Milkman delivers

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) My only feeling is that some how the pimping kids rumor has some merit, and one of those people was either very powerful in PSU, a big time donor, or someone really powerful in the state. Basically Sandusky at that point would threaten to expose the other person. That is the only logical answer, that someone way more powerful than Sandusky was involved. I agree. That's the only scenario that makes sense at this point.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:08 PM) Former PSU players donate money to help Jerry Sandusky fund his defense team: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-n...te_players.html Ugh

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Sent to a Michigan Recruit: So, who is that 1 school now?

This is very, very random, but I was reading another list on Cracked.com about the worst TV spin-offs ever. In doing so, I came across this: Now, does any Breaking Bad fan realize who that guy in the picture is? It's Jonathan Banks (Mike), but he was playing Delta Burke's mentally handicapped brother on the show. It was called Women Of The House, and was a spin-off of Designing Women. I just found it funny.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:41 PM) Mcqueary has also been delivering letters to recruits of other Big Ten schools like OSU and Mich stating that PSU has been scandal free for 45 years. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...20the%20Thunder

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) It was said he was hand delivering letters from Assistant coach McQueary This is getting absurd.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) So you're alleging what here, that no one has read the easily available grand jury report, or that the grand jury report is lies created by a grand jury determined to destroy Joe Paterno? That's basically been the crux of his argument.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) I really wish the arguments about your personal beliefs would continue in another thread so actual news can be shared in here. You're right. I'm just gonna put him on ignore for the sake of the thread. It's like arguing with a wall that changes its argument and creates lies anyway.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) Its not a generalization. So far no one in this thread has said theyve read the transcript. So you are relying entirely on the medias portrayal, unless you are saying you were one the jurors and actually witnessed the testimony. Iamshack, Im a piece of s*** human being because I said that I think the appropriate response was that Paterno was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. Unlike Milkman, Im not just going to blindly believe that Saint McQueary went to Paterno and gave him graphic details. Im a terrible human being because I believe that every person, regardless of how terrible the accusations, deserves to tell their side, before we make judgments. I dont know how many times I have to say it, but I dont know what Paterno was told. Therefore I cant say whether or not he should have told the police, until I am able to actually see the facts myself. Yes, it's a generalization to say that others don't care about the facts simply because they haven't been able to read the entire transcript of the trial. That is almost a perfect definition of what a generalization is. And again, you're creating a statement I didn't make. I said you'd be a piece of s*** if you think there's nothing morally wrong with Paterno and others not informing the police. I didn't say you're "a piece of s*** human being because you said that you think the appropriate response was that Paterno was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation". You're making s*** right the f*** up. This is something you do regularly. I'm sure it works on juries, but people here aren't buying it. Is anyone here buying his s***? Anyone perhaps besides shack?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) edited with link. The defense of Paterno being disconnected from this is crumbling. Haha, no way. There's no way Paterno knew about Sandusky continuing to recruit for his school. It's just not possible. It's much more plausible that this was conducted solely by the higher-ups. Upon initially hearing about the reports, Paterno did everything in his power to keep those children safe and never again had anything to do with Sandusky. Right?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Yeah, you've pretty much made this clear. And yet you are the one making light of the actions taken by Sandusky against the children, using slang that might be mildly appropriate when discussing your latest conquest with your buddies near the water cooler, but certainly not in regards to the acts done by a sick pervert to children. You've now gone from making moral judgments about everyone involved in the case, to those of us here offering commentary in opposition of your own. I know things have gotten a bit emotional in this thread, but seriously, accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you, not will you convince them to agree with you. And when they don't, it's not acceptable to label them as a "piece of s*** human being." It surely is in this case, sorry.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) Its a pretty big generalization. It's also a pretty big generalization to assume people are being swayed massively by the media's portrayal, nobody else about facts, etc.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) Paterno had Sandusky recruiting for him this entire time including this year. Obviously he disassociated himself from him in 1999 right? Well except for visiting prospective kids. Where did you get that from?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) (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. You take up any argument where the vast majority agree one something, and argue against it. I think that's clear to anyone on this site who's seen you post more than a couple of times.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) 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. I was referring to that particular instance. I don't think you'll find a culture on Earth that would say Paterno and the others didn't fail morally in not contacting the police. But again, you're just proving my description of your arguing style to be true. You've taken what I said, and completely changed the argument to make it look like something entirely different. It went from me saying that everyone can agree that he failed morally in this particular instance to you portraying me as saying that all morals are the same for everyone everywhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) l.o.l. You've had to resort to completely misrepresenting what anyone else is saying, so I don't know if "look what he's reduced to" is what you want to hang your hat on. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) Right, because it isnt smarmy to say that im not jewish therefore i disagree with being kosher or Im not muslim so I disagree with the islamic faith is anywhere close to someone not reporting a sexual predator. Milkman isnt generalizing all morality, he is talking about a specific instance here where a large portion of the human population would look at it and say "you know what, thats really f***ed up that THEY(Not he, not just paterno) did not say anything" It is funny how you go through this thread and look at your comments, and you dont like us drawing conclusions from grand jury testimony, but you have no problems making up outlandish scenarios for your own conclusions If you guys go back and read the post where I commented on Soxbadger's "arguing" style, you'll see that he's doing exactly the same thing again in this thread. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) Your bias is your undying need to take the opposing side of any argument, while never, ever admitting to being wrong. You're very good at it, too, don't get me we wrong. When given evidence against your argument, you alter your stance ever so slightly and attack either small aspects of the opposing theory or create arguments that aren't being made by anyone. And then you just argue and argue until nobody gives a s*** anymore and just drops it because of the futility of it.

Badger, if you don't think it's morally wrong to not call the cops after being informed of a child being raped, I think you are a piece of s*** human being. And if that's how you think, please say so. I'd gladly take a suspension in order to clarify exactly what I'd think of you in that case.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) I don't know anything about Ranaudo, but we lose at the rest of that trade, plus the Sox aren't trading Sale. He is literally the last guy on this roster, they would be trading today. Well, that's probably Dunn, as nobody would take him for any reason.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) 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. For the 8 trillionth time, nobody is saying that. Nobody has said that. Nobody besides you will continue to say that. We're saying that he failed morally, which you might argue to no avail is entirely subjective. And lucky, the world agrees that he failed morally and he's now out of a job.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Geology. Never, ever, ever f*** with a geologist.

Ah, the picture is a smiley face for me.

The high standard of ensuring the police are called when a former employee and friend of yours is seen butt raping a child on the premises of your institution. How could we ask so much of anyone?

I think Joe Paterno is a pedophile. And I heard Franco Harris helps him capture young boys.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) Well I don't like your characterization of Franco's comments much either, Milk. But the fact is, we disagree on the fundamental point of culpability here, which means I see the majority calling for everyone's heads to fall immediately as an angry mob, whereas you see someone defending Paterno and begin fuming. Sorry for expecting Franco to have any kind of decency. Note to self: next time a travesty occurs somewhere, do not want justice if a large group wants the same. This is mob justice under any circumstance and is wrong.

#3 on this list might interest Balta: http://www.cracked.com/article_19499_6-att...roblems_p2.html