Should the Joe Paterno Statue Come Down in Happy Valley?

[Enfuego]

What other reason would there be that he stood bye and let this monster on campus and keep abusing little boys.

He knew that this guy was a molester.

You look worse and worse with every post. Not sure why you are taking a stand on this. Why would you want a statue of a man that did nothing to help those kids.

We just disagree. Don't know why you are bringing the personal attack.

I don't know and won't pretend to know why he allowed Sandusky on campus. It's beyond my comprehension. But, I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence that backs up your claim that he did it to avoid bad publicity. If you said it, you should back it up with evidence right?

 

[Enfuego]

Inferences and deductions based on logic; something apparently lacking to your way of thinking.

In a court of law, inferences and deductions are just theories not fact. Guys tried in court based on inferences and deductions are declared "not guilty."

 

[vinscully]

And you have the page number with a quote from Paterno in the Freeh Report that says he let Sandusky do this for fear of bad publicity? I'll standby for that proof.

Actually, the Spannier e-mail that said: 'we will be vulnerable,' if Sandusky is uncovered as a child molester after they decided to cover it up is probably the proof you should look for in the report.

 

[Salsantorre]

In a court of law, inferences and deductions are just theories not fact. Guys tried in court based on inferences and deductions are declared "not guilty."

Thick

 

[Enfuego]

Actually, the Spannier e-mail that said: 'we will be vulnerable,' if Sandusky is uncovered as a child molester after they decided to cover it up is probably the proof you should look for in the report.

And that is proof regarding Spannier but not Paterno correct?

 

[Enfuego]

Thick

Still waiting on that proof. Come with facts with page numbers and quotes from an official document.

 

[Tacopants]

In a court of law, inferences and deductions are just theories not fact. Guys tried in court based on inferences and deductions are declared "not guilty."

This isn't a court of law. So if you walked into your own bedroom and your girl and another guy were laying on the bed next to each other and they both said they were "just talking" you would believe that they did not F because as you say you would not have "definitive proof" they actually did F? What do you need video or scientific evidence?

 

[vinscully]

And that is proof regarding Spannier but not Paterno correct?

Could be wrong but I think you'll find those e-mails were going between the four of them (Shultz, Curley, Spannier, Joe Pa) and it was Paterno's intervention and suggestion that it could be handled 'in-house' that led to Sandusky being allowed to continue.

I'm not here to flame you, whatever view you hold is as valid as anyone else's if you truly believe it and I'd defend your right to have any view you want - but dude - you're arguing stuff that is in the report, stuff that unequivocally says Paterno was part of the reason why Sandusky was allowed to carry on with his vile acts.

Even if I were to ignore that report, tell me how Sandusky was allowed to use those showers AFTER McQueery informed Joe Pa of what he'd seen. Are you trying to tell me Paterno didn't know Sandusky was using his facility to shower with children? If the janitor knew, he knew.

Like I say, your view is as valid as anyone else's, but only if your argument actually makes sense. Anyone with an open mind can see Paterno (probably unknowingly) was a major factor in a child molester being allowed to abuse more children after he should have been stopped.

 

[Salsantorre]

This isn't a court of law. So if you walked into your own bedroom and your girl and another guy were laying on the bed next to each other and they both said they were "just talking" you would believe that they did not F because as you say you would not have "definitive proof" they actually did F? What do you need video or scientific evidence?

Good point here. I think he knows he is wrong. He just can't admit that he is wrong. Won't give in no matter what. We all know those type of people.

 

[Enfuego]

Good point here. I think he knows he is wrong. He just can't admit that he is wrong. Won't give in no matter what. We all know those type of people.

You made the claim that Joe Paterno covered up this Sandusky deal because he wanted to avoid bad press for PSU. I simply asked you to back up that claim.

After several attempts, you've failed to prove your assertion. One of us is wrong and one is right.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Could be wrong but I think you'll find those e-mails were going between the four of them (Shultz, Curley, Spannier, Joe Pa) and it was Paterno's intervention and suggestion that it could be handled 'in-house' that led to Sandusky being allowed to continue.

I'm not here to flame you, whatever view you hold is as valid as anyone else's if you truly believe it and I'd defend your right to have any view you want - but dude - you're arguing stuff that is in the report, stuff that unequivocally says Paterno was part of the reason why Sandusky was allowed to carry on with his vile acts.

Even if I were to ignore that report, tell me how Sandusky was allowed to use those showers AFTER McQueery informed Joe Pa of what he'd seen. Are you trying to tell me Paterno didn't know Sandusky was using his facility to shower with children? If the janitor knew, he knew.

Like I say, your view is as valid as anyone else's, but only if your argument actually makes sense. Anyone with an open mind can see Paterno (probably unknowingly) was a major factor in a child molester being allowed to abuse more children after he should have been stopped.

ENFUEGO
You should read this post about 5 times.

Scully does a good job here saying what I have been saying.

 

[vinscully]

You made the claim that Joe Paterno covered up this Sandusky deal because he wanted to avoid bad press for PSU. I simply asked you to back up that claim.

After several attempts, you've failed to prove your assertion. One of us is wrong and one is right.

The only person who knows why he covered it up is dead, so I'm not sure how you will ever know who is right or wrong.

 

[Enfuego]

Could be wrong but I think you'll find those e-mails were going between the four of them (Shultz, Curley, Spannier, Joe Pa) and it was Paterno's intervention and suggestion that it could be handled 'in-house' that led to Sandusky being allowed to continue.

I'm not here to flame you, whatever view you hold is as valid as anyone else's if you truly believe it and I'd defend your right to have any view you want - but dude - you're arguing stuff that is in the report, stuff that unequivocally says Paterno was part of the reason why Sandusky was allowed to carry on with his vile acts.

Even if I were to ignore that report, tell me how Sandusky was allowed to use those showers AFTER McQueery informed Joe Pa of what he'd seen. Are you trying to tell me Paterno didn't know Sandusky was using his facility to shower with children? If the janitor knew, he knew.

Like I say, your view is as valid as anyone else's, but only if your argument actually makes sense. Anyone with an open mind can see Paterno (probably unknowingly) was a major factor in a child molester being allowed to abuse more children after he should have been stopped.

Good post and let me take it point by point VS.

1) Joe Paterno is not listed on that official email traffic. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's the case.

2) I'm simply arguing that Paterno did not cover up the rapes of these kids. Yes, he is part of the reason why Sandusky was allowed to carry on the acts but no, he did not cover it up.

3) I don't know the answer to this question and don't think any of us ever will. I have no clue why he allowed Sandusky to continue to use the facility. I simply don't know.

4) I agree, he was a major factor in Sandusky being allowed to continue on as long as he did. He was negligent and irresponsible. Fact.

 

[Enfuego]

The only person who knows why he covered it up is dead, so I'm not sure how you will ever know who is right or wrong.

What did Joe Paterno specifically do to cover up this incident? That is my point. Irresponsible, neglect, moronic. Use all the adjectives you want but many people are being charged with a crime in this case but Joe Paterno was not one of them.

 

[Enfuego]

ENFUEGO
You should read this post about 5 times.

Scully does a good job here saying what I have been saying.

Chop, do you realize the words you put in quotes and attributed to me are in fact not my words? Can you at least admit that?

 

[C.P.]

.

Penn State and Joe Paterno = The Movie ""TO BIG TO FAIL""

jmo

 

[CHOPTALK]

Chop, do you realize the words you put in quotes and attributed to me are in fact not my words? Can you at least admit that?

No I dont know that.
If you read post 184 and 186 I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe someone else can explain it to me.
But in post 186 all I did is quote what you said in post 184.

If anyone disagrees with that I hope someone will speak up and tell me im wrong.

 

[vinscully]

Good post and let me take it point by point VS.

1) Joe Paterno is not listed on that official email traffic. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's the case.

2) I'm simply arguing that Paterno did not cover up the rapes of these kids. Yes, he is part of the reason why Sandusky was allowed to carry on the acts but no, he did not cover it up.

3) I don't know the answer to this question and don't think any of us ever will. I have no clue why he allowed Sandusky to continue to use the facility. I simply don't know.

4) I agree, he was a major factor in Sandusky being allowed to continue on as long as he did. He was negligent and irresponsible. Fact.

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say he bore no responsibility.

I'm pretty sure Spannier decided to keep it in house after discussion with Paterno, this article explains it far better than I can:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n...ges_spanier_may_yet/srvc=home&position=recent

You're right, he didn't cover up the rape of the kids but he did engineer a situation whereby the kids could be raped. We're splitting hairs.

 

[Enfuego]

No I dont know that.
If you read post 184 and 186 I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe someone else can explain it to me.
But in post 186 all I did is quote what you said in post 184.

If anyone disagrees with that I hope someone will speak up and tell me im wrong.

I broke it down clearly for you in post #234. What you put in quotes was never said by me. If you can't understand that, then it's not worth discussing any longer.

 

[Enfuego]

OK, I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say he bore no responsibility.

I'm pretty sure Spannier decided to keep it in house after discussion with Paterno, this article explains it far better than I can:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n...ges_spanier_may_yet/srvc=home&position=recent

You're right, he didn't cover up the rape of the kids but he did engineer a situation whereby the kids could be raped. We're splitting hairs.

Vin, I agree with this post 100%.