pnhasbeen;1058354 wrote:


And that doesn't really do much for me. 1) He didn't belong in Penn State football locker rooms. Those are not a part of "recreational facilities." 2) No where in that policy does it state that this is a lifelong status. So, again, Joe Paterno who had a great amount of power had the influence to keep Jerry Sandusky off Penn State campus.


http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr25.html

The President may grant (or deny) Emeritus Rank on an exception basis.
[h=3]APPROVAL OF EMERITUS RANK:[/h]Emeritus Rank is granted by the President after reviewing any action by the appropriate officer. Emeritus Rank may be granted to the President by the Board of Trustees.

I don't see Joe Paterno's name in there anywhere.

Skyhook79;1058550 wrote:The President may grant (or deny) Emeritus Rank on an exception basis.
APPROVAL OF EMERITUS RANK:

Emeritus Rank is granted by the President after reviewing any action by the appropriate officer. Emeritus Rank may be granted to the President by the Board of Trustees.

I don't see Joe Paterno's name in there anywhere.

I think you sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between "in theory" and "in reality". In theory, according to what you posted above, Joe Paterno has nothing to do with granting Emeritus Rank. In reality, Joe Paterno has way more influence than you are pretending, not to mention that what you posted does not at all account for the sources that the President may consider when making such a decision. I don't understand why you continue to act as though Joe Paterno was just some ordinary guy on the street in Happy Valley.

enigmaax;1058570 wrote:I think you sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between "in theory" and "in reality". In theory, according to what you posted above, Joe Paterno has nothing to do with granting Emeritus Rank. In reality, Joe Paterno has way more influence than you are pretending, not to mention that what you posted does not at all account for the sources that the President may consider when making such a decision. I don't understand why you continue to act as though Joe Paterno was just some ordinary guy on the street in Happy Valley.

I never said he was an "ordinary" guy. I don't understand why some people think he had complete control over everything that went on at Penn State. Jim Boeheim doesn't get 1/10,000 of blame that Paterno does and his "alleged" Child molester was still sitting on the bench next to him after 35+years.

Skyhook79;1058601 wrote:I never said he was an "ordinary" guy. I don't understand why some people think he had complete control over everything that went on at Penn State. Jim Boeheim doesn't get 1/10,000 of blame that Paterno does and his "alleged" Child molester was still sitting on the bench next to him after 35+years.

I missed the part where Jim Boeheim heard a first hand account of an incident from an assistant coach. No one ever said Joe Paterno should have known everything Sandusky did in his private life. But once he was privy to the eye-witness account, he assumed certain responsibilities than anyone in his position would have also assumed.

enigmaax;1058737 wrote:I missed the part where Jim Boeheim heard a first hand account of an incident from an assistant coach. No one ever said Joe Paterno should have known everything Sandusky did in his private life. But once he was privy to the eye-witness account, he assumed certain responsibilities than anyone in his position would have also assumed.

Boeheim was aware of the allegations against Fine in 2005. He spent 35 years with the guy don't you think he knew something just as people like to say about Paterno? Also Paterno did assume his responsibility of reporting what he was told to his superiors and why Paterno has been charged with no wrong doing.

Skyhook79;1058773 wrote:Boeheim was aware of the allegations against Fine in 2005. He spent 35 years with the guy don't you think he knew something just as people like to say about Paterno? Also Paterno did assume his responsibility of reporting what he was told to his superiors and why Paterno has been charged with no wrong doing.

That doesn't change the fact that Joe Paterno has a moral obligation to ensure things were being taken care of. He may have had superiors in "rank" but his influence was number one. He was penn state.

I've never said Paterno should be charged. He didn't break any laws.

Skyhook79;1058773 wrote:Boeheim was aware of the allegations against Fine in 2005. He spent 35 years with the guy don't you think he knew something just as people like to say about Paterno? Also Paterno did assume his responsibility of reporting what he was told to his superiors and why Paterno has been charged with no wrong doing.

Can't speak for everyone else, but I never said Paterno "should have known" simply because he worked closely with the guy, just like I don't believe that about Boeheim. It is all about what Paterno did once he became aware of a first-hand account, which most of America believes wasn't enough for a man in his position with his influence and stature.

You can keep believing he handled it perfectly by telling his boss and never speaking another word of it. We will never agree and you will always be in the vast minority, which doesn't make either opinion right or wrong. But to keep comparing it to the Boeheim case is just, well, dumb. The circumstances are completely different. The involvement and responsbilities were completely different.

You honestly don't see a difference between expecting Boeheim to think, "Hmm, Bernie seems a little weird...he might molest boys so I better fire him and contact the authorities," and Paterno to think, "Wow, my assistant coach saw Jerry ass-raping a child in our shower...we've got to make sure the authorities are aware of this"?

Bernie's accuser has recanted his story but based upon Bernie's wife's story will still know he was diddling young boys. Boeheim should be shit canned just like Joe was. I hope Boeheim is prepared to face the media blast coming his way when March Madness begins.

enigmaax;1058895 wrote:Can't speak for everyone else, but I never said Paterno "should have known" simply because he worked closely with the guy, just like I don't believe that about Boeheim. It is all about what Paterno did once he became aware of a first-hand account, which most of America believes wasn't enough for a man in his position with his influence and stature.

You can keep believing he handled it perfectly by telling his boss and never speaking another word of it. We will never agree and you will always be in the vast minority, which doesn't make either opinion right or wrong. But to keep comparing it to the Boeheim case is just, well, dumb. The circumstances are completely different. The involvement and responsbilities were completely different.

You honestly don't see a difference between expecting Boeheim to think, "Hmm, Bernie seems a little weird...he might molest boys so I better fire him and contact the authorities," and Paterno to think, "Wow, my assistant coach saw Jerry ass-raping a child in our shower...we've got to make sure the authorities are aware of this"?

McQueary has said he didn't actually see that.