Nah! Be more like "don’t forget…i…gasp…WON!
Sure. Like Paterno, you’ll spend your final days trying desperately to deny reality. I guess that’s the best kind of justice we can reasonably expect for Paterno and you - going to the end still obsessing over your failures, feebly and pathetically trying to salvage some long-gone dignity.
A “serious” misrepresentation? Like one that substantially changes the meaning?
Multiple psychiatrists agreed. It’s a group, a team, a gaggle, whatever you want to call them it is more than one that agreed with the conclusion.
Which one word terms do you think represent the idea that a group of professionals agreed with the conclusion?
And more importantly: what about the term “team” vs “group” or whatever term is used makes this a “serious misrepresentation”?
You stated your opinion but you haven’t backed it up.
Yes there is a difference between those wordings, my memory and wording was imprecise (and it wasn’t intended to be precise), but I don’t think the way I used the information makes that imprecision substantial.
Recall that my entire point was it raised doubt about the other counselors opinion, and when the second incident was reported, regardless of which wording was used or remembered, it should have raised a red flag that possibly the counselor was wrong and the “group” of psychiatrists were right.
That’s be odd, given he attended a workshop on homophobia.
May Mike McQueary be tortured, if/when he wins his $4mil suit against Penn State, by the knowledge that he was a cowardly greedy self-interested schmuck who turned his back on helpless and terrified kids being raped. He consulted his daddy (a business manager, take that for what its worth) re: “what to do? what to do?” (read: “how do I cya?”) instead of thinking of/reacting to the immediate needs of the kids to be protected. Many times since 2001 if I understand correctly.
FP, one of the other reasons SA gets so much grief is his shifting positions and word games.
He has stated that the reported act was “impossible” (“nigh on impossible” is substantially the same as “impossible” and I prefer to just use 1 word instead of typing out phrases constantly), and then recently said that he never said it was impossible and then just responded again that it was impossible:
If you wanted to know my position on just about anything, it would be pretty clear after a few sentences, no games.
But at this point we don’t know what SA’s position is due to flip-flopping and qualifying about what is and what isn’t impossible and what did he post and where were Sandusky’s feet (nobody knows how his feet and knees were positioned, and it really isn’t even important, etc. etc.).
Like what? What sort of ‘hinky’ behaviour do you think Paterno thought Sandusky was up to with a child in the showers late at night?
Misinterpreted heterosexual sport-related shower hugs.
“Teaching them how to shower”, as his attorney put it. Including “rhythmic slapping sounds”,as McQueary put it.
What a pity Sandusky isn’t being held in Arpaio’s jail, so **Starkers’ **head would assplode.
Teaching them to shower* isn’t ‘hinky’ is it? Unless there is a sexual aspect. Is that what you are suggesting Joe thought it was SA, sexual but not full on penetration/rape?
- no sane person thinks old men teach young boys how to shower late at night** at a university locker room.
** ok at any time really
Yep. It would have been better if he had beaten Sandusky within an inch of his life and called the cops.
Justice served, pervert off the streets, and we wouldn’t have this thread.
And here we have exactly why people are coming down on Paterno, and you. He did exactly, but no more than, the law required of him. His reputation was entirely based on the idea that he was a paragon of moral virtue. He was also widely known to have enormous influence with the PSU administration. This paragon of moral virtue (at the absolute best interpretation in his favor) did just what the law required, and not one bit more.
By his, and everyone else’s testimony, McQueary told him something that strongly suggested sexual abuse. Whether or not it passed your ‘Paper Towel Tube Test’ is a red herring, since mandatory reporting laws don’t require the mandated reporter to be convinced that it was successful anal rape. Hell, the fucker didn’t even have to contemplate anal sex, which seems to be your hang-up. It only had to be suspected sexual abuse, which it certainly was, by everyone’s testimony. We can dismiss your paper towel tube obsession, not merely because it’s ridiculous (although it is, and laughably so), but because it’s legally irrelevant. Regardless of whether he might have thought ‘it wasn’t ass-rape’ or ‘what the fuck is ‘ass-rape’?’, or any other thoughts you might invent for him, he recognized that it certainly rose to the level of mandatory reporting, so he dutifully told Curley about it.
Due to his influence with the PSU administration, he was in a position to keep asking Curley and company what was being done. He had the influence to urge them to go to the authorities instead of covering it up. Did he urge them to cover it up? It doesn’t matter. As a ‘paragon of moral virtue’, he would have been honor-bound to urge them to resolve the situation, in a way that would protect the kids Sandusky might have been abusing (NB, that doesn’t require that it be ‘anal rape’), but he didn’t. He did the legal minimum, and (even neglecting the possibility that he urged a cover-up) did nothing more. And that’s your ‘paragon of moral virtue’, but not mine.
You are forced into the position of ‘white-knighting’ a pedophile, in order to defend your sainted Joe P. Joe P was a moral failure! And you look like a kiddie-diddler in your pathetic attempts to defend your ‘hero’. You wind up looking just as pathetic as he does. Call that “Winning”, if you like, but the reality is that you wind up looking like a ‘kiddie-diddler’ apologist. Or an idiot. Or both. And that’s how we see you, asshole.
And I resent you constantly presenting your position as the “Conservative” position. You ARE NOT representative of us. Not even close. You do not even remotely approach “conservative”. Go fuck your John Birch buddies, and stop tarring the rest of us with your dysfunction.
Asshole.
But it wasn’t anal rape and you can’t prove it was anal rape and JoePa never even heard of anal rape and anal rape was invented in 1965 by filthy hippies eager to weaken America by spreading teh gay by way of anal rape which didn’t happen at Penn State and you can’t prove anal rape happened or that JoePa had any idea what anal rape was, which he didn’t.
Dare I say it…WINNING!!!
Hypothetical meeting between Joe Paterno and Starving Artist:
SA: Wow, it’s a great honor to meet you, Mister Paterno.
JP: Thanks, thanks, that’s very nice of you to say.
SA: I don’t believe any of the lies being told about you, Mister Paterno.
JP: Please, call me Joe.
SA: Thanks… Joe. Yeah, I bet it’s impossible for Sandusky to have done what they’re saying. Anal rape of that kid, I mean. Here, let me explain what anal rape is, since I bet you’re not familiar with the idea…
JP: [looks at Starving Artist in utter bafflement] Huh? I know what “anal rape” means.
SA: [stares blankly - this information does not connect to any of his existing ideas about Paterno and he is unsure how to process it] Well, I figured it was just impossible, because if you tried it, like try to squat and thrust into a cardboard tube…
JP: [expression morphs from bafflement to revulsion] Get the fuck outa my office, you freak.
I’m laughing, because not only am I picturing JP and SA in hell together, but…
Paterno’s got an office down there!
Sorry, I thought it was pretty self-evident, once pointed out.
-
“Team of psychiatrists” implies that all these psychiatrists, acting as a team, were involved in making this assessment. That’s not what happened. None of these people had any independent involvement, none of them looked into anything beyond what Chambers told them. It was just her asking them “what do you think of Situation X?”, when Situation X was entirely her own assessment.
-
In addition, when you say a team agreed, it has the connotation that all these people put out this assessment and put out a joint report signed by, or on behalf of, all. In reality it looks more like some ad hoc discussions with her colleagues.
So it’s not a group or a team or a gaggle or anything. It’s one person whose colleagues agreed with her when she put the question to them.
Note that I’m not saying that the fact that all her colleagues agreed with her when she put the question to them should be dismissed. Just that what actually happened is a lot less than the conclusion of a “team of psychiatrists” as you put it.
But it’s an important distinction.
“Meets the definition of a likely pedophile’s pattern” is not at all the same thing as “is most likely a pedophile”. The former just means that “pedophiles do X and he did X”. It’s like a cop profiling a suspected drug dealer “young guy, driving a fancy car …” or whatever.
And not by accident either. It’s very unlikely that Chambers would have been able to conclude that Sandusky was most likely a pedophile based on his fitting a definition after just an interview with the kid and his mother. She never spoke to Sandusky or anyone else. And in context, all she was doing - and all she could do in her role as therapist to the kid - was raising the alarm. “This really needs to be investigated thoroughly because it looks very suspicious.”
On the basis of the mother’s report and Chambers’ report the case was investigated much more thoroughly by DPW and the police. They reinterviewed the kid and his mother, but also interviewed Sandusky himself, and another kid who Sandusky had treated the same way, and spied in on a conversation between Sandusky and the mother. It was on that basis that they concluded that no sex abuse had taken place.
In sum, to say that Chambers (let alone a “team of psychiatrists”) concluded that Sandusky was most likely a pedophile is false and misleading. I appreciate that you’ve acknowledged the weakness of your own point by conceding that JP and others were probably unaware of Chambers’ report altogether. But to the extent that you’re going to reference it anyway, you should be accurate.
Truth is that this is something I can’t say anything definitive about. It’s been a long thread and I don’t remember all of it, and there were some parts that I didn’t pay much attention to (most notably the initial paper towel tube discussion and related matters). I didn’t notice that SA stood out in this regard, but I could be wrong.
But I do think that you need to make allowances for circumstance, and it’s not fair of you to compare yourself to SA in this regard.
You are one of a large group of people all piling on to one guy. SA is one guy defending himself against a large group of people. He has to respond to multiple people, many of whom are saying very similar things but which may vary slightly from one poster to the next.
In defending a recent inaccuracy in your own posts your response was that your “post was short hand after zillions of other posts”. Now imagine that same situation multiplied by multiple parallel discussions with multiple posters. It’s not hard to imagine that this would cause considerable confusion.
Probably something similar to what happened in 1998. In that case, Sandusky gave a couple of kids naked bear hugs in the shower. IMO this is most likely what he was doing in 2001, contra McQueary - but even if I’m wrong about this, it was certainly possible for someone to have assumed that this may have happened. And in in the 1998 case, after investigation by the police & DPW, the conclusion was that there was no evidence of any crime and - in the words of the DPW caseworker - it “fell into a “gray” area and involved possible “boundary” issues” (see page 44 of the Freeh Report).
Now you may disagree with this and find that any naked contact between men and boys in showers constitutes sex abuse, but obviously some others - including professional sex abuse investigators - disagree with you. So it would make sense to allow for the possibility that other well meaning people may have shared that perspective.
And I thought it was only Butthurt McGee who was flogging the misinterpreted naked heterosexual sports related shower hug retardation.
So would it have been okay for McQueary to shrug off what he saw and never report it to anyone?
Fanfiction of SDMB members meeting Joe Paterno. Good show.