FREE TAPATALK APP

Checkmite · 22nd August 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Sorry, but you have exactly zero credibility now. You have not read the Freeh Report, because even the Freeh Report (not to mention state and local laws and statutes) clearly say you are exactly 100% wrong, or else you are lying.

Campus police are a fully-authorized, fully-trained police force. Period.

"Fully authorized and trained" to serve as the campus police. So? Please cite the mystical "state and local laws and statutes".

Checkmite · 22nd August 2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

The two bolded sentences directly contradict one another.

Why would it be a waste of time? Freeh was investigating new evidence that was NOT revealed during the GJ Report. Therefore, there could not possibly be any questions asked of either of these men about said new evidence.

I never made any arguments in defense of Spanier, Schultz, or Curley. The evidence is all but air-tight against those men.

The "holes" of which I speak is IRT Paterno. If you think there is evidence of Paterno being involved in a cover-up, why don't you cite said evidence, and explain in detail why exactly it is so damning against Joe?

I agree so far, but the first sentence is untrue IRT to Paterno:

He WAS named directly. In only one single email out of 3.5 million documents. But he was not named as being "directly involved in the deliberations." To come to that conclusion does, in fact, require quite a lot of interpretation, and a huge leap in logic in come to the conclusion that Freeh did about Paterno.

He was named twice, actually. First regarding the 1998 investigation:

Quote:

By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.”

Quote:

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Wow, now you are lying about what was written in these private emails!

Nowhere did it state:

I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all".

Unless you can link me directly to those words. Nowhere did Curley use the word "WE." In fact, he used the word "I" about a half dozen times. You really are leaping quite a bit here. Please, I urge you to stick with the facts, not make stuff up.

It was a paraphrase.

The direct quote is, regarding the initial plan between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to report Sandusky to children's services and notify the charity about his activities,

Quote:

After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

Surely looks like the word "we" to me. Who's the one who "didn't read the report" again?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Also, you are saying that motives are unimportant? What? Since when?

I'll grant that the motives might be important to some psychologist somewhere. However, in the active decision not to go to the authorities, motive doesn't matter to me because there's no possible motive that could make that decision all right.

FWIW, they discussed their "motive" in other emails; it was to be "humane" to Sandusky. What difference is that supposed to make?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

ETA: you also assume that, just because these emails were private, that they (Curley and Schultz) were being honest with each other. Again, you are making an assumption without knowing their working relationship with one another. (The two men did not exactly work that closely with one another, and Curley was barely even on Schultz's radar. It doesn't appear that way on the outside because of this case and their names being uttered together for so long and so often.)

What has this to do with whether these two men would have been truthful with each other? They were speaking in confidence.

Nihilianth · 22nd August 2012, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

They had no reason to be 'wrong' about what Schulz's duties actually were and why going to him was insufficient. If they were all wrong, they were willfully all wrong. Their 'plausible deniability' is simply not plausible.

So let me get this straight. You are saying they were "willfully wrong?" About something which they actually did not have the information of what his duties were? Are you actually, in effect, trying to argue that they lied?

Now we are at an impasse with the testimony of Mike and John McQueary. You essentially are saying they lied, because they were "willfully wrong," while refusing to accept the idea that perhaps they just simply did not know specifically what Gary Schultz's duties ACTUALLY were. Great. Now I know that you, tyr_13, care not at all for a discussion based on facts. Rather, you only care about expressing your own opinions, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Could the McQueary's have lied? Absolutely. But I see no reason to make such baseless accusations. None. Unless you can state exactly why they should have known, and why they were responsible for not knowing. If nobody ever taught you that 1+1=2, why should you be responsible for never learning that?

In any case, once again, you ignore the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not Gary Schultz was head of police. It doesn't matter, because he was the appropriate person to go to with this information under state law.

Quote:

a direct link to a law as a basis for a moral argument is pointless. I could be an emotionally abusive asshat to a girlfriend and be legally in the clear and morally wrong. Why in the nine hells would you believe it's a legitimate argument?

I believe I have already answered that. You stating that following the law does not equate to doing the morally right action. Which is logically correct. But the opposite is also logically correct: Following the law CAN be the morally correct path to follow.

The poster Animal has stated the REASON why it was morally acceptable to go to Schultz. I posted evidence to support Animal's notion that it was morally acceptable. We both backed up our arguments. You have yet to do so. You only merely continue to state the fact that following the law is not always morally acceptable.

Quote:

They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable.

You have failed to stop the rapes as well. No matter what your motivations or character, that is indisputable.

Of course they failed to stop the rapes. Now you have to prove how much they knew about "rapes" occurring, and the decisions being made by those above them.

Which brings me to another point: Joe did not know anything about "rapes." To make such a comment, completely and utterly ignores the fact that one of the charges Sandusky was found "not guilty" on, was the charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Victim #2.

The only "evidence" that Schultz presented that Paterno knew anything about are three emails: 2 of them before victim 2, and the one ABOUT victim 2.

All three emails were EXTREMELY vague about what Paterno knew. At best. It wasn't even evidence that Paterno knew anything to begin with. The only evidence of what Paterno knew, is the fact that we absolutely know that McQueary told Joe what he saw in the showers about Victim 2: Which was not "rape."

Therefore, the statement:

They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable.

makes about as much sense as saying that YOU failed to stop the rapes. No matter what YOUR motivations or character, this is indisputable.

Sure it is indisputable they "failed to stop the rapes." The fact that multiple rapes occurred for....god knows how many years, it is indisputable that virtually every single human being on the planet "failed to stop the rapes" during that time.

You knew nothing about this incident at all before the story broke. There is no reason why you can possibly be at fault for rapes of young boys occurring at Penn State University. It doesn't even make any sense, as you are not an omniscient mind-reader. You are a human being without supernatural powers.

Quote:

That covers factual, civilly, and arguably moral as well, if your morals don't think it's alright to try so little and fail so hard to stop child rape.

No it doesn't. Because you cannot acknowledge the fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in the fields of both child abuse, and occupational therapy. You continue to insist that Joe Paterno knew so much, without ever once specifying what he knew, when he knew it, and showing the evidence that he covered it up. Actually, my fault. You did specify what you SAY he knew. But you continue to fail to provide the requisite evidence for your accusations.

Nihilianth · 22nd August 2012, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

"Fully authorized and trained" to serve as the campus police. So? Please cite the mystical "state and local laws and statutes".

Wow. Just wow. First, you state what I have already said. Then you ask the childish question: "So?" *Ugh* So? So? If they are fully-authorized and trained, then there goes your totally misinformed comment that they are nothing but a bunch of rent-a-cops!

Then you become even more sarcastic, and talking about "mystical" state and local laws!

And you want me to engage you and actually have the nerve to ask me to cite the establishment of an actual police department?

No.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

He was named twice, actually. First regarding the 1998 investigation:

No. Out of 3.5 million documents, "Joe" was referred to dozens of times. But only one time IRT RE: Sandusky.

Now, you finally posted some pertinent lines from the Freeh Report. Great. Let's look at this:

By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.”

The bolded may turn out to be a bald-faced lie. There is evidence that PS4RS has found in which tampering with these "emails" has occurred. For instance:

1. In many of the emails that were released by Louis Freeh, they contained no signature line at the end of each email.

2. Electronically, files are automatically placed in chronological order, with the latest messages on top. That is how emails and blog rolls work. The emails Louis Freeh published were in different orders, with dates jumping around every which way.

It is the contention from PS4RS that the subject and CC lines may have been altered as well. We shall see, as they seek the IT Department at PSU to release ALL of the emails from these men.

However, be that as it may:

“I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”

Now all you have to do, is to prove that "the coach" means "Joe." To prove what "touched base" means. In my book, that is so vague, especially "touched base," as to be rendered completely meaningless. In all of the other times in which Paterno is referenced by these men, he is very consistently called "Joe." In interviewing virtually all of the current football players and last year's coaches as well as many of the past players, it is virtually unanimous that everyone refers to Paterno as either "Joe" or "JoePa." Never "coach."

And finally, this email was used to nail Spanier as a liar. Not to nail Paterno for knowing anything about the pre-Victim 2 circumstances.

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

Again, Paterno is never just simply called "coach." Not to mention, if the previous email you referred to is titled "Joe" and therefore, "coach" is supposed to mean Joe; then obviously couldn't an email title "Jerry" in which the word "coach" is supposed to mean Jerry?

But even IF it truly is supposed to mean "Joe," you can't possibly sit here and tell me that Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. actually means that Joe WAS updated and had all this information.

Quote:

It was a paraphrase.

No. It wasn't. You lied about what was said.

Quote:

The direct quote is, regarding the initial plan between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to report Sandusky to children's services and notify the charity about his activities,

After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

You have conveniently left out the rest of the email. But this is interesting, as once again, you display a profound lack of reading comprehension skills.

Quote:

Surely looks like the word "we" to me. Who's the one who "didn't read the report" again?

You saw the word "we" and mistakenly assumed that meant that him and Paterno agreed to not report Sandusky. Clearly that is not the case.

Going back to the Freeh Report, there was a neat little note that Louis Freeh found in Spanier's records. It was a plan outlining what he wanted to do, which included informing both the Second Mile, and the Department of Welfare (DPW.)

Looking at the above single sentence that you posted and obviously erroneously concluded what it meant:

After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

"The next steps" was in reference to what they originally decided to do: Turn in Jerry. "We" was in reference to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier: Curley specifically states that he was "uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps:

1) Talk to Sandusky. 2) Contact Second Mile. 3) Contact DPW. Schultz emailed Curley this plan on February 26, 2001 (Monday) confirming this plan they decided previously on Sunday.

The email sent from Curley to Schultz dated Feb 27, 2001 (Tuesday):

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

You are either lying, or you truly cannot read for comprehension. If you are lying, might I inquire as to WHY?

Here is the rest of that email that shows EXACTLY what he was "uncomfortable" with, and exactly what he is "comfortable" with.:

I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

Curley used the word "I" NINE TIMES in exacting detail, and mentions "Joe" ONCE in extremely vague terms.

Quote:

I'll grant that the motives might be important to some psychologist somewhere. However, in the active decision not to go to the authorities, motive doesn't matter to me because there's no possible motive that could make that decision all right.

Then you are even further being dishonest. Motive matters. Try telling that to any court in the land, that motive does not matter. It puts a whole new perspective on things, once you know the motives. It appears that Joe's motives were exactly as Animal put it: He didn't want to interfere with an investigation! Joe himself even stated that!

Quote:

FWIW, they discussed their "motive" in other emails; it was to be "humane" to Sandusky. What difference is that supposed to make?

That wasn't Joe's motives! That was Curley and Schultz's motives!

Quote:

What has this to do with whether these two men would have been truthful with each other? They were speaking in confidence.

First, you have no idea what their working relationships were like. Just because they were speaking in "private" doesn't mean they weren't being totally truthful, or "confident."

Second, I forgot about what was written in the Freeh Report about this. You claimed that they were emailing in private, and that there was no intention to get out. Obviously, you are writing these men down to be incredibly stupid. They were not. They were highly intelligent men. Intelligent enough to realize that these emails COULD get out. Intelligent enough to, as Freeh puts it:

The February 26, 2001 email and related emails that follow among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier over the next two days are unique from the hundreds of thousands of other emails reviewed by the Special investigative Counsel. These messages are the rare documents where proper names and identifying information are replaced with generic references. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that Curley communicated in "code" in sensitive emails because the Athletic Department was notorious for leaks. When Curley communicated about other sensitive issues involving Sandusky, however, he did not use "code" words. For example, emails written between February 25 and February 28, 2001, refer to Sandusky as the "subject," the "person involved," or "the person." The emails refer to the Second Mile as "his organization" and the Department of Public Welfare as "the other organization" and the "other one." This contrasts with emails written in 1998, concerning the police investigation, in which Curley and Schultz frequently referred to Sandusky as "Jerry." This also contrasts with emails written in 1999, concerning Sandysky's retirement, where Curley, Schultz, and Spanier frequently referred to Sandusy as "Jerry."

So no. They were NOT speaking in private, nor in full confidence.

Skeptical Greg · 23rd August 2012, 04:25 AM

Nihilianth:

Quote:

Here is the rest of that email that shows EXACTLY what he was "uncomfortable" with, and exactly what he is "comfortable" with.:

I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position.

It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. Maybe they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys ..

It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior.

The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

You made a claim, which I copy-and-pasted, in Italics, just below the hash marks. Care to offer an expansion by any chance? Or shall I assume you are merely just parroting some nonsense? Because you sure as heck did not respond to what I have taken the time to explain and present.

You type a lot, which shouts to me of obfuscation.

Joe Paterno was an abject failure in protecting children from the predations of his assistant, former or not; he succeeded for a number of years however in protecting his name and his football program. The only nonsense being parroted is by the Joe Pa sycophants attempting to shout down the evidence of that failure.

I think that you will ultimately fail in that yourself.

ETA: I would suggest you talk to some veteran sports reporters who cover division 1 fooball; ask them what those coaches know about their players, assistant coaches, and programs. (pro-tip: everything)

Checkmite · 23rd August 2012, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

No. Out of 3.5 million documents, "Joe" was referred to dozens of times. But only one time IRT RE: Sandusky.

Now, you finally posted some pertinent lines from the Freeh Report. Great. Let's look at this:

By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.”

The bolded may turn out to be a bald-faced lie. There is evidence that PS4RS has found in which tampering with these "emails" has occurred. For instance:

1. In many of the emails that were released by Louis Freeh, they contained no signature line at the end of each email.

2. Electronically, files are automatically placed in chronological order, with the latest messages on top. That is how emails and blog rolls work. The emails Louis Freeh published were in different orders, with dates jumping around every which way.

It is the contention from PS4RS that the subject and CC lines may have been altered as well. We shall see, as they seek the IT Department at PSU to release ALL of the emails from these men.

However, be that as it may:

“I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”

Now all you have to do, is to prove that "the coach" means "Joe." To prove what "touched base" means. In my book, that is so vague, especially "touched base," as to be rendered completely meaningless. In all of the other times in which Paterno is referenced by these men, he is very consistently called "Joe." In interviewing virtually all of the current football players and last year's coaches as well as many of the past players, it is virtually unanimous that everyone refers to Paterno as either "Joe" or "JoePa." Never "coach."

And finally, this email was used to nail Spanier as a liar. Not to nail Paterno for knowing anything about the pre-Victim 2 circumstances.

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

Again, Paterno is never just simply called "coach." Not to mention, if the previous email you referred to is titled "Joe" and therefore, "coach" is supposed to mean Joe; then obviously couldn't an email title "Jerry" in which the word "coach" is supposed to mean Jerry?

But even IF it truly is supposed to mean "Joe," you can't possibly sit here and tell me that Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. actually means that Joe WAS updated and had all this information.

If the emails are proven forged that's one thing. In the meantime, Truther-esque obfuscation aside, if an email is headed "Joe Paterno" and the body of the email speaks of "the coach", it's pretty reasonably obvious that Joe Paterno must be the subject.

Second, these emails do nail Paterno. At his grand jury testimony he was asked whether he was ever aware of any other sex-with-little-boys-type allegations against Sandusky aside from the McQueary incident. He said no. Obviously that's untrue if he'd been kept abreast of the 1998 investigation.

Further, you are wrong. People inside the organization did refer to Paterno as "Coach" occasionally. Here's the first example I found, from McQueary's grand jury testimony:

Quote:

Q Had you -- prior to this, how many times had you called Joe Paterno at 7, 7:30 in the morning on a weekend?

A Never.

Q What did you tell him?

A I said, Coach, I need to come to your
house and talk to you about something.

Q Did he respond?

A Yes. He said, I don't have a job for
you. And if that's what it's about, don't bother coming over. I said, Coach, it's about something much more serious, I need to come over and see you. And he said, okay. Well, you better come over then.

Q Did you, in fact, do that?

A Yes, I did, right away.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

No. It wasn't. You lied about what was said.

Yes it was and no I didn't, neener neener.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

You have conveniently left out the rest of the email. But this is interesting, as once again, you display a profound lack of reading comprehension skills.

You saw the word "we" and mistakenly assumed that meant that him and Paterno agreed to not report Sandusky. Clearly that is not the case.

Wrong. It never occurred to me that "we" referred to the author and Paterno; in fact it's unavoidably obvious that "we" is referring to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier because they are the ones who had "decided on" the course of action (I even explicitly mentioned this in my post right before the quote - read the post again). The point is, those three had decided to turn Sandusky in, but after talking to Joe Paterno about it, Curley had a change of heart. If the discussion with Paterno was not a deciding factor in Curley's sudden reticence to turn in Sandusky, it would not have made sense to qualify his decision by invoking Paterno's name. That is why Paterno is implicated - as Freeh says, nothing happened between the original settling on turning in Sandusky and Curly suddenly changing his mind except for that talk with Joe Paterno. It's rather elementary.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Then you are even further being dishonest. Motive matters. Try telling that to any court in the land, that motive does not matter. It puts a whole new perspective on things, once you know the motives. It appears that Joe's motives were exactly as Animal put it: He didn't want to interfere with an investigation! Joe himself even stated that!

I'm not a court; nor is JREF.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That wasn't Joe's motives! That was Curley and Schultz's motives!

I said "the motives". I didn't say "Paterno's motives". But it hardly matters.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

First, you have no idea what their working relationships were like. Just because they were speaking in "private" doesn't mean they weren't being totally truthful, or "confident."

Second, I forgot about what was written in the Freeh Report about this. You claimed that they were emailing in private, and that there was no intention to get out. Obviously, you are writing these men down to be incredibly stupid. They were not. They were highly intelligent men. Intelligent enough to realize that these emails COULD get out. Intelligent enough to, as Freeh puts it:

The February 26, 2001 email and related emails that follow among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier over the next two days are unique from the hundreds of thousands of other emails reviewed by the Special investigative Counsel. These messages are the rare documents where proper names and identifying information are replaced with generic references. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that Curley communicated in "code" in sensitive emails because the Athletic Department was notorious for leaks. When Curley communicated about other sensitive issues involving Sandusky, however, he did not use "code" words. For example, emails written between February 25 and February 28, 2001, refer to Sandusky as the "subject," the "person involved," or "the person." The emails refer to the Second Mile as "his organization" and the Department of Public Welfare as "the other organization" and the "other one." This contrasts with emails written in 1998, concerning the police investigation, in which Curley and Schultz frequently referred to Sandusky as "Jerry." This also contrasts with emails written in 1999, concerning Sandysky's retirement, where Curley, Schultz, and Spanier frequently referred to Sandusy as "Jerry."

So no. They were NOT speaking in private, nor in full confidence.

Now who's stretching things? The whole purpose of speaking in "code" is so they could speak in confidence without incriminating each other by their words.

Is there any proof these individuals were all lying to each other? Is there any reason that one of them would make up a consultation with Paterno about the situation, which could so easily be exposed as a lie?

Skeptical Greg · 23rd August 2012, 08:56 AM

Nihilianth

Quote:

They were highly intelligent men.

But not intelligent enough to know how to properly handle reports of felony child abuse?

Quad4_72 · 23rd August 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Nihilianth:

I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position.

It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. Maybe they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys ..

It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior.

The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper.

Exactly.

To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Exactly.

To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life.

And those involved allowed Jerry Sandusky access to PSU football facilities and events until his indictment last fall. What did these folks imagine he was doing with the young boys he flew to the games?

They knew who/what he was since at least 1992.

There's a hilarious Paterno soundbite out there in which he says "I can't hear a word you're sayin.!"

No ****.

Quad4_72 · 23rd August 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Resume

And those involved allowed Jerry Sandusky access to PSU football facilities and events until his indictment last fall. What did these folks imagine he was doing with the young boys he flew to the games?

They knew who/what he was since at least 1992.

There's a hilarious Paterno soundbite out there in which he says "I can't hear a word you're sayin.!"

No ****.

There is a reason Penn State did not rename the Paterno Library. The name serves as a reminder for everyone inside the library to keep quiet...

ANTPogo · 23rd August 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

There is a reason Penn State did not rename the Paterno Library. The name serves as a reminder for everyone inside the library to keep quiet...

I'm surprised that they actually removed the statue of Paterno, instead of just turning it to look the other way.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Resume

You type a lot, which shouts to me of obfuscation.

Joe Paterno was an abject failure in protecting children from the predations of his assistant, former or not; he succeeded for a number of years however in protecting his name and his football program. The only nonsense being parroted is by the Joe Pa sycophants attempting to shout down the evidence of that failure.

I think that you will ultimately fail in that yourself.

So, like, you aren't going to respond because "tl;dr." Ok. Great. I didn't obfuscate, you did. I remained exactly on topic, and have cited quite a few things, and given logical reasonings behind my arguments.

You merely say that "Joe failed" without any backup, nor at least logical explanation.

Quote:

ETA: I would suggest you talk to some veteran sports reporters who cover division 1 fooball; ask them what those coaches know about their players, assistant coaches, and programs. (pro-tip: everything)

Veteran sportswriters? Uh. Ooookkkaayyyy......

First, coaches do not know everything about their players or assistants. Division 1 sports teams generall have 80+ players, with dozens of assistant coaches. You are telling me that a head coach knows "everything" about "everyone" on their team, after spending between a couple of months up to four years teaching 18 - 22 year-olds how to play football at the top level?

For your information, the PARENTS of kids....and most parents certainly do not have 80 kids....don;t even know everything about their own children!

Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter?

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 12:09 PM

[quote=Nihilianth;8561134]

Double post deleted.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

So, like, you aren't going to respond because "tl;dr." Ok. Great. I didn't obfuscate, you did. I remained exactly on topic, and have cited quite a few things, and given logical reasonings behind my arguments.

You merely say that "Joe failed" without any backup, nor at least logical explanation.

Veteran sportswriters? Uh. Ooookkkaayyyy......

First, coaches do not know everything about their players or assistants. Division 1 sports teams generall have 80+ players, with dozens of assistant coaches. You are telling me that a head coach knows "everything" about "everyone" on their team, after spending between a couple of months up to four years teaching 18 - 22 year-olds how to play football at the top level?

For your information, the PARENTS of kids....and most parents certainly do not have 80 kids....don;t even know everything about their own children!

Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter?

Your naivete is showing again. Or is it your sycophancy? No, it's both.

Joe Paterno allowed a man he knew to be a sexual abuser of children in and around his football program for ten years after making that discovery. Big time fail.

Veteran sportswriters/broadcasters will fill in you obvious lack in regards to the dictatorships that division 1 football can facilitate. If you think Paterno was any different you are ostriching.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If the emails are proven forged that's one thing. In the meantime, Truther-esque obfuscation aside, if an email is headed "Joe Paterno" and the body of the email speaks of "the coach", it's pretty reasonably obvious that Joe Paterno must be the subject.

It wasn't titled "Joe Paterno." It was titled "Joe." And that one email was with the title of "Joe." And inside of said email, it said: "I touched base with the coach."

Now, you are obfuscating, because I asked you a question, which I shall restate:

Can you please provide the definition of "touched base" in this instance? Can you please cite exactly what was said when Curly "touched base with the coach?"

You accuse me of obfuscation, yet I asked a direct question that was entirely pertinent to the email which you have cited. Please answer my questions.

Also, since you completely ignored my previous post, I will ask you yet another question. If an email is titled "Joe," and it contained a subject "coach," that means "coach" refers to Joe. That is your assumption, correct?

So, what about another email titled "Jerry" in which they again, use the subject "coach?" You come to the conclusion that it means Joe, despite the email having the title of "Jerry?"

Contradiction much?

Quote:

Second, these emails do nail Paterno. At his grand jury testimony he was asked whether he was ever aware of any other sex-with-little-boys-type allegations against Sandusky aside from the McQueary incident. He said no. Obviously that's untrue if he'd been kept abreast of the 1998 investigation.

Not true. The emails do NOT nail Paterno. Paterno did state that he "had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in my presence" during his GJ testimony.

Now, the emails do not even come CLOSE to proving Paterno wrong. Curly "touched base with the coach," if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "The coach wants an update," again, if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno.

"Touching base" with Paterno could mean just about anything under the sun. Curly could have gone to Joe and said: "Hey. Sandusky is currently under investigation by the DA." Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. Say it.

The problem is, that not even CURLY HIMSELF was given full updates, nor even Schultz! The problem is, that investigators are not supposed to release detailed information about crimes where minors are involved!

In short: You have nothing on Paterno. Freeh has nothing on Paterno. There is nothing on Paterno, except for three extremely vague emails, two of which we have no idea if Joe even was referenced!

Quote:

Further, you are wrong. People inside the organization did refer to Paterno as "Coach" occasionally. Here's the first example I found, from McQueary's grand jury testimony:

Touche! The first actual intelligent argument you have made. I concede that point.

However, it doesn't change the fact that "coach" is a pretty vague term, especially when a football team has about a dozen or more coaches and former coaches.

Quote:

Yes it was and no I didn't, neener neener.

Anyone with half a brain can see that you lied about what was written in an email. I proved you wrong. And rather than admit you were wrong, this is the ten-year-old reply I get in return. Talk about an insult.

Quote:

Wrong. It never occurred to me that "we" referred to the author and Paterno;

Except that it did. As evidenced by the string of arguments upthread.

Quote:

in fact it's unavoidably obvious that "we" is referring to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier because they are the ones who had "decided on" the course of action (I even explicitly mentioned this in my post right before the quote - read the post again).

Right. I already talked about that.

Quote:

The point is, those three had decided to turn Sandusky in, but after talking to Joe Paterno about it, Curley had a change of heart.

Not "after talking with Joe Paterno." It was "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

You seem to think that Curley was Joe's lackey, and Curley was helpless against Joe. That is so irrevocably and demonstrably false. Curley was a very powerful individual. He had his own mind, his own motivations, and he was Paterno's BOSS.

You really have no idea who these men are. It is incredibly obvious. Freeh really has no idea who these men were. It is incredibly obvious. Had he INTERVIEWED them, he might have gotten an inkling as to what these men were like. But he didn't. He utterly failed in that regard.

Quote:

If the discussion with Paterno was not a deciding factor in Curley's sudden reticence to turn in Sandusky, it would not have made sense to qualify his decision by invoking Paterno's name. That is why Paterno is implicated - as Freeh says, nothing happened between the original settling on turning in Sandusky and Curly suddenly changing his mind except for that talk with Joe Paterno. It's rather elementary.

Again, you jump to an unsupported conclusion. Again, this is an email which did not state what Joe knew, nor what his position was. Curly, as an individual, as Paterno's boss, as a man with his own motivations and his own drive, could very easily have "thought it over" first, come to his conclusion, THEN spoke with Paterno. And it could be that Paterno objected to the change of plan to not turn Sandusky in. Hell, it could be that they didn't really discuss anything at all. It could be that Curley purposely invoked Paterno's name, for the sake of seeking help from Schultz in supporting his idea.

In short: anything could have happened with the lack of proper evidence. I would place my money on the idea that Curly changed his mind DESPITE what Joe might have said. I am willing to place my money on Joe objecting to Curley's ideas.

Quote:

I'm not a court; nor is JREF.

And yet, you are extremely good at character assassination. I've heard that same exact excuse before: "I am not a court." I read it as: "I am too lazy to conduct my own research," or "I do not have enough evidence to support my idea, but I am committed now because the knee-jerk reaction I had initially, and dammit, I have to save face! Pride is on the line!"

I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes!

Quote:

I said "the motives". I didn't say "Paterno's motives". But it hardly matters.

But I am talking about Paterno. My OP in this thread stated as much.

Quote:

Now who's stretching things? The whole purpose of speaking in "code" is so they could speak in confidence without incriminating each other by their words.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated:

These were private emails not meant for public consumption, in which the authors had no reason but to be honest with each other; they freely admitted in their communications that what they were doing would have bad consequences if they were "caught". There's no gray area in "I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all". Motives are unimportant and don't need to be interpreted. All that's important is right there in plain English.

Quote:

Is there any proof these individuals were all lying to each other? Is there any reason that one of them would make up a consultation with Paterno about the situation, which could so easily be exposed as a lie?

Oh, so instead of answering similar questions I asked about your direct accusations, you instead start asking me questions about "proof" for my direct accusations.

No. there is no proof they lied to eachother. Which is exactly my point: You have no idea in what context these emails were written to eachother. You made an assumption: That they were writing "in full confidence, and there was no reason for them to not be honest." You have no proof of that statement, and I merely asserted a different, quite possible, scenario for your claim.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes!

Save the faux rage for a more credulous crew. Your hero failed.

As in "I should have done more."

ETA: Unless he was lying when he said that as well.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter?

Do yourself a favor and Google Eldon Ham. Sportswriter and attorney, he has interesting things to say about all this. Including the beloved Joe/Pa.

Checkmite · 23rd August 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

It wasn't titled "Joe Paterno." It was titled "Joe." And that one email was with the title of "Joe." And inside of said email, it said: "I touched base with the coach."

The report says it was captioned "Joe Paterno". I already quoted it. Assuming it only said Joe, what other coaches named Joe could it be referring to?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Now, you are obfuscating, because I asked you a question, which I shall restate:

Can you please provide the definition of "touched base" in this instance? Can you please cite exactly what was said when Curly "touched base with the coach?"

You accuse me of obfuscation, yet I asked a direct question that was entirely pertinent to the email which you have cited. Please answer my questions.

Curley did not provide a transcript in his email.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Also, since you completely ignored my previous post, I will ask you yet another question. If an email is titled "Joe," and it contained a subject "coach," that means "coach" refers to Joe. That is your assumption, correct?

So, what about another email titled "Jerry" in which they again, use the subject "coach?" You come to the conclusion that it means Joe, despite the email having the title of "Jerry?"

Contradiction much?

Only if you purposefully ignore context in order to fabricate a "way out" for Paterno.

For one thing, in that email they don't use "coach", they use the proper name "Coach" (see below). For another, Sandusky had already been personally brought up to date by the investigators themselves, so it would not make sense for it to have been him asking Schultz (via Curley) for an update.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Not true. The emails do NOT nail Paterno. Paterno did state that he "had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in my presence" during his GJ testimony.

Now, the emails do not even come CLOSE to proving Paterno wrong. Curly "touched base with the coach," if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "The coach wants an update," again, if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno.

"Touching base" with Paterno could mean just about anything under the sun. Curly could have gone to Joe and said: "Hey. Sandusky is currently under investigation by the DA." Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. Say it.

The problem is, that not even CURLY HIMSELF was given full updates, nor even Schultz! The problem is, that investigators are not supposed to release detailed information about crimes where minors are involved!

In short: You have nothing on Paterno. Freeh has nothing on Paterno. There is nothing on Paterno, except for three extremely vague emails, two of which we have no idea if Joe even was referenced!

They weren't given "full information" about the investigation, but they were already fully aware that it was an allegation involving sexual impropriety with a child. You're reaching.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Touche! The first actual intelligent argument you have made. I concede that point.

However, it doesn't change the fact that "coach" is a pretty vague term, especially when a football team has about a dozen or more coaches and former coaches.

There were many coaches, but there is only evidence of one of the Penn State staff referred to with the proper name "Coach".

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Anyone with half a brain can see that you lied about what was written in an email. I proved you wrong. And rather than admit you were wrong, this is the ten-year-old reply I get in return. Talk about an insult.

Because that's all that particular puerile tactic deserved.

Should we have a vote amongst folks here with a half a brain or more? Of course it was a paraphrase; and it was a pretty darn close one, I might add. The sentence I made up contained the same information as the actual quote.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Except that it did. As evidenced by the string of arguments upthread.

I think the string of arguments upthread supports me, not you.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Not "after talking with Joe Paterno." It was "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

See what I mean? Can you not see that this is blatant semantic wrangling of the highest order? "After talking with Joe Paterno" and "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe" are functionally the same. The information doesn't change: after having had a conversation with Paterno, he changed his mind.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

You seem to think that Curley was Joe's lackey, and Curley was helpless against Joe. That is so irrevocably and demonstrably false. Curley was a very powerful individual. He had his own mind, his own motivations, and he was Paterno's BOSS.

That's what many who worked with them or were familiar with them seemed to think. The allegation that Joe was the "real" person running things and every decision had to be run by him was not invented by Freeh; it was made in the very first days of the breaking story by people who knew Paterno, long, long before Freeh and his report. The people who allege it said it was common knowledge. Do you have special information that these individuals are all mistaken?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Again, you jump to an unsupported conclusion. Again, this is an email which did not state what Joe knew, nor what his position was. Curly, as an individual, as Paterno's boss, as a man with his own motivations and his own drive, could very easily have "thought it over" first, come to his conclusion, THEN spoke with Paterno. And it could be that Paterno objected to the change of plan to not turn Sandusky in. Hell, it could be that they didn't really discuss anything at all. It could be that Curley purposely invoked Paterno's name, for the sake of seeking help from Schultz in supporting his idea.

In short: anything could have happened with the lack of proper evidence. I would place my money on the idea that Curly changed his mind DESPITE what Joe might have said. I am willing to place my money on Joe objecting to Curley's ideas.

I'm also thinking Joe did object to Curley's ideas - the ones he had firmly settled on with Schultz and Spanier before "talking it over with Joe". I think that, just as he interfered with and overrode the school's choice in punishing a player who was failing academically, Joe Paterno interfered with the school's decision to turn Sandusky over to the cops. There was precedent for Paterno to interfere in such ways. Further, Paterno had the means and opportunity to do so in this case.

And yet, you are extremely good at character assassination. I've heard that same exact excuse before: "I am not a court." I read it as: "I am too lazy to conduct my own research," or "I do not have enough evidence to support my idea, but I am committed now because the knee-jerk reaction I had initially, and dammit, I have to save face! Pride is on the line!" [/quote]

I was referring to the importance of motive to myself; I have no idea what this screed is referring to. If Paterno was in fact involved with the decision not to go to the police, whether by suggestion or feedback or order, then to hell with him no matter what the "motive" behind that situation was. There was no possible motive that could have abrogated the complete life-failure that decision or suggestion or feedback represented.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes!

We can't conclude that Paterno was involved because children were raped for christ-sakes? That is a non sequitur. Do the victims suffer more if Paterno is wrongly implicated as an enabler along with the rest of the gang?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated:

These were private emails not meant for public consumption, in which the authors had no reason but to be honest with each other; they freely admitted in their communications that what they were doing would have bad consequences if they were "caught". There's no gray area in "I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all". Motives are unimportant and don't need to be interpreted. All that's important is right there in plain English.

They were indeed private. The prudent precaution of disguising their words in case they ended up public is not the same as saying they intended or expected them to become public.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Oh, so instead of answering similar questions I asked about your direct accusations, you instead start asking me questions about "proof" for my direct accusations.

Turnabout is fair play.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

No. there is no proof they lied to eachother. Which is exactly my point: You have no idea in what context these emails were written to eachother. You made an assumption: That they were writing "in full confidence, and there was no reason for them to not be honest." You have no proof of that statement, and I merely asserted a different, quite possible, scenario for your claim.

We do know what context they were written in: the context of a sex abuse investigation, amongst men who freely agreed that their actions could bring negative consequences if they were found out.

Private mails about the authors' own actions are the equivalent of a taped conversation. Unless the things said in them can be demonstrated to be untrue, there's no rational reason to think they're not true. And it's always this way: if someone in an email says "yes, I want you to kill my wife", that's evidence of intent. The investigators don't have to "prove he wasn't lying" in order to proceed with that.

The only justification you have for suspecting the emails' untruthfulness is because they have to be false in order for Paterno to be innocent.

tyr_13 · 23rd August 2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

So let me get this straight. You are saying they were "willfully wrong?"

Yes. They did an action with they were well aware (which anyone in their positions who isn't an utter moron would know) was not calling the police but which they were aware they could claim was like 'calling the police'. Only it is obvious that it was not the same, it was not like it, and that it isn't plausible that they didn't know these things. At best it was passing the buck, but for Joe specifically that's not even the most likely explanation.

Quote:

About something which they actually did not have the information of what his duties were?

That's likely untrue, but let's say it is true. Congratulations, you just condemned these failure of men as well. If they didn't know what his duties were, then going to him to report what they knew was even more unreasonable. "We thought he was the police and it didn't seem odd to us that the police didn't get involved and Sanduski wasn't arrested," is crazy.

Quote:

Are you actually, in effect, trying to argue that they lied?

Yeah, they did an act with they could claim was going the proper authorities even though they knew it was not. They knew they weren't going to the police and to say otherwise is a lie. A very well motivated and transparent lie.

Quote:

Now we are at an impasse with the testimony of Mike and John McQueary. You essentially are saying they lied, because they were "willfully wrong," while refusing to accept the idea that perhaps they just simply did not know specifically what Gary Schultz's duties ACTUALLY were.

They had a long time to realize their mistake. I do not accept the idea that they could have not known what Schultz's duties were, and that Schultz couldn't have informed them of it, and that they didn't follow up on why the rapist wasn't arrested yet, or that the police had not interviewed them. That you believe these things is sad.

Quote:

Great. Now I know that you, tyr_13, care not at all for a discussion based on facts. Rather, you only care about expressing your own opinions, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Right back at you. You're defense of these men isn't backed by evidence, and is very poor argument ad verbosity with red herrings, cherry picking, and the traditional fallacies of the desperate true believer. You're wrong repeatedly and use invalid reasoning in defense of rape enablers. Yes, that's emotional language and true.

Quote:

Could the McQueary's have lied? Absolutely. But I see no reason to make such baseless accusations. None. Unless you can state exactly why they should have known, and why they were responsible for not knowing. If nobody ever taught you that 1+1=2, why should you be responsible for never learning that?

Ludicrous. They should have known and if they didn't they should have found out. Both were expected and trivial tasks for them, and a moral obligation with the sexual assault of children. It's something any reasonable person would have known or done unless they wanted to cover up and still have denyability. Sadly for them it's not plausible.

Quote:

In any case, once again, you ignore the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not Gary Schultz was head of police. It doesn't matter, because he was the appropriate person to go to with this information under state law.

No, it does matter. This is again ludicrous.

Quote:

I believe I have already answered that. You stating that following the law does not equate to doing the morally right action. Which is logically correct. But the opposite is also logically correct: Following the law CAN be the morally correct path to follow.

But it absolutely was not. Duh.

Quote:

The poster Animal has stated the REASON why it was morally acceptable to go to Schultz. I posted evidence to support Animal's notion that it was morally acceptable. We both backed up our arguments. You have yet to do so. You only merely continue to state the fact that following the law is not always morally acceptable.

Only doing the law minimal was not acceptable. Your reason is wrong. Your support meaningless. Claiming something is 'support' doesn't make it so. Your arguments have been repeatedly torn apart.

Quote:

You have failed to stop the rapes as well. No matter what your motivations or character, that is indisputable.

Of course they failed to stop the rapes. Now you have to prove how much they knew about "rapes" occurring, and the decisions being made by those above them.

They were in a position and could have easily and directly done something to stop the rapes. Your equivalency is false as false can be. They knew things including sexual assault were happening according to all evidence. You don't care.

Quote:

Which brings me to another point: Joe did not know anything about "rapes." To make such a comment, completely and utterly ignores the fact that one of the charges Sandusky was found "not guilty" on, was the charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Victim #2.

The only "evidence" that Schultz presented that Paterno knew anything about are three emails: 2 of them before victim 2, and the one ABOUT victim 2.

All three emails were EXTREMELY vague about what Paterno knew. At best. It wasn't even evidence that Paterno knew anything to begin with. The only evidence of what Paterno knew, is the fact that we absolutely know that McQueary told Joe what he saw in the showers about Victim 2: Which was not "rape."

Therefore, the statement:

They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable.

makes about as much sense as saying that YOU failed to stop the rapes. No matter what YOUR motivations or character, this is indisputable.

Sure it is indisputable they "failed to stop the rapes." The fact that multiple rapes occurred for....god knows how many years, it is indisputable that virtually every single human being on the planet "failed to stop the rapes" during that time.

You knew nothing about this incident at all before the story broke. There is no reason why you can possibly be at fault for rapes of young boys occurring at Penn State University. It doesn't even make any sense, as you are not an omniscient mind-reader. You are a human being without supernatural powers.

That's not what the evidence shows. You're not following the evidence. You don't care about truth.

Your false equivalencies are sad. You have no credibility because you embrace such obvious foolishness.

Quote:

No it doesn't. Because you cannot acknowledge the fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in the fields of both child abuse, and occupational therapy. You continue to insist that Joe Paterno knew so much, without ever once specifying what he knew, when he knew it, and showing the evidence that he covered it up. Actually, my fault. You did specify what you SAY he knew. But you continue to fail to provide the requisite evidence for your accusations.

Irrelevant. The law is not morality. They failed morally. Hard. On multiple levels. You can't even defend them on one moral level.

The pathetic thing is that football is the motivation making all this delusional fantasy making. At least Truthers and such have government and freedom and such as motivation. You have football 'heroes'. Pathetic.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Nihilianth

But not intelligent enough to know how to properly handle reports of felony child abuse?

So you are trying to say they were stupid? That they failed to follow state law? Plenty of very highly intelligent people break the law all the time.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Exactly.

To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life.

Just because you place a bunh of words in quotes, doesn't mean that's what it says.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Your naivete is showing again. Or is it your sycophancy? No, it's both.

Joe Paterno allowed a man he knew to be a sexual abuser of children in and around his football program for ten years after making that discovery. Big time fail.

juding by all the responses: "Joe Paterno was an evil bastard that allowed a child rapist to continue what he was doing," without actual cited sources, is a huge fail.

I thought this was supposed to be a web site dedicated to skepticism? I thought that the idea of being a skeptic is that you question an established position, and you do not draw any conclusions without supporting evidence.

You keep saying the same things over and over again, and yet, you never provide any sources. Or you do, but the sources are so obviously vague IRT Joe as to be utterly useless.

Skepticism:

Quote:

Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[4] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.[5] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[6] Religious skepticism, on the other hand is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".[7] Most scientists are empirical skeptics, who admit the possibility of knowledge based on evidence, but hold that new evidence may always overturn these findings.
Contents

See: Philosophical skepticism.

Quote:

Veteran sportswriters/broadcasters will fill in you obvious lack in regards to the dictatorships that division 1 football can facilitate. If you think Paterno was any different you are ostriching.

What is with the moving goalposts? You never said ANYTHING about Division 1 football coaches "being dictators!" You said that "Division 1 football coaches know everything about their players and assistants!" THAT is what I responded to!

Holy. My. God. I...am baffled. The lack of honesty is beyond amazing here.

Seriously.

This is the very last time I make this request, but I ask in all sincerity....no, I plead with all of being....is that you remain honest, use whatever evidence is at your disposal, along with logical explanations as to your accusation against Joseph Vincent Paterno. And ONLY Joseph Vincent Paterno. (The other men involved, the evidence against them is very strong.)

So please. Don't change the meaning of what you said. Please do not change the meaning of the evidence. Especially do not use your own words to describe what the evidence says. Use ACTUAL QUOTES.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Do yourself a favor and Google Eldon Ham. Sportswriter and attorney, he has interesting things to say about all this. Including the beloved Joe/Pa.

So he has studies and scientific proof that Division 1 Football coaches have all this mystical ability to know "everything about all their players and assistant coaches?" Really? Shouldn't thins guy have a Nobel Prize of some sort by now?

Skeptical Greg · 23rd August 2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

So you are trying to say they were stupid? That they failed to follow state law? Plenty of very highly intelligent people break the law all the time.

Sorry I confused you..

I was responding to your claim of how intelligent these men are; with which I would agree.

They would clearly know how to deal with felony child abuse, but chose to cover it up.

You really need to get past this " following state law " crap ..

Decent people will try to do the right thing, and not even bother to try to determine if they are following the law or not.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

<head-in-sand blather removed>

You're wasting your time here. You should be out helping OJ find the real killer.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

So he has studies and scientific proof that Division 1 Football coaches have all this mystical ability to know "everything about all their players and assistant coaches?" Really? Shouldn't thins guy have a Nobel Prize of some sort by now?

As Joe said "I should have done more."

No **** genius.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The report says it was captioned "Joe Paterno". I already quoted it. Assuming it only said Joe, what other coaches named Joe could it be referring to?

just because something has a specific title, does not mean a generic name refers to someone specific. Besides, I never claimed that "coach" DIDN'T refer to Joe. It doesn't even really matter in any case, because "touched base with the coach" is far too vague to determine exactly what information was transferred to "Joe."

Also, you yet again, failed to answer my question IRT the email title "Jerry." You assume "coach" refers to "Joe" in an email titled "Jerry." I'll ask what you asked: "What other coaches named Jerry could it be referring to?

If you are going to use certain standards for one email, it is contradictory if you do not use the same standards for another.

Quote:

Curley did not provide a transcript in his email.

thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. You finally admitted that Curley did not provide a transcript. That is a rather shockingly important peice of detail that seems to always get overlooked in the haste of angry, emotionally-filled, knee-jerk reactions.

Curley did no provide a transcript. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. You cannot make claims about what exactly Paterno knew, nor when he knew it.

Quote:

Only if you purposefully ignore context in order to fabricate a "way out" for Paterno.

No. I am not ignoring "context."

Quote:

For one thing, in that email they don't use "coach", they use the proper name "Coach" (see below). For another, Sandusky had already been personally brought up to date by the investigators themselves, so it would not make sense for it to have been him asking Schultz (via Curley) for an update.

Sandusky was "updated?" How do you know? What "updates" was Sandusky given? He couldn't ask for MORE updates, even if he was updated once? If you were being investigated for a crime, doesn't matter what, wouldn't it make sense for you to always be curious about any "updates" assuming you knew you were under investigation?

Quote:

They weren't given "full information" about the investigation, but they were already fully aware that it was an allegation involving sexual impropriety with a child. You're reaching.

"They." Who is "They?" Certainly Curley and Schultz knew the allegations. That is clear based on the emails. But what about Joe? What did he know? Please cite a source which confirms exactly what Joe knew and when he knew it. I am not reaching here. I am asking for how you know the things you seem to know based on your accusations against Joe Paterno.

Quote:

There were many coaches, but there is only evidence of one of the Penn State staff referred to with the proper name "Coach".

Ummm...in the English language, you always start a new sentence with a capital letter....

However, whether it is "coach" or "Coach" doesn't matter. It is referring to a human being that both Curley and Schultz understands whom it is referring to. Which means it could be capitalized, but it does not tell US whom it is. Anyone could be capitalized. (This is a side issue, the capitalization thing, that is pure obfuscation.)

Quote:

Because that's all that particular puerile tactic deserved.

Should we have a vote amongst folks here with a half a brain or more? Of course it was a paraphrase; and it was a pretty darn close one, I might add. The sentence I made up contained the same information as the actual quote.

You, sir, are a liar. I am thinking of starting a brand new thread to reveal you as one, recapping this particular line of conversation. You're tactic now is to confuse the line of discussion to the point of making it an entirely new conversation altogether.

Bottom line: You made a highly dishonest attempt to "paraphrase" a very particular email. And you botched it so badly, that I revealed that not only did you attempt to lie about said email, but I also revealed that you took the word "we" completely out of context. As in: "I am uncomfortable with what we have decided was the next step," to mean that "we" means both Paterno and Curley.

Words have meaning.

Quote:

I think the string of arguments upthread supports me, not you.

You, sir, are a liar. I revealed you as one twice before: Once about "University police are nothing but a bunch fo rent-a-cops," and again about your botched so-called "paraphrase" attempt of an email.

Now, you are attempting to save face. You have quickly revealed yourself of what you are: A liar. (I take that back, about sometimes ad homenims really are appropriate. Credibility matters.)

Quote:

See what I mean? Can you not see that this is blatant semantic wrangling of the highest order? "After talking with Joe Paterno" and "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe" are functionally the same. The information doesn't change: after having had a conversation with Paterno, he changed his mind.

More lies. It does NOT say: "After having had a conversation with Paterno, I changed my mind!" You CANNOT paraphrase like this. The English language does not work that way.

I dunno, maybe you aren;t lying. Maybe you just are not a native English speaker. In which case, I should apologize and be more patient with you.

But as a native English-speaker who is willing to put him/herself out there and make claims and discuss particular issues, this is unforgivable.

Now, what it DOES say, for the SECOND TIME, is:

"I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.

Again, WORDS MATTER. A whole lot more than you r

Quote:

That's what many who worked with them or were familiar with them seemed to think. The allegation that Joe was the "real" person running things and every decision had to be run by him was not invented by Freeh; it was made in the very first days of the breaking story by people who knew Paterno, long, long before Freeh and his report. The people who allege it said it was common knowledge. Do you have special information that these individuals are all mistaken?

Care to site these individuals and their quotes? You sure seem to like to make a lot of work for yourself. Please, you are making unsupported claims.

Joe Paterno ran his football team. He did NOT interfere with anything outside of his football team. And Vickey Triponey? She's a vindictive liar with zero credibility. Not even Freeh could bother himself about this woman.

Quote:

I'm also thinking Joe did object to Curley's ideas - the ones he had firmly settled on with Schultz and Spanier before "talking it over with Joe".

Now you are purposely trying to misrepresent what I said. More dishonesty.

Quote:

I think that, just as he interfered with and overrode the school's choice in punishing a player who was failing academically,

Source? Come one now! You can't sit here and just make references to things without citing the source. You can't do that, because anyone can make anything they want up.

Quote:

Joe Paterno interfered with the school's decision to turn Sandusky over to the cops.

Source? You need to cite your sources.

Quote:

There was precedent for Paterno to interfere in such ways.

Source? You need to cite your sources.

Quote:

Further, Paterno had the means and opportunity to do so in this case.

All coaches, faculty, and staff have the means and the opportunity to interfere with anything related to the school.

Quote:

I was referring to the importance of motive to myself; I have no idea what this screed is referring to. If Paterno was in fact involved with the decision not to go to the police, whether by suggestion or feedback or order, then to hell with him no matter what the "motive" behind that situation was. There was no possible motive that could have abrogated the complete life-failure that decision or suggestion or feedback represented.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You are, again, attacking someone's character. I ask for you to provide sources and logical feedback, you respond with: "I am not a court."

Go figure.

Quote:

We can't conclude that Paterno was involved because children were raped for christ-sakes? That is a non sequitur. Do the victims suffer more if Paterno is wrongly implicated as an enabler along with the rest of the gang?

So NOW you try and bring out a logical fallacy, and yet, your arguments are so chock-full of them, it's beyond crazy.

I never made the claim that the victims suffer more. I never said that! Yet again, mor dishonesty being displayed here!

What I said was that the Truth is important. The truth behind the Holocaust is important. No, it doesn;t somehow make the victims suffer more if the average German citizen were implicated as enablers. Doesn't make seeking the Truth any less important.

Quote:

They were indeed private.

No. They were not. I even cited the Freeh Report which proves this notion false.

Quote:

The prudent precaution of disguising their words in case they ended up public is not the same as saying they intended or expected them to become public.

Sure, they expected them to become public. I already stated a quote directly from the Freeh Report which shows that Curley knew full-well that email leaks in the athletic department are common.

Quote:

Turnabout is fair play.

you are a dishonest jerk. I asked you specific questions, you refused to answer them, obfuscate, and make all sorts of excuses, then think you have the right to question ME? I shall place you on ignore. I am finished with you. So have at it.

Administrators may think this is an ad hominem, and give me a yellow card. I fully accept said warning.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Nihilianth:

I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position.

It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. Maybe they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys ..

It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior.

The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper.

I am unsure whether or not you understand the osition I have taken, despite the fact that I stated it quite clearly twice now. I am solely focusing on the accusations against Joe Paterno, and by that extension, the football program.

Care to site the source that shows that Paterno "was in it up to his eyebrows?" That is kind of a direct contradiction to your very next statement: "because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper."

Of course he knew "something was going on that was very bad." Mike McQueary definitely informed him of this fact in 2001.

And of course, Paterno should have "bothered to dig deeper." Even Paterno himself admitted that, "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

That is in hindsight. If you look at the law, and from whence it came, it is obvious he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Now it is you turn to say: "But he didn't do the moral thing." I know that is what you are going to say, because at this point, it has become the meme of the year. I already responded to that point. The oster "Animal" responded to it before I did. I backed up what he said with a solid source: Where the PA State Law came from.

There has yet to be anyone to either concede the point and agree with me, or provide a valid counterpoint with either logic, or an actual source. Or at least admit they have no logical reason to concede the point, and that they are only going off their gut-feeling that they believe it was morally wrong.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Save the faux rage for a more credulous crew. Your hero failed.

As in "I should have done more."

ETA: Unless he was lying when he said that as well.

Why is it so hard for anyone to be honest? He did not say "I should have done more."

he said: "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Why is it so hard for anyone to be honest? He did not say "I should have done more."

he said: "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Joe Paterno wasn't the person you thought he was?

Of course you also think that Gary Shultz is the police so I shouldn't expect much.

So it goes with sycophants I suppose.

ETA: Of course this is giving Paterno the benefit of the doubt. I've no reason to believe a word of this little head nod to "the victims or whatever" as he once put it.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

There has yet to be anyone to either concede the point and agree with me, .

Wonder why?

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Of course he knew "something was going on that was very bad." Mike McQueary definitely informed him of this fact in 2001.

And he continued to let that monster in and around his program.

You need to get out of wherever you are and get a national perspective of this whole scandal. It's all available through any search engine you'd like. But you'll never do that. Instead you'll attempt some sort of play cross-examination routine here that pays no nevermind to the fact that Paterno knew what Sandusky was, and made no real attempt to remove him from PSU culture.

You know what, forget it. There will always be the JoePa apologists; in a way they're helpful to highlight all the failures in this mess.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Yes. They did an action with they were well aware (which anyone in their positions who isn't an utter moron would know) was not calling the police but which they were aware they could claim was like 'calling the police'. Only it is obvious that it was not the same, it was not like it, and that it isn't plausible that they didn't know these things. At best it was passing the buck, but for Joe specifically that's not even the most likely explanation.

I agree. It isn't the most likely explanation for Joe. I merely submitted it as evidence that there is a possibility that it was. However, you can't really claim that full-well who Schultz even was, or what his job was.

Regardless, they still did the right thing, as per PA State law.

Quote:

That's likely untrue, but let's say it is true. Congratulations, you just condemned these failure of men as well. If they didn't know what his duties were, then going to him to report what they knew was even more unreasonable. "We thought he was the police and it didn't seem odd to us that the police didn't get involved and Sanduski wasn't arrested," is crazy.

I posted twice now state law IRT reporting child abuse.

Besides, not knowing a particular administrator's duties, doesn't change the fact that they knew he was a high-level administrator.

Quote:

Yeah, they did an act with they could claim was going the proper authorities even though they knew it was not. They knew they weren't going to the police and to say otherwise is a lie. A very well motivated and transparent lie.

Ok. You are making a positive claim here. "They knew they were not going to the proper authority," and therefore, "they lied."

Now all you have to do, is show me where you got this information from.

Quote:

They had a long time to realize their mistake. I do not accept the idea that they could have not known what Schultz's duties were, and that Schultz couldn't have informed them of it, and that they didn't follow up on why the rapist wasn't arrested yet, or that the police had not interviewed them. That you believe these things is sad.

1. It is entirely plausible to know that Schultz was a VP...a high-level administrator...without knowing what his duties as "VP of Finance and Business" actually were.

2. Schultz couldn't really inform them of anything, assuming McQueary and Paterno thought he did go to outside authorities. Seeing Sandusky around campus, doesn;t mean an investigation revealed anything. Also, if they thought Schultz went to the police, neither McQueary nor Paterno would be informed of the investigation. It is common practice to not release any info when a minor is involved in a crime.

Mcqueary, at least, should have found it strange that an investigator did not come directly to him for some statements. Especially as time went on. It would not be strange if an investigator did not go to Joe, because he didn't witness anything himself, and therefore, would be hearsay.

Quote:

Right back at you. You're defense of these men isn't backed by evidence,

I don't need evidence. You do. You made a positive claim...you are making positive accusations, you need to provide the evidence. It is not my duty to do your work for you.

Quote:

and is very poor argument ad verbosity with red herrings,

What red herrings?

Quote:

cherry picking,

Except that I have NOT quoted any partial posts. I have responded to every single post in this thread.

Quote:

and the traditional fallacies of the desperate true believer.

This reeks of sarcasm. Care to explain?

Quote:

You're wrong repeatedly

Where? I provided the CORRECT quotes, DIRECTLY quoted from emails. (One poster in here was trying to "paraphrase.") I provided a direct link, and directly quoted a very important state law which proves that at least Paterno did nothing illegal. I then provided a direct quote from said state law which shows the "Authority" of where the law comes from, which backs up "Animal's" point about the morality of following the law.

Quote:

and use invalid reasoning in defense of rape enablers.

Asking for evidence, and pointing out the vagueness of said evidence is "invalid reasoning?" And yet again, you call Paterno a "rape enabler." Which means you have to prove that he knew about incidences of "rape." Even a single incident. (Hint: Emails say nothing about what Paterno knew prior to 2001. Sandusky was found "Not Guilty" on the count of "Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse"....or "rape".....of Victim 2.)

so at least two things wrong within 9 words I quoted.

Quote:

Yes, that's emotional language and true.

"Emotional language," and "true." Hmmm.....Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.....

Quote:

Ludicrous. They should have known and if they didn't they should have found out.

I laughed. Pretty hard. Thanks for that.

But no.

Quote:

Both were expected and trivial tasks for them, and a moral obligation with the sexual assault of children.

Paterno at least knew of his "Mandated duty to report." Paterno told McQueary whom to report to. McQueary did so. It was a high-level administrator, which McQueary knew. He knew Schultz oversaw the department which contained the police.

Quote:

It's something any reasonable person would have known or done unless they wanted to cover up and still have denyability. Sadly for them it's not plausible.

Someone does not know the statistics regarding the reporting of child abuse. And on that point, Paterno and McQueary did FAR more than the VAST majority of "reasonable people" would have done.

It would be funny, if it weren't such a serious topic.

Quote:

No, it does matter. This is again ludicrous.

Alighty then, why do you not travel to PA, and advise the Pennsylvania State Congress, the Occupational Health Department, and Child Protective Services, which devised state law, which agrees with me that they did go to the correct person that they are all "ludicrous?" Then proceed to tell them exactly what how the law should be written, and done so in a way as to maximize the chance to obtain a criminal conviction for child molesters.

Quote:

But it absolutely was not. Duh.

Well. You certainly have ME convinced. In the face of the reasons behind WHY the law was written, and the Authority from whence the law came from, your logical and evidential support against it is: "Duh."

Quote:

Only doing the law minimal was not acceptable. Your reason is wrong. Your support meaningless. Claiming something is 'support' doesn't make it so. Your arguments have been repeatedly torn apart.

Go back to Animal's post which he stated WHY it was morally correct to follow the law, and actually make a counterpoint. My arguments have not been "torn apart." They haven't even been addressed!

Quote:

They were in a position and could have easily and directly done something to stop the rapes. Your equivalency is false as false can be. They knew things including sexual assault were happening according to all evidence. You don't care.

There is NO evidence that Joe Paterno knew what you claim he knew. none. Where is the evidence, huh? Three emails? Great. Cite them for me. Go ahead. I dare ya.

Quote:

That's not what the evidence shows. You're not following the evidence. You don't care about truth.

The "evidence" shows nothing against Joe Paterno.

Quote:

Your false equivalencies are sad. You have no credibility because you embrace such obvious foolishness.

I am foolish, because:

1. I cited the fact that Sandusky was found "Not guilty" on the count of Sexual Deviate Intercourse" aka: "Rape of a minor boy" for Victim 2. (See: The Grand Jury Present for Victim 2.)

2. I question the use of whom "coach" is, and more importantly, what "I touched base with the coach" actually MEANS. I am foolish because I see no real evidence with the words "touched base?" Great.

Quote:

Irrelevant. The law is not morality. They failed morally. Hard. On multiple levels. You can't even defend them on one moral level.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. The fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in MULTIPLE FIELDS involving: Criminal Prosecution, Child Protection, and Occupational Health is "irrelevant?" Awesome. No counteroint or evidence or even rudimentary logic to back up your assertions. Just: "It is immoral because I said so! So, NYAH!"

Quote:

The pathetic thing is that football is the motivation making all this delusional fantasy making. At least Truthers and such have government and freedom and such as motivation. You have football 'heroes'. Pathetic.

Now instead of engaging in honest discussion, you label me on the same level as "Truthers," who at least have piles upon piles of evidence, photos, and videos proving them wrong.

You have...what? Three vague emails proving you right? Glad to know I am in such esteemed company.

It is impossible to prove me wrong about anything, because I have made virtually no claims that Paterno was innocent. I merely assert that there is no evidence for your accusations against Paterno.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Sorry I confused you..

I was responding to your claim of how intelligent these men are; with which I would agree.

They would clearly know how to deal with felony child abuse, but chose to cover it up.

You really need to get past this " following state law " crap ..

Decent people will try to do the right thing, and not even bother to try to determine if they are following the law or not.

Oh. My.

I am NOT using "following state law" to defend "these men," meaning Curley, Schultz, or Spanier!

I merely stated that Curley and Schultz were highly intelligent men. That they are highly successful, and have minds of their own. They are DRIVEN to succeed. I stated this, because it was becoming more and more apparent that the usual: "But Curley was Joe's lackey" statements were erroneously and foolishly being made.

Curley and Schultz are highly intelligent men.

The "following state law" bit was directed towards Paterno. Not Curley, and not Sschultz. And not Spanier. But directed at PATERNO.

I don't need to get past "they were following state law," because I never said "THEY" followed state law!

Paterno and McQueary followed state law. And as has been pointed out quite exhaustively, there are REASONS behind why the law was structured the way in which it was, and from whence it's authority came. Those reasons have yet to be directly addressed by anyone in here.

You have three options:

1. Admit I am right, and concede the "moral" argument.
2. Provide your own counterpoints, supported through logic, and/or evidence showing exactly why it is immoral.
3. Obstinately refuse to agree with me, but at least admit that it is just purely your own gut feeling and opinion that it is immoral, if not illegal.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

You're wasting your time here. You should be out helping OJ find the real killer.

In other words: You are too lazy to provide the sources for your myriad intellectually dishonest claims and accusations.

Originally Posted by Resume

As Joe said "I should have done more."

No **** genius.

Dishonesty yet again. And yet again, I have to correct you:

Joe said "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

As I have said to that other guy I put on ignore: "Words matter!"

And you say I cherry-pick, obfuscate, and so on and so forth.

Nihilianth · 23rd August 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Joe Paterno wasn't the person you thought he was?

Of course you also think that Gary Shultz is the police so I shouldn't expect much.

So it goes with sycophants I suppose.

ETA: Of course this is giving Paterno the benefit of the doubt. I've no reason to believe a word of this little head nod to "the victims or whatever" as he once put it.

More dishonesty, and yet again, I have to correct you. I never said I thought Schultz was the police. I said McQueary thought it was "like going to the police." As evidence that you are lying about me, I submit what I have said upthread:

"McQueary was factually incorrect."

The mob-mentality makes it harder and harder to believe that Joe actually was guilty. EVEN IF it turns out that you and everyone else was right, at this point, it hardly matters. The knee-jerk reactions, the pure dishonesty, the character assassinations with no evidence, all have cost those who participated in the mob a ton of credibility, and completely made virtually everyone to have lost sight of the importance of the the Truth.

(hell, it has even been argued in this very thread that the Truth does not matter, because it hasn't made the suffering of the kids any less. So....yeah....)

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

In other words: You are too lazy to provide the sources for your myriad intellectually dishonest claims and accusations.

Dishonesty yet again. And yet again, I have to correct you:

Joe said "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

As I have said to that other guy I put on ignore: "Words matter!"

And you say I cherry-pick, obfuscate, and so on and so forth.

Sorry, he said he wished he'd done more, which means he should've done more. But he didn't, which is a fact. There are many other facts upstream in this thread; you might want to read them over.

But you won't.

Goodbye Black Knight and good luck with this crusade, for all the good it will do you and the disgraced Paterno.

Resume · 23rd August 2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

More dishonesty, and yet again, I have to correct you. I never said I thought Schultz was the police. I said McQueary thought it was "like going to the police."

Uncalled for insult removed with apologies.

Goodbye Black Knight. Your arms are over there with your legs.

Your hero failed.

22nd August 2012, 09:09 PM	#721
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	Originally Posted by Nihilianth Sorry, but you have exactly zero credibility now. You have not read the Freeh Report, because even the Freeh Report (not to mention state and local laws and statutes) clearly say you are exactly 100% wrong, or else you are lying. Campus police are a fully-authorized, fully-trained police force. Period. "Fully authorized and trained" to serve as the campus police. So? Please cite the mystical "state and local laws and statutes".
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd August 2012, 09:43 PM	#722
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	Originally Posted by Nihilianth The two bolded sentences directly contradict one another. Why would it be a waste of time? Freeh was investigating new evidence that was NOT revealed during the GJ Report. Therefore, there could not possibly be any questions asked of either of these men about said new evidence. I never made any arguments in defense of Spanier, Schultz, or Curley. The evidence is all but air-tight against those men. The "holes" of which I speak is IRT Paterno. If you think there is evidence of Paterno being involved in a cover-up, why don't you cite said evidence, and explain in detail why exactly it is so damning against Joe? I agree so far, but the first sentence is untrue IRT to Paterno: He WAS named directly. In only one single email out of 3.5 million documents. But he was not named as being "directly involved in the deliberations." To come to that conclusion does, in fact, require quite a lot of interpretation, and a huge leap in logic in come to the conclusion that Freeh did about Paterno. He was named twice, actually. First regarding the 1998 investigation: Quote: By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.” Quote: As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Wow, now you are lying about what was written in these private emails! Nowhere did it state: I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all". Unless you can link me directly to those words. Nowhere did Curley use the word "WE." In fact, he used the word "I" about a half dozen times. You really are leaping quite a bit here. Please, I urge you to stick with the facts, not make stuff up. It was a paraphrase. The direct quote is, regarding the initial plan between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to report Sandusky to children's services and notify the charity about his activities, Quote: After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. Surely looks like the word "we" to me. Who's the one who "didn't read the report" again? Originally Posted by Nihilianth Also, you are saying that motives are unimportant? What? Since when? I'll grant that the motives might be important to some psychologist somewhere. However, in the active decision not to go to the authorities, motive doesn't matter to me because there's no possible motive that could make that decision all right. FWIW, they discussed their "motive" in other emails; it was to be "humane" to Sandusky. What difference is that supposed to make? Originally Posted by Nihilianth ETA: you also assume that, just because these emails were private, that they (Curley and Schultz) were being honest with each other. Again, you are making an assumption without knowing their working relationship with one another. (The two men did not exactly work that closely with one another, and Curley was barely even on Schultz's radar. It doesn't appear that way on the outside because of this case and their names being uttered together for so long and so often.) What has this to do with whether these two men would have been truthful with each other? They were speaking in confidence.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

23rd August 2012, 12:43 AM	#725
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Checkmite He was named twice, actually. First regarding the 1998 investigation: No. Out of 3.5 million documents, "Joe" was referred to dozens of times. But only one time IRT RE: Sandusky. Now, you finally posted some pertinent lines from the Freeh Report. Great. Let's look at this: By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.” The bolded may turn out to be a bald-faced lie. There is evidence that PS4RS has found in which tampering with these "emails" has occurred. For instance: 1. In many of the emails that were released by Louis Freeh, they contained no signature line at the end of each email. 2. Electronically, files are automatically placed in chronological order, with the latest messages on top. That is how emails and blog rolls work. The emails Louis Freeh published were in different orders, with dates jumping around every which way. It is the contention from PS4RS that the subject and CC lines may have been altered as well. We shall see, as they seek the IT Department at PSU to release ALL of the emails from these men. However, be that as it may: “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.” Now all you have to do, is to prove that "the coach" means "Joe." To prove what "touched base" means. In my book, that is so vague, especially "touched base," as to be rendered completely meaningless. In all of the other times in which Paterno is referenced by these men, he is very consistently called "Joe." In interviewing virtually all of the current football players and last year's coaches as well as many of the past players, it is virtually unanimous that everyone refers to Paterno as either "Joe" or "JoePa." Never "coach." And finally, this email was used to nail Spanier as a liar. Not to nail Paterno for knowing anything about the pre-Victim 2 circumstances. As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno. Again, Paterno is never just simply called "coach." Not to mention, if the previous email you referred to is titled "Joe" and therefore, "coach" is supposed to mean Joe; then obviously couldn't an email title "Jerry" in which the word "coach" is supposed to mean Jerry? But even IF it truly is supposed to mean "Joe," you can't possibly sit here and tell me that Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. actually means that Joe WAS updated and had all this information. Quote: It was a paraphrase. No. It wasn't. You lied about what was said. Quote: The direct quote is, regarding the initial plan between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to report Sandusky to children's services and notify the charity about his activities, After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. You have conveniently left out the rest of the email. But this is interesting, as once again, you display a profound lack of reading comprehension skills. Quote: Surely looks like the word "we" to me. Who's the one who "didn't read the report" again? You saw the word "we" and mistakenly assumed that meant that him and Paterno agreed to not report Sandusky. Clearly that is not the case. Going back to the Freeh Report, there was a neat little note that Louis Freeh found in Spanier's records. It was a plan outlining what he wanted to do, which included informing both the Second Mile, and the Department of Welfare (DPW.) Looking at the above single sentence that you posted and obviously erroneously concluded what it meant: After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. "The next steps" was in reference to what they originally decided to do: Turn in Jerry. "We" was in reference to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier: Curley specifically states that he was "uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps: 1) Talk to Sandusky. 2) Contact Second Mile. 3) Contact DPW. Schultz emailed Curley this plan on February 26, 2001 (Monday) confirming this plan they decided previously on Sunday. The email sent from Curley to Schultz dated Feb 27, 2001 (Tuesday): I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. You are either lying, or you truly cannot read for comprehension. If you are lying, might I inquire as to WHY? Here is the rest of that email that shows EXACTLY what he was "uncomfortable" with, and exactly what he is "comfortable" with.: I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach? Curley used the word "I" NINE TIMES in exacting detail, and mentions "Joe" ONCE in extremely vague terms. Quote: I'll grant that the motives might be important to some psychologist somewhere. However, in the active decision not to go to the authorities, motive doesn't matter to me because there's no possible motive that could make that decision all right. Then you are even further being dishonest. Motive matters. Try telling that to any court in the land, that motive does not matter. It puts a whole new perspective on things, once you know the motives. It appears that Joe's motives were exactly as Animal put it: He didn't want to interfere with an investigation! Joe himself even stated that! Quote: FWIW, they discussed their "motive" in other emails; it was to be "humane" to Sandusky. What difference is that supposed to make? That wasn't Joe's motives! That was Curley and Schultz's motives! Quote: What has this to do with whether these two men would have been truthful with each other? They were speaking in confidence. First, you have no idea what their working relationships were like. Just because they were speaking in "private" doesn't mean they weren't being totally truthful, or "confident." Second, I forgot about what was written in the Freeh Report about this. You claimed that they were emailing in private, and that there was no intention to get out. Obviously, you are writing these men down to be incredibly stupid. They were not. They were highly intelligent men. Intelligent enough to realize that these emails COULD get out. Intelligent enough to, as Freeh puts it: The February 26, 2001 email and related emails that follow among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier over the next two days are unique from the hundreds of thousands of other emails reviewed by the Special investigative Counsel. These messages are the rare documents where proper names and identifying information are replaced with generic references. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that Curley communicated in "code" in sensitive emails because the Athletic Department was notorious for leaks. When Curley communicated about other sensitive issues involving Sandusky, however, he did not use "code" words. For example, emails written between February 25 and February 28, 2001, refer to Sandusky as the "subject," the "person involved," or "the person." The emails refer to the Second Mile as "his organization" and the Department of Public Welfare as "the other organization" and the "other one." This contrasts with emails written in 1998, concerning the police investigation, in which Curley and Schultz frequently referred to Sandusky as "Jerry." This also contrasts with emails written in 1999, concerning Sandysky's retirement, where Curley, Schultz, and Spanier frequently referred to Sandusy as "Jerry." So no. They were NOT speaking in private, nor in full confidence.
	Last edited by Nihilianth; 23rd August 2012 at 12:54 AM.

23rd August 2012, 04:25 AM	#726
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	Nihilianth: Quote: Here is the rest of that email that shows EXACTLY what he was "uncomfortable" with, and exactly what he is "comfortable" with.: I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two group. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach? I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position. It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. *Maybe* they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys .. It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior. The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 23rd August 2012 at 04:27 AM.

23rd August 2012, 04:41 AM	#727
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth You made a claim, which I copy-and-pasted, in Italics, just below the hash marks. Care to offer an expansion by any chance? Or shall I assume you are merely just parroting some nonsense? Because you sure as heck did not respond to what I have taken the time to explain and present. You type a lot, which shouts to me of obfuscation. Joe Paterno was an abject failure in protecting children from the predations of his assistant, former or not; he succeeded for a number of years however in protecting his name and his football program. The only nonsense being parroted is by the Joe Pa sycophants attempting to shout down the evidence of that failure. I think that you will ultimately fail in that yourself. ETA: I would suggest you talk to some veteran sports reporters who cover division 1 fooball; ask them what those coaches know about their players, assistant coaches, and programs. (pro-tip: everything)
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 04:51 AM.

22nd August 2012, 11:39 PM	#723
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by tyr_13 They had no reason to be 'wrong' about what Schulz's duties actually were and why going to him was insufficient. If they were all wrong, they were willfully all wrong. Their 'plausible deniability' is simply not plausible. So let me get this straight. You are saying they were "willfully wrong?" About something which they actually did not have the information of what his duties were? Are you actually, in effect, trying to argue that they lied? Now we are at an impasse with the testimony of Mike and John McQueary. You essentially are saying they lied, because they were "willfully wrong," while refusing to accept the idea that perhaps they just simply did not know specifically what Gary Schultz's duties ACTUALLY were. Great. Now I know that you, tyr_13, care not at all for a discussion based on facts. Rather, you only care about expressing your own opinions, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Could the McQueary's have lied? Absolutely. But I see no reason to make such baseless accusations. None. Unless you can state exactly why they should have known, and why they were responsible for not knowing. If nobody ever taught you that 1+1=2, why should you be responsible for never learning that? In any case, once again, you ignore the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not Gary Schultz was head of police. It doesn't matter, because he was the appropriate person to go to with this information under state law. Quote: a direct link to a law as a basis for a moral argument is pointless. I could be an emotionally abusive asshat to a girlfriend and be legally in the clear and morally wrong. Why in the nine hells would you believe it's a legitimate argument? I believe I have already answered that. You stating that following the law does not equate to doing the morally right action. Which is logically correct. But the opposite is also logically correct: Following the law CAN be the morally correct path to follow. The poster Animal has stated the REASON why it was morally acceptable to go to Schultz. I posted evidence to support Animal's notion that it was morally acceptable. We both backed up our arguments. You have yet to do so. You only merely continue to state the fact that following the law is not always morally acceptable. Quote: They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable. You have failed to stop the rapes as well. No matter what your motivations or character, that is indisputable. Of course they failed to stop the rapes. Now you have to prove how much they knew about "rapes" occurring, and the decisions being made by those above them. Which brings me to another point: Joe did not know anything about "rapes." To make such a comment, completely and utterly ignores the fact that one of the charges Sandusky was found "not guilty" on, was the charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Victim #2. The only "evidence" that Schultz presented that Paterno knew anything about are three emails: 2 of them before victim 2, and the one ABOUT victim 2. All three emails were EXTREMELY vague about what Paterno knew. At best. It wasn't even evidence that Paterno knew anything to begin with. The only evidence of what Paterno knew, is the fact that we absolutely know that McQueary told Joe what he saw in the showers about Victim 2: Which was not "rape." Therefore, the statement: They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable. makes about as much sense as saying that YOU failed to stop the rapes. No matter what YOUR motivations or character, this is indisputable. Sure it is indisputable they "failed to stop the rapes." The fact that multiple rapes occurred for....god knows how many years, it is indisputable that virtually every single human being on the planet "failed to stop the rapes" during that time. You knew nothing about this incident at all before the story broke. There is no reason why you can possibly be at fault for rapes of young boys occurring at Penn State University. It doesn't even make any sense, as you are not an omniscient mind-reader. You are a human being without supernatural powers. Quote: That covers factual, civilly, and arguably moral as well, if your morals don't think it's alright to try so little and fail so hard to stop child rape. No it doesn't. Because you cannot acknowledge the fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in the fields of both child abuse, and occupational therapy. You continue to insist that Joe Paterno knew so much, without ever once specifying what he knew, when he knew it, and showing the evidence that he covered it up. Actually, my fault. You did specify what you SAY he knew. But you continue to fail to provide the requisite evidence for your accusations.

22nd August 2012, 11:46 PM	#724
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Checkmite "Fully authorized and trained" to serve as the campus police. So? Please cite the mystical "state and local laws and statutes". Wow. Just wow. First, you state what I have already said. Then you ask the childish question: "So?" Ugh So? So? If they are fully-authorized and trained, then there goes your totally misinformed comment that they are nothing but a bunch of rent-a-cops! Then you become even more sarcastic, and talking about "mystical" state and local laws! And you want me to engage you and actually have the nerve to ask me to cite the establishment of an actual police department? No.

23rd August 2012, 07:11 AM	#728
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	Originally Posted by Nihilianth No. Out of 3.5 million documents, "Joe" was referred to dozens of times. But only one time IRT RE: Sandusky. Now, you finally posted some pertinent lines from the Freeh Report. Great. Let's look at this: By May 5, 1998, Schultz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned “Joe Paterno,” Curley reports, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”f In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said he did not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that provide him with updates on various issues.148 In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.” The bolded may turn out to be a bald-faced lie. There is evidence that PS4RS has found in which tampering with these "emails" has occurred. For instance: 1. In many of the emails that were released by Louis Freeh, they contained no signature line at the end of each email. 2. Electronically, files are automatically placed in chronological order, with the latest messages on top. That is how emails and blog rolls work. The emails Louis Freeh published were in different orders, with dates jumping around every which way. It is the contention from PS4RS that the subject and CC lines may have been altered as well. We shall see, as they seek the IT Department at PSU to release ALL of the emails from these men. However, be that as it may: “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.” Now all you have to do, is to prove that "the coach" means "Joe." To prove what "touched base" means. In my book, that is so vague, especially "touched base," as to be rendered completely meaningless. In all of the other times in which Paterno is referenced by these men, he is very consistently called "Joe." In interviewing virtually all of the current football players and last year's coaches as well as many of the past players, it is virtually unanimous that everyone refers to Paterno as either "Joe" or "JoePa." Never "coach." And finally, this email was used to nail Spanier as a liar. Not to nail Paterno for knowing anything about the pre-Victim 2 circumstances. As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”h Schultz forwarded Curley’s note to Harmon,161 who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162 The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno. Again, Paterno is never just simply called "coach." Not to mention, if the previous email you referred to is titled "Joe" and therefore, "coach" is supposed to mean Joe; then obviously couldn't an email title "Jerry" in which the word "coach" is supposed to mean Jerry? But even IF it truly is supposed to mean "Joe," you can't possibly sit here and tell me that Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. actually means that Joe WAS updated and had all this information. If the emails are proven forged that's one thing. In the meantime, Truther-esque obfuscation aside, if an email is headed "Joe Paterno" and the body of the email speaks of "the coach", it's pretty reasonably obvious that Joe Paterno must be the subject. Second, these emails do nail Paterno. At his grand jury testimony he was asked whether he was ever aware of any other sex-with-little-boys-type allegations against Sandusky aside from the McQueary incident. He said no. Obviously that's untrue if he'd been kept abreast of the 1998 investigation. Further, you are wrong. People inside the organization did refer to Paterno as "Coach" occasionally. Here's the first example I found, from McQueary's grand jury testimony: Quote: Q Had you -- prior to this, how many times had you called Joe Paterno at 7, 7:30 in the morning on a weekend? A Never. Q What did you tell him? A I said, Coach, I need to come to your house and talk to you about something. Q Did he respond? A Yes. He said, I don't have a job for you. And if that's what it's about, don't bother coming over. I said, Coach, it's about something much more serious, I need to come over and see you. And he said, okay. Well, you better come over then. Q Did you, in fact, do that? A Yes, I did, right away. Originally Posted by Nihilianth No. It wasn't. You lied about what was said. Yes it was and no I didn't, neener neener. Originally Posted by Nihilianth You have conveniently left out the rest of the email. But this is interesting, as once again, you display a profound lack of reading comprehension skills. You saw the word "we" and mistakenly assumed that meant that him and Paterno agreed to not report Sandusky. Clearly that is not the case. Wrong. It never occurred to me that "we" referred to the author and Paterno; in fact it's unavoidably obvious that "we" is referring to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier because they are the ones who had "decided on" the course of action (I even explicitly mentioned this in my post right before the quote - read the post again). The point is, those three had decided to turn Sandusky in, but after talking to Joe Paterno about it, Curley had a change of heart. If the discussion with Paterno was not a deciding factor in Curley's sudden reticence to turn in Sandusky, it would not have made sense to qualify his decision by invoking Paterno's name. That is why Paterno is implicated - as Freeh says, nothing happened between the original settling on turning in Sandusky and Curly suddenly changing his mind except for that talk with Joe Paterno. It's rather elementary. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Then you are even further being dishonest. Motive matters. Try telling that to any court in the land, that motive does not matter. It puts a whole new perspective on things, once you know the motives. It appears that Joe's motives were exactly as Animal put it: He didn't want to interfere with an investigation! Joe himself even stated that! I'm not a court; nor is JREF. Originally Posted by Nihilianth That wasn't Joe's motives! That was Curley and Schultz's motives! I said "the motives". I didn't say "Paterno's motives". But it hardly matters. Originally Posted by Nihilianth First, you have no idea what their working relationships were like. Just because they were speaking in "private" doesn't mean they weren't being totally truthful, or "confident." Second, I forgot about what was written in the Freeh Report about this. You claimed that they were emailing in private, and that there was no intention to get out. Obviously, you are writing these men down to be incredibly stupid. They were not. They were highly intelligent men. Intelligent enough to realize that these emails COULD get out. Intelligent enough to, as Freeh puts it: The February 26, 2001 email and related emails that follow among Curley, Schultz, and Spanier over the next two days are unique from the hundreds of thousands of other emails reviewed by the Special investigative Counsel. These messages are the rare documents where proper names and identifying information are replaced with generic references. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that Curley communicated in "code" in sensitive emails because the Athletic Department was notorious for leaks. When Curley communicated about other sensitive issues involving Sandusky, however, he did not use "code" words. For example, emails written between February 25 and February 28, 2001, refer to Sandusky as the "subject," the "person involved," or "the person." The emails refer to the Second Mile as "his organization" and the Department of Public Welfare as "the other organization" and the "other one." This contrasts with emails written in 1998, concerning the police investigation, in which Curley and Schultz frequently referred to Sandusky as "Jerry." This also contrasts with emails written in 1999, concerning Sandysky's retirement, where Curley, Schultz, and Spanier frequently referred to Sandusy as "Jerry." So no. They were NOT speaking in private, nor in full confidence. Now who's stretching things? The whole purpose of speaking in "code" is so they could speak in confidence without incriminating each other by their words. Is there any proof these individuals were all lying to each other? Is there any reason that one of them would make up a consultation with Paterno about the situation, which could so easily be exposed as a lie?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

23rd August 2012, 08:56 AM	#729
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	Nihilianth Quote: They were highly intelligent men. But not intelligent enough to know how to properly handle reports of felony child abuse?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

23rd August 2012, 09:07 AM	#730
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Nihilianth: I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position. It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. *Maybe* they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys .. It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior. The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper. Exactly. To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

23rd August 2012, 09:19 AM	#731
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Exactly. To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life. And those involved allowed Jerry Sandusky access to PSU football facilities and events until his indictment last fall. What did these folks imagine he was doing with the young boys he flew to the games? They knew who/what he was since at least 1992. There's a hilarious Paterno soundbite out there in which he says "I can't hear a word you're sayin.!" No ****.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 09:21 AM.

23rd August 2012, 10:30 AM	#732
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by Resume And those involved allowed Jerry Sandusky access to PSU football facilities and events until his indictment last fall. What did these folks imagine he was doing with the young boys he flew to the games? They knew who/what he was since at least 1992. There's a hilarious Paterno soundbite out there in which he says "I can't hear a word you're sayin.!" No ****. There is a reason Penn State did not rename the Paterno Library. The name serves as a reminder for everyone inside the library to keep quiet...
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

23rd August 2012, 11:16 AM	#733
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,595	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 There is a reason Penn State did not rename the Paterno Library. The name serves as a reminder for everyone inside the library to keep quiet... I'm surprised that they actually removed the statue of Paterno, instead of just turning it to look the other way.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

23rd August 2012, 11:49 AM	#734
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Resume You type a lot, which shouts to me of obfuscation. Joe Paterno was an abject failure in protecting children from the predations of his assistant, former or not; he succeeded for a number of years however in protecting his name and his football program. The only nonsense being parroted is by the Joe Pa sycophants attempting to shout down the evidence of that failure. I think that you will ultimately fail in that yourself. So, like, you aren't going to respond because "tl;dr." Ok. Great. I didn't obfuscate, you did. I remained exactly on topic, and have cited quite a few things, and given logical reasonings behind my arguments. You merely say that "Joe failed" without any backup, nor at least logical explanation. Quote: ETA: I would suggest you talk to some veteran sports reporters who cover division 1 fooball; ask them what those coaches know about their players, assistant coaches, and programs. (pro-tip: everything) Veteran sportswriters? Uh. Ooookkkaayyyy...... First, coaches do not know everything about their players or assistants. Division 1 sports teams generall have 80+ players, with dozens of assistant coaches. You are telling me that a head coach knows "everything" about "everyone" on their team, after spending between a couple of months up to four years teaching 18 - 22 year-olds how to play football at the top level? For your information, the PARENTS of kids....and most parents certainly do not have 80 kids....don;t even know everything about their own children! Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter?

23rd August 2012, 12:09 PM	#735
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	[quote=Nihilianth;8561134] Double post deleted.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 12:13 PM.

23rd August 2012, 12:11 PM	#736
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth So, like, you aren't going to respond because "tl;dr." Ok. Great. I didn't obfuscate, you did. I remained exactly on topic, and have cited quite a few things, and given logical reasonings behind my arguments. You merely say that "Joe failed" without any backup, nor at least logical explanation. Veteran sportswriters? Uh. Ooookkkaayyyy...... First, coaches do not know everything about their players or assistants. Division 1 sports teams generall have 80+ players, with dozens of assistant coaches. You are telling me that a head coach knows "everything" about "everyone" on their team, after spending between a couple of months up to four years teaching 18 - 22 year-olds how to play football at the top level? For your information, the PARENTS of kids....and most parents certainly do not have 80 kids....don;t even know everything about their own children! Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter? Your naivete is showing again. Or is it your sycophancy? No, it's both. Joe Paterno allowed a man he knew to be a sexual abuser of children in and around his football program for ten years after making that discovery. Big time fail. Veteran sportswriters/broadcasters will fill in you obvious lack in regards to the dictatorships that division 1 football can facilitate. If you think Paterno was any different you are ostriching.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Time frame error

23rd August 2012, 12:26 PM	#737
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Checkmite If the emails are proven forged that's one thing. In the meantime, Truther-esque obfuscation aside, if an email is headed "Joe Paterno" and the body of the email speaks of "the coach", it's pretty reasonably obvious that Joe Paterno must be the subject. It wasn't titled "Joe Paterno." It was titled "Joe." And that one email was with the title of "Joe." And inside of said email, it said: "I touched base with the coach." Now, you are obfuscating, because I asked you a question, which I shall restate: Can you please provide the definition of "touched base" in this instance? Can you please cite exactly what was said when Curly "touched base with the coach?" You accuse me of obfuscation, yet I asked a direct question that was entirely pertinent to the email which you have cited. Please answer my questions. Also, since you completely ignored my previous post, I will ask you yet another question. If an email is titled "Joe," and it contained a subject "coach," that means "coach" refers to Joe. That is your assumption, correct? So, what about another email titled "Jerry" in which they again, use the subject "coach?" You come to the conclusion that it means Joe, despite the email having the title of "Jerry?" Contradiction much? Quote: Second, these emails do nail Paterno. At his grand jury testimony he was asked whether he was ever aware of any other sex-with-little-boys-type allegations against Sandusky aside from the McQueary incident. He said no. Obviously that's untrue if he'd been kept abreast of the 1998 investigation. Not true. The emails do NOT nail Paterno. Paterno did state that he "had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in my presence" during his GJ testimony. Now, the emails do not even come CLOSE to proving Paterno wrong. Curly "touched base with the coach," if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "The coach wants an update," again, if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "Touching base" with Paterno could mean just about anything under the sun. Curly could have gone to Joe and said: "Hey. Sandusky is currently under investigation by the DA." Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. Say it. The problem is, that not even CURLY HIMSELF was given full updates, nor even Schultz! The problem is, that investigators are not supposed to release detailed information about crimes where minors are involved! In short: You have nothing on Paterno. Freeh has nothing on Paterno. There is nothing on Paterno, except for three extremely vague emails, two of which we have no idea if Joe even was referenced! Quote: Further, you are wrong. People inside the organization did refer to Paterno as "Coach" occasionally. Here's the first example I found, from McQueary's grand jury testimony: Touche! The first actual intelligent argument you have made. I concede that point. However, it doesn't change the fact that "coach" is a pretty vague term, especially when a football team has about a dozen or more coaches and former coaches. Quote: Yes it was and no I didn't, neener neener. Anyone with half a brain can see that you lied about what was written in an email. I proved you wrong. And rather than admit you were wrong, this is the ten-year-old reply I get in return. Talk about an insult. Quote: Wrong. It never occurred to me that "we" referred to the author and Paterno; Except that it did. As evidenced by the string of arguments upthread. Quote: in fact it's unavoidably obvious that "we" is referring to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier because they are the ones who had "decided on" the course of action (I even explicitly mentioned this in my post right before the quote - read the post again). Right. I already talked about that. Quote: The point is, those three had decided to turn Sandusky in, but after talking to Joe Paterno about it, Curley had a change of heart. Not "after talking with Joe Paterno." It was "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. You seem to think that Curley was Joe's lackey, and Curley was helpless against Joe. That is so irrevocably and demonstrably false. Curley was a very powerful individual. He had his own mind, his own motivations, and he was Paterno's BOSS. You really have no idea who these men are. It is incredibly obvious. Freeh really has no idea who these men were. It is incredibly obvious. Had he INTERVIEWED them, he might have gotten an inkling as to what these men were like. But he didn't. He utterly failed in that regard. Quote: If the discussion with Paterno was not a deciding factor in Curley's sudden reticence to turn in Sandusky, it would not have made sense to qualify his decision by invoking Paterno's name. That is why Paterno is implicated - as Freeh says, nothing happened between the original settling on turning in Sandusky and Curly suddenly changing his mind except for that talk with Joe Paterno. It's rather elementary. Again, you jump to an unsupported conclusion. Again, this is an email which did not state what Joe knew, nor what his position was. Curly, as an individual, as Paterno's boss, as a man with his own motivations and his own drive, could very easily have "thought it over" first, come to his conclusion, THEN spoke with Paterno. And it could be that Paterno objected to the change of plan to not turn Sandusky in. Hell, it could be that they didn't really discuss anything at all. It could be that Curley purposely invoked Paterno's name, for the sake of seeking help from Schultz in supporting his idea. In short: anything could have happened with the lack of proper evidence. I would place my money on the idea that Curly changed his mind DESPITE what Joe might have said. I am willing to place my money on Joe objecting to Curley's ideas. Quote: I'm not a court; nor is JREF. And yet, you are extremely good at character assassination. I've heard that same exact excuse before: "I am not a court." I read it as: "I am too lazy to conduct my own research," or "I do not have enough evidence to support my idea, but I am committed now because the knee-jerk reaction I had initially, and dammit, I have to save face! Pride is on the line!" I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes! Quote: I said "the motives". I didn't say "Paterno's motives". But it hardly matters. But I am talking about Paterno. My OP in this thread stated as much. Quote: Now who's stretching things? The whole purpose of speaking in "code" is so they could speak in confidence without incriminating each other by their words. Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated: These were private emails not meant for public consumption, in which the authors had no reason but to be honest with each other; they freely admitted in their communications that what they were doing would have bad consequences if they were "caught". There's no gray area in "I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all". Motives are unimportant and don't need to be interpreted. All that's important is right there in plain English. Quote: Is there any proof these individuals were all lying to each other? Is there any reason that one of them would make up a consultation with Paterno about the situation, which could so easily be exposed as a lie? Oh, so instead of answering similar questions I asked about your direct accusations, you instead start asking me questions about "proof" for my direct accusations. No. there is no proof they lied to eachother. Which is exactly my point: You have no idea in what context these emails were written to eachother. You made an assumption: That they were writing "in full confidence, and there was no reason for them to not be honest." You have no proof of that statement, and I merely asserted a different, quite possible, scenario for your claim.

23rd August 2012, 12:33 PM	#738
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes! Save the faux rage for a more credulous crew. Your hero failed. As in "I should have done more." ETA: Unless he was lying when he said that as well.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 01:24 PM.

23rd August 2012, 01:45 PM	#739
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth Second, what in the heck do SPORTSWRITERS know about legal proceedings, child abuse, and more specifically, the PSU case? What does what you have said even matter? Do yourself a favor and Google Eldon Ham. Sportswriter and attorney, he has interesting things to say about all this. Including the beloved Joe/Pa.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135

23rd August 2012, 02:39 PM	#740
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	Originally Posted by Nihilianth It wasn't titled "Joe Paterno." It was titled "Joe." And that one email was with the title of "Joe." And inside of said email, it said: "I touched base with the coach." The report says it was captioned "Joe Paterno". I already quoted it. Assuming it only said Joe, what other coaches named Joe could it be referring to? Originally Posted by Nihilianth Now, you are obfuscating, because I asked you a question, which I shall restate: Can you please provide the definition of "touched base" in this instance? Can you please cite exactly what was said when Curly "touched base with the coach?" You accuse me of obfuscation, yet I asked a direct question that was entirely pertinent to the email which you have cited. Please answer my questions. Curley did not provide a transcript in his email. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Also, since you completely ignored my previous post, I will ask you yet another question. If an email is titled "Joe," and it contained a subject "coach," that means "coach" refers to Joe. That is your assumption, correct? So, what about another email titled "Jerry" in which they again, use the subject "coach?" You come to the conclusion that it means Joe, despite the email having the title of "Jerry?" Contradiction much? Only if you purposefully ignore context in order to fabricate a "way out" for Paterno. For one thing, in that email they don't use "coach", they use the proper name "Coach" (see below). For another, Sandusky had already been personally brought up to date by the investigators themselves, so it would not make sense for it to have been him asking Schultz (via Curley) for an update. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Not true. The emails do NOT nail Paterno. Paterno did state that he "had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in my presence" during his GJ testimony. Now, the emails do not even come CLOSE to proving Paterno wrong. Curly "touched base with the coach," if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "The coach wants an update," again, if we assume "the coach" is Joe Paterno. "Touching base" with Paterno could mean just about anything under the sun. Curly could have gone to Joe and said: "Hey. Sandusky is currently under investigation by the DA." Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. Say it. The problem is, that not even CURLY HIMSELF was given full updates, nor even Schultz! The problem is, that investigators are not supposed to release detailed information about crimes where minors are involved! In short: You have nothing on Paterno. Freeh has nothing on Paterno. There is nothing on Paterno, except for three extremely vague emails, two of which we have no idea if Joe even was referenced! They weren't given "full information" about the investigation, but they were already fully aware that it was an allegation involving sexual impropriety with a child. You're reaching. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Touche! The first actual intelligent argument you have made. I concede that point. However, it doesn't change the fact that "coach" is a pretty vague term, especially when a football team has about a dozen or more coaches and former coaches. There were many coaches, but there is only evidence of one of the Penn State staff referred to with the proper name "Coach". Originally Posted by Nihilianth Anyone with half a brain can see that you lied about what was written in an email. I proved you wrong. And rather than admit you were wrong, this is the ten-year-old reply I get in return. Talk about an insult. Because that's all that particular puerile tactic deserved. Should we have a vote amongst folks here with a half a brain or more? Of course it was a paraphrase; and it was a pretty darn close one, I might add. The sentence I made up contained the same information as the actual quote. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Except that it did. As evidenced by the string of arguments upthread. I think the string of arguments upthread supports me, not you. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Not "after talking with Joe Paterno." It was "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. See what I mean? Can you not see that this is blatant semantic wrangling of the highest order? "After talking with Joe Paterno" and "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe" are functionally the same. The information doesn't change: after having had a conversation with Paterno, he changed his mind. Originally Posted by Nihilianth You seem to think that Curley was Joe's lackey, and Curley was helpless against Joe. That is so irrevocably and demonstrably false. Curley was a very powerful individual. He had his own mind, his own motivations, and he was Paterno's BOSS. That's what many who worked with them or were familiar with them seemed to think. The allegation that Joe was the "real" person running things and every decision had to be run by him was not invented by Freeh; it was made in the very first days of the breaking story by people who knew Paterno, long, long before Freeh and his report. The people who allege it said it was common knowledge. Do you have special information that these individuals are all mistaken? Originally Posted by Nihilianth Again, you jump to an unsupported conclusion. Again, this is an email which did not state what Joe knew, nor what his position was. Curly, as an individual, as Paterno's boss, as a man with his own motivations and his own drive, could very easily have "thought it over" first, come to his conclusion, THEN spoke with Paterno. And it could be that Paterno objected to the change of plan to not turn Sandusky in. Hell, it could be that they didn't really discuss anything at all. It could be that Curley purposely invoked Paterno's name, for the sake of seeking help from Schultz in supporting his idea. In short: anything could have happened with the lack of proper evidence. I would place my money on the idea that Curly changed his mind DESPITE what Joe might have said. I am willing to place my money on Joe objecting to Curley's ideas. I'm also thinking Joe did object to Curley's ideas - the ones he had firmly settled on with Schultz and Spanier before "talking it over with Joe". I think that, just as he interfered with and overrode the school's choice in punishing a player who was failing academically, Joe Paterno interfered with the school's decision to turn Sandusky over to the cops. There was precedent for Paterno to interfere in such ways. Further, Paterno had the means and opportunity to do so in this case. And yet, you are extremely good at character assassination. I've heard that same exact excuse before: "I am not a court." I read it as: "I am too lazy to conduct my own research," or "I do not have enough evidence to support my idea, but I am committed now because the knee-jerk reaction I had initially, and dammit, I have to save face! Pride is on the line!" [/quote] I was referring to the importance of motive to myself; I have no idea what this screed is referring to. If Paterno was in fact involved with the decision not to go to the police, whether by suggestion or feedback or order, then to hell with him no matter what the "motive" behind that situation was. There was no possible motive that could have abrogated the complete life-failure that decision or suggestion or feedback represented. Originally Posted by Nihilianth I am more than willing to say that Paterno is guilty as sin. But not without the requisite evidence that proves him to be guilty as sin. The Truth is more important than anything else. Children were raped, for christ-sakes! We can't conclude that Paterno was involved because children were raped for christ-sakes? That is a non sequitur. Do the victims suffer more if Paterno is wrongly implicated as an enabler along with the rest of the gang? Originally Posted by Nihilianth Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally stated: These were private emails not meant for public consumption, in which the authors had no reason but to be honest with each other; they freely admitted in their communications that what they were doing would have bad consequences if they were "caught". There's no gray area in "I talked it over with Paterno and decided that we will not contact children's services after all". Motives are unimportant and don't need to be interpreted. All that's important is right there in plain English. They were indeed private. The prudent precaution of disguising their words in case they ended up public is not the same as saying they intended or expected them to become public. Originally Posted by Nihilianth Oh, so instead of answering similar questions I asked about your direct accusations, you instead start asking me questions about "proof" for my direct accusations. Turnabout is fair play. Originally Posted by Nihilianth No. there is no proof they lied to eachother. Which is exactly my point: You have no idea in what context these emails were written to eachother. You made an assumption: That they were writing "in full confidence, and there was no reason for them to not be honest." You have no proof of that statement, and I merely asserted a different, quite possible, scenario for your claim. We do know what context they were written in: the context of a sex abuse investigation, amongst men who freely agreed that their actions could bring negative consequences if they were found out. Private mails about the authors' own actions are the equivalent of a taped conversation. Unless the things said in them can be demonstrated to be untrue, there's no rational reason to think they're not true. And it's always this way: if someone in an email says "yes, I want you to kill my wife", that's evidence of intent. The investigators don't have to "prove he wasn't lying" in order to proceed with that. The only justification you have for suspecting the emails' untruthfulness is because they have to be false in order for Paterno to be innocent.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

23rd August 2012, 04:34 PM	#741
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by Nihilianth So let me get this straight. You are saying they were "willfully wrong?" Yes. They did an action with they were well aware (which anyone in their positions who isn't an utter moron would know) was not calling the police but which they were aware they could claim was like 'calling the police'. Only it is obvious that it was not the same, it was not like it, and that it isn't plausible that they didn't know these things. At best it was passing the buck, but for Joe specifically that's not even the most likely explanation. Quote: About something which they actually did not have the information of what his duties were? That's likely untrue, but let's say it is true. Congratulations, you just condemned these failure of men as well. If they didn't know what his duties were, then going to him to report what they knew was even more unreasonable. "We thought he was the police and it didn't seem odd to us that the police didn't get involved and Sanduski wasn't arrested," is crazy. Quote: Are you actually, in effect, trying to argue that they lied? Yeah, they did an act with they could claim was going the proper authorities even though they knew it was not. They knew they weren't going to the police and to say otherwise is a lie. A very well motivated and transparent lie. Quote: Now we are at an impasse with the testimony of Mike and John McQueary. You essentially are saying they lied, because they were "willfully wrong," while refusing to accept the idea that perhaps they just simply did not know specifically what Gary Schultz's duties ACTUALLY were. They had a long time to realize their mistake. I do not accept the idea that they could have not known what Schultz's duties were, and that Schultz couldn't have informed them of it, and that they didn't follow up on why the rapist wasn't arrested yet, or that the police had not interviewed them. That you believe these things is sad. Quote: Great. Now I know that you, tyr_13, care not at all for a discussion based on facts. Rather, you only care about expressing your own opinions, not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Right back at you. You're defense of these men isn't backed by evidence, and is very poor argument ad verbosity with red herrings, cherry picking, and the traditional fallacies of the desperate true believer. You're wrong repeatedly and use invalid reasoning in defense of rape enablers. Yes, that's emotional language and true. Quote: Could the McQueary's have lied? Absolutely. But I see no reason to make such baseless accusations. None. Unless you can state exactly why they should have known, and why they were responsible for not knowing. If nobody ever taught you that 1+1=2, why should you be responsible for never learning that? Ludicrous. They should have known and if they didn't they should have found out. Both were expected and trivial tasks for them, and a moral obligation with the sexual assault of children. It's something any reasonable person would have known or done unless they wanted to cover up and still have denyability. Sadly for them it's not plausible. Quote: In any case, once again, you ignore the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not Gary Schultz was head of police. It doesn't matter, because he was the appropriate person to go to with this information under state law. No, it does matter. This is again ludicrous. Quote: I believe I have already answered that. You stating that following the law does not equate to doing the morally right action. Which is logically correct. But the opposite is also logically correct: Following the law CAN be the morally correct path to follow. But it absolutely was not. Duh. Quote: The poster Animal has stated the REASON why it was morally acceptable to go to Schultz. I posted evidence to support Animal's notion that it was morally acceptable. We both backed up our arguments. You have yet to do so. You only merely continue to state the fact that following the law is not always morally acceptable. Only doing the law minimal was not acceptable. Your reason is wrong. Your support meaningless. Claiming something is 'support' doesn't make it so. Your arguments have been repeatedly torn apart. Quote: You have failed to stop the rapes as well. No matter what your motivations or character, that is indisputable. Of course they failed to stop the rapes. Now you have to prove how much they knew about "rapes" occurring, and the decisions being made by those above them. They were in a position and could have easily and directly done something to stop the rapes. Your equivalency is false as false can be. They knew things including sexual assault were happening according to all evidence. You don't care. Quote: Which brings me to another point: Joe did not know anything about "rapes." To make such a comment, completely and utterly ignores the fact that one of the charges Sandusky was found "not guilty" on, was the charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Victim #2. The only "evidence" that Schultz presented that Paterno knew anything about are three emails: 2 of them before victim 2, and the one ABOUT victim 2. All three emails were EXTREMELY vague about what Paterno knew. At best. It wasn't even evidence that Paterno knew anything to begin with. The only evidence of what Paterno knew, is the fact that we absolutely know that McQueary told Joe what he saw in the showers about Victim 2: Which was not "rape." Therefore, the statement: They failed to stop the rapes. No matter what else you believe about their motivations or characters, this is indisputable. makes about as much sense as saying that YOU failed to stop the rapes. No matter what YOUR motivations or character, this is indisputable. Sure it is indisputable they "failed to stop the rapes." The fact that multiple rapes occurred for....god knows how many years, it is indisputable that virtually every single human being on the planet "failed to stop the rapes" during that time. You knew nothing about this incident at all before the story broke. There is no reason why you can possibly be at fault for rapes of young boys occurring at Penn State University. It doesn't even make any sense, as you are not an omniscient mind-reader. You are a human being without supernatural powers. That's not what the evidence shows. You're not following the evidence. You don't care about truth. Your false equivalencies are sad. You have no credibility because you embrace such obvious foolishness. Quote: No it doesn't. Because you cannot acknowledge the fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in the fields of both child abuse, and occupational therapy. You continue to insist that Joe Paterno knew so much, without ever once specifying what he knew, when he knew it, and showing the evidence that he covered it up. Actually, my fault. You did specify what you SAY he knew. But you continue to fail to provide the requisite evidence for your accusations. Irrelevant. The law is not morality. They failed morally. Hard. On multiple levels. You can't even defend them on one moral level. The pathetic thing is that football is the motivation making all this delusional fantasy making. At least Truthers and such have government and freedom and such as motivation. You have football 'heroes'. Pathetic.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

23rd August 2012, 04:38 PM	#742
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Nihilianth But not intelligent enough to know how to properly handle reports of felony child abuse? So you are trying to say they were stupid? That they failed to follow state law? Plenty of very highly intelligent people break the law all the time.

23rd August 2012, 04:39 PM	#743
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Exactly. To sum up that email, it basically says "We don't want to get anyone outside the organization involved in this matter, and we want to keep it in house." That line of thinking is what enabled Sandusky to carry on raping kids. When it comes to child abuse, there is no "Let's just confront him personally", or "Let's just see if we can get him help". The only option you have is contact the authorities immediately and hope the man doing the child raping is thrown in jail for the rest of his life. Just because you place a bunh of words in quotes, doesn't mean that's what it says.

23rd August 2012, 04:53 PM	#744
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Resume Your naivete is showing again. Or is it your sycophancy? No, it's both. Joe Paterno allowed a man he knew to be a sexual abuser of children in and around his football program for ten years after making that discovery. Big time fail. juding by all the responses: "Joe Paterno was an evil bastard that allowed a child rapist to continue what he was doing," without actual cited sources, is a huge fail. I thought this was supposed to be a web site dedicated to skepticism? I thought that the idea of being a skeptic is that you question an established position, and you do not draw any conclusions without supporting evidence. You keep saying the same things over and over again, and yet, you never provide any sources. Or you do, but the sources are so obviously vague IRT Joe as to be utterly useless. Skepticism: Quote: Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[4] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.[5] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[6] Religious skepticism, on the other hand is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".[7] Most scientists are empirical skeptics, who admit the possibility of knowledge based on evidence, but hold that new evidence may always overturn these findings. Contents See: Philosophical skepticism. Quote: Veteran sportswriters/broadcasters will fill in you obvious lack in regards to the dictatorships that division 1 football can facilitate. If you think Paterno was any different you are ostriching. What is with the moving goalposts? You never said ANYTHING about Division 1 football coaches "being dictators!" You said that "Division 1 football coaches know everything about their players and assistants!" THAT is what I responded to! Holy. My. God. I...am baffled. The lack of honesty is beyond amazing here. Seriously. This is the very last time I make this request, but I ask in all sincerity....no, I plead with all of being....is that you remain honest, use whatever evidence is at your disposal, along with logical explanations as to your accusation against Joseph Vincent Paterno. And ONLY Joseph Vincent Paterno. (The other men involved, the evidence against them is very strong.) So please. Don't change the meaning of what you said. Please do not change the meaning of the evidence. Especially do not use your own words to describe what the evidence says. Use ACTUAL QUOTES.

23rd August 2012, 04:55 PM	#745
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Resume Do yourself a favor and Google Eldon Ham. Sportswriter and attorney, he has interesting things to say about all this. Including the beloved Joe/Pa. So he has studies and scientific proof that Division 1 Football coaches have all this mystical ability to know "everything about all their players and assistant coaches?" Really? Shouldn't thins guy have a Nobel Prize of some sort by now?

23rd August 2012, 04:58 PM	#746
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	Originally Posted by Nihilianth So you are trying to say they were stupid? That they failed to follow state law? Plenty of very highly intelligent people break the law all the time. Sorry I confused you.. I was responding to your claim of how intelligent these men are; with which I would agree. They would clearly know how to deal with felony child abuse, but chose to cover it up. You really need to get past this " following state law " crap .. Decent people will try to do the right thing, and not even bother to try to determine if they are following the law or not.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 23rd August 2012 at 04:59 PM.

23rd August 2012, 04:58 PM	#747
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth <head-in-sand blather removed> You're wasting your time here. You should be out helping OJ find the real killer.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135

23rd August 2012, 05:00 PM	#748
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth So he has studies and scientific proof that Division 1 Football coaches have all this mystical ability to know "everything about all their players and assistant coaches?" Really? Shouldn't thins guy have a Nobel Prize of some sort by now? As Joe said "I should have done more." No **** genius.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 05:01 PM.

23rd August 2012, 05:55 PM	#749
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Checkmite The report says it was captioned "Joe Paterno". I already quoted it. Assuming it only said Joe, what other coaches named Joe could it be referring to? just because something has a specific title, does not mean a generic name refers to someone specific. Besides, I never claimed that "coach" DIDN'T refer to Joe. It doesn't even really matter in any case, because "touched base with the coach" is far too vague to determine exactly what information was transferred to "Joe." Also, you yet again, failed to answer my question IRT the email title "Jerry." You assume "coach" refers to "Joe" in an email titled "Jerry." I'll ask what you asked: "What other coaches named Jerry could it be referring to? If you are going to use certain standards for one email, it is contradictory if you do not use the same standards for another. Quote: Curley did not provide a transcript in his email. thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. You finally admitted that Curley did not provide a transcript. That is a rather shockingly important peice of detail that seems to always get overlooked in the haste of angry, emotionally-filled, knee-jerk reactions. Curley did no provide a transcript. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. You cannot make claims about what exactly Paterno knew, nor when he knew it. Quote: Only if you purposefully ignore context in order to fabricate a "way out" for Paterno. No. I am not ignoring "context." Quote: For one thing, in that email they don't use "coach", they use the proper name "Coach" (see below). For another, Sandusky had already been personally brought up to date by the investigators themselves, so it would not make sense for it to have been him asking Schultz (via Curley) for an update. Sandusky was "updated?" How do you know? What "updates" was Sandusky given? He couldn't ask for MORE updates, even if he was updated once? If you were being investigated for a crime, doesn't matter what, wouldn't it make sense for you to always be curious about any "updates" assuming you knew you were under investigation? Quote: They weren't given "full information" about the investigation, but they were already fully aware that it was an allegation involving sexual impropriety with a child. You're reaching. "They." Who is "They?" Certainly Curley and Schultz knew the allegations. That is clear based on the emails. But what about Joe? What did he know? Please cite a source which confirms exactly what Joe knew and when he knew it. I am not reaching here. I am asking for how you know the things you seem to know based on your accusations against Joe Paterno. Quote: There were many coaches, but there is only evidence of one of the Penn State staff referred to with the proper name "Coach". Ummm...in the English language, you always start a new sentence with a capital letter.... However, whether it is "coach" or "Coach" doesn't matter. It is referring to a human being that both Curley and Schultz understands whom it is referring to. Which means it could be capitalized, but it does not tell US whom it is. Anyone could be capitalized. (This is a side issue, the capitalization thing, that is pure obfuscation.) Quote: Because that's all that particular puerile tactic deserved. Should we have a vote amongst folks here with a half a brain or more? Of course it was a paraphrase; and it was a pretty darn close one, I might add. The sentence I made up contained the same information as the actual quote. You, sir, are a liar. I am thinking of starting a brand new thread to reveal you as one, recapping this particular line of conversation. You're tactic now is to confuse the line of discussion to the point of making it an entirely new conversation altogether. Bottom line: You made a highly dishonest attempt to "paraphrase" a very particular email. And you botched it so badly, that I revealed that not only did you attempt to lie about said email, but I also revealed that you took the word "we" completely out of context. As in: "I am uncomfortable with what we have decided was the next step," to mean that "we" means both Paterno and Curley. Words have meaning. Quote: I think the string of arguments upthread supports me, not you. You, sir, are a liar. I revealed you as one twice before: Once about "University police are nothing but a bunch fo rent-a-cops," and again about your botched so-called "paraphrase" attempt of an email. Now, you are attempting to save face. You have quickly revealed yourself of what you are: A liar. (I take that back, about sometimes ad homenims really are appropriate. Credibility matters.) Quote: See what I mean? Can you not see that this is blatant semantic wrangling of the highest order? "After talking with Joe Paterno" and "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe" are functionally the same. The information doesn't change: after having had a conversation with Paterno, he changed his mind. More lies. It does NOT say: "After having had a conversation with Paterno, I changed my mind!" You CANNOT paraphrase like this. The English language does not work that way. I dunno, maybe you aren;t lying. Maybe you just are not a native English speaker. In which case, I should apologize and be more patient with you. But as a native English-speaker who is willing to put him/herself out there and make claims and discuss particular issues, this is unforgivable. Now, what it DOES say, for the SECOND TIME, is: "I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. Again, WORDS MATTER. A whole lot more than you r Quote: That's what many who worked with them or were familiar with them seemed to think. The allegation that Joe was the "real" person running things and every decision had to be run by him was not invented by Freeh; it was made in the very first days of the breaking story by people who knew Paterno, long, long before Freeh and his report. The people who allege it said it was common knowledge. Do you have special information that these individuals are all mistaken? Care to site these individuals and their quotes? You sure seem to like to make a lot of work for yourself. Please, you are making unsupported claims. Joe Paterno ran his football team. He did NOT interfere with anything outside of his football team. And Vickey Triponey? She's a vindictive liar with zero credibility. Not even Freeh could bother himself about this woman. Quote: I'm also thinking Joe did object to Curley's ideas - the ones he had firmly settled on with Schultz and Spanier before "talking it over with Joe". Now you are purposely trying to misrepresent what I said. More dishonesty. Quote: I think that, just as he interfered with and overrode the school's choice in punishing a player who was failing academically, Source? Come one now! You can't sit here and just make references to things without citing the source. You can't do that, because anyone can make anything they want up. Quote: Joe Paterno interfered with the school's decision to turn Sandusky over to the cops. Source? You need to cite your sources. Quote: There was precedent for Paterno to interfere in such ways. Source? You need to cite your sources. Quote: Further, Paterno had the means and opportunity to do so in this case. All coaches, faculty, and staff have the means and the opportunity to interfere with anything related to the school. Quote: I was referring to the importance of motive to myself; I have no idea what this screed is referring to. If Paterno was in fact involved with the decision not to go to the police, whether by suggestion or feedback or order, then to hell with him no matter what the "motive" behind that situation was. There was no possible motive that could have abrogated the complete life-failure that decision or suggestion or feedback represented. That is exactly what I am talking about. You are, again, attacking someone's character. I ask for you to provide sources and logical feedback, you respond with: "I am not a court." Go figure. Quote: We can't conclude that Paterno was involved because children were raped for christ-sakes? That is a non sequitur. Do the victims suffer more if Paterno is wrongly implicated as an enabler along with the rest of the gang? So NOW you try and bring out a logical fallacy, and yet, your arguments are so chock-full of them, it's beyond crazy. I never made the claim that the victims suffer more. I never said that! Yet again, mor dishonesty being displayed here! What I said was that the Truth is important. The truth behind the Holocaust is important. No, it doesn;t somehow make the victims suffer more if the average German citizen were implicated as enablers. Doesn't make seeking the Truth any less important. Quote: They were indeed private. No. They were not. I even cited the Freeh Report which proves this notion false. Quote: The prudent precaution of disguising their words in case they ended up public is not the same as saying they intended or expected them to become public. Sure, they expected them to become public. I already stated a quote directly from the Freeh Report which shows that Curley knew full-well that email leaks in the athletic department are common. Quote: Turnabout is fair play. you are a dishonest jerk. I asked you specific questions, you refused to answer them, obfuscate, and make all sorts of excuses, then think you have the right to question ME? I shall place you on ignore. I am finished with you. So have at it. Administrators may think this is an ad hominem, and give me a yellow card. I fully accept said warning.

23rd August 2012, 06:07 PM	#750
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Nihilianth: I can't imagine why you would post something like that in defense of your position. It's all about sweeping things under the rug, and getting professional help for Sandusky for chrisake ! Nothing about the victims. *Maybe* they would inform the other organization if Sandusky didn't cooperate .. Organizations that were the source of Sandusky's boy-toys .. It doesn't appear Sandusky got his professional help - did they ever engage him? I doesn't look like they let the organizations Sandusky was involved with, were informed about their knowledge or suspicions regarding his behavior. The whole atmosphere was about protecting the school and the athletic department; even about protecting Sandusky, but nothing about the crimes being committed or the victims; and Paterno was in it up to his eyebrows, because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper. I am unsure whether or not you understand the osition I have taken, despite the fact that I stated it quite clearly twice now. I am solely focusing on the accusations against Joe Paterno, and by that extension, the football program. Care to site the source that shows that Paterno "was in it up to his eyebrows?" That is kind of a direct contradiction to your very next statement: "because at the very least, he knew something was going on that could be very bad, and didn't bother to dig deeper." Of course he knew "something was going on that was very bad." Mike McQueary definitely informed him of this fact in 2001. And of course, Paterno should have "bothered to dig deeper." Even Paterno himself admitted that, "In hindsight, I wish I had done more." That is in hindsight. If you look at the law, and from whence it came, it is obvious he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Now it is you turn to say: "But he didn't do the moral thing." I know that is what you are going to say, because at this point, it has become the meme of the year. I already responded to that point. The oster "Animal" responded to it before I did. I backed up what he said with a solid source: Where the PA State Law came from. There has yet to be anyone to either concede the point and agree with me, or provide a valid counterpoint with either logic, or an actual source. Or at least admit they have no logical reason to concede the point, and that they are only going off their gut-feeling that they believe it was morally wrong.

23rd August 2012, 06:10 PM	#751
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by Resume Save the faux rage for a more credulous crew. Your hero failed. As in "I should have done more." ETA: Unless he was lying when he said that as well. Why is it so hard for anyone to be honest? He did not say "I should have done more." he said: "In hindsight, I wish I had done more."

23rd August 2012, 06:34 PM	#752
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth Why is it so hard for anyone to be honest? He did not say "I should have done more." he said: "In hindsight, I wish I had done more." Why is it so hard for you to understand that Joe Paterno wasn't the person you thought he was? Of course you also think that Gary Shultz is the police so I shouldn't expect much. So it goes with sycophants I suppose. ETA: Of course this is giving Paterno the benefit of the doubt. I've no reason to believe a word of this little head nod to "the victims or whatever" as he once put it.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 06:41 PM.

23rd August 2012, 06:43 PM	#753
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth There has yet to be anyone to either concede the point and agree with me, . Wonder why?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135

23rd August 2012, 06:45 PM	#754
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Originally Posted by Nihilianth Of course he knew "something was going on that was very bad." Mike McQueary definitely informed him of this fact in 2001. And he continued to let that monster in and around his program. You need to get out of wherever you are and get a national perspective of this whole scandal. It's all available through any search engine you'd like. But you'll never do that. Instead you'll attempt some sort of play cross-examination routine here that pays no nevermind to the fact that Paterno knew what Sandusky was, and made no real attempt to remove him from PSU culture. You know what, forget it. There will always be the JoePa apologists; in a way they're helpful to highlight all the failures in this mess.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,135	Last edited by Resume; 23rd August 2012 at 06:52 PM.

23rd August 2012, 06:59 PM	#755
Nihilianth Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,227	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Yes. They did an action with they were well aware (which anyone in their positions who isn't an utter moron would know) was not calling the police but which they were aware they could claim was like 'calling the police'. Only it is obvious that it was not the same, it was not like it, and that it isn't plausible that they didn't know these things. At best it was passing the buck, but for Joe specifically that's not even the most likely explanation. I agree. It isn't the most likely explanation for Joe. I merely submitted it as evidence that there is a possibility that it was. However, you can't really claim that full-well who Schultz even was, or what his job was. Regardless, they still did the right thing, as per PA State law. Quote: That's likely untrue, but let's say it is true. Congratulations, you just condemned these failure of men as well. If they didn't know what his duties were, then going to him to report what they knew was even more unreasonable. "We thought he was the police and it didn't seem odd to us that the police didn't get involved and Sanduski wasn't arrested," is crazy. I posted twice now state law IRT reporting child abuse. Besides, not knowing a particular administrator's duties, doesn't change the fact that they knew he was a high-level administrator. Quote: Yeah, they did an act with they could claim was going the proper authorities even though they knew it was not. They knew they weren't going to the police and to say otherwise is a lie. A very well motivated and transparent lie. Ok. You are making a positive claim here. "They knew they were not going to the proper authority," and therefore, "they lied." Now all you have to do, is show me where you got this information from. Quote: They had a long time to realize their mistake. I do not accept the idea that they could have not known what Schultz's duties were, and that Schultz couldn't have informed them of it, and that they didn't follow up on why the rapist wasn't arrested yet, or that the police had not interviewed them. That you believe these things is sad. 1. It is entirely plausible to know that Schultz was a VP...a high-level administrator...without knowing what his duties as "VP of Finance and Business" actually were. 2. Schultz couldn't really inform them of anything, assuming McQueary and Paterno thought he did go to outside authorities. Seeing Sandusky around campus, doesn;t mean an investigation revealed anything. Also, if they thought Schultz went to the police, neither McQueary nor Paterno would be informed of the investigation. It is common practice to not release any info when a minor is involved in a crime. Mcqueary, at least, should have found it strange that an investigator did not come directly to him for some statements. Especially as time went on. It would not be strange if an investigator did not go to Joe, because he didn't witness anything himself, and therefore, would be hearsay. Quote: Right back at you. You're defense of these men isn't backed by evidence, I don't need evidence. You do. You made a positive claim...you are making positive accusations, you need to provide the evidence. It is not my duty to do your work for you. Quote: and is very poor argument ad verbosity with red herrings, What red herrings? Quote: cherry picking, Except that I have NOT quoted any partial posts. I have responded to every single post in this thread. Quote: and the traditional fallacies of the desperate true believer. This reeks of sarcasm. Care to explain? Quote: You're wrong repeatedly Where? I provided the CORRECT quotes, DIRECTLY quoted from emails. (One poster in here was trying to "paraphrase.") I provided a direct link, and directly quoted a very important state law which proves that at least Paterno did nothing illegal. I then provided a direct quote from said state law which shows the "Authority" of where the law comes from, which backs up "Animal's" point about the morality of following the law. Quote: and use invalid reasoning in defense of rape enablers. Asking for evidence, and pointing out the vagueness of said evidence is "invalid reasoning?" And yet again, you call Paterno a "rape enabler." Which means you have to prove that he knew about incidences of "rape." Even a single incident. (Hint: Emails say nothing about what Paterno knew prior to 2001. Sandusky was found "Not Guilty" on the count of "Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse"....or "rape".....of Victim 2.) so at least two things wrong within 9 words I quoted. Quote: Yes, that's emotional language and true. "Emotional language," and "true." Hmmm.....Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one..... Quote: Ludicrous. They should have known and if they didn't they should have found out. I laughed. Pretty hard. Thanks for that. But no. Quote: Both were expected and trivial tasks for them, and a moral obligation with the sexual assault of children. Paterno at least knew of his "Mandated duty to report." Paterno told McQueary whom to report to. McQueary did so. It was a high-level administrator, which McQueary knew. He knew Schultz oversaw the department which contained the police. Quote: It's something any reasonable person would have known or done unless they wanted to cover up and still have denyability. Sadly for them it's not plausible. Someone does not know the statistics regarding the reporting of child abuse. And on that point, Paterno and McQueary did FAR more than the VAST majority of "reasonable people" would have done. It would be funny, if it weren't such a serious topic. Quote: No, it does matter. This is again ludicrous. Alighty then, why do you not travel to PA, and advise the Pennsylvania State Congress, the Occupational Health Department, and Child Protective Services, which devised state law, which agrees with me that they did go to the correct person that they are all "ludicrous?" Then proceed to tell them exactly what how the law should be written, and done so in a way as to maximize the chance to obtain a criminal conviction for child molesters. Quote: But it absolutely was not. Duh. Well. You certainly have ME convinced. In the face of the reasons behind WHY the law was written, and the Authority from whence the law came from, your logical and evidential support against it is: "Duh." Quote: Only doing the law minimal was not acceptable. Your reason is wrong. Your support meaningless. Claiming something is 'support' doesn't make it so. Your arguments have been repeatedly torn apart. Go back to Animal's post which he stated WHY it was morally correct to follow the law, and actually make a counterpoint. My arguments have not been "torn apart." They haven't even been addressed! Quote: They were in a position and could have easily and directly done something to stop the rapes. Your equivalency is false as false can be. They knew things including sexual assault were happening according to all evidence. You don't care. There is NO evidence that Joe Paterno knew what you claim he knew. none. Where is the evidence, huh? Three emails? Great. Cite them for me. Go ahead. I dare ya. Quote: That's not what the evidence shows. You're not following the evidence. You don't care about truth. The "evidence" shows nothing against Joe Paterno. Quote: Your false equivalencies are sad. You have no credibility because you embrace such obvious foolishness. I am foolish, because: 1. I cited the fact that Sandusky was found "Not guilty" on the count of Sexual Deviate Intercourse" aka: "Rape of a minor boy" for Victim 2. (See: The Grand Jury Present for Victim 2.) 2. I question the use of whom "coach" is, and more importantly, what "I touched base with the coach" actually MEANS. I am foolish because I see no real evidence with the words "touched base?" Great. Quote: Irrelevant. The law is not morality. They failed morally. Hard. On multiple levels. You can't even defend them on one moral level. Go back and re-read what I wrote. The fact that the law was written by EXPERTS in MULTIPLE FIELDS involving: Criminal Prosecution, Child Protection, and Occupational Health is "irrelevant?" Awesome. No counteroint or evidence or even rudimentary logic to back up your assertions. Just: "It is immoral because I said so! So, NYAH!" Quote: The pathetic thing is that football is the motivation making all this delusional fantasy making. At least Truthers and such have government and freedom and such as motivation. You have football 'heroes'. Pathetic. Now instead of engaging in honest discussion, you label me on the same level as "Truthers," who at least have piles upon piles of evidence, photos, and videos proving them wrong. You have...what? Three vague emails proving you right? Glad to know I am in such esteemed company. It is impossible to prove me wrong about anything, because I have made virtually no claims that Paterno was innocent. I merely assert that there is no evidence for your accusations against Paterno.