Really?
You’re funnier than Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
Is this performance art?
You may or may not be FOS, but I’ll bet five bucks you’re S_A.
[quote=“NoLittlePlans, post:6268, topic:602167”]
Looks like my contact staged his “death” online. Whatever.
[QUOTE]
That Roniah Tuiasosopo sure does get around.
swmtasbyps
Nice job, Robb. You get partial credit the first half of the first clue. SP = Sue Paterno. While it is public knowledge that Sue Paterno will be addressing the public about JVP and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal for the first time since the GJP hit the press, what is not publicly known is:
(A) AM.
(B) PK.
**“A” **refers to a guest that will join Sue on Katie Couric’s show on Monday afternoon. The presence of this guest isn’t a big deal, but since it’s not publicly known information I figured I’d mention it now for a credibility reference in the future. I guarantee AM will be featured on the show, however. As will Jay, Scott and Mary Kay (which may or may not be publicly known, I haven’t bothered to check).
**“B” **refers to the more compelling part of the first clue – the other national headline I promised. As of right now, there is zero speculation about this in google news, but when it comes out it’ll make sense and seem like it should’ve been expected. Anyway, I combined the SP hint (Sue Paterno) and the AM hint with the PK hint under the umbrella of No. 1 because they’ve kind of been strategically planned together.
As for No. 2, the impact will be similar to Part B of No. 1 (a national headliner). Together, hint 1 and hint 2 will combine for a very effective 1-2 punch.
FWIW, I think it’s a natural human tendency for us to cling to our initial instincts and first impressions. But, I would encourage everyone to keep an open mind and realize that the people involved are very well-aware that they’re attaching their names to a radioactive story that’s laid to waste each and every name that’s been associated with the story to date. You don’t subject your name and reputation, your friends, family and colleagues, or your career to the plague of public misconceptions unless you really believe in what you’re doing – most particularly for those in the absence of financial incentives (ie, Louis Freeh was paid between $6,500,000 to $12,000,000 to deliver his 267-page narrative – follow the money, that’s quite an incentive). Ask yourselves what’s in it for these people. Unlike Freeh, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain aside from fulfilling what they feel is a moral obligation to stand up for what is right.
Also, there is a chance that a third national headline will hit the news alongside the other two between today and Monday, but I’m not confident enough to make that prediction quite yet and I’m not sure if the timing matches up even if it is credible.
On the other end of the spectrum, I do unfortunately anticipate another ugly turn (or two or three) in this story. As they say, sometimes the only way out is through. Everyone here just wants to get to the bottom-line truth, and even though nobody wants to be subjected to another round of stench and sewage, I’m personally bracing myself to deal with it as long as it delivers the full truth.
Despite that, I continue to be somewhat optimistic (above average, at least) that the required redeeming evidence does exist to end all speculation. However, even though the burden of proof is lawfully assigned to the prosecution, well, it’s the other way around in the court of public opinion, and it’s extremely difficult (maybe impossible) to prove something doesn’t exist. Does God exist? Ask yourself, if you were dragged into this court case and falsely accused of failing to report your knowledge of a child being brutally raped, and if you truly never had that information, how the eff do you go about in proving it? It’s virtually impossible.
So, that being said, despite the doomed-to-fail challenge at hand, I still believe such a task can be achieved. This suspicion is not yet based on verified information, but I’ve seen enough pieces of the puzzle fitting together to believe in a fully redeeming vision. That would obviously be the best-case scenario – to leave no doubt in anyone’s mind – but, in the real world, such scenarios rarely come to fruition. Here in the United States of America, our great people were born with the God-given right to freedom and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That’s all fine and dandy in theory, but the reality is our public jury demands a magic bullet to reverse opinions.
Does that magic bullet exist? I don’t know. Might evidence actually emerge to further implicate Joe Paterno of his allegedly calculated complicity in the protection of a pedophile? Yes, that too remains a possibility. Either way, as we head into the 16th month of this unsolved mystery, I firmly believe we’re about to be accelerated into the climax of this story. Let’s all just hope for the concluding chapters to silence the controversy and for our society to actually use this story as an opportunity to build a better tomorrow for the welfare of our grandchildren and future generations.
So some stuff might happen that might have some effect in some unknown way on some part of people’s perceptions of the story? And some people may or may not turn out to have been at least partially incorrect about some aspect of the story? Or not?
Get a load of you, Nostradamus Jr. Do you do spoon bending as a sideline?
Moderator: Would like to delete my previous post above, No. 6281. Thanks.
" I firmly believe we’re about to be accelerated into the climax of this story"
My vote is for performance art.
You forgot to add: "Because there are just too many facts in it. I meant to give vague hints, not just break the whole thing wide open like I did.
If not deleted, I may have to fake my death online.
Oh, and can you also delete the post asking you to delete post No. 6281? Thanks."
Good luck with that, wanker. If you actually want to talk to a mod about your post, use the triangle containing an exclamation point in the upper right of the post. That is the “report post” button and it works. Posting a request in a thread that all sane people (yeah, I know, I’m guilty as charged) should ignore is not usually effective. And as far as I know, requests to delete posts like yours are denied. Personal info and excessive copyrighted stuff get deleted, but generally not whole posts.
I spoke with Jerry Sandusky in prison. He completely exonerated Joe Paterno and he told me that the person who is to blame for his ability to continue to molest children even after there were more red flags than at Red Flag Day in Red Flagsyvania.
That person is …
Wait, I’ll be right back. I think I heard some noise from downstairs. Be right back.
OH DEAR GOD!!! HELP ME!!! HHHHHHEEEEEEEELLLLLLLPPPPPPP
djka;h48q23-7548afh&**(PY*$#HHNR
:beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep:
You misspelled “Nostradumbass”.
Would it kill ya to proof before you post?
It’s *"$ before # except after ").
Why?
For the record, I reported post #6283 (not for anything bad; just to get the Mods’ attention). And I even did it politely.
Past experience suggests, however, that Computer will Say No.
It’s almost like you’re psychic, or something.
Wow, that was a bombshell! Sue Paterno, Joe’s widow, wife of 50 years, and desperate to cling to the money he made, says Joe gasp, didn’t know Sandusky was a pedophile.
Holy Shit, the wife stands by the husband!!! Front page news!!! Shocking revelation!!!
The family also released a report that, despite having no new evidence, concludes that the Freeh report was badly done. Another shocker!!! A report conducted by the family attorney, family friends, and sponsored by the family concludes the Freeh report has holes.
Mind boggling in it’s revelatory nature. Thanks for the heads up No Little Plans!
Moderator: please delete post No. 6283. Thanks.
I’ve been following Paul Krugman, but he hasn’t said anything about Joe Paterno. Checked in on Patsy Kensit and Phil Keoghan, but no luck. Then I thought maybe the placekicker was going to vouch for Joe.
Who is PK? I’m waiting for the earthshattering revelations! Where are you, NoLittlePants?