That makes sense, in general, but in this instance? Really? He was teaching boys how to shower?
Chrissakes, when I was a kid my parents had to sign fourteen things in triplicate for a field trip to a potato farm – I’m betting he didn’t exactly have parents’ permissions for lathering up little Bobby.
I understand the wish that the guy would just own up to his guilt and either cop a plea or off himself, or both. But since that is evidently not going to happen - he seems to be incapable of owning up to any kind of guilt and he has no real motive to cop a plea - his lawyer has to say something, and I guess this is it. I don’t know why they’re insisting on using football metaphors because it seems much more like trolling than a serious argument, but there you go.
Hahahahaha! Better get used to these bars kid.
I did not think any aspect of this case could make me laugh, especially not laugh hard enough to cry, but I guess I was wrong. Reading that headline, I laughed harder than I’ve laughed in a long time. Thank you.
Holy facepalm batman!
I think I posted this before, but I have the perfect Christmas present for Sandusky.
Better learn how to make toilet hooch, dude.
Oh, and here’s the article I was talking about.
Scroll up this very page to Post 1405 and you’ll see this:
Also note who posted it. Fella name o’ you. 
Well, now you know better. Well, the rest of the world does, anyway. Maybe you’ll catch on someday soon, maybe not, your problem either way.
Watch out ElvisL1ves. Reference post #1424. Miller is ready to punch you in the face.
You know who was a fine, upstanding, successful man of outstanding morals and integrity?
NOT Godwinized! 
What? You can get punched in the face for making no damn sense now? Who knew?
SA: You need a serious sit-down with your doctors and need to review your meds. Please get help before you do harm to some innocent person. The problem is YOU, not the rest of the world.
Oh, please! :rolleyes:
Tell ya what, let’s do a quick recap of the thread:
Topic: Joe Paterno’s complicitness in Sandusky’s behavior:
SDMB posters:
“Paterno’s an asshole!” “He knew all along!” “Probably a pedophile himself!”
SA (and a few other brave souls):
You know, Paterno has a long standing reputation for integrity. Maybe we ought to wait until all the facts are in before we condemn him.
SDMB posters:
" SHRIEK!!! “SCREECH!!!” “PEDOPHILE!” "**PEDOPHILE APOLOGIST!!! “ASSHOLE!!!”
SA:
No, really. We don’t have the facts yet. We don’t know what Paterno heard but we do know that he reported the situation to his superiors, like the law and decades of campus practice dictated that he should! You guys are acting like a lynch mob.
SDMB posters:
“SHRIEK!!!” “BULLSHIT!!!” “FUCKING CREEP!!!” "BET YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE TOO!!! “ASSHOLE!!!” “PEDOPHILE APOLOGIST” (Again. This has been a popular one!)
SDMB poster (singular):
“Hey, SA, there’s a report that a kid was crying in Sandusky’s house hoping his wife would hear and rescue him. Is that evidence for you?”
SA: “No, actually that doesn’t say anything about Paterno at all.”
SDMB poster (singular): “SCREEECH!!!” “SUCK DEAD RACCOON DICKS!!!” "YOU MORAL DEGENATE!!!"
And so it has gone, rinse and repeat for pretty much the whole thread where Paterno is concerned.
So now you tell me, who’s been the most unreasonable? Which side has tried to argue salient points and which side has relied on insults, ad hominems and straw men to make their case?
And then tell me who you really think is most likely to go off half-cocked and hurt someone?
Hint: It ain’t me! :rolleyes:
Now we know that you really are delusional. 'Nuff said.
In other words more of the same, eh?
The point is that my posts have been met primarily with insults, not reasoned argument. I think you’d have a pretty hard time arguing otherwise.
Just thought you’d want to hear it again…
Sorry, but you would be wrong about that. That post was very much on topic, as it as it addressed the nature of the dialog in this thread regarding Joe Paterno and had absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Your initial posts were met with links to the facts of the case, which you either haven’t read, or are too stupid to comprehend. After you had plenty of time to read the well known facts of the case, when you continued to create asinine, counter-factual fantasies, yes, people got angry. It’s a touchy subject, and you are a well known worthless piece of shit. People don’t like you, do you get that? You are an unlikable, shitty person who fellates authority and acts like a loon. The poster above is right; get your meds checked. Or move into a nursing home, hopefully one with no internet access.
Yes, it’s too bad that Paterno didn’t issue a statement regarding what he knew.
Something like “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,”
Since Paterno didn’t issue a statement EXACTLY LIKE THAT, we’d all be wondering what he knew about the abuse, and if he could have done more to protect those kids. Sure, a bunch of internet-know-nothings can blab on and on about how he should have done more, but we don’t know what Paterno did or didn’t know, and what more he could have done, only Joe Pa knows that for sure… and he apparently didn’t issue a statement on Wed Nov 9, 2011 suggesting that he knew about the abuse and could have done more.
We know what Paterno heard about the incident in the shower because he testified about it before the Grand Jury.
Here is a link to the Grand Jury’s indictment of Sandusky:
The section concerning McQuery and the shower incident is described on page 7, in the Grand Jury’s Findings of Fact on Victim 2.
Here is what the Grand Jury said of Paterno’s sworn testimony:
Paterno swore to the Grand Jury that he was told that Sandusky had been seen doing “something of a sexual nature to a young boy”. This is how we know that Paterno knew about Sandusky.
You’ve been told all this before, of course, but after your ridiculous summary where you very carefully ignored Paterno’s sworn testimony while attempting to paint those of us in this thread as irrational, I thought it worth while to point it out again. You know, just in case anyone coming late to thread might wonder if you were kind of full of shit or entirely full of shit.
Yes, my initial posts were met with links that didn’t come close to proving or even suggesting what you claim they did, as I pointed out at the time.
This from the poster who so hysterically misread one of my posts that she thought I was saying there’s nothing wrong with child rape unless the child is screaming in pain. From what I’ve seen of your behavior on this board it’s apparent that you would benefit by nursing home care far more than me.
You know as well as I do that he was referring to wishing he had called the police in regard to McQueary’s statement instead of turning it over to his superiors at the university. His comment had nothing to do whatsoever with regard to what he allegedly knew about Sandusky raping kids and having kept quiet about.
Note: You see liz, that right there is the kind of thing posters like you hate me for. A poster makes a misleading or incorrect statement intended to prove they are right and I am wrong. Trouble is, they’re statement is misleading or incorrect and I challenge it by explaining just where they are wrong. Lots of posters don’t like that. They just want to get on with their hatefests about whatever issue it is that they’re so touchy about (which is almost everything, apparently), and if they are like you they feel that touchyness gives them carte blanche to go off the rails and they don’t like it when I challenge them on it. So then they resort to hurling insults, as though that should settle the matter, and when that doesn’t work they start casting about for offenses to use to bring moderators in to chase me away. Either that or they hope to run me off by pointing out that I’m unpopular with the offenderatti around here.
You guys have succeeded in running off most of the board’s more prolific posters over the years and the fact that you haven’t succeeded with me is causing you much frustration. But the answer is simple: just stop posting knee-jerk bullshit that is factually wrong, or if you honestly believe it is correct, be prepared to defend it with more than personal insults. A person wouldn’t think that would be too much to ask, but apparently it is.
Some of this discussion reminds me of the Jury Duty sketch from the Chappelle Show. “I’ll only believe the allegations if I can see the conversation between Paterno and McQuery on video where both men are holding up government issued id’s, two policemen are watching, four of my best buds are there taking notes, and my grandma is there.”
Skip to 6:00 in the video to see it.