StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) It pretty much seems like he did that, Balta. If Paterno cut a life-long friend out of his life, that's a pretty clear indication that he didn't think the allegations were baseless.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) But the problem is peoples' opinions are formed using that speculation. And then as time goes by, people forget that it was just speculation that formed their opinions. Why not just wait for the actual facts before I form my opinion? The point of the speculation is that I can't come up with any plausible scenario that fits with what we already know that a) makes sense and b) casts Paterno in a better light. What additional facts are possibly out there that fit what we already know?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) Rock's taking it a bit out of context. He said the university has far more important concerns, such as the victims, rather than concerning themselves with his impending retirement. PSU doesn't really have anything to do with the victims, though. It's a police/judicial matter at this point. He's trying to deflect attention.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) Well I'm sorry, but I just don't hold him as responsible for not chasing this guy down and the vast majority of you guys. Some people just don't want to be involved in sick s*** like that. Turning a blind eye to sick s*** like that, allowing it to continue unabated, is a moral failing, not a justification. The police, apparently, did their job but the DA failed:

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) Oh goodness. It was an oversimplification to make a point. Chill. It was a dishonest portrayal of what people here are actually saying. The only point you made was that you can't honestly address what is being said about Paterno. I haven't seen any examples here. Making Paterno the focus of the story when he shouldn't be is not the same as a completely dishonest portrayal of the facts of the case.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) I agree with you on most of these points. But Paterno seems to want to present his case quite a bit. I wouldn't be shocked if he made other efforts to deal with this that we are simply unaware of at this early stage in the findings. What other efforts could he have made where the following scenario makes sense: A current subordinate and former player of Paterno's comes to him with allegations that Paterno's long-time friend, who happens to spend an inordinate amount of time with young boys, was molesting or raping a young boy in the PSU locker room. Paterno rightfully alerts his AD. These are known facts to this point. Now, let's speculate: Paterno hands the matter off to his AD, trusting him to follow through. Paterno, deeply troubled by these accusations, follows up relentlessly. He is assured repeatedly that the matter is being investigated. Eventually, he is told that it does not appear that Sandusky did molest this young man, but this young man was never found and just to be safe we're going to bar him from bringing boys around campus any more. Paterno can rest easy knowing that his friend didn't really molest those boys, but now he has someone on his staff who accused his life-long friend and colleague of child molestation. How can you keep him around and working for you for almost a decade more? How can you not discuss this manner further with your AD and your GA and get this resolved?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) No, it's just manipulating the portrayal to suit an endgame, the same as the media is doing. No, it's dishonest and insulting to the people here, on SoxTalk, not in Bristol, trying to discuss this issue. And how, exactly, is the media's portrayal of this story similar? Are they completely obfuscating the facts surrounding the issue, giving intentionally dishonest and completely inaccurate representations of the story?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Again, the problem is the "facts" in your sentence right there came from those exploitative vultures and godless monsters. Some of us want to hear from all significant parties before we rush to damning this guy. No, it comes from the GJ findings. The findings that say Paterno talked to his AD the next day about accusations of molestation. The findings that say the GA was called into a meeting that Paterno wasn't present at. The findings that say this situation went unreported and uninvestigated for almost a decade, aside from banning Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room. I can't really envision anything Paterno could say that would make me view him in a better light at this point. Jenks' scenarios don't add up. I don't need to hear denials from someone who's getting thrashed for failing to stop this man years ago.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened? That's a completely dishonest portrayal and you know it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) You are making a gigantic leap here. Not everything that people testified to is included in the grand jury finding. I'm quite certain Paterno would have testified to his history with Penn State, his age, his address, blah blah. None of that is included in this finding either. Edit: Nor would his letter be the end all be all. A lot of people are assuming he knew exactly what was going on. If that's not in his letter, does that mean it's not true? See my second edit. If he truly did follow up in any of those scenarios, why the hell would he keep someone on staff who he now believes falsely accused his long-time friend of child rape?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) Sort of proving iamshack's point - ESPN has been working hard to hire Charles Robinson, an investigative reporter for Yahoo that tends to break a lot of big scandals: http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/09...arles-robinson/ In other words: scandals = audience = $$$$$$$$$$. Victims? Who cares. The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster. Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) The problem is that most people you're having this discussion with, have gotten the vast majority of information from that very same media. It may not color your opinion, and it may not even color many people's opinions in here, but it has and will color some peoples', purely do to a desire to make more money on the story, and that bother me. That's potentially a fair point. Yes, I am. No one was talking about media coverage, the discussion was centered on Paterno's and others' moral and ethical obligations to follow through on this situation. How the media chooses to portray the story is irrelevant to that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Why would they need to be? Paterno wasn't involved in this investigation. edit: i mean to say the subject of this investigation He testified. His own letter claimed that he informed his bosses and then had no further involvement. There is no indication that he took any further actions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) He could say that he followed up multiple times with the GA and AD about their meeting and investigation and they both determined that instead of a brutal rape it was just some inappropriate behavior (wrestling with no one around, maybe showering in the same room, who knows...something not to the level of rape) He could have been told that campus police performed an investigation and found nothing credible, and thus nothing needed to be reported. He could have been told that nothing credible at all was found after the investigation but that Sandusky was in the locker room with a boy by themselves, which probably wouldn't look good if people found them, so they decided to ban Sandusky from coming to the locker room with one of his kids. You have no idea what Paterno did/didn't know at that specific time, other than the fact that he was told by the GA about an act he saw (which is a he said-he said as to the specific nature of the acts). People just need to calm the f*** down. I can't believe Paterno has already gone through the media trial before anything about his involvement is really known. Why wouldn't any of those claims be reflected in the Grand Jury testimony? edit: How would this fit in with him being forced into retirement 4 years earlier for similar allegations? edit2: Why would he keep McQueary around if he was making false accusations of child rape about a long-time friend?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) You have admittedly not paid any attention to how they are reporting it though, so I don't really see how we can debate the issue. That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Gloria Allred, or however you spell her name. She doesn't work for free, so she got access somehow. And should we believe her MORE because she is poor? And I just saw this on a blog, but can't find a direct link, will post here for you all to view. Now if this stuff is true, is it character assassination to point it out as a justification for debating the merits of her claim? Yes, it's a giant ad hominem from the Cain campaign. ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is irrelevant to whether or not Cain harassed her. This line of argument leads to the conclusion that people who have made past mistakes cannot be victims of abuse by people who are powerful. So she has a history of being a defendant in what appears to be related lawsuits and financial claims against her. This does nothing to address her claims of being abused. It's an attack on her character in order to disparage her claims without actually addressing the claims. This is relevant how? This is relevant how? Why is this "curious?" She clearly does not intent to take legal action. Because Cain is running for President and a news organization found that Cain's previous employer had to settle two unrelated sexual harassment claims for a significant amount of money. Or maybe it's the racist Perry Democrat Machine trying to keep a businessman out of the White House! These are the only possibly legitimate statements in the whole thing, but even this plays right back into the whole disgusting idea that sexual harassment claims are just ways for dumb, humorless gold-diggers to get money.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) But you bring up a valid point and the reason that poor people are such perfect targets in our society. They do not have access to great legal counsel *and* people will discredit what they say based on their financial situation. If this was some 5th Avenue, wealthy person making the accusation, we wouldn['t be having this discussion. But since the accuser is of more modest means, she is open to this speculation. Bingo. It's protection of the powerful from the claims of the powerless.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Well that's fine then. I guess you have no problem with using the rapes of teenage boys to make money off a story about a football coach. Should the media not be reporting this? Should they ignore or downplay that a well-known coach was involved in the supposed investigations and reporting of the abuse? The media makes money off of stories; the bigger the story, the more money that make. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cover big stories or important issues because it is also in their own self-interest to do so.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) But most people are not you, SS. Most Americans are going to hear this in passing during the commercials of Wheel of Fortune and stupidly confuse things. As for me, I want to hear Paterno's side of things before I actually condemn him of moral turpitude. I don't care about "most Americans." I'm interested in what's being discussed itt. Stop deflecting with this media coverage stuff from what was actually being discussed, which was Paterno's and others' roles and responsibilities in this situation. Paterno's side of things are included in the GJ findings. What could you hear from him that would excuse his inaction in your mind?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) Who exactly is labeling him "The main bad guy". He committed a fireable offense. I don't think anyone here has suggested he go to jail. The people above his head are facing legit jail time, as is the actual main bad guy. Well undoubtedly a disproportionate amount of the attention will be on Paterno, but that's to be expected since he's a well-known figure and centrally involved in the story. It's not like it is some tangential relationship that they're dragging him in with.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) Well, I know the GJ report is probably the most influential piece of evidence out there that there is, but I am certainly not going to let the media color my opinion of what Paterno did or did not do here until the facts are out. There is a clear desire by the organizations delivering 95% of the information we are consuming about this for it all to be as much about Joe Paterno as it can. Why the heck would I trust those organizations before all the information has been presented? I've read or heard little of this story outside of the GJ testimony and this thread. I generally don't care much about college football and have no real opinion of Paterno outside of this situation. I do not believe that my opinion has been colored or shaped by the media. But, I have to ask, what additional information are you waiting for before you can form your conclusions? The GJ testimony is pretty thorough.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) What the hell is a "powerful" eyewitness.? lol. Did you see it happen or not? Again, the media doing what they do best. Someone who is credible, knows the accused (reliable ID) and has no motivations to make this story up. There are plenty of problems with eye-witness testimony, but not when you have an unmotivated person who knows the accused saying what they saw.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) Are you asking me if another teacher told me they witnessed something, I would remind them of their legal resposnibility. Remember the GA called his dad that night and his dad told him to tell Paterno. Even his dad didn't call the police. Now should his dad lose his job also? He dad knew about it well before Paterno? And I would call Child Protective Services and the police. Well, you've sort of rendered your questions moot with your last sentence:--ou wouldn't simply kick the issue up to your superiors through the "chain of command" and then wash your hands of the matter. I guess the analogous situation would be a teacher's aid telling you they witnessed the history teacher fondling a student. You both have a legal obligation to report that, but you would go above and beyond doing the bare minimum to CYA.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) Again, too trusting? Naive? Maybe a little denial? Certainly. Other than that, no. Joe Paterno is not on my top 10 list for most hated human being on the planet. Those are all excuses for moral failing. They're not actual justifications for it. And, yet again, for probably the hundredth time, Paterno is at the bottom of the list of "people who did terrible things" in this scenario.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) The point I am trying to make, that is being incredibly misunderstood, is that the media will trip over themselves as to who can articulate how sad this is for the victims, and then immediately switch gears and make this as much about Joe Paterno and Penn State as possible, so as to blow up the story for their own benefit. And yet, the kids this happened to are just as real anywhere as those that it happened to at Penn State. Ok, you won't get disagreement from me on that point. But this is a distinctly different point from Paterno's inactions.