Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Joe Paterno taken off life support!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
317 replies to this topic

#301 Andy Tomberlin

  • 2567 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:25 PM

Oh believe me, people still think Curley, Schultz, and Sandusky are pieces of shit. But nobody's defending them. YOU ARE DEFENDING JOE PATERNO, WHO WAS JUST AS COMPLICIT AS CURLEY AND SCHULTZ AND THEREFORE JUST AS BIG OF A PIECE OF SHIT IN THIS SETTING.


It's not productive to continue posting the exact same information given your comprehension of it is different, and I hate to engage in a circular discussion, but I just want to again point out that Curley and Schultz were privy to all the gruesome details about the 2002 allegation, were privy to the 1998 investigation, and were responsible to take action and did take the criminally insufficient action of telling him not to bring children around anymore. This is wildly different than Paterno's role. Most people (including the PA Attorney General) understand the vast difference there.

#302 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 22822 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:26 PM

No.

Paterno knew of "sex" "child" "rhythmic slapping" and didn't do anything more than pass it up the line.

He's scum.

#303 bosox188

  • 1117 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:58 PM

No.

Paterno knew of "sex" "child" "rhythmic slapping" and didn't do anything more than pass it up the line.

He's scum.


Wrong.



He WAS scum.

#304 Judge Mental13


  • designated driver


  • 4800 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:15 PM

It's not productive to continue posting the exact same information given your comprehension of it is different, and I hate to engage in a circular discussion, but I just want to again point out that Curley and Schultz were privy to all the gruesome details about the 2002 allegation, were privy to the 1998 investigation, and were responsible to take action and did take the criminally insufficient action of telling him not to bring children around anymore. This is wildly different than Paterno's role. Most people (including the PA Attorney General) understand the vast difference there.


What you are presenting is not information. It's an opinion based around an assumption that is just not based in any sort of fact or reality. The conclusions you are coming to, based off of your extreme state of denial, are ridiculous.

Listen I'm sorry if I'm picking on you here or if it seems like I'm going over the top. But more people really need to be holding up a mirror to this entire culture that could cause someone to defend a guy who behaved this way. Not just defend him, but paint him as some sort of victim.

I honestly think that's the most offensive aspect of what you're doing in this thread. You're making it seem as though JoePa was somehow a victim here, when there were actual victims in this case, they all had numbers, and we all read exactly how Sandusky continued fucking them on Penn State grounds well after Paterno found out about it.

That's information. What you're falling all over yourself to continue to respond with isn't information. It's delusional. And I suppose finding out that this guy whom you held so much respect and admiration for and who represented a major part of your identity could disillusion somebody, or a whole group of people, I get it, but you have to step outside the Penn State bubble here, this is madness.

Edited by Judge Mental13, 30 January 2012 - 09:15 PM.


#305 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10318 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:58 PM

It's not productive to continue posting the exact same information given your comprehension of it is different, and I hate to engage in a circular discussion, but I just want to again point out that Curley and Schultz were privy to all the gruesome details about the 2002 allegation, were privy to the 1998 investigation, and were responsible to take action and did take the criminally insufficient action of telling him not to bring children around anymore. This is wildly different than Paterno's role. Most people (including the PA Attorney General) understand the vast difference there.


What sort of torture did you perform on your own brain to get the facts to come out like this? Because you have things exactly backwards.

Your assertion about the PA Attorney General understanding the difference between what Paterno knew and what Curley and Schultz knew is either evidence of delusion, imbecility or a stone faced lie. Paterno knew that Sandusky was alleged to have done something of a sexual nature with a 10 year old boy in the showers of the Penn State locker room. We know this because he testified to it. And while we're pretty sure that Curley and Schultz also knew about what Sandusky is being acused of, it's important to understand that Curley and Schultz denied it under oath. This is why they are under indictment for perjury.

The fact that Paterno has been described as a credible witness and is not under indictment for anything is not support for the notion that he didn't know the nature of the allegations against Sandusky. It simply means that he did the minimum required of him in this case and did not later lie about it under oath. Nothing more. Nothing less.

#306 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 6795 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:08 AM

It's delusional. And I suppose finding out that this guy whom you held so much respect and admiration for and who represented a major part of your identity could disillusion somebody, or a whole group of people, I get it, but you have to step outside the Penn State bubble here, this is madness.

It's actually not delusional or madness. It's what the experts call "cognitive dissonance," and while I am not up on the literature, it is entirely natural and human to reject information that causes more of such dissonance.

It's not productive to continue posting the exact same information given your comprehension of it is different, and I hate to engage in a circular discussion, but I just want to again point out that Curley and Schultz were privy to all the gruesome details about the 2002 allegation, were privy to the 1998 investigation, and were responsible to take action and did take the criminally insufficient action of telling him not to bring children around anymore. This is wildly different than Paterno's role. Most people (including the PA Attorney General) understand the vast difference there.

OK. Here's something else. Part of the problem is that you are basing your conclusion solely on Joe Pa's grand jury testimony, in which he obviously testified just enough to prevent himself from being accused of perjury (which is interesting in and of itself).

Do you really believe that in 1998, when Sandusky was being investigated by local and university police, that the police informed the university's general counsel but no one let Paterno know that Sandusky was being investigated? Do you really believe that no one let a head football coach know that his defensive coordinator might be arrested and go to prison?

In 2002, Curley and Schultz agreed to ban Sandusky from the football building. Do you think Paterno was informed about this? And if he was informed, do you think a reason for this ban was discussed? Do you think Paterno said to Curley and Schultz, "Why are you banning Jerry? He's not a child molester?" Or do you think Curley and Schultz didn't tell Paterno about someone being banned football building and Paterno never knew about this?

In 2008, Sandusky was banned from a school district after a mother complained. Do you think Paterno never knew about this?

In 2009, the PA AG began an investigation into Sandusky. He was, I assume, subpoeaed to testify. But knowing that Sandusky was being investigated about an incident that was not the 2002 incident, did Paterno do anything?

While it is unlikley we will ever know exactly what Paterno did know, it seems odd (or coincidental) that at every step, Paterno just happened to do the minimum required by law. You can infer that he didn't know anything about it, but the inference I get is that he deliberately did the minimum required by law because he actually knew about what was going on.

And it's the same thing with the Second Mile. Sandusky informs the board of the allegations against him, and while he resigns from the Second Mile, he continues fundraising for them.

The saddest thing to me is that the concept of "cognitive dissonance" is usually applied in the context of religion, or religious beliefs - like the followers of the guy who predicted the world was going to end last March (and October). Although that may just highlight how football - college for some, professional for others, and both for still others - has become a religion in this country.

Edited by wade boggs chicken dinner, 31 January 2012 - 03:09 AM.


#307 terrynever


  • SoSH Member


  • 6242 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:17 AM

Paterno didn't do the minimum when he appeared before the Grand Jury. The state AG had already determined it would undermine her case to go after an icon like Paterno so she limited her questioning of Joe to seven minutes. Had she gone after the revered Paterno, the thinking was it would jeopardize her case against Sandusky. Joe answered the basic questions but the state did not pursue what he knew any farther back than 2002.

#308 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12267 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 09:53 AM

I appreciate the back-and-forth here trying to play devil's advocate. I think at this point in time (until the investigations are concluded and perhaps we learn more information) my thinking is as follows:

I truly believe Joe Paterno did what he thought was right in passing along the information and hoping others would take care of it. This was an honorable man by all accounts, and I really don't see a motive for him to lie.

Having said that, the line in his interview with Sally Jenkins when he said, "I didn't feel adequate," upsets and disappoints me. I do not think that is an acceptable excuse to vindicate him from all wrong-doing. I really don't think he tried to cover anything up. I really don't think he wanted to let a child predator remain free. I do, however, think he could have done more. I think that perhaps if this had happened in the 1980's he would have done more. As others have said, he fulfilled his legal obligation, but perhaps not an additional moral obligation that should have been expected from someone in his position. This was a man who, I believe, had time pass him by, and that cannot serve as an excuse. Given this, I can understand the BOT's decision to fire him (although as stated earlier I think the BOT handled this terribly and should be looking at themselves with blame, too).

This does not mean that I don't still have tremendous respect for this man's accomplishments and contributions to Penn State and State College. This does not mean that I don't still hold dear many of the principles and values he stood for. This does not mean that I was not just in shedding tears at his passing. For me, I still believe those things. I can understand that people outside of the Penn State community probably don't recognize the significance of these many contributions, and that's OK, but for me those things are all still a part of the story as this horrific case is unfortunately part of the story.

I don't disagree with people who share extreme sadness and some anger at Joe Paterno for not doing more. I do, however, feel that MUCH focus has been on Joe Paterno that should have been on the more inadequate parties of Curley and Schultz and of course the despicable Sandusky.

Ultimately, this is a very sad situation and a very sad time. As I've stated before, it's heart-breaking to think this could happen. I can understand that people have different opinions than me, but given the information we have right now, this is what I think.


Four thoughts on this post, and the shorter one you posted after it:

1. We don't give a shit about Curley or Schultz, because no one outside the PSU/State College community knew who they were before November. Their careers in academia are over, and the criminal justice system will deal with them. Most of us will accept that measure of justice and move on.

2. We do give a shit about Joe Paterno, because he wasn't held to account legally for his actions, and he's still lionized in many quarters. To have even a measure of justice, his failings in the Sandusky case must be weighed against the good he did in his life in assessing his legacy.

3. You claim to want proportionality, and for Paterno's mistakes/misdeeds to be weighed against the good he has done. I think most of us want the same thing. Problem is, the way you do the weighing reveals that you either dramatically oversell the importance of being a football coach, or dramatically undersell the seriousness of a man serially raping children (or, most likely, both). Don't you see how this leads to people asking ugly questions about your values?

4. Regarding your subsequent post (not quoted above) -- the Attorney General's job is not to evaluate the moral quality of Joe Paterno's conduct; it's to evaluate whether Paterno committed a crime. Therefore, the most charitable conclusion that may be drawn from the AG's action is that he felt Paterno did not commit a crime. (As others have noted, perhaps he decided not to pursue Paterno for fear of jeopardizing the case against Sandusky, but that's speculation.)

Edited by maufman, 31 January 2012 - 09:56 AM.


#309 Andy Tomberlin

  • 2567 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:38 AM

You claim to want proportionality, and for Paterno's mistakes/misdeeds to be weighed against the good he has done. I think most of us want the same thing. Problem is, the way you do the weighing reveals that you either dramatically oversell the importance of being a football coach, or dramatically undersell the seriousness of a man serially raping children (or, most likely, both). Don't you see how this leads to people asking ugly questions about your values?


Perhaps this is why we have such radically different opinions. And yes, I understand what I'm about to say is all opinion. Trust me, I in no way view Joe Paterno as a victim in this. I have tried to convey how I honestly feel for the victims. I can't think of a crime more heinous than sexual child abuse, something that will be with these innocent children forever. The point of this discussion is not to minimize that. We all feel the same way about the victims. Dave Brooks I thought did a good job calling out the self-righteousness of many people's reactions.

I do believe that Paterno is being judged more harshly than deserved, but that's also perhaps because I have such a different view of the whole body of his work and that's likely not something that any of you would be able to identify with. To me, Joe Paterno wasn't even a football coach. By the time I was in school, he wasn't really even coaching. The team had some limited success in 2005 and 2008, but for most of the past 10+ years there haven't been a ton of wins or successes. Honestly, to us Joe was not about football. Joe was about defining, "Success with Honor," he was about learning to make an impact, he was about starting the campaign and donating $4 million to build the library on campus, he was about, "Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things," he was about endowing faculty chairs in the College of Liberal Arts, he was about the fellowship program he started for students, he was about the Special Olympics and THON (the world's largest student-run philanthropy), and he contributed enormously to those efforts and so many more. That's why he was well-respected to at least my generation of Penn State fans. We weren't even alive for his national championship teams.

I say those things not to say that any of that should be used as justification for his inaction. They're clearly not. I say that to give a sliver of a glimpse into our worldview. The articles and tributes have gone on and on about the things that he's done. To us, he was not a football coach.

So most of us don't feel he would lie when he makes statements about his role in this. That's why I put stock into his testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins (whose opinions now seem pretty similar to mine). Had Curley and Schultz done their jobs, Paterno would have been thanked for doing the right thing and reporting it. It clearly didn't work out that way and that's tragic for these victims.

Joe Paterno is no saint or hero or religion. But I still do believe he was a good man who, in his own words, wished he had done more.

#310 PBDWake

  • 2754 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:56 AM

So most of us don't feel he would lie when he makes statements about his role in this. That's why I put stock into his testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins (whose opinions now seem pretty similar to mine). Had Curley and Schultz done their jobs, Paterno would have been thanked for doing the right thing and reporting it. It clearly didn't work out that way and that's tragic for these victims.


But there's the crux of the issue. They didn't, and he still did nothing.

#311 Judge Mental13


  • designated driver


  • 4800 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:28 AM

Wished he'd done more my fucking left and right nut. He had 12 years. If Sandusky never gets caught he never wishes he did shit. He wished the story never came out, that's all he wished. Going on the record as wishing you'd done more when you had more than 10 years to do something.....anything..... to stop the abuse is the most hollow piece of shit statement I've ever heard. He wished Sandusky never got caught. Period.

When he found out in 1998 they could have totally changed their policies about reporting sexual abuse, they could have ostracized Sandusky and driven as much space between him and them as possible. They were in a position of power here, they weren't refugees in the fucking Rwanda fucking genocide. With their power, they collectively decided to look the other way for over a decade, and Paterno was right there with them. Even when the lid got blown off of this whole story Paterno still tried to look the other way, talking about gameplanning for Nebraska, like nothing really all that bad happened. That's how detached from reality JoePa was, and somewhere in the ballpark of how detached from reality the "information" Andy Tomberlin's posts are based off of.

Edited by Judge Mental13, 31 January 2012 - 11:28 AM.


#312 fairlee76

  • 1542 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:32 AM

Good God, "Success with Honor?" How does one perform the mental contortions required to believe that Paterno embodied this despite what went on within his football program? The pitch job being done by ESPN on this is more disgusting than their "Kobe Bryant: Portrait of a Family Man" schtick they tried to ram down our throats a few years ago.

I feel for those of you in the Penn State community that are having to encounter and process some awful truths about a man you elevated to the level of sainthood. But don't expect us to believe that the good he did outweighed his inaction over the last 10 years.

#313 Freddy Linn


  • SoSH Member


  • 6136 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:33 AM

Paterno had a choice between the easy thing and the right thing. He chose the former.

And, to be clear, it wasn't just in that moment.

Would anyone not facing criminal charges say anything other than wishing they had done more? I fail to see how that is somehow noble.

Edited by Freddy Linn, 31 January 2012 - 11:34 AM.


#314 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5358 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:04 PM

Would anyone not facing criminal charges say anything other than wishing they had done more? I fail to see how that is somehow noble.

Its pretty east to say you wished you had done more when you see your entire legacy blowing up around you as a direct result of not having done more. I'll bet Paterno wished he had done more when the story broke and again when he lost his job and his reputation. If he had done more, maybe he wouldn't look as terrible as he does now. The whole problem is that he apparently didn't wish he had done more for a decade prior to the story breaking.

Edited by Philip Jeff Frye, 31 January 2012 - 01:05 PM.


#315 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10318 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:15 PM

I do believe that Paterno is being judged more harshly than deserved, but that's also perhaps because I have such a different view of the whole body of his work and that's likely not something that any of you would be able to identify with.


If you believe that your prior appreciation of Joe Paterno somehow distinguishes you on this board, you are sadly mistaken.

I am not a PSU alum. But as someone who grew up in Pennsylvania in the 60s and 70s and went to college in state in the 80s, Joe Paterno has been an icon to me for as long as I can remember. (Went to Michigan for grad school.) I have many nieces and nephews who have graduated from PSU and two who are there now. I should also point out that the best man at my wedding 25 years ago had the last name of Paterno. He wasn't one of Joe's kids, but the name was not a coincidence.

Joe was such a towering figure to me that after I finally went to State College to see Michigan play there in the fall of 2010, I sent a note to my friend telling him how much of a huge kick I got out of seeing Joe Paterno still prowling the sidelines. Beyond this, I thought it was remarkable to consider that Paterno had been doing it his way - the right way - for almost half a century as head coach, and to able to finally see him in person was something of a thrill. When I later learned that Joe Posnanski was writing Paterno's biography, I thought he would be the perfect person to tell a story that was almost too good to be true.

The point I'm making is that playing the "you can't appreciate Joe the way I do" card is simply horseshit.

To me, Joe Paterno wasn't even a football coach. By the time I was in school, he wasn't really even coaching. The team had some limited success in 2005 and 2008, but for most of the past 10+ years there haven't been a ton of wins or successes. Honestly, to us Joe was not about football. Joe was about defining, "Success with Honor," he was about learning to make an impact, he was about starting the campaign and donating $4 million to build the library on campus, he was about, "Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things," he was about endowing faculty chairs in the College of Liberal Arts, he was about the fellowship program he started for students, he was about the Special Olympics and THON (the world's largest student-run philanthropy), and he contributed enormously to those efforts and so many more. That's why he was well-respected to at least my generation of Penn State fans. We weren't even alive for his national championship teams.

I say those things not to say that any of that should be used as justification for his inaction. They're clearly not. I say that to give a sliver of a glimpse into our worldview. The articles and tributes have gone on and on about the things that he's done. To us, he was not a football coach.

So most of us don't feel he would lie when he makes statements about his role in this. That's why I put stock into his testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins (whose opinions now seem pretty similar to mine). Had Curley and Schultz done their jobs, Paterno would have been thanked for doing the right thing and reporting it. It clearly didn't work out that way and that's tragic for these victims.

Joe Paterno is no saint or hero or religion. But I still do believe he was a good man who, in his own words, wished he had done more.


I'm going to repeat something I said in the Posnanski thread, and I want you to think about it before responding.

In his time in Happy Valley, Paterno became so important to Penn State that the University created a huge athletic bureaucracy to support him. That bureaucracy proved to be so impenetrable that it enabled a monster like Jerry Sandusky to operate in secret for years; and so powerful that it reflexively covered up his actions after they were discovered.

No amount of good - even the formidable accomplishments of Joe Paterno - can compensate for this kind of evil.

#316 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8338 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:19 PM

Perhaps this is why we have such radically different opinions. And yes, I understand what I'm about to say is all opinion. Trust me, I in no way view Joe Paterno as a victim in this. I have tried to convey how I honestly feel for the victims. I can't think of a crime more heinous than sexual child abuse, something that will be with these innocent children forever. The point of this discussion is not to minimize that. We all feel the same way about the victims. Dave Brooks I thought did a good job calling out the self-righteousness of many people's reactions.

I do believe that Paterno is being judged more harshly than deserved, but that's also perhaps because I have such a different view of the whole body of his work and that's likely not something that any of you would be able to identify with. To me, Joe Paterno wasn't even a football coach. By the time I was in school, he wasn't really even coaching. The team had some limited success in 2005 and 2008, but for most of the past 10+ years there haven't been a ton of wins or successes. Honestly, to us Joe was not about football. Joe was about defining, "Success with Honor," he was about learning to make an impact, he was about starting the campaign and donating $4 million to build the library on campus, he was about, "Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things," he was about endowing faculty chairs in the College of Liberal Arts, he was about the fellowship program he started for students, he was about the Special Olympics and THON (the world's largest student-run philanthropy), and he contributed enormously to those efforts and so many more. That's why he was well-respected to at least my generation of Penn State fans. We weren't even alive for his national championship teams.

I say those things not to say that any of that should be used as justification for his inaction. They're clearly not. I say that to give a sliver of a glimpse into our worldview. The articles and tributes have gone on and on about the things that he's done. To us, he was not a football coach.

So most of us don't feel he would lie when he makes statements about his role in this. That's why I put stock into his testimony and his interview with Sally Jenkins (whose opinions now seem pretty similar to mine). Had Curley and Schultz done their jobs, Paterno would have been thanked for doing the right thing and reporting it. It clearly didn't work out that way and that's tragic for these victims.

Joe Paterno is no saint or hero or religion. But I still do believe he was a good man who, in his own words, wished he had done more.


Oh, my God.

I am appalled and sickened at the depth of the hole that you're digging for yourself.

Don't you realize how horrible you sound?

#317 24JoshuaPoint


  • Grand Theft Duvet


  • 3280 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:35 PM

This is a leading question that like I've stated earlier is just not true. According to the only facts we know, Joe Paterno was not aware that Jerry Sandusky was a child rapist. He was aware that McQueary had seen something inappropriate and he passed along the information to be investigated.


Strange statement. Based on the terminology in the grand jury report and what Paterno has said I don't see how it can't be assumed that a child was being raped and that McQueary filled him in on these details. Even if this was the first time, he's still a child rapist.

I do believe that Paterno is being judged more harshly than deserved, but that's also perhaps because I have such a different view of the whole body of his work and that's likely not something that any of you would be able to identify with.


I'm sorry man but unless he saved the world from cancer or saved ten thousand kids from starving in Africa, any body of work is thrown out the door if you allow what he did. Once you break a moral code it doesn't matter who you are or how many jobs you created or games you won. He didn't act like a normal human being therefore he will be judged just like any other joe blow.

#318 singaporesoxfan

  • 3567 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 12:11 AM

I do believe that Paterno is being judged more harshly than deserved, but that's also perhaps because I have such a different view of the whole body of his work and that's likely not something that any of you would be able to identify with. To me, Joe Paterno wasn't even a football coach. By the time I was in school, he wasn't really even coaching. The team had some limited success in 2005 and 2008, but for most of the past 10+ years there haven't been a ton of wins or successes. Honestly, to us Joe was not about football. Joe was about defining, "Success with Honor," he was about learning to make an impact, he was about starting the campaign and donating $4 million to build the library on campus, he was about, "Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things," he was about endowing faculty chairs in the College of Liberal Arts, he was about the fellowship program he started for students, he was about the Special Olympics and THON (the world's largest student-run philanthropy), and he contributed enormously to those efforts and so many more. That's why he was well-respected to at least my generation of Penn State fans. We weren't even alive for his national championship teams.


Wait - this is the entire sum of why Paterno is lionised by the Penn State community? Sandusky case aside, "rich guy donates lots of money to a school that he's connected with and some charities" strikes me as something that's nice but not that special. The fact that Paterno is seen as special for doing this strikes me as an indictment of other well-paid college coaches rather than a sign of Paterno's unusual philanthropy.