Should the Joe Paterno Statue Come Down in Happy Valley?

Search

Should the Joe Paterno Statue Come Down in Happy Valley?

  • YES

    Votes: 84 66.1%
  • NO

    Votes: 37 29.1%
  • Cant decide

    Votes: 6 4.7%

  • Total voters
    127

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,467
Tokens
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.

Maybe one of our computers is broke.

My computer says that in post 186 I quoted exactly what you posted in post 184.

Can someone besides me and ENFUEGO look at post 184 and 186 and tell me and ENFUEGO if I quoted something besides what he said in post 184.

Please tell me someone so I can go buy a new computer if indeed ENFUEGO is correct.
 

New member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
933
Tokens
And the final thing i'll say is, it's not for us to prove that he didn't cover it up.

You need to tell us why Sandusky was allowed to use the showers (when not an employee) AFTER Mqueery told Joe Pa what he saw.

Put to one side he says he reported it to superiors, you tell us why Joe Pa allowed Sandusky to shower with children AFTER he knew of the McQeery information.

I would argue he was in denial at that point and to me, denial = cover up.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,467
Tokens
And the final thing i'll say is, it's not for us to prove that he didn't cover it up.

You need to tell us why Sandusky was allowed to use the showers (when not an employee) AFTER Mqueery told Joe Pa what he saw.

Put to one side he says he reported it to superiors, you tell us why Joe Pa allowed Sandusky to shower with children AFTER he knew of the McQeery information.

I would argue he was in denial at that point and to me, denial = cover up.

Hey scully can you do me and ENFUEGO a favor?

Look at post 184 and 186.
He says in post 186 I quoted something from him that he says he did not say.
My quote on post 186 is exactly what he said in post 184.

I need to know this so I will know if I need to buy a new computer.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
My quote - “Agree with you 100% Chop. That still doesn't mean he covered it up. An idiot yes but a criminal? No.”


Your quote - "but he still did not cover it up so he is ok"


What is hard about this?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,467
Tokens
My quote - “Agree with you 100% Chop. That still doesn't mean he covered it up. An idiot yes but a criminal? No.”


Your quote - "but he still did not cover it up so he is ok"


What is hard about this?


My computer does not say that on post 186
sorry
 

New member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
933
Tokens
Hey scully can you do me and ENFUEGO a favor?

Look at post 184 and 186.
He says in post 186 I quoted something from him that he says he did not say.
My quote on post 186 is exactly what he said in post 184.

I need to know this so I will know if I need to buy a new computer.

The quote you attribute to him in 186 is not what he said in 184. You invented that quote because that's what you believed his thought process to be, which is different to quoting a direct quote.

Just a misunderstanding but strictly speaking he is right, even though the quote you attribute is the context of the conversation you were having.
 

New member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
933
Tokens
But to Enfuego's point (that Joe Pa didn't cover up to avoid bad publicity), it's impossible to say WHY he covered it up because Paterno can no longer tell us.

That doesn't change the fact he did in fact cover it up. This passage from the article above clearly settles the argument:

"The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI chief and federal judge said the evidence shows "an active agreement to conceal."

Freeh described Paterno as "an integral part" of that agreement. According to his report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up a plan that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe."

The report also called into question the truthfulness of Paterno’s grand jury testimony last year, when he was asked whether he knew of any abuse allegations against Sandusky before the 2001 episode in which Sandusky was spotted assaulting a boy in the locker room showers.

"I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no," Paterno testified in a grand jury appearance that lasted only a few minutes. He added that a rumor "may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don’t know. I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

But emails published in the Freeh report suggest Paterno closely followed a 1998 police investigation of Sandusky that ended without charges. In an email captioned "Jerry," Curley asked Schultz: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

Paterno, "were he alive, he would probably be scrutinized right now, as we speak, by a grand jury," said Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who represents a young man suing Sandusky, Penn State and Sandusky’s charity over claims of sexual abuse. "When he did give testimony, now revealed to have been dubious at best and false on its face, that is illegal perjury because it was given under oath. So he is exposed."
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,467
Tokens
The quote you attribute to him in 186 is not what he said in 184. You invented that quote because that's what you believed his thought process to be, which is different to quoting a direct quote.

Just a misunderstanding but strictly speaking he is right, even though the quote you attribute is the context of the conversation you were having.

But the HTML quote is the same.
I guess you are talking about my actual statement in post 186.
Ok I guess.
Context seems to be very important to ENFUEGO.
Even though I was saying the same exact thing he said in a different way.
Although my exact quote from him in 184 was exactly the same in the HTML.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
699
Tokens
I think it is coming down. The university has to do everything it can to repair its image. Hell, I just saw Bob Costas say on NBC that Penn St should self impose a death penatly on football for 1-2 seasons and if not the NCAA will most likely step in.
 

New member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
933
Tokens
I think it is coming down. The university has to do everything it can to repair its image. Hell, I just saw Bob Costas say on NBC that Penn St should self impose a death penatly on football for 1-2 seasons and if not the NCAA will most likely step in.

It's a difficult one. The safest university to send your kids right now would be Penn State. Factor in the fact the bad guys are gone and it's hard to make a case for a death penalty that will affect the science majoring long snapper who is just a student athlete, more than it will anyone who was involved.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
But to Enfuego's point (that Joe Pa didn't cover up to avoid bad publicity), it's impossible to say WHY he covered it up because Paterno can no longer tell us.

That doesn't change the fact he did in fact cover it up. This passage from the article above clearly settles the argument:

"The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI chief and federal judge said the evidence shows "an active agreement to conceal."

Freeh described Paterno as "an integral part" of that agreement. According to his report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up a plan that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe."

The report also called into question the truthfulness of Paterno’s grand jury testimony last year, when he was asked whether he knew of any abuse allegations against Sandusky before the 2001 episode in which Sandusky was spotted assaulting a boy in the locker room showers.

"I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no," Paterno testified in a grand jury appearance that lasted only a few minutes. He added that a rumor "may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don’t know. I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

But emails published in the Freeh report suggest Paterno closely followed a 1998 police investigation of Sandusky that ended without charges. In an email captioned "Jerry," Curley asked Schultz: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

Paterno, "were he alive, he would probably be scrutinized right now, as we speak, by a grand jury," said Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who represents a young man suing Sandusky, Penn State and Sandusky’s charity over claims of sexual abuse. "When he did give testimony, now revealed to have been dubious at best and false on its face, that is illegal perjury because it was given under oath. So he is exposed."

1) First Paragraph - The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. How, the author of the article does not attribute a source in any way. Bad journalism if you're stating fact.

2) Second Paragraph - An integral part in allowing it to continue YES...covering it up...NO.

3) Third, forth and fifth Paragraph - I would agree with this. I think either Joe flat out lied or was senile.

4) Sixth Paragraph - Very true.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
But the HTML quote is the same.
I guess you are talking about my actual statement in post 186.
Ok I guess.
Context seems to be very important to ENFUEGO.
Even though I was saying the same exact thing he said in a different way.
Although my exact quote from him in 184 was exactly the same in the HTML.

What I'm talking about is if you're going to quote me then quote exactly what I say instead of interpreting what you think I mean. I think you'd agree that's only fair to do.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
821
Tokens
......enfuego... you gotta be the biggest douchebag on this board!!! 14 years of child molesting covered up and allowed to happen by JoeP and the rest they should definatly take the statue down and it should be mandatory death penalty for program, but just watch i bet the NCAA doesnt give but a slap on the wrist to Penn state....
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
......enfuego... you gotta be the biggest douchebag on this board!!! 14 years of child molesting covered up and allowed to happen by JoeP and the rest they should definatly take the statue down and it should be mandatory death penalty for program, but just watch i bet the NCAA doesnt give but a slap on the wrist to Penn state....

You thinking PSU should get the death penalty for this says all we need to know about you. It's your opinion and we're all entitled to opinions so carry on.

Allowed it to happen and covered it up are very different things.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
5,666
Tokens
......enfuego... you gotta be the biggest douchebag on this board!!!

He may be hard-headed and maybe unwilling to see something he doesn't want to see, but he's no douchebag. I wish everyone on this forum was as willing to calmly discuss things without falling back into second grade style name-calling. The RX would be a better place if they were.
 

New member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
933
Tokens
Allowed it to happen and covered it up are very different things.

The bit I don't get about your argument is you must see there was a cover up by the way Paterno persuaded his superiors to deal with it in house. At that point they were covering up and in doing so were then allowing it to happen more.

He/they actually did both, even if there's a difference between the two.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,755
Messages
13,559,251
Members
100,682
Latest member
Pirrana1
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com