Soxbadger

I dont really agree with that statement. I have my own beliefs, some times I agree with the majority, sometimes I dont. It also depends on who the majority is. Just because the majority on this board doesnt agree with me, doesnt mean that my opinion isnt in agreement with the majority of people I work with, or the majority of my friends, or the majority of the world. The reason you probably believe that is because in certain threads (the ones where Im against the majority), I am considerably more vocal because there arent as many people agreeing with me. In a thread where I agree with everyone, I may not even post, because there is really no reason to say "I agree". Its a pretty big generalization.

SS2K, I agree completely. To bad most people dont care about the facts. Kyle, Where have I made outlandish scenarios? Milkman stated: Morals are entirely subjective. I showed several examples of why morals have to be subjective. Your not Jewish, therefore kosher doesnt apply to you. If your a mormon its not morally wrong to have several wives, if you are another faith it might be. The idea that people can believe that morals are not subjective is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Milkman, Doing what exactly? Correctly pointing out that you have yet to read the transcript. Correctly pointing out that you are relying on a document that is entirely hearsay and is not even allowed into evidence because it is so unreliable I apologize that I am not drinking the kool aid, I just prefer to wait for the facts. Call me old fashioned. (edit) How can I take the opposing side on every argument? Ive agreed and disagreed on different topics with about 90% of the people in this thread. I dont always agree with the majority, I guess thats bad.

Ah classic, when you cant defend a position, just make smarmy comments. Sex before marriage, morally wrong, FIRE THEM. At least according to Milkman. Because as he said, morals arent subjective, they are objective. So either something is morally okay or it isnt, there is absolutely no gray area. Thats the position your defending Kyle. Notice that in over 46 pages, Ive never had to resort to similar tactics, because my position is sound.

Its funny that you entirely skip the: "We generally dont punish people for having different moral beliefs." I assume based on this thread (since your contention is morals arent subjective) youd have no problem with someone being fired for not being kosher, because thats against someones moral beliefs. Or maybe anyone who doesnt where a burka should be fired, because they are offending someones moral beliefs. I think what you really mean, is that you are okay with people being judged morally as long as those are the morals you agree with. I dont think you can argue morals are objective, they are basically the definition of subjective.

Once again, that is your belief of the facts without reading a single transcript (correct me if im wrong, but from what I can tell youve only read the charging papers). The simple fact is that at this time there is no evidence that Paterno broke any law or any PSU rule. People are inserting their own morality into this and acting like its cannon. We generally do not punish people for having different moral beliefs. I understand you have strong feelings about this, but its generally better to look at things objectively.

Thats like saying if you hear that your grandson is in the hospital you go and visit him, where as if you heard that another persons grandson was in the hospital you didnt. Anyone is obviously going to take more interest in something that directly impacts their family, regardless of whether its a crime, injury, lottery winning, etc. Thats just human nature, but in no way suggests that he has to treat everyone the same way hed treat his own family. I really cant imagine thats the standard we are holding people to these days.

I dont know, I assume Paterno would have contacted his son and tried to determine if it happened. I highly doubt hed call the police without asking questions first. Most people only report crimes they see first hand or hear from the victim. Now if Paterno's grandson told him it happened, I expect hed call the police. But thats the equivalent of the boy telling some one, which is a distinguishable fact.

I think its the way you characterize things. Franco has no decency? Wtf is that? If you arent distracted by the nature of the crime, its pretty clear that Paterno deserved a chance to defend himself. If you walk into work and another employee accuses you of stealing, do you think you should have a chance to explain your story? Or do you think you should just be terminated immediately? Think of all the times police are caught on tape beating some one etc, they are suspended, pending the results of an investigation. The appropriate response here was to suspend Paterno, pending an investigation. Once you have the facts, then you can make a decision. If you notice, Harris asks a very interesting question: "Who at PSU gave Sandusky access?" Its interesting that no one in the media seems to care about the actual facts. But that isnt a shocker, outrageous claims sell more papers than the truth.

Journey. Firing or not firing McQueary wont reduce their liability to the victims at all. Its completely irrelevant to whether or not an abuse occurred years ago and what the damages are. If they dont care about being sued for wrongful termination, the are idiots. They should care about everything.

Kyle, I dont know if there was a coverup, I just believe that if there was one, that it wasnt Paterno who was leading it. I think it came from above him.

I wasnt talking to you Quinarvy. I was speaking to Milkman who seems to be getting actually angry about someone else holding a different opinion.

So take this as completely rumor, but I was talking to one of my clients who knows some people at PSU and the rumor is that: 1) Second mile pimping may have merit. 2) Some of the board of trustees may have known a lot more than they are claiming.

lol I think the irony is delicious that you want someone who has a different opinion than you killed.

Any protection McQueary had, Paterno would have as well. Remember McQueary did not contact the President, etc. It was Paterno. I think PSU is concerned about their potentially liability, and unlike Paterno, I think McQueary would definitely sue PSU. Personally I think PSU is trying to dig up things on McQueary to try and give a better reason to fire him. Not calling the police, is just not a great reason to terminate an employee, especially when the employee reports to his superiors, and the superiors fail to report it in violation of the law.

They could refer to a flipper witness that way, but I think they were more tying to show that Paterno is helping the Prosecution to bring these people to justice, and he gets fired, meanwhile another guy who lied, is still on the payroll. Something does not add up.

I think your missing the part where they call Paterno a cooperating witness, implying that he has done nothing but help them. Kind of destroys the whole "Paterno covered things up" argument, the basic implication is that PSU is scapegoating Paterno, ie firing someone who has done nothing but try and help, whereas protect someone who blatantly lied and tried to cover things up. Just interesting comments from the people who actually know the testimony, as opposed to the rest of us who merely are speculating as to what the actual testimony was.

So it seems the Pennsylvania State's Attorney is asking similar questions as some of us in this thread: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colle...00.story?page=2 Probably just all us lawyers taking the wrong side (even though they are the Prosecutors).

The same way they actually found out about the crime, I assume with an investigation. The real question is if Sandusky raped so many kids, how did the 1998 investigation come up completely empty?

Paterno is guilty because he hired a lawyer. lol If anything Paterno is a fool for not hiring a lawyer immediately. Not only guilty people hire attorneys.

Milkman, I dont believe anything. Lets get this straight. I dont care what a Grand Jury thinks, I care what I think. I havent seen the transcripts, have you? I didnt get to see the witnesses and determine their credibility, have you? What I do know, is that some one who witnesses a crime, doesnt report it, is generally not considered very credible. As for my condescension, if you read that statement and think it apples to you, so be it. It was a general comment on American society. (edit) Pops back up? I was out of the office all afternoon taking depositions if you care to know.

So you can see why the police wouldnt investigate further into something weird, but you cant see why Joe Paterno wouldnt further investigate into something weird? Its become that Paterno should have done more than the police at this point, who are trained to identify this type of stuff. And Id like to say its been a pleasure to read Jenks and Iamshack. I know Milkman wants to lump us together, but the reality is that there are many times we have not agreed. Thats what happens when you think independently as opposed to believing what you read in the newspaper. Its so easy to just blindly believe.

My bias? I dont care for Paterno, I dont care for PSU. I just happen to be involved with lawsuits on a daily basis, and my opinion is based on my experience. Why do you think McQuery is more credible? What has he done in this matter, to make you believe hes telling the truth? Did he call the police? Did he report it immediately?

Strangesox, From the complaint it did appear his testimony conflicted. Ive yet to see the transcript, so I cant go through it line by line and give a real opinion.

Balta, As I said previously, the appropriate response would have been a suspension, pending an investigation. In that case hes not coaching this weekend. SS2K, Im not even saying that. Im merely saying there are 2 people who know what Paterno was told. 1 of them may be saying it was very specific, the other is saying it wasnt very specific. Without getting to cross examine McQuery, you really dont know if the guy isnt just completely lying about what he told Paterno.

Rock, "A person familiar" That means that they arent even quoting McQuery. That is such unreliable evidence. So far no one has shown me McQuery's testimony, no one has quoted it verbatim. You are taking 3rd hand knowledge as fact.