nukefromorbit.jpeg

does that quoted comment make sense, because i can't seem to find any in it.

Well maybe not, but even still you should know there's only one option here:

fine. let's nuke from orbit, then gravitationally harness a medium-sized asteroid and set it on a course for central Pennsylvania. just to be sure.

I'm gonan go listen to Billie Jean and tacitly support child rape.

pretty sure much like the black hole, this would endanger all life on Earth. but they would sing our praises across the galaxy for millenia to come, so it might be worth it.

That's why I carefully chose a "medium-sized" one. Very strategic. It must not be small, such as a boulder-sized one that would mostly burn up in orbit and cause little damage. It must not be large, so as to create catastrophic damage, fires, a cloud of dust that would impact plant life, cause global climate change, etc. But it must be large enough to cause catastrophic damage to an area perhaps 15 miles in diameter, and any incidental damage would taper off over an area of, say a 100-mile radius as to not endanger Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (which, while offensive in their own right, can probably stick around for awhile longer.) I also assume that the degree of PSU culthood is proportional to the distance between your residence and Happy Valley, and the tapering damage radius would affect those people accordingly. Those in the direct impact would obviously be instantly killed. Those just outside Happy Valley would still likely die in the resulting inferno. Those further away would be subject to burns, property damage, injury/damage due to ejecta falling back to earth, etc. This would be a well-thought-out operation.

This is to all of y'all. For shame.

Mind blown.

Now Rob Neyer semi-tarding it up in not really, but really, defending Bill James. Sabertards might want to stick to baseball with their contrarinism and not venture off into child molestation.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/7/16/31...ump/in/2927439

i understand that these are loaded questions but while james didn't seem to understand the freeh report, i think it's pretty standard for this thread and for the discourse at large to not encourage any skepticism at all.

that's because it's impossible for anything to be the truth other than a) many people working at PSU knew and b) joe paterno knew

like there aren't any alternatives to even consider, unless joe paterno was actually powerless and him running the football team was a complete facade

the freeh report provides evidence to back up all these findings, but most of it isn't really necessary to get there

All of this. There really aren't a ton of other conclusions to draw here. They're all either really guilty, or super-really guilty.

but see you are still basing that on the assumption that the freeh report is not biased. obv, we should consider things that happened during freeh's tenure at the fbi and consider the report in light of that.

Thankfully, Freeh managed to cite all of the emails that completely and totally incriminate JoePa et al. No need for interpretation.

the degree to which they knew is what i'm interested in, and which we can apparently never know. i still have a hard time believing that paterno willfully was fully aware that sandusky had raped a child in the penn state locker room and did nothing. i think elements of obfuscation by people around him, the power of denial, sandusky's reputation to date, and yes, perhaps paterno's vanity and fear, stopped him from acting.

I know this is over and done with but ..... "oh crazy old guy on the internet" is nothing more than an excuse.

They have clear discussions via email a decade ago talking about what's going on with Sandusky. What more would you need to agree that Joe was implicitly involved and aware?

this post isn't going to end well for you.

we also have several people testifying under oath (including joe paterno) that he was told sandusky was raping someone in the showers in 2001. i mean... triumph have you been paying attention at all dude?

didn't he testify that mcqueary said something sexual went on, but he wasn't made clear what it was?

...does it matter?

A friend of mine suggested that Paterno and Sandusky might have had a relationship. When Joey found out Jer was a pedo, Jer threatened to rat him out if Joe reported him.

yes, it does. i'm not arguing that paterno isn't guilty of knowingly sheltering a pedophile and allowing him to continue to prey on children. like i've said at the outset, i'm curious about the motivations involved, and think they go much deeper/broader than 'winzzzz' and 'oh noz the disgrace'.