Moderator: Community Team

huhPLAYER57832 wrote:To begin, how many of you are aware that he was in the fore of treating all people well?
whatever it takes for a Rose Bowl invitePLAYER57832 wrote:He picked talent and treated them as just that.. talent.
off the top of my head, neither does SC or Notre Dame and somehow they manage to avoid sexing 9 year oldsPLAYER57832 wrote:Penn state jerseys do not, have never (under Paterno, at least), had names of players.
too bad he didn't hold the coaches to taskPLAYER57832 wrote:When his players got into trouble, he would be the very first to hold them to task.
PLAYER57832 wrote:When he came to recruit players, he went directly to ... the players moms.

like this?PLAYER57832 wrote:Per the last incident, I think the Chairman of Nike put it well.

PLAYER57832 wrote: He reported it to the head of campus police and the head of the university in full.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
You are naive. Paterno was the king of Penn State. He ran the show and could have stepped in at any time.PLAYER57832 wrote: Per the last incident, I think the Chairman of Nike put it well. The Failure was not that Paterno did not report. He reported it to the head of campus police and the head of the university in full. The failure was in those people to investigate. AND.. it was very much those people's job, those people's duty to verify. Paterno's failure was in trusting that the people who were more directly trained in this to investigate it as well as THEY should have. Paterno stuck to what he knew and could do.
Including young boys?PLAYER57832 wrote:o begin, how many of you are aware that he was in the fore of treating all people well?

Reread what you wrote.gradybridges wrote:You are naive. Paterno was the king of Penn State. He ran the show and could have stepped in at any time.PLAYER57832 wrote: Per the last incident, I think the Chairman of Nike put it well. The Failure was not that Paterno did not report. He reported it to the head of campus police and the head of the university in full. The failure was in those people to investigate. AND.. it was very much those people's job, those people's duty to verify. Paterno's failure was in trusting that the people who were more directly trained in this to investigate it as well as THEY should have. Paterno stuck to what he knew and could do.
For whatever reason Paterno looked the other way. He knew in 2002 about the aligations and still let the man be part of the football team. He probably knew when Sandusky was investigated in 98. Yet he still chose to stick his head in the sand and be a fucking coward. How many kids were molested from 98 to the present? And did he know prior to 98?
The failure was Paterno. the 400+ wins means shit. His graduation rate means shit. his charity means shit. Paterno had the power to stop Sandusky and did nothing.
Tried to google a local story on this, but there is too much Paterno stuff out there now.saxitoxin wrote:[whatever it takes for a Rose Bowl invitePLAYER57832 wrote:He picked talent and treated them as just that.. talent.
- Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno is alleged to have ignored a series of racist threats that a number of his African-American players were subjected to during his tenure.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1kj1Bd6HZ
saxitoxin wrote:too bad he didn't hold the coaches to taskPLAYER57832 wrote:When his players got into trouble, he would be the very first to hold them to task.
ESPECIALLY young boys.natty_dread wrote:Including young boys?PLAYER57832 wrote:o begin, how many of you are aware that he was in the fore of treating all people well?
Then, the police would investigate and find no evidence of wrongdoing, and that case would be closed.PLAYER57832 wrote:He is blamed for not reporting this to police. In retrospect, in this particular case, we wish he had. However, turn that around. What if Sandusky were NOT guilty? What then?
So it's more important to protect the career of a football couch, than it is to protect an innocent child from being molested?PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that Paterno reported this would have meant it would be blasted everywhere over the media, would likely not have been kept quiet. Sounds good, now, becuase we know he was guilty. But, at the time, did Paterno? Did he have any reason to suspect that the university president, who has publically taken stances against such things, publically spoken on reporting of incidents, would Paterno expect anything but that that man would appropriately follow through?

And why would you assume a local police department is better equipped to deal with this situation? OR, for that matter why would you assume, why would Paterno assume, that the police were not brought in IF there was sufficient evidence?natty_dread wrote:Then, the police would investigate and find no evidence of wrongdoing, and that case would be closed.PLAYER57832 wrote:He is blamed for not reporting this to police. In retrospect, in this particular case, we wish he had. However, turn that around. What if Sandusky were NOT guilty? What then?
You are sideswiping the issue, as the media did. The media likes to take down giants, disdains heros.natty_dread wrote:So it's more important to protect the career of a football couch, than it is to protect an innocent child from being molested?PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that Paterno reported this would have meant it would be blasted everywhere over the media, would likely not have been kept quiet. Sounds good, now, becuase we know he was guilty. But, at the time, did Paterno? Did he have any reason to suspect that the university president, who has publically taken stances against such things, publically spoken on reporting of incidents, would Paterno expect anything but that that man would appropriately follow through?
You didn't google too hard, then. Here: http://www.thegrio.com/sports/paterno-t ... -state.phpPLAYER57832 wrote:Tried to google a local story on this, but there is too much Paterno stuff out there now.
I WILL say its interesting you picked a story ran in the UK, not even in the US.
Great. I'll look for their posts in this thread.PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. I let all those of many races and religions who actually KNEW Paterno speak for themselves.
AKA CYAPLAYER57832 wrote: He reported him as soon as he was told there was a problem.... and trusted the investigation.

His graduate assistant told him he saw Sandusky forcibly inserting his penis into the rectum of a 10 year old boy. (McQueary didn't say "I saw Sandusky either making soup out of a kid's insides, or, maybe they were just playing checkers!" There was reportedly no ambiguity to what McQueary said to Paterno.) At this point, Paterno knows either:PLAYER57832 wrote: He is accused of not, HIMSELF, personally investigating an incident that was reported to him at least a day after the fact. Based on the fact that the guy who witnessed all this continued to work with Sandusky, in the program... I would say there might be legitimate reason, at the time, to think the matter had been resolved sufficiently.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
No he didn't. They're trolling you PLAYER, let it go.saxitoxin wrote:His graduate assistant told him he saw Sandusky forcibly inserting his penis into the rectum of a 10 year old boy.
Huh?oVo wrote:No he didn't.saxitoxin wrote:His graduate assistant told him he saw Sandusky forcibly inserting his penis into the rectum of a 10 year old boy.
Any of those people the parents of the kids Sandusky raped?PLAYER57832 wrote:You can make up your own minds based on 30 second news bites and snippets of information. I have made my decision based on many, many conversations with people.
oVo wrote:No he didn't.saxitoxin wrote:His graduate assistant told him he saw Sandusky forcibly inserting his penis into the rectum of a 10 year old boy.
McQueary, a graduate assistant in 2002, says he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the locker room showers. He called Paterno, and then went to his home the following day to tell the coach what he’d seen.
Paterno, McQueary said, “slumped back in his chair.” “He said: ‘Well, I’m sorry you had to see that."
[Paterno said] “I didn’t push Mike…because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.”
"I didn't want to interfere with their weekends, (so) either Saturday or Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone ...
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... z1knMKed1k
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
oVo wrote:It doesn't say McQuerry told the Head Coach "I watched Sandusky forcibly insert his penis into the boy's rectum" anywhere. I'm guessing that's just the way you personally define an inappropriate action, which is similar to the way I perceive your derailing the subject of this thread as trolling.
Grand Jury wrote:As the graduate assistant [McQueary] put the sneakers in the locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.
http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF
TSN wrote:He [McQueary] called Paterno, and then went to his home the following day to tell the coach what he’d seen.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... z1knMKed1k
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
TGD wrote:There are a number of ways that the "not admitting when you're wrong" posters not admit when they are wrong. A noninclusive list:
(1) Change the subject matter or argument. For example, "No, that's not what I meant... I meant..."
(2) Ignore requests for data, proof, etc. by citing common knowledge or something else. For example, "I can't dig that up now, but it's common knowledge."
(3) Get increasingly hostile or offensive.
(4) Not post again on the subject or ignore the counter-argument. For example, posting random pictures in response.
(5) Turn the point of the discussion from the actual subject matter to the poster him- or herself. For example, "You lack reading comprehension" or "You're Catholic and therefore I'm ignoring your opinion."