’t looked into it to see which statement was made when, but in this version Sandusky could easily have been standing without his knees bent at all.
So once again a false and dishonest meme gets shot down by me.
I win.
You lose.
End of story.
Next?
I’ve never read the Freeh report, nor have any interest in doing so, but I would have gotten similar (and correct) answers to the other questions, though my answer to the first would be “Don’t know” (which is true) since I was unfamiliar with any recent Syracuse scandal.
For Question 4, I’d have said “unsure”, since although I knew Sandusky was no longer a football coach for Penn State, I’m not familiar enough with his other activities, and I admit the possibility that he was coaching (or at least advising in some capacity) junior football as played by the boys ostensibly being helped by Second Mile, or that he was coaching/advising peewee football in some other way. It’s certainly plausible to me that Sandusky might have been involved in peewee football, increasing his access to young boys. Since as RedFury points out, Sandusky still had access to Penn State’s facilities, the only point I can see for the question is try to “push-poll” the idea of a gulf between Sandusky and Penn State, absolving the latter.
Question 6 is an amusing attempt to lie by specificity. Sandusky was convicted of sexual actions with a child that McQueary, Paterno and Curley & Schultz were required to report to police, though the statute of limitations may protect the last two to some degree. The question may as well be something like “True or false, Sandusky was never charged with child slavery.”
And here my friends, is a perfect example of why I’ve stayed and fought in this thread for as long as I have, and why I’m so triumphantly rubbing these people’s noses in the bitter defeat of their idiotic beliefs.
So keep it coming, EG. I can keep handing you people your asses for as long you want to argue about it. In fact I love having the opportunity to do just that.
So bite me. You can’t prove a word of the idiotic conclusions you so hysterically and stupidly jumped to in the beginning, and you can’t prove the defenses you’re so cowardly and dishonestly using to try to squirm out of it now. The only arrow you have remaining in your quiver is denial. But since I’m right and you’re wrong and the facts are on my side, you can never win. You can only pretend I’m wrong.
However the fact remains, as it has all along, that there is absolutly no evidence of a Joe Paterno cover up, nor that he ever knew of more than of a shower hug two years previously that was investigated and dropped and that McQueary saw something that may or may not have been of a similar nature which upset him, which Paterno reported to the proper authorities according to long established practice as formerly requested by the local police themselves. And of course there’s also the fact that you were/are wrong in your fevered belief that what McQueary saw was anal rape, as determined by both myself and the Sandusky trial jury.
There’s no way around those two crucial points nor have you any defense against them.
Duh duh dut dut duh…I’m lovin’ it!
As with your endless variations on “I’m going out now!”, your repetition of something obviously untrue may boost your ego, but does little else.
So your view on the situation can be summarized as
In order for a man of 6-4 to have sex with a person around 4 foot-11, you couldn’t stand straight up. You would have to bend your knees enough to be what an outside observer would call squatting.
Due to the conclusive proof of the Paper Towel Tube Test, a man who is 6-4 could not squat and simultaneously have sex with a person approximately 4 foot 11.
Therefore, anal sex was and continues to be impossible. Not just that one night in the shower. Every time, everywhere.
That’s your conclusion, right? That’s the only possible way these two fit together. Anal sex between a tall person and a short person on a level plane is physically and logistically impossible to accomplish.
I’m at work now, but maybe if I’m feeling randy enough this evening, I’ll search out videos to see if your conclusion holds up.
Yeah, you and the 400-pound broad in fishnet hose and Divine makeup waddling back and forth across the Jerry Springer Show stage screaming at the howling audience that they’re “just jealous” and all “know they want summa this.”