Well if you want to get into it, Arizona is #42, and hence Tier 1. So I guess there's always your fail...Manhattan Buckeye;964278 wrote:You've already got yourself in one by calling me a clown.
When the facts came out, I said Tressel had to go. The facts are pretty clear in this case. The only hypocrisy is in your imagination.lhslep134;964288 wrote:I want to talk about giving the other side their f**king chance you hypocrite. You criticized EVERYONE who jumped on Tressel right away, and now you're jumping on Joe Pa right away. In this sense, severity is irrelevant. You are hypocrisy at it's FINEST.
There doesn't have to be anything dignified about it. But yes. Rationally, that's it.2kool4skool;964254 wrote:lol so what is the maximum that he can deserve "rationally." A dignified resignation and retirement?
When did I say he was lying? Oh yeah, I didn't. I said what he told Paterno was "possibly" a watered down version of events. We don't know how much Paterno was told, and what he in turn relayed on. Unless you were there for the conversation. If so, I'd love a copy of the transcript to the best of your recollection. Also, I didn't say "authorities" were commending him. I said the prosecutors (I was looking for the article I took that from but I can't find it). Clearly the police chief disagreed (although he admitted Paterno met his legal responsibility and shockingly he didn't advocate locking Paterno up and sodomizing him either).2kool4skool;964254 wrote:now it's McQueary is lying about what he told him because......well that parts not important.
There's a huge difference between being a legal "slime ball" who probably should have done more but ultimately isn't to blame, and an enabling criminal who would deserve to be prosecuted.2kool4skool;964254 wrote:If he simply passed the buck and did no sort of follow up, he's a slime ball. If he covered up, he's an even bigger slime ball. Great options there lol.
In my defense I didn't bring it up. And he was wrong anyways. Like I said, it's irrelevant. UGH get this sh*t back on topic.SportsAndLady;964300 wrote:LAW SCHOOL FIGHT!!!
I like Arizona, hell I went to an Oregon St. game there.lhslep134;964301 wrote:In my defense I didn't bring it up. And he was wrong anyways. Like I said, it's irrelevant. UGH get this sh*t back on topic.
Tobias Fünke wrote:I find a huge amount of hypocrisy in guys like writerbuckeye who were (rightfully) screaming at people for jumping to conclusions before due process with Ohio State but aren't here. For the record, I'm not suggesting in any way that these are equal.
Sandusky isn't raping anyone anymore. We can afford to give Joe Paterno the time he is due to explain his side of the story before we crucify him. We owe him, and anyone really, that much at the very least.
2kool4skool wrote:What do you suppose the motivation of McQueary was to lie about what he told Paterno? He hung himself out to dry MORE by doing so.
McQueary stated he told Paterno it was of a sexual nature. If we take your theory that it was a "watered down version" that would mean he lied during his testimony. Have you read the Grand Jury report? Based on this thread, it doesn't seem like it.Mulva;964296 wrote:When did I say he was lying? Oh yeah, I didn't.
Not good enough for you people though, because after all what would he know...Clearly the police chief disagreed.
That's your opinion obviously. But you're not going to find much sympathy for a guy who's negligence and/or assistance resulted in children being raped. That's just the reality, and even if you're still a Paterno supporter for whatever reason, it's probably easiest to stop whining about people wishing ill on him.And either way he isn't deserving of being beaten, raped, or any other ridiculous punitive measures you'd like to suggest.
reclegend22;964308 wrote: I really don't know. Maybe so that, in retrospect, it would appear as if he (McQueary) did the proper thing by informing Paterno of the incident right away, in full disclosure, so that it does not appear to court officials that he (McQueary) did absolutely nothing after seeing a child being raped in the shower aside from trivialize the event in order to not (maybe in his and his father's mind) lose repute among the staff and maintain his position as a coach at PSU.
the theory that Paterno is some sort of evil henchman who facilitated weird schoolboy sex showers for his long-time buddy in the university locker room for over a decade.
lol. What exactly do you think we'll learn? He isn't going to admit his negligence. He's going to stumble and mumble through some pathetic speech and you people will still be looking for ways that what's obvious about Paterno can't be true.I want to hear Joe speak at length, and, once he has, then I think we'll be able to make a better judgment.
Good question that is sure to be dodged.dat dude;964324 wrote:I'm curious as to what the Paterno apologists have to say about the fact that Sandusky was still using the lockeroom last week despite the fact McQueary, THE CURRENT RECRUITING COORDINATOR, testified before the grand jury in DECEMBER of 2010. How is that excusable?? Are you telling me Paterno didn't know about McQueary's testimony?
What is there to say? Honestly what could he possibly say that would make what he did (or didn't do) justified?lhslep134;964264 wrote:Yhe same people who wanted everyone to hear Tressel's side are the one's calling for Joe Pa's head without anything as much as a statement.
dat dude;964324 wrote:I'm curious as to what the Paterno apologists have to say about the fact that Sandusky was still using the lockeroom last week despite the fact McQueary, THE CURRENT RECRUITING COORDINATOR, testified before the grand jury in DECEMBER of 2010. How is that excusable?? Are you telling me Paterno didn't know about McQueary's testimony?
BUT WE HAVE TO HEAR HIS EXCUSE!!!! Even though he was told of these allegations and didn't report them to the police, least he went to the athletic director! /ishelp.dat dude;964324 wrote:I'm curious as to what the Paterno apologists have to say about the fact that Sandusky was still using the lockeroom last week despite the fact McQueary, THE CURRENT RECRUITING COORDINATOR, testified before the grand jury in DECEMBER of 2010. How is that excusable?? Are you telling me Paterno didn't know about McQueary's testimony?
If one just reads the grand jury indictment on the BEST terms available to JoePa and Penn State, they still look awful. They've admitted to either a cover up or incompetence.Skyhook79;964339 wrote:"The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[SUP][23][/SUP] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[SUP][10][/SUP] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[SUP][24][/SUP] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[SUP][10][/SUP]
After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[SUP][25]"
Hope this helps.[/SUP]
99% of that actually doesn't help answer his question in any way. You're posting some copy/paste about how grand jury's are flawed, he's asking how Paterno could not be aware McQueary had testified before a Grand Jury. And in turn, why Sandusky was still using his facilities.Skyhook79;964339 wrote:"The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[SUP][23][/SUP] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[SUP][10][/SUP] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[SUP][24][/SUP] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[SUP][10][/SUP]
After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[SUP][25]"
Hope this helps.[/SUP]
Really? You can't follow my point?? I'm familiar with grand juries.Skyhook79;964339 wrote:"The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[SUP][23][/SUP] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[SUP][10][/SUP] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[SUP][24][/SUP] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[SUP][10][/SUP]
After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[SUP][25]"
Hope this helps.[/SUP]
The guy is nuts. I watched the video earlier, someone needed to put him in his pasture before now.reclegend22;964350 wrote:Joe may not have had his presser today, but he is talking to students from his bedroom window. This should clear everything up. Joe's obviously in the clear now after this window report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O0EeTDWVPc
Although I'm a staunch supporter (right now, as I believe in due process) of Paterno, I must admit, the part of the video where JoePa yells "Beat Nebraska!" absolutely made be burst out in laughter. As if that's the most pressing issue right now lol. He's old, and a bit crazy. But he's always been this way, and it's the JoePa I've always admired. Hopefully, he doesn't end up proving me wrong.