Dr Winston O'Boogie;1069865 wrote: What he failed to do (regardless of his reasons) is reprehensible and disgusting.

What he failed to do?? GTFO with that nonsense. It's what his SUPERVISORS failed to do.

And co-exist? In what sense, that they no longer worked together after 1998? and JoePa was told about it in 2002? Or is the truth too inconvenient for you?

lhslep134;1069868 wrote:What he failed to do??...

What he failed to do....you know....the things Mr. Paterno was speaking about when he stated he wish he would have done more. Some of us wish he would have also.

Con_Alma;1069870 wrote:What he failed to do....you know....the things Mr. Paterno was speaking about when he stated he wish he would have done more. Some of us wish he would have also.

Right, because no one ever says anything like that after the extent of consequences are known....

Hindsight is 20/20. If the onus was on JoePa to do more, he would have faced legal scrutiny, instead his superiors are. But again, I understand that the truth, facts, and logic have no sway with your emotionally charged opinion.

lhslep134;1069886 wrote:Right, because no one ever says anything like that after the extent of consequences are known....

Sure they do. All the time. In my experience it seems to be quite common.

lhslep134;1069886 wrote:...Hindsight is 20/20. If the onus was on JoePa to do more, he would have faced legal scrutiny, instead his superiors are. ...

Of course hindsight is 20/20. His superiors should face legal scrutiny. Joe Paterno should not, based on what is know at this point.

lhslep134;1069886 wrote:...But again, I understand that the truth, facts, and logic have no sway with your emotionally charged opinion.

You think my opinion is emotionally charged? Based on logic and facts how did you come to that conclusion?

The man said he should have done more and I agree with him. Is it illogical for me to agree with him? Was he illogical when in "hindsight" he stated he should have done more?

I am not sensing the emotion you think I am portraying nor the illogical choice to agree with Mr. Paterno.

Con_Alma;1069894 wrote:

You think my opinion is emotionally charged? Based on logic and facts how did you come to that conclusion?

Not as much yours, as much as the post above mine (Winston's).

Thatnk you for clarifying. I hope you can understand why I was purplexed with your comments when you quoted me and referred to an "emotionally charged opinion".

They are not.

lhslep134;1069868 wrote:What he failed to do?? GTFO with that nonsense. It's what his SUPERVISORS failed to do.

And co-exist? In what sense, that they no longer worked together after 1998? and JoePa was told about it in 2002? Or is the truth too inconvenient for you?

His supervisors did fail, no doubt about that. Paterno failed too. As a leader, you don't just simply push the button as required but sit by idly if the power doesn't come on. That's what Paterno did.

And yes, Paterno and Sandusky did coexist for years after Paterno knew at the minimum that the guy was a child molester. Sandusky came and went in the offices at will. That is coexisting. That Paterno allowed that is unfathomable.

Con_Alma;1069910 wrote:Thatnk you for clarifying. I hope you can understand why I was purplexed with your comments when you quoted me and referred to an "emotionally charged opinion".

They are not.

You're right, I don't know why I tried to address both yours and Winston's arguments together when they are clearly not. Sorry for the confusion.

Paterno is probably banging his head against the pearly gate at the entrance to heaven knowing that his family allowed Phil Knight to step onto a soapbox at his funeral. Moral grandstanding, whether in support or not, has no place at an event like a memorial service.

Considering Nike's history of having Pakistani infants making the Air Jordan's for 3 cents a pop that have made Phil Knight billions of dollars, I wouldn't exactly call him the moral authority on right and wrong when it comes to the well being of underprivileged children. There was seriously NO ONE else that the Paterno family could have stand up and deliver this message, or wait to have Phil Knight deliver this message at a later time? The man represents everything that's becoming wrong with college football to a large portion of followers. From a PR standpoint Phil Knight's speech rallied those who were already sympathetic towards Paterno and continues to alienate those that don't understand his actions and view State College as 'Questionable Moralstown'.

http://www.timesonline.com/sports/local_sports/madden-knight-should-have-put-a-shoe-in-it-at/article_28c6a044-2e05-5559-a686-04aacd873248.html

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1069917 wrote:His supervisors did fail, no doubt about that. Paterno failed too. As a leader, you don't just simply push the button as required but sit by idly if the power doesn't come on. That's what Paterno did.

And yes, Paterno and Sandusky did coexist for years after Paterno knew at the minimum that the guy was a child molester. Sandusky came and went in the offices at will. That is coexisting. That Paterno allowed that is unfathomable.

So in your opinion, what do you think of this scenario?

McQ to Jpa: I saw Sandusky acting inappropriately with little boys
Jpa to superiors: McQ told me such and such
Superiors to Jpa: okay, we will alert the authorities and look into it
MONTHS LATER
Jpa: What happened with the Sandusky case?
Superiors: we looked into it, it wasn't true, no police action necessary

What is Joe Pa supposed to do? I'm not saying that scenario is exactly what happened (because we'll never know), but it's a lot more plausible of a thought than "Joe Pa co-existed with a guy he knew was a child molester".

If my protocol is to report it to my superiors, and my superiors botch it and subsequently lie to me, how am I personally responsible?

I know it's a much less significant situation and in no way compares to the horrors of child abuse, but the chain of command situation is very similar to what happened with Jim Tressel at Youngstown State. Tressel was alerted to possible violations, he reported it to his superiors, his superiors were dirty and lied to him about it, Tressel then told the NCAA that nothing was wrong, the NCAA finds wrongdoing and punishes Tressel's superiors but not Tressel, because Tressel didn't actually do anything wrong.

IMO, the people who are so against Paterno here seem to struggle with the concept that JoePa wasn't the highest link in the chain, and that his superiors' words and actions most likely have to do with Sandusky's continuing presence around Penn State than anything Joe Pa did.

lhslep134;1069938 wrote: IMO, the people who are so against Paterno here seem to struggle with the concept that JoePa wasn't the highest link in the chain, and that his superiors' words and actions most likely have to do with Sandusky's continuing presence around Penn State than anything Joe Pa did.

Other people seem to struggle with the concept that an organizational chart has no relation to reality and that the most powerful person in said organization could be someone shown a few levels down. For example, a football coach.

lhslep134;1069938 wrote:So in your opinion, what do you think of this scenario?

McQ to Jpa: I saw Sandusky acting inappropriately with little boys
Jpa to superiors: McQ told me such and such
Superiors to Jpa: okay, we will alert the authorities and look into it
MONTHS LATER
Jpa: What happened with the Sandusky case?
Superiors: we looked into it, it wasn't true, no police action necessary

What is Joe Pa supposed to do? I'm not saying that scenario is exactly what happened (because we'll never know), but it's a lot more plausible of a thought than "Joe Pa co-existed with a guy he knew was a child molester".

If my protocol is to report it to my superiors, and my superiors botch it and subsequently lie to me, how am I personally responsible?

I know it's a much less significant situation and in no way compares to the horrors of child abuse, but the chain of command situation is very similar to what happened with Jim Tressel at Youngstown State. Tressel was alerted to possible violations, he reported it to his superiors, his superiors were dirty and lied to him about it, Tressel then told the NCAA that nothing was wrong, the NCAA finds wrongdoing and punishes Tressel's superiors but not Tressel, because Tressel didn't actually do anything wrong.

IMO, the people who are so against Paterno here seem to struggle with the concept that JoePa wasn't the highest link in the chain, and that his superiors' words and actions most likely have to do with Sandusky's continuing presence around Penn State than anything Joe Pa did.

Your story gets Paterno off the hook if, in fact, he was told that McQueary was lying. I believe that Sandusky was told to stop bringing children around Penn State after the 2002 incident as well, correct? If Joe didn't know this, then I don't know how much more he could've done. But if he was in on the 'child ban' placed on Sandusky, I don't know how that could be spun into a positive light for him.

Hopefully a somewhat factual representation of the truth will all come out when (if) a trial happens. IMO those that are defending Paterno have just as much right to do so as those that are choosing to convict him. Everyone has the same evidence and just sees it in different ways.

queencitybuckeye;1069946 wrote:Other people seem to struggle with the concept that an organizational chart has no relation to reality and that the most powerful person in said organization could be someone shown a few levels down. For example, a football coach.

Reality? The reality is that the BOT booted Paterno out. That really sounds like Paterno has all the power....

lhslep134;1069950 wrote:Reality? The reality is that the BOT booted Paterno out. That really sounds like Paterno has all the power....

Maybe they "booted" him out for failing to do more.

dtdtim;1069947 wrote: But if he was in on the 'child ban' placed on Sandusky, I don't know how that could be spun into a positive light for him.

Hopefully a somewhat factual representation of the truth will all come out when (if) a trial happens. IMO those that are defending Paterno have just as much right to do so as those that are choosing to convict him. Everyone has the same evidence and just sees it in different ways.

There's no positive light here, I just don't think the light should be as negative as it is coming from some people. And I'm not sure we'll ever know the full truth, maybe the trial will shed light on that like you said.

Con_Alma;1069954 wrote:Maybe they "booted" him out for failing to do more.

More likely they booted him out to save face from their administration's own mishandling of the situation, making Joe Pa a scapegoat.

I still don't understand QCB how you can say someone who's sole job is to run the football program is "higher" in the chain of command than someone who's job is to run the university. I'll never agree with you on that, but it's your opinion so you're entitled to it.

lhslep134;1069960 wrote:More likely they booted him out to save face from their administration's own mishandling of the situation, making Joe Pa a scapegoat. ...

As you stated earlier, you are sure we will never know the truth. Maybe if he would have just done more we wouldn't be speculating.

lhslep134;1069960 wrote:...I still don't understand QCB how you can say someone who's sole job is to run the football program is "higher" in the chain of command than someone who's job is to run the university. I'll never agree with you on that, but it's your opinion so you're entitled to it.

I didn't read that QCB stated Mr. Paterno was "higher in the chain of command". You might go back and read his post again.

Con_Alma;1069982 wrote:Maybe if he would have just done more we wouldn't be speculating.

okay captain hindsight

DeyDurkie5;1069989 wrote:okay captain hindsight

I'm simply following the lead of whatt he man himself had said. He wishes he would have done more. It is that, that I am relying up on.

Con_Alma;1069982 wrote: I didn't read that QCB stated Mr. Paterno was "higher in the chain of command". You might go back and read his post again.

He insinuated that Paterno had all the power and is figuratively at the top of the chain of command.

lhslep134;1070030 wrote:He insinuated that Paterno had all the power and is figuratively at the top of the chain of command.

Power? Yes. Top of the chain of command? No.

He had plenty of power to make a difference in this sad, sad situation. Mr. Paterno even "insinuated" as much when he stated* he wished he would have done more.

lhslep134;1069938 wrote:So in your opinion, what do you think of this scenario?

McQ to Jpa: I saw Sandusky acting inappropriately with little boys
Jpa to superiors: McQ told me such and such
Superiors to Jpa: okay, we will alert the authorities and look into it
MONTHS LATER
Jpa: What happened with the Sandusky case?
Superiors: we looked into it, it wasn't true, no police action necessary

What is Joe Pa supposed to do?

My opinion:

Paterno to McQuery: Don't be vague, I want to know exactly what you saw.

Paterno to superiors: Here's exactly what McQuery told me...

Follow-up by Paterno to superiors within days. Follow-up by Paterno over and over and over again until an answer is given. If superiors say, "we investigated and nothing happened, then I get McQuery and the superiors into a room together and say, "We're not leaving here until we figure out what the hell is going on. I have reason to believe child rape was witnessed. It either was or it wasn't. We're all going to figure this out. In the meantime, if McQuery tells me Sandusky raped a boy in my locker room, I either believe McQuery - in which case Sandusky is immediatly barred from my program and I go to the police station myself. Or I don't believe McQuery in which case I fire him for making a horrible accusation against a long-time trusted confident of mine. EIther way, child rape is not to be left in limbo.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1070079 wrote: In the meantime, if McQuery tells me Sandusky raped a boy in my locker room, I either believe McQuery - in which case Sandusky is immediatly barred from my program and I go to the police station myself.

1. Hindsight is 20/20

2. The police can't do anything about what Joe Pa has to say because it's hearsay, they would need to hear directly from McQ before anything. Again, that's a fact that people fail to realize.

lhslep134;1070098 wrote:1. Hindsight is 20/20

2. The police can't do anything about what Joe Pa has to say because it's hearsay, they would need to hear directly from McQ before anything. Again, that's a fact that people fail to realize.

I realize this fact. What people, that's plural, do you believe don't realize it?

Mr. Paterno believes more could have been done than was. Specifically he believes there was more for him to do. I believe him and agree with him. He clearly failed at something mroe important than football.

Do you not agree with Mr. Paterno's own assessment of his actions?

Con_Alma;1070109 wrote:I realize this fact. What people, that's plural, do you believe don't realize it?

Anyone who thinks Paterno going to the police would have had a major effect. The person who should have gone to police is McQ (who directly witnessed the actions), or the people who were legally obligated to do so (ie the administrators who are facing legal sanctions).