ADVERTISEMENT

Awesome Thread on the Penn St Board

Status
Not open for further replies.
Howie'81 said:
I could think of probably a dozen legitimate contexts for that email right off the top of my head. And in a trial is where those contexts would be brought to the surface. Nobody would incriminate someone on that email alone. Not even if it was Joe Schmo or Joe Cool.
Click to expand...

But we aren't discussing legality here. Why was Paterno even being kept apprised of what was going on in the first place? He had met his legal obligation and many argue that, under PA law, he couldn't be kept involved after reporting it. Just one big circle argument.

Whatever. He is a disgrace in every circle that doesn't contain delusional Penn State fans holding on to something that was never existed and was completely fraudulent. He just didn't give a shet any longer and couldn't be bothered by it.
 
kjb32812 said:
But we aren't discussing legality here. Why was Paterno even being kept apprised of what was going on in the first place? He had met his legal obligation and many argue that, under PA law, he couldn't be kept involved after reporting it. Just one big circle argument.

Whatever. He is a disgrace in every circle that doesn't contain delusional Penn State fans holding on to something that was never existed and was completely fraudulent. He just didn't give a shet any longer and couldn't be bothered by it.
Click to expand...
And you constructed all that from one vague email. You are truly omniscient. You are the one deluded by your hatred and you are the one disgraced by your complete lack of judgement.
 
nuvtl.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RutgHoops
pnnylion said:
No BS, fact. What is BS are the lies told about enabling, knowing and all that other foolishness. 4 different DAs stated if Joe were alive today, he wouldn't be charged with anything, because he did nothing wrong. Do some research.
Click to expand...
One of those DAs ( Linda Kelly) said no comment when asked if Paterno was involved.

A former Chief Deputy Attorney General,(Frank Fina) said he wouldn't be pressing charges on Paterno based on the evidence he had so far, that's not saying if he was alive today he wouldn't be charged.
The evidence against Paterno was largely circumstantial , based on an e-mail that implied Paterno was involved, but would be hard to prove ( beyond a reasonable doubt )
E-mail (written by Curley): "Coach is anxious to know where this stands"
Another e-mail ( by Curly to Shultz) stated : "I have been in touch with the coach. Keep us posted, thanks."
You can guess who coach is, but no one would want to charge such a powerful figure and beloved coach , like Paterno was to all of Pennsylvania, without absolute proof.
Coach meant the Enable,r but no one would prosecute Paterno based on those e-mails.
Do some fact checking yourself but cult members like you don't recognize the truth if it proves you wrong.

Legal experts say Joe Paterno may have faced charges

Legal experts said emails and other evidence in the Penn State investigative report released Thursday suggest Paterno may have misled a grand jury when asked when he first heard about Jerry Sandusky's misconduct, and show that Paterno and other university officials put boys in danger with their failure to report sexual-abuse allegations leveled against Sandusky more than a decade ago.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ts-say-joe-paterno-faced-charges-freeh-report
 
Howie'81 said:
Unlikely. The dimwits who threw Paterno under the bus have too many skeletons to hide. The truth is probably not their friend.
Click to expand...

Yet those same dimwits have, as of yet, been proven of nothing and are individually and collectively less involved in the whole mess that St. Paterno himself.
 
Paterno's reason for cover-up:
Penn State football struggled from 2000 to 2004, with an overall 26–33 record in those years, Paterno became the target of criticism from some Penn State faithful. Many in the media attributed Penn State's struggles to Paterno's advancing age. He had no apparent plans to retire, and contingents of fans and alumni began calling for him to step down.
2000 Penn State 5–7 (4–4 > T–6th)

2001 Penn State 5–6 4–4 > T–4th

2002 Penn State 9–4 (5–3> 4th) L Capital One 15 16
2003 Penn State 3–9 (1–7> T–8th)

2004 Penn State 4–7 (2–6> 9th)
 
MADHAT1 said:
One of those DAs ( Linda Kelly) said no comment when asked if Paterno was involved.

A former Chief Deputy Attorney General,(Frank Fina) said he wouldn't be pressing charges on Paterno based on the evidence he had so far, that's not saying if he was alive today he wouldn't be charged.
The evidence against Paterno was largely circumstantial , based on an e-mail that implied Paterno was involved, but would be hard to prove ( beyond a reasonable doubt )
E-mail (written by Curley): "Coach is anxious to know where this stands"
Another e-mail ( by Curly to Shultz) stated : "I have been in touch with the coach. Keep us posted, thanks."
You can guess who coach is, but no one would want to charge such a powerful figure and beloved coach , like Paterno was to all of Pennsylvania, without absolute proof.
Coach meant the Enable,r but no one would prosecute Paterno based on those e-mails.
Do some fact checking yourself but cult members like you don't recognize the truth if it proves you wrong.

Legal experts say Joe Paterno may have faced charges

Legal experts said emails and other evidence in the Penn State investigative report released Thursday suggest Paterno may have misled a grand jury when asked when he first heard about Jerry Sandusky's misconduct, and show that Paterno and other university officials put boys in danger with their failure to report sexual-abuse allegations leveled against Sandusky more than a decade ago.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ts-say-joe-paterno-faced-charges-freeh-report
Click to expand...


Keep deluding yourself. it's amusing.
 
MADHAT1 said:
Paterno's reason for cover-up:
Penn State football struggled from 2000 to 2004, with an overall 26–33 record in those years, Paterno became the target of criticism from some Penn State faithful. Many in the media attributed Penn State's struggles to Paterno's advancing age. He had no apparent plans to retire, and contingents of fans and alumni began calling for him to step down.
2000 Penn State 5–7 (4–4 > T–6th)

2001 Penn State 5–6 4–4 > T–4th

2002 Penn State 9–4 (5–3> 4th) L Capital One 15 16
2003 Penn State 3–9 (1–7> T–8th)

2004 Penn State 4–7 (2–6> 9th)
Click to expand...

that was dumb. you're pointing out future season results after the Feb 2001 McQueary incident. I thought covering up for Sandusky was going to get Paterno more wins?

the mcqueary incident occured after the 2000 season, 1 year after Sandusky retired, everyone was citing Sandusky's depature the reasoning why we had a bad season and were calling for Paterno's head. Paterno had all the motivation in the world to throw Sandusky under the bus.....based on what you're trying to sell.
 
PSUPALY said:
that was dumb. you're pointing out future season results after the Feb 2001 McQueary incident. I thought covering up for Sandusky was going to get Paterno more wins?

the mcqueary incident occured after the 2000 season, 1 year after Sandusky retired, everyone was citing Sandusky's depature the reasoning why we had a bad season and were calling for Paterno's head. Paterno had all the motivation in the world to throw Sandusky under the bus.....based on what you're trying to sell.
Click to expand...

Joe Ped's downfall ( because of Sandusky) started in 2001 , the pressure of having a 5-7 record in 2000 and PSU fans starting to wonder if he was too old to coach, made his looking away when McQueary informed him about Sandusky's actions easier.
Putting him in jeopardy because of that losing record, age and Sandusky's close call in 1998.
Put in all three and he had a good reason not to turn in Sandusky and take the chance of being asked to retire.
Don't think that Paterno would be given a pass for what happened in 1998 .
After the 2001 season. Joe Paterno knew he was in trouble if Coach Emeritus' actions ever got out.
So the cover-up starting in 2001, remained Paterno's policy up to the bitter end.
Even not some Nit fans are trying to find ways to defend his actions and calling anything that provides a reason, why Joe became the Enabler :" dumb."

You keep your opinion, but I think mine does make a good point.
 
MADHAT1 said:
Joe Ped's downfall ( because of Sandusky) started in 2001 , the pressure of having a 5-7 record in 2000 and PSU fans starting to wonder if he was too old to coach, made his looking away when McQueary informed him about Sandusky's actions easier.
Putting him in jeopardy because of that losing record, age and Sandusky's close call in 1998.
Put in all three and he had a good reason not to turn in Sandusky and take the chance of being asked to retire.
Don't think that Paterno would be given a pass for what happened in 1998 .
After the 2001 season. Joe Paterno knew he was in trouble if Coach Emeritus' actions ever got out.
So the cover-up starting in 2001, remained Paterno's policy up to the bitter end.
Even not some Nit fans are trying to find ways to defend his actions and calling anything that provides a reason, why Joe became the Enabler :" dumb."

You keep your opinion, but I think mine does make a good point.
Click to expand...

made his looking away when McQueary informed him about Sandusky's actions easier. what are you talking about? he reported the McQueary incident....which made how many different people aware of the McQueary incident? do we have to list them all out? what if Curley & Shultz (and the 2nd mile, but thats a different story) went to the police based on Paterno reporting the 01 incident? does that make Paterno's actions any different?

Don't think that Paterno would be given a pass for what happened in 1998. what pass? Sandusky was cleared by the police. what pass are you talking about it? If someone gets accused of something, gets cleared by the police, are you suppose to fire them now? Sandusky would've been a millionaire after that lawsuit.

and if what you're saying is true....that would mean Paterno allowed Sandusky to coach 2 full seasons (98, 99) with the knowledge that he was a "monster". c'mon


If you think Paterno should've done more, I can live with that. Paterno reporting the episode, assumed it was being handled and washed his hands of it is a much more plausible theory. But this notion of a cover up; that Paterno and other intelligent, grown men would simply allow child abuse to go on so as not to disturb the football program — is simply preposterous.

MADHAT, i realize i'm not going to change your opinion....but your opinion is a big stretch. I guess that's what you want to be true.....the worst possible sinister scenario putting Paterno in the most evil malicious light.......fine....type away. if you want to keep typing the sky is purple.....I concede I won't be able to change your mind.
 
Kjb and getmyjive seem like pretty reasonable people...can't say the same for a number of others, including some other PSU fans who come across like members of the North Korean Central News Ministry with their propaganda-like statements against anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view.


Joe P.
 
[QUOTE="JoeRU0304, post: 337821, member: 2106"]Kjb and getmyjive seem like pretty reasonable people...can't say the same for a number of others, including some other PSU fans who come across like members of the North Korean Central News Ministry with their propaganda-like statements against anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view.


Joe P.[/QUOTE]


If you think they're reasonable, you need help.
 
...hey, maybe I do need "help", but I doubt you or some of the other whiz kids over at BWI can provide it.


Joe P.
 
North Korea is correct. I was just banned for making a joke that Jared's boss at Subway can't be held accountable since he made a call to his boss after waiting for the weekend to end which is the bare minimum required by state law. D-bags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScarletNut
Rutgers85 said:
North Korea is correct. I was just banned for making a joke that Jared's boss at Subway can't be held accountable since he made a call to his boss after waiting for the weekend to end which is the bare minimum required by state law. D-bags.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as "bare minimum" regarding the Law. Failed introductory Law did you?

You follow the Law, or you don't. Paterno followed the Law.
 
I don't think we should be antagonistic or go to other boards just to start problems. I've maybe been to BWI a handful of times and have never posted there, mainly because for all everyone here complains about this board, their free board makes this one look like Masterpiece Theater. I kinda laugh at some of the PSU posters who come here just to talk smack (typical 'you guys stink, haha!'-type garbage) because I think they know full-well that part of reason they're doing it is because they get to go run and hide behind their ego-tripping mod(s) who run the place like some strange electronic version of Lord of the Flies.


Joe P.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
JoeRU0304 said:
I don't think we should be antagonistic or go to other boards just to start problems. I've maybe been to BWI a handful of times and have never posted there, mainly because for all everyone here complains about this board, their free board makes this one look like Masterpiece Theater. I kinda laugh at some of the PSU posters who come here just to talk smack because I think they know full-well that part of reason they're doing it is because they get to go run and hide behind their ego-tripping mod(s) who run the place like some strange electronic version of Lord of the Flies.


Joe P.
Click to expand...

Free boards are really a crap shoot IMO. I was banned here once but not really sure why. Probably made some smart comment that someone didn't care for. Oddly enough, I have not been banned on the PITT free board. I can almost guarantee that I would have been banned on BWI if I wasn't a premium member. That being said, I think the mods from the premium board are extremely liberal and let most things (99.9%) go. Considering two of them are frequent posters on tMB, they probably have pretty tough skin.
 
Sometimes the BWI mods from the premium boards come over to ours to share content and they've always seemed helpful/ reasonable. They've also dealt with some 'typical'/ unnecessary message board cheap shots with a fair amount of self-control.


Joe P.
 
JoeRU0304 said:
Sometimes the BWI mods from the premium boards come over to ours to share content and they've always seemed helpful/ reasonable. They've also dealt with some 'typical'/ unnecessary message board cheap shots with a fair amount of self-control.


Joe P.
Click to expand...

Ryan doesn't really care and will just shoot you straight and move on. Nate will get into a debate with you and he is a wordsmith so you will generally lose the debate. Tim is our wrestling guy and is getting more involved with the football stuff because Ryan works FT for both BWI and the Maryland site. There are two other mods who don't work for BWI but help out and they are fine. Tom McAndrew runs the free board.
 
If you review the NCAA procedure written after the Sandusky scandal regarding "abuse" you will find it to be consistent with everything Joe Paterno did. Once abuse is reported by a party that party is to step back from the circumstances, I'm paraphrasing of course. I am not a fan of Joe Paterno but the man was unfairly excoriated by rhe NCAA that is why the NCAA sanctions were withdrawn. Once the NCAA loses big time to the Paternos in court I would not be surprised if the NCAA is "fined" out of business. This is America afterall and you just cant do to people what the NCAA did to Joe Paterno. The thing that hurt Paterno was that he said "with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more". Alot of people feel the same regarding this sad affair.


Regarding the email exchanges with Curly, the AD it is not clear who "Coach" was. Joe was never referred to as "Coach" by Curley or anyone in the Athletic Dept, he was always referred to as "Joe".
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnylion
Thank GOD we have someone standing up for Saint Joe!
 
Mudge1026 said:
If you review the NCAA procedure written after the Sandusky scandal regarding "abuse" you will find it to be consistent with everything Joe Paterno did. Once abuse is reported by a party that party is to step back from the circumstances, I'm paraphrasing of course. I am not a fan of Joe Paterno but the man was unfairly excoriated by rhe NCAA that is why the NCAA sanctions were withdrawn. Once the NCAA loses big time to the Paternos in court I would not be surprised if the NCAA is "fined" out of business. This is America afterall and you just cant do to people what the NCAA did to Joe Paterno. The thing that hurt Paterno was that he said "with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more". Alot of people feel the same regarding this sad affair.


Regarding the email exchanges with Curly, the AD it is not clear who "Coach" was. Joe was never referred to as "Coach" by Curley or anyone in the Athletic Dept, he was always referred to as "Joe".
Click to expand...


This is exactly correct.
 
pnnylion said:
Yes, and it's not "bare minimum" and has nothing to do with it. Nice spin try. There is no "bare minimum". You follow the Law or you don't. Period. Joe followed it.
Click to expand...
Jesus, I wrote it incorrectly and meant paterno did the bare minimum. You guys love to parse words.
 
Mudge1026 said:
Regarding the email exchanges with Curly, the AD it is not clear who "Coach" was. Joe was never referred to as "Coach" by Curley or anyone in the Athletic Dept, he was always referred to as "Joe".
Click to expand...

Then who is "coach"? Any ideas?
 
Rutgers85 said:
Jesus, I wrote it incorrectly and meant paterno did the bare minimum. You guys love to parse words.
Click to expand...


The bare minimum of what? The Law applied to what he did and he followed it, there is no parsing of words. There is no "bare minimum".
 
pnnylion said:
The bare minimum of what? The Law applied to what he did and he followed it, there is no parsing of words. There is no "bare minimum".
Click to expand...

I think its more the hypocrisy and the complete lack of ethics for most people, versus the pure legality. Then the rabid celebration and defense of said hypocritical, unethical behavior. Compounded by the holier than thou attitude, and the complete denial that obvious wrongs occurred. That's what gets to most of us. But hey, you are, because he was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Richie O
  • Locked
  • Sticky

Basketball TKR HOOPS SCOOP....

Replies
38
Views
21K
The Round Table
Richie O
Richie O
bac2therac

GAME 22 Maryland: That was a great win

Replies
32
Views
1K
Men's Basketball
robjknight
R
bac2therac

GAME 21 Michigan: Sharing the Knights Together

Replies
34
Views
2K
Men's Basketball
PSAL_Hoops
P
bac2therac

2/12: Just a taste of 2024 NCAA Bacatology

Replies
171
Views
5K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

GAME 23 WISCONSIN: Rabid

Replies
66
Views
3K
Men's Basketball
Kbee3
Kbee3
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back