“Watch me ignore this guy …” 
Frankly, I’m vaguely impressed he showed you as much patience as he did. You’re pretty determinedly in the wrong, here.
Oh, you poor, naive, bastard.
Ok, so you all know that the NCAA deal with Penn State included striking a decade’s worth of Paterno’s wins from the official record books, knocking him way out of the #1 spot that he had formerly locked up. Last May, the Paterno family along with several Penn State trustees and other involved parties filed a lawsuit against the NCAA to get the NCAA deal thrown out, claiming that they were not consulted. (cite)
Last month, the Paterno family added Penn State as a defendant with the NCAA to the suit. The judge in the case said they couldn’t sue over the deal between Penn State and the NCAA without naming them both. So the family, who have been trying to claim that they’re doing this on behalf of Penn State, went ahead and added them, too. (cite)
This week, the NCAA and Penn State responded by filed an objection that Paterno’s family has no standing. Joe Paterno wasn’t an employee of Penn State when the NCAA sanctions agreement was reached. In fact he was already dead. Anyway, his random relatives have no official connection. The Paterno family, otoh, is arguing that Joe Paterno is an ‘involved individual’, that the NCAA agreement was reached based on what they call the faulty Freeh report which unfairly maligned poor Holy Joe.
“Involved Individuals” is apparently a term from the NCAA proceedings:
It’s true that none of the people in the lawsuit meet that standard by the NCAA, as being people who are directly involved and deserve a participatory role of some sort. It remains to be seen what that will mean for the lawsuit. I suspect the Paterno family will possibly be bounced but the four Penn State trustees who are suing the NCAA and PSU might still be ok to proceed.
I have to admit, expunging record books and such strikes me as pointless. Let Paterno keep his records; just stick a big ol’ asterisk on them.
When I entered this thread all sorts of ridiculous, idiotic accusations were being made about Joe Paterno and Penn State’s administration, up to and including that they were all a cabal of sinister child rapers knowingly aware of and covering up for each other’s child buggery and its concomitant horrors upon a decade or more of who knows how many children, and/or that Joe Paterno knew all along that Sandusky was engaging in oral and anal rape of small children and did nothing about it in order to protect his football program. Allegations were also made that he knowingly did the “bare minimum” and in so doing sought to have the matter swept under the rug.
The imaginary rape that McQueary thought he happened upon was used as the basis for these allegations, and it’s what was used to attach to Joe Paterno to “prove” his guilt in these hideous crimes.
Thanks largely but not solely to my efforts, every one of these idiotic allegations has been debunked and you clowns have been left holding the bag with nothing of substance to claim but that Paterno “should have done more”.
None of you were in the least interested in getting at the truth. To the contrary you resisted it like hell, and eagerly accused me and anyone else not gleefully joining in with your lynch mob mentality of being pedophiles, or at the very least would-be pedophiles, ourselves.
But the truth, as they say, will out. And you hate me for it. You hate me because you can’t intimidate me into going away through mockery and insults. You hate me because when you lie about what I’ve said because you have no other way to rebut what I’ve said, I’ll claim I’ve won the point (which I clearly have). And mostly you hate me because I’m right and you’re wrong and there’s nothing you can do about it.
And what’s most amusing of all is that you people think I should care about your opinion of me. You fuckers are downright evil! You will happily and gleefully accuse people of the most vile and awful crimes based upon nothing but supposition and then will cast the same accusations upon anyone who dares question your beliefs; you blatantly refuse to look at the facts, idiotically maintaining that only a pervert could bring himself to do so in the first place; and you will absolutely never admit you were wrong and I have no doubt that if this were a small village a couple hundred years ago several innocent people would have swung from a tree by now.
So to my opponents in this thread I say fuck you one and all.
It’s good to be the winner! 
Ha! Was I right or what?
Emphasis mine.
If you’re talking about what dropzone said in Post 6428, I really couldn’t parse it at all and took it as a non-sequitur. I surely didn’t read it as support for your assertion. Which was
I’m still waiting for your cites.
And El Kabong – we’re good, buddy. 
And Bryan – Yes you were/are. 
Just a quick question here:
Forgive me, but I could swear that the only posters in this thread who have ever come close to agreeing with your position are Fotheringay-Phipps and your probable sock NoLittlePlans. Were people actually accusing them of being would-be pedophiles? I don’t recall seeing that.
Now, now, I don’t think anyone wants to hang you; a lot of us just think you’re wrong.
But yes, you’ve got a great point there; if everything were completely different from the way things are now, the outcome might be different as well. Thanks for pointing that out.
Unfortunately, I suspect not everyone fully understands your position. Would you mind restating it one more time, so maybe it will finally sink in for the more stubborn among us?
Er, I guess that’s a no, then.
In that case I revert to my previous assumption that you were asking some sort of trick question.
What you said was “I do not recall anyone in this thread, certainly not moi, suggesting that he knowingly covered up for a known child raper”. What dropzone said was (emphasis mine): “Motivated by a desire to protect his, and his program’s, reputations, and acting through obfuscation and minimization of a highly suspicious report made directly to him, Joe Paterno knowingly covered up for a known child rapist.”
If you’re not willing to admit that this goes against your premise, or even clarify what you were asking for beyond statements like dropzone’s, then I’m certainly not going to waste any time hunting down anything else.
You saying you don’t recall something doesn’t add much, if anything.
SA’s characterization is pretty much on target in this regard.
So what about Paterno, then? An eyewitness reported something to him, it was not thoroughly investigated at the time, and when it came to light again years later Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault and corruption of minors (and about 40 other counts, besides).
Is there some part of that which you think exonerates Paterno?
So let’s be magnanimous and give him this one trivial point, while noting he’s wrong on several dozen others of actual importance.
You may be missing the context of those remarks.
El Kabong (& others) have tried to imply that there’s something weaselly about focusing discusion on the Victim 2 episode and not on the other counts for which Sandusky was convicted. My response is that since this discussion is about the extent to which Paterno is to blame, the focus is properly on the details of episode in which his actions have been faulted. For purposes of determining the level of fault to assign to JP, it makes no difference what other crimes Sandusky might have been guilty of. And the focus here on the Victim 2 episode reflects this fact and not an attempt to deflect attention away from Sandusky’s guilt for other crimes.
[Is this “pedantic”? Perhaps I shouldn’t have responded, but I’ve typed it up already …]
Discussion of other victims is relevant because it shows what information Penn State should have uncovered had they investigated Sandusky at the time, and what further victims could have been saved from Sandusky had they done so.
On the other hand, it’s weaselly to focus on Sandusky’s acquittal of the most serious charge with Victim #2, as if that proves his total innocence and justifies Paterno’s failure to take stronger action.
OK, but that’s after you’ve decided the level of responsibility that JP bears. If you’re discussing what that level is, then you need to focus on the Victim 2 incident.
The key words here are “as if”.
The “as if” is just you misinterpreting your opponents’ intentions and them attacking them for your own misinterpretation.
It’s my belief that when an eyewitness reported an assault to him, Paterno then bore the responsibility to make sure it was investigated by those who are charged and competent to do so.
I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting a thing.
I gather you’re not reading the same thread we are. I suggest you refer to any and all of Starving’s posts where he specifically says “rape” or “raping” while acting as though other charges are utterly nonexistent.
Actually, just read all his posts, it’ll be easier than trying to filter them.
Pop quiz for the hotshots out there: was Sandusky convicted of ANY sexually-related crime involving Victim #2? Yes or no? Follow-up 1: if the answer is yes, does this make any substantive difference in how Paterno should have treated the information he initially received on the incident in question? Follow-up 2: If the answer to follow-up 1 is no, then what the hell difference does it make whether Sandusky’s conviction on this one count was for rape, or for a lesser charge?
I did my homework before making post #6485.
Yep, knew that. My question wasn’t directed at you.
That’s fine as beliefs go.
But you need to be aware that the mere fact of you holding a certain belief doesn’t make all other opinions moot, such that any continuing discussion of that aspect can be interpreted as an attempt to draw attention away from other aspects that you deem to be still open for discussion.
I believe you are.
I guess it’s a tie.
“X is irrelevant to the specific point I’m making now” is not the same thing a “X is utterly nonexistant”.
IMO the answers are yes, very very slightly, and n/a. (More below)
That can be a workable approach, as noted above.
The problem in this instance is that it’s unclear just who it was directed at.The guy you’re ostensibly ignoring is me, but the guy who thinks the acquital on rape charges is a big deal is SA. Unless you’re ignoring him too. Maybe you should put out some sort of list, perhaps in your sig.