I believe that is why he posed it as a question?Skyhook79;964888 wrote:IDK, do you know that he did for sure?
Thats how you took it... I took as something different.-Society-;964899 wrote:I believe that is why he posed it as a question?
Not surprised, clearly went over you head.Skyhook79;964905 wrote:Thats how you took it... I took as something different.
What does this prove? Nothing. It's just as feasible that during the time spent hanging out that Joe Pa asked him about the accusations, and he denied them. If your friend denies something, are you going to pry further? No, you're going to drop it.Fab1b;964876 wrote:Also want to tell me that after the alleged incidents and after Sandusky retired he and JoPa never hung out? Never sat in an office together, each others homes, lunch, coffee, etc...?
one word...KarmaOneBuckeye;964915 wrote:
No one is asking you to crucify him.lhslep134;964913 wrote:... If your friend denies something, are you going to pry further? No, you're going to drop it.
...
Did Penn State violate any NCAA rules? I'm not asking rhetorically, I don't know their 1000 page rulebook inside and out. Obviously they violated their legal duty, but did they violate any NCAA rules?vball10set;964921 wrote:one word...Karma
LMAO, sorry someone accuses someone I know of something that horrible and I ask them and take their denial as the truth (who the hell would admit to that?) I'm still alerting the police.lhslep134;964913 wrote:What does this prove? Nothing. It's just as feasible that during the time spent hanging out that Joe Pa asked him about the accusations, and he denied them. If your friend denies something, are you going to pry further? No, you're going to drop it.
Everything that you're construing from your statement can be construed the other way as well. Why? Because we don't know the whole story. Until we hear from Joe Pa, everything is just inferences, and I'm sorry, but I refuse to crucify someone based on an inference. Once Joe Pa speaks or we hear his side of the story, then I'm willing to change my tune.
You can't have it both ways. You're either letting it go or you report it. If you report it to your superiors, and it comes out that it's a lot more substantial than just an allegation, then it's on your superiors to do something about it. If you report it to your superiors, and they come back and tell you they didn't find anything, wtf are you supposed to do?Con_Alma;964927 wrote: Either way, I'm not just reporting it and letting it go at that.
Maybe not but to present the football program as one with honor is now despicable.lhslep134;964928 wrote:Did Penn State violate any NCAA rules? I'm not asking rhetorically, I don't know their 1000 page rulebook inside and out. Obviously they violated their legal duty, but did they violate any NCAA rules?
I'm asking because this case is distinguishable from OSU's in the sense that what was being "covered up" was an NCAA violation, not a crime.
Really? Joe Pa is the pedophile here? You really are an idiot.Commander of Awesome;964931 wrote:Ishlep is now an apologist for a pedophile
Con_Alma;964938 wrote:Maybe not but to present the football program as one with honor is now despicable.
Yes. Just stop.Tobias Fünke;964536 wrote:Has any of that actually been proven?
There's a handful of people who really are looking pathetic. Grasping at any straw, no matter how thin, to justify the awful actions(or in-actions) of someone they inexplicably still have hero worship for(because he seemed nice on TV lol.)Commander of Awesome;964931 wrote:Ishlep is now an apologist for a pedophile. Unbelievable this troll will argue anyone on anything.
I don't want it both ways. I stated I am not simply reporting it and letting it go. I am following through to make sure the right thing is done.lhslep134;964937 wrote:You can't have it both ways...
Agreed, the ones who are making inferences and assumptions that we don't know yet. You guys are completely missing the point of the people who are arguing against you. We're not arguing Joe Pa's innocence, we're arguing the possibility of innocence exists until we hear the other side.2kool4skool;964942 wrote:
There's a handful of people who really are looking pathetic.
What you don't get is that we've already heard from Paterno. His words are in the GJ report. He admits what he was told by MM was that the act taking place in the shower was sexual.lhslep134;964948 wrote:Agreed, the ones who are making inferences and assumptions that we don't know yet. You guys are completely missing the point of the people who are arguing against you. We're not arguing Joe Pa's innocence, we're arguing the possibility of innocence exists until we hear the other side.
Its known that he was aware of it happening and allowed it to continue. Never went to police, went to the AD. When the guy was still on the staff he should have gone to police, he didn't and knew about it. Therefore he's an accessory. Tier 3 law school hasn't covered that yet?lhslep134;964939 wrote:Really? Joe Pa is the pedophile here? You really are an idiot.
Spot on, I'm not sure how anyone that read the report can defend him or think he shouldn't be fired immediately.Writerbuckeye;964963 wrote:What you don't get is that we've already heard from Paterno. His words are in the GJ report. He admits what he was told by MM was that the act taking place in the shower was sexual.
That, combined with the 1998 report Paterno also knew about, and the action by Paterno to retire Sandusky are examples of things Paterno is telling us.
Him saying now, when he's under fire, that he was somehow fooled by a pedophile rings very hollow.
I'm sure people who admire him don't want to think he would lie about something like this -- but that's exactly what he'd doing. He's trying to save face any way possible.
Which is why anything he tells us now isn't going to change the facts.
A. Joe Pa isn't legally liable for anything (FAIL on your part)Commander of Awesome;964970 wrote:Therefore he's an accessory. Tier 3 law school hasn't covered that yet?
Trust me, I think we've got a pretty good handle on you people's side of the argument lollhslep134;964948 wrote:You guys are completely missing the point of the people who are arguing against you.
We've heard his side, read the GJ report. Whatever mumbling, senile speech he gives isn't going to tell us more.We're not arguing Joe Pa's innocence, we're arguing the possibility of innocence exists until we hear the other side.