It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[RaftPeople]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I thought we were clear on this already.

Clearly we aren’t.

The two sentences you quote are similar.

Not just similar. Almost identical except one is a quote and one is a summarized phrasing of that quote.

But I think saying a group agreed does not adequately convey the connotation that one psychologist relayed the situation to her colleagues who concurred with her opinion, versus others independently looking at the situation.

But a group did agree, the phrase is completely accurate and it’s valid to point out that a group of people agreed with the conclusion, it carries more weight.

You are trying to introduce and extra level of independence that was never there and isn’t required to be there for the point to remain.

Plus, in addition to the part that you quote you also said, in that same post:

@RaftPeople

Saying he as cleared of charges and ignoring this competing analysis is not a balanced representations of the data. It’s technically accurate while painting a vastly different picture by eliminating the opposing data.

As above, I think it’s a bit misleading to call this preliminary profile a “competing analysis” and “opposing data” in conflict with the results of the actual investigation.

How can you possibly object to calling Chamber’s interview/report a competing analysis to Seasock’s interview/report?

You are now splitting hairs that I can’t even see.

I apreciate that you disagree, and you’re entitled to your opinion of course. But that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Ok. But your opinion that my post misrepresented the quote from the report is just ridiculous. How can we take any of your points seriously if that is your position?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

All the more reason, I figure, for Paterno to refer McQueary to the police. If McQueary was making serious allegations against a former PSU staff member, and vague allegations at that, let the professionals sort it out. If McQueary turns out to be lying, fire his ass pronto, since false accusations of this kind shouldn’t be tolerated.

I don’t know if there was suspicion that McQueary was lying, although there was a possibility that he might have been mistaken or meant something other than what he now says he meant.

But there certainly had to be some sort of investigation, regardless. The more important point here is that Paterno presumably thought that C&S instigated just such an investigation.

@RaftPeople

But a group did agree, the phrase is completely accurate and it’s valid to point out that a group of people agreed with the conclusion, it carries more weight.

True. But it’s also valid to point out that it carries less weight than a team or group of psychologists arriving at that conclusion.

How can you possibly object to calling Chamber’s interview/report a competing analysis to Seasock’s interview/report?

“Competing analysis” (or “opposing data”) implies that there remained some conflict between the Chambers report and the police/DPW conclusion, such that you have to weigh one against the other. What I’m saying is that the Chambers report appears to have been a preliminary profile and a rationale for an investigation, but would not be a competing viewpoint after there was an actual investigation.

If a police profiler profiles someone as a probable serial killer, and the police then investigate and conclude that there’s no evidence that this person ever killed anyone, the initial profile does not remain a “competing analysis” or “opposing data”.

And my position here is strengthened by the indication that - as above - the kid and parents continued to have the relationship with Sandusky. Which indicates that Chambers - the kid’s therapist - did not continue to maintain that her initial profile was correct after the actual investigation was completed. In light of this, it’s misleading for you to portray her analysis as something which competed with and opposed the conclusions of the investigation.

But your opinion that my post misrepresented the quote from the report is just ridiculous. How can we take any of your points seriously if that is your position?

I assume this is a rhetorical question.

[RaftPeople]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

True.

Sounds like we agree on that point I was trying to make.

“Competing analysis” (or “opposing data”) implies that there remained some conflict between the Chambers report and the police/DPW conclusion, such that you have to weigh one against the other. What I’m saying is that the Chambers report appears to have been a preliminary profile and a rationale for an investigation, but would not be a competing viewpoint after there was an actual investigation.

You seem to be confusing the police investigation of the incident with the psychologist’s analysis of Sandusky’s behavior in general.

An investigation can conclude that the evidence doesn’t allow a determination, like in this case:
“As a result of the investigation, it could not be determined that a sexual assault occurred and Sandusky was advised of such, ".

The investigation doesn’t conclude that Chamber’s was wrong (as we know from later data that she was right), it concludes that sexual assault couldn’t be determined.

For anyone reviewing the report, or aware of it’s contents when the 2nd incident happened, the psychologist’s reports should absolutely be weighed.

If a police profiler profiles someone as a probable serial killer, and the police then investigate and conclude that there’s no evidence that this person ever killed anyone, the initial profile does not remain a “competing analysis” or “opposing data”.

If the police conclude that a determination can not be made that the person killed someone, then the profile absolutely remains relevant.

You are confusing couldn’t be determined with concluding that something didn’t happen.

And my position here is strengthened by the indication that - as above - the kid and parents continued to have the relationship with Sandusky. Which indicates that Chambers - the kid’s therapist - did not continue to maintain that her initial profile was correct after the actual investigation was completed. In light of this, it’s misleading for you to portray her analysis as something which competed with and opposed the conclusions of the investigation.I assume this is a rhetorical question.

Chambers disagrees with you:
“There was very little doubt in my mind (Sandusky) … was a male predator, someone that was in the process of grooming a young man for abuse ,” said Chambers, speaking publicly for the first time, with the permission of her client’s family, in an interview with NBC News. “I thought…my report was strong enough to suggest that this was somebody who should be watched.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RaftPeople

Sounds like we agree on that point I was trying to make.

Well yeah, as long as you don’t make too much of it.

You seem to be confusing the police investigation of the incident with the psychologist’s analysis of Sandusky’s behavior in general.

An investigation can conclude that the evidence doesn’t allow a determination, like in this case:
“As a result of the investigation, it could not be determined that a sexual assault occurred and Sandusky was advised of such, ".

The investigation doesn’t conclude that Chamber’s was wrong (as we know from later data that she was right), it concludes that sexual assault couldn’t be determined.

For anyone reviewing the report, or aware of it’s contents when the 2nd incident happened, the psychologist’s reports should absolutely be weighed.

You quoted one sentence from the police report, but did not quote the sentence immediately following that one, which read: “Lauro also advised that he agreed with Reporting Officer that no sexual assault occurred.” (This is also mentioned in the Freeh Report, page 47) That puts a different spin on the sentence you quoted. You were trying to imply that it means “could not be determined if a sexual assault occurred”, with the implication that they were uncertain about it, but that does not appear to be correct.

Chambers disagrees with you:
“There was very little doubt in my mind (Sandusky) … was a male predator, someone that was in the process of grooming a young man for abuse ,” said Chambers, speaking publicly for the first time, with the permission of her client’s family, in an interview with NBC News. “I thought…my report was strong enough to suggest that this was somebody who should be watched.”

This is a fair point. I don’t know how to reconcile this with the apparent fact that the kid continued to hang out with Sandusky after this incident.

My best guess is that Chambers (along with just about everyone else involved in this case) is viewing the case with hindsight, and also biased in favor of depicting themselves as having as much foresight as possible. But I don’t know.

Here are some useful links:

Chambers Report
Seasock Report (Of note to CannyDan: he says he didn’t follow PSU football and indicates that he had never heard of Sandusky)
Police Report

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But there certainly had to be some sort of investigation, regardless. The more important point here is that Paterno presumably thought that C&S instigated just such an investigation.

It’s not a presumption I can join you in making, especially if it’s of such importance.

[Enola_Gay]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This is all the more so in the case of McQueary, who was being circumspect, and who clearly failed to communicate correctly with Dranov, at least. So I don’t put much stock in his own assessment that he got his point across to JP & the others. (This is even leaving aside the self-serving aspect of this assessment.)

Correct. The issue is that he may have thought there was a “real investigation”.

If it could be shown that Paterno knew that there was only “a stern finger wagging (and that rug and broom) by higher-ups in the PSU establishment”, then I agree with you.

If I understand correctly, you (Fotheringay-Phipps) seem to think that McQueary failed to communicate the gravity of what he witnessed to Paterno and/or that Paterno was under the impression that there indeed was a “real investigation”. Others think Paterno was a moral scumbag who intentionally enabled a pedophile by prioritizing his football program.

I think there is another possibility, which is that Paterno did indeed see all the red flags, was intelligent and aware enough to know what a pedophile was and that a real investigation did not occur. However he *didn’t want to believe *that his friend & colleague was abusing children. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in cases of sexual abuse (happens in families all the time). Paterno was human and IMO was stuck in denial that this guy who he liked and had known for years could possibly be raping children. Too painful to accept, so he went into denial mode. I don’t think Paterno is a monster at all. I think he was overall a decent guy who made a colossal mistake…one that many of us might make in similar circumstances. The silver lining, imo, is that people can learn from this. Though denial may be an understandable human reaction when someone you admire/love/like is doing something horrid and unacceptable, it is the wrong choice to make.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s not a presumption I can join you in making, especially if it’s of such importance.

You seem to be confusing my presumption about what Paterno’s thoughts were with Paterno’s actual thoughts.

Regardless, if you can’t join me it’s fine. More than fine, in fact.

@Enola_Gay

If I understand correctly, you (Fotheringay-Phipps) seem to think that McQueary failed to communicate the gravity of what he witnessed to Paterno and/or that Paterno was under the impression that there indeed was a “real investigation”. Others think Paterno was a moral scumbag who intentionally enabled a pedophile by prioritizing his football program.

Correct. The point I was making is that even if he was the lowest form of moral scumbag, “prioritizing his football program” alone should have been a motivation for him to refrain from engaging in a cover-up, and thus putting the program at risk.

I think there is another possibility, which is that Paterno did indeed see all the red flags, was intelligent and aware enough to know what a pedophile was and that a real investigation did not occur. However he *didn’t want to believe *that his friend & colleague was abusing children.

For reasons given above, I think McQueary’s testimony was probably too vague, regardless of anything about Paterno’s moral character.

It’s certainly not impossible that what you describe here is part of the equation in terms of JP’s knowledge of the “investigation”. But if Paterno was in denial about Sandusky, then that’s not a reason to cover it up, that’s a reason to feel he had nothing to fear from an investigation. You’re presumably saying that Patermo knew at some deeper level that his denial was wrong and that this subconscious feeling influenced his actions. Can’t rule that out. Ultimately this is all speculation about people and circumstances that we don’t really know a lot about. A lot is possible. My money is still on the scenario I outlined. YMMV.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You seem to be confusing my presumption about what Paterno’s thoughts were with Paterno’s actual thoughts.

Unsupported attempts at condescension are a major tell, by the way. I responded clearly to what you wrote. If what you wrote is unclear, inaccurate or misleading, the fault is yours, not mine.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I said you seem to be confusing the two things. But maybe you can explain yourself otherwise. You said:

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s not a presumption I can join you in making, especially if it’s of such importance.

So do tell: what presumption is “of such importance”?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I said you seem to be confusing the two things.

No, you seem to have forgotten what you yourself have written. To make it easier for you, I’ll requote the relevant comment:

@you

But there certainly had to be some sort of investigation, regardless. The more important point here is that Paterno presumably thought that C&S instigated just such an investigation.

This is in agreement that a formal investigation was warranted, but you assign greater importance (I gather for the purposes of this argument) to an unsupported presumption that is most favourable to Paterno, one that I cannot join you in making.

Why would you presume such a thing? Do you know of an e-mail Paterno sent to Curley and/or Schultz that says “So what happened after you told the police about McQueary’s report?” or something comparable to indicate that he honestly believed a formal investigation had occurred or was occurring?

But maybe you can explain yourself otherwise.

No real explanation was required, but there you go.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Why can’t you answer a simple and straightforward question? (Admittedly, this is something of a rhetorical question.)

You said something, and I responded that this seemed to indicate confusion of two matters, and now you’re offended at the suggestion so I’m asking you to explain yourself otherwise. Again, your words were:

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s not a presumption I can join you in making, especially if it’s of such importance.

Again, which presumption were you describing as “of such importance”?

[I did notice you trying to weasel a bit on this, but come on out and answer directly.]

[Bryan_Ekers]

You said it was important. I was just politely going along with your own assessment, but even if I accepted your ranking of what was important, I still don’t see the basis for assuming Paterno thought an investigation had occurred.

If you know of evidence to support such a presumption, I invite you to share.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

You said it was important. I was just politely going along with your own assessment

I didn’t say that the presumption was important.

I said “The more important point here is that Paterno presumably thought …”.

Meaning that in the context of our exchange, this was the more important point.

You said the fact that McQueary might have been lying heightens the needs for an investigation and I quibbled with whether McQueary was suspected of lying, but noted that this had no bearing on whether an investigation was warranted anyway. And as regards to investigations, what’s more important is not that McQueary was not suspected of lying but the presumption that Paterno thought …

In that context, to say “It’s not a presumption I can join you in making, especially if it’s of such importance” makes no sense. You wouldn’t not join me in a presumption based on how much bearing it had on the matter at hand. (Or at least you shouldn’t …)

If you know of evidence to support such a presumption, I invite you to share.

Other than the fact that Paterno himself said so, no. IOW not much.

But I also don’t know of any evidence against it either.

And that’s how the logic works. Since you’ve claimed some familiarity with statistics, you should be familiar with this. In general, most variable things in the world tend to be clustered around the average. As you get further from the average, you tend to get fewer and fewer outliers. So the null hypothesis is generally that something is average, or normal. The assumption is certainly rebuttable, but it makes sense to assume this until evidence shows otherwise. You don’t start off by assuming that something is an extreme outlier and demanding evidence before you accept that it’s normal. You start of assuming that something is most likely normal and demand evidence before accepting that it’s an outlier.

In this case, to assume that Paterno was both unconcerned about the possibility about a kid being molested and also unconcerned about the possibility that an unrestrained Sansdusky would destroy the PSU football program would be an assumption that he was some sort of extreme outlier. That’s the assumption that needs evidence to back it up, IMO, not the reverse.

So if faced with two possibilities, one of which involves Paterno - or anyone else - being more-or-less a normal human being and the other being an incredibly stupid and morally bankrupt person, my inclination is to assume the former is more likely, pending other evidence.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But if Paterno was in denial about Sandusky, then that’s not a reason to cover it up, that’s a reason to feel he had nothing to fear from an investigation. You’re presumably saying that Patermo knew at some deeper level that his denial was wrong and that this subconscious feeling influenced his actions.

You may be afflicted with some misconceptions WRT the psychology of denial. When we don’t want to believe something, we have the marvelous ability to ignore it: if I don’t look at it — if I don’t think about it — then I can stave off the anxiety it provokes. This is not the same thing, exactly, as belief contrary to evidence. (I’m all too familiar with this sort of thing, sadly.) Consider a scenario such as: Paterno, rather than face the possibility that his friend and colleague molested children and damaged all of their reputations, simply ignored and avoided and let himself forget. Why cause trouble and foment anxiety by encouraging a thorough investigation? Why bring insult when it could be nothing? Maybe it’ll all blow over, that’s a more comforting thought, isn’t it?

Can’t rule that out. Ultimately this is all speculation about people and circumstances that we don’t really know a lot about. A lot is possible. My money is still on the scenario I outlined. YMMV.

It’s all speculation, yes. But I can point to any number of people in prison right now and say “It wouldn’t have been rational for him to steal that car/break his parole/shoot that guy he was trying to rob”. “Paterno would’ve had nothing to gain and everything to lose” falls into the same pattern and is, ultimately, unconvincing. Outside of articles in economic theory, people for the most part aren’t rational.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I didn’t say that the presumption was important.

I said “The more important point here is that Paterno presumably thought …”.

Meaning that in the context of our exchange, this was the more important point.

A distinction without a difference. You make these often, I have observed, as though hair-splitting was a suitable replacement for facts and logic.

You said the fact that McQueary might have been lying heightens the needs for an investigation and I quibbled with whether McQueary was suspected of lying

Indeed. You quibbled. I take it as significant that McQueary continued to work at Penn State, which suggests to me that Paterno, Curley and Schultz never assumed he was lying, which makes their inaction regarding Sandusky unjustifiable.

but noted that this had no bearing on whether an investigation was warranted anyway. And as regards to investigations, what’s more important is not that McQueary was not suspected of lying but the presumption that Paterno thought …

…and even if I agree with your ranking of importance, I see no evidence to support your very generous presumption about what Paterno thought. Thus, it is not a presumption I can share, and if this is a matter of such importance, it’s a presumption that requires supporting evidence.

Other than the fact that Paterno himself said so, no. IOW not much.

I cheerfully invite you to share specifics.

But I also don’t know of any evidence against it either.

Not being able to prove something isn’t true is of, to be polite, limited significance.

And that’s how the logic works. Since you’ve claimed some familiarity with statistics, you should be familiar with this. In general, most variable things in the world tend to be clustered around the average. As you get further from the average, you tend to get fewer and fewer outliers. So the null hypothesis is generally that something is average, or normal. The assumption is certainly rebuttable, but it makes sense to assume this until evidence shows otherwise. You don’t start off by assuming that something is an extreme outlier and demanding evidence before you accept that it’s normal. You start of assuming that something is most likely normal and demand evidence before accepting that it’s an outlier.

Fine. Let’s get a good sample size of university football teams involved in pedophile scandals (say, five or six hundred) and perhaps we can make a generalized observation within a certain percentage range 19 times out of 20. This will have little or no relevance to the individual case of Penn State, but no matter.

In this case, to assume that Paterno was both unconcerned about the possibility about a kid being molested and also unconcerned about the possibility that an unrestrained Sansdusky would destroy the PSU football program would be an assumption that he was some sort of extreme outlier. That’s the assumption that needs evidence to back it up, IMO, not the reverse.

Do the analysis and then you can argue that Paterno (in the interpretation you describe) is an outlier - though even if you did, so what? He might be an extreme outlier or he might not. Even if you calculated what the “average” football coach would do, that doesn’t mean you can predict what an individual football coach would do. Please don’t try to argue using statistics until you have a better handle on how they work.

So if faced with two possibilities, one of which involves Paterno - or anyone else - being more-or-less a normal human being and the other being an incredibly stupid and morally bankrupt person, my inclination is to assume the former is more likely, pending other evidence.

Oh, there are far more than two possibilities, even within your two given categories. Personally, I think Paterno was a more-or-less normal human being that chose denial, silence and willful ignorance to avoid a short-term problem that ultimately turned into a much larger long-term problem. He’s certainly not the first to do so, nor will he be the last.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Paranoid_Randroid

You may be afflicted with some misconceptions WRT the psychology of denial. When we don’t want to believe something, we have the marvelous ability to ignore it: if I don’t look at it — if I don’t think about it — then I can stave off the anxiety it provokes. This is not the same thing, exactly, as belief contrary to evidence. (I’m all too familiar with this sort of thing, sadly.) Consider a scenario such as: Paterno, rather than face the possibility that his friend and colleague molested children and damaged all of their reputations, simply ignored and avoided and let himself forget. Why cause trouble and foment anxiety by encouraging a thorough investigation? Why bring insult when it could be nothing? Maybe it’ll all blow over, that’s a more comforting thought, isn’t it?

Understood. But ISTM to be an extreme head-burying, if you look at the risk/reward balance.

It’s not like Paterno had some exeptionally close relationship with Sandusky, whose career he had effectively ended a few years before that. And the looming danger was pretty big.

It’s all speculation, yes. But I can point to any number of people in prison right now and say “It wouldn’t have been rational for him to steal that car/break his parole/shoot that guy he was trying to rob”. “Paterno would’ve had nothing to gain and everything to lose” falls into the same pattern and is, ultimately, unconvincing. Outside of articles in economic theory, people for the most part aren’t rational.

There’s irrational and there’s really really irrational. When a guy steals a car, you can see pretty clearly what the upside is, and so on. Here, not so much.

@Bryan_Ekers

A distinction without a difference. You make these often, I have observed, as though hair-splitting was a suitable replacement for facts and logic.

You not understanding something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Fortunately so, as this has very broad application.

Indeed. You quibbled. I take it as significant that McQueary continued to work at Penn State, which suggests to me that Paterno, Curley and Schultz never assumed he was lying, which makes their inaction regarding Sandusky unjustifiable.

Another great Bryan Ekers triumph. You alone suggested that McQueary lied and then you refuted this possibility. Good work.

…and even if I agree with your ranking of importance, I see no evidence to support your very generous presumption about what Paterno thought. Thus, it is not a presumption I can share, and if this is a matter of such importance, it’s a presumption that requires supporting evidence.

I cheerfully invite you to share specifics.

Not being able to prove something isn’t true is of, to be polite, limited significance.

Does it serve some purpose for you to break up my comments into small portions so that you can attack one part based on arguments that I’ve addressed elsewhere?

Fine. Let’s get a good sample size of university football teams involved in pedophile scandals (say, five or six hundred) and perhaps we can make a generalized observation within a certain percentage range 19 times out of 20. This will have little or no relevance to the individual case of Penn State, but no matter.

“university football teams involved in pedophile scandals” is an overly narrow category. I prefer to go with the more general “people”.

Do the analysis and then you can argue that Paterno (in the interpretation you describe) is an outlier - though even if you did, so what? He might be an extreme outlier or he might not. Even if you calculated what the “average” football coach would do, that doesn’t mean you can predict what an individual football coach would do. Please don’t try to argue using statistics until you have a better handle on how they work.

I don’t think this even needs to be addressed. You are surpassing yourself here.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You not understanding something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Fortunately so, as this has very broad application.

Oh, I recognize that your attempted hair-split exists - I just don’t give it any significance.

Another great Bryan Ekers triumph. You alone suggested that McQueary lied and then you refuted this possibility. Good work.

Heh, I wouldn’t even be the first person in this thread to suggest McQuery was lying (and probably not even the thousandth person in the real world), but you missed my point in rather spectacular fashion. If Paterno/Curley/Schultz thought McQueary was lying, that might justify not calling police, but it would justify (require, I would think) that McQueary be fired. McQueary was not fired. Therefore he was not suspected of lying. Therefore Paterno/Curley/Schultz failed to act against Sandusky by informing police and directing McQueary to make a statement to them.

Does it serve some purpose for you to break up my comments into small portions so that you can attack one part based on arguments that I’ve addressed elsewhere?

Well, I respond to piecemeal hair-split disagreements from you with piecemeal rational disagreements from me. My “purpose” (since I have no personal stake in Paterno’s post-mortem reputation) is the enjoyment of challenging nonsense when I see it.

“university football teams involved in pedophile scandals” is an overly narrow category. I prefer to go with the more general “people”.

Fine. Survey a significant number of “people” and show your work. I suggest, though, that you take some effort to sample Paterno’s “peers”, i.e. people in senior managerial roles in reputation-conscious institutions.

I don’t think this even needs to be addressed. You are surpassing yourself here.

Yes, I demolished you quite handily, for what it’s worth.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

Oh, I recognize that your attempted hair-split exists - I just don’t give it any significance.

You left out the word “think”.

Heh, I wouldn’t even be the first person in this thread to suggest McQuery was lying (and probably not even the thousandth person in the real world), but you missed my point in rather spectacular fashion. If Paterno/Curley/Schultz thought McQueary was lying, that might justify not calling police, but it would justify (require, I would think) that McQueary be fired. McQueary was not fired. Therefore he was not suspected of lying. Therefore Paterno/Curley/Schultz failed to act against Sandusky by informing police and directing McQueary to make a statement to them.

You keep fantasizing that you have a point. Pay closer attention this time.

I have not sugested that McQueary was suspected of lying. Whether McQueary was suspected of lying is not germane to any point I was making. Therefore pointing out that McQueary was not suspected of lying has no relevance to me.

The one who brought up McQueary being suspected of lying is you. If you’ve disproved that, well maybe you’ve disproved yourself. Not much glory in that, however.

Well, I respond to piecemeal hair-split disagreements from you with piecemeal rational disagreements from me. My “purpose” (since I have no personal stake in Paterno’s post-mortem reputation) is the enjoyment of challenging nonsense when I see it.

Challenging it by avoiding it. Whatever works for you.

Fine. Survey a significant number of “people” and show your work. I suggest, though, that you take some effort to sample Paterno’s “peers”, i.e. people in senior managerial roles in reputation-conscious institutions.

I don’t need a survey for this. I know people.

I would doubt if you seriously believe the arguments you’re making. But you never know, based on history.

Yes, I demolished you quite handily, for what it’s worth.

Nice work.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You left out the word “think”.

Okay, I recognize that the attempted hair-split that you think is so important exists - I just don’t give it any significance.

I have not sugested that McQueary was suspected of lying. Whether McQueary was suspected of lying is not germane to any point I was making. Therefore pointing out that McQueary was not suspected of lying has no relevance to me.

Obviously, because the points you are making have no real-world significance whatsoever. It’s like I’m rudely bringing up gravity to someone embroiled in an analysis of flying elephants.

The one who brought up McQueary being suspected of lying is you. If you’ve disproved that, well maybe you’ve disproved yourself. Not much glory in that, however.

Hey, you’re groping for explanations of Paterno’s behaviour. Starving Artist maintained at length that anal rape under these circumstances was physically impossible (and thus if anyone was suggesting McQueary was lying, I submit it was him), with a follow-up that Paterno was blissfully unaware of the very concept of man-on-boy anal rape. His arguments were of tenuous relevance, as are yours. You presume Paterno thought an investigation had occurred? That’s very generous of you - how about bringing this into the realm of reality by giving us some supporting evidence?

Challenging it by avoiding it. Whatever works for you.

I’m only avoiding some household chores in taking these time-outs to clobber you.

I don’t need a survey for this. I know people.

I chuckled.

I would doubt if you seriously believe the arguments you’re making. But you never know, based on history.

Well, I sincerely believe that you’re full of crap. I don’t think I’ve given any indication otherwise.

Nice work.

Well, that’s the risk of that particular form of sarcasm. You may think you’re being clever when you say things along the lines of “Oh, you’re clearly so brilliant that poor little me never stood a chance” but in the process you invite them to respond “Yes, that’s become clear at this stage.”

[BigT]

F-P, your point was demolished the second you refused to either take back or give examples of your statement that the actions of a child molester would appear to be the same as that of a mentor to an outside observer. When someone flat out asked you to give examples of actions by a groomer that would be perceived as mentoring, and you REFUSED to do so, you admitted you were not actually wanting to argue.

It’s really fucking stupid, too, because it’s pretty simple to explain Paterno’s actions. I know for a fact that many people see flat out pedophilic behaviors and just don’t notice or don’t believe what they saw, because they know that person is a good person, and thus can’t be a pedophile. It’s also pretty common for someone to figure it out later, but then be so worried about being vilified for not reporting it when it happened, that they just sit on it. It’s also common that, when you don’t really want to do something, you’ll do the bare minimum your required to do.

I’m almost certain that this is what happened to Paterno. He did something wrong. But it’s not that hard to understand his mindset without making him a co-conspirator. It would be fucking easy for you to make this argument, but, for some reason, you gave up when someone asked for fucking clarification.