- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PSU Officials Refused to Alert Authurities About Abuse
Posted on 6/30/12 at 12:40 pm to MStreetTiger
Posted on 6/30/12 at 12:40 pm to MStreetTiger
quote:
By not reporting the incident, they made possible every molestation that occurred after 2002.
IIRC, there was also an allegation/incident in the late 90's involving Sandusky & a young boy at Penn St. With knowledge of that, how could you possibly do nothing in 2002? I'm not going to compare what Sandusky did to their silence, but damn their inaction on this was beyond fricked up.
Also, all those Paterno Patriots from when this first came out, are really looking like the fricking fools that they are. Seriously, how do you defend this:
quote:
"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved,"
This post was edited on 6/30/12 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 6/30/12 at 1:25 pm to ZZTIGERS
I like how these Joe supporters claim that he did report it to his superiors and that was all he needed to do. Plus they argued he might not knew anything more than that incident! Now it looks like his superiors consulted with him and he knew way more than that incident in the shower!
Posted on 6/30/12 at 4:09 pm to ZZTIGERS
quote:
Also, all those Paterno Patriots from when this first came out, are really looking like the fricking fools that they are. Seriously, how do you defend this: quote: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved,"
The Devil's Advocate response:
That tells you absolutely nothing about what Joe Pa's stance on the question was-- just how the individual writing that email felt after talking to him. Indeed, 'having trouble with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble going to everyone but the person involved' is more indicative that the consensus had been (of which Joe Pa had been at least a part [even if you assume a dissenting part]) that they should go to the authorities and accused, rather than directly to the victim themselves.
For all that we can prove, Joe may have said 'Sandusky has always been a weird SOB. I have known him for decades, but this shite isn't kosher. I'm ready to string him up', taking his conversation partner aback-- and he just as easily could have said 'Whew. We should just cover this up, c'mon man, it could cost us millions.'
The key is what the assumption is that you make about the content of the Paterno conversation was. Without that context, no, you can't string up Paterno nor can you vindicate him-- its simply not possible to tell, without an assumption of significant proportions.
This post was edited on 6/30/12 at 4:10 pm
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)