Penn State Covers Up For a Pedophile: Sandusky down, Spanier next up - charges filed - Page 50 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

PocketChads · 11-06-2011, 10:05 PM

then, AD to JoePa: "well, what do you mean by inappropriate?"

JoePa to AD: "well, GA didn't say"

PocketChads · 11-06-2011, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I realize Joe is old and that we're supposed to like old people, but Joe's handling of this is beyond awful and he needs to be turbofired.

i agree, if this was directed at me at all

**72off** · 11-06-2011, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketChads

then, AD to JoePa: "well, what do you mean by inappropriate?"

JoePa to AD: "you know, horsin' around"

AD to JoePa: "ok kool, well thanks for stoppin' by!"

Quicksilvre · 11-06-2011, 10:07 PM

Dids,

I'm tempted to be with you because it is true that we don't know what was said. However,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

there's two guys who have been charged with doing what some are suggesting Joe must have done. Can't we assume that the investigators have better knowledge of this situation than our speculation and assumptions about how people are supposed to act?

^ This isn't a be-all and end-all when it comes to Paterno's moral responsibilities, because moral responsibilities and legal responsibilities are different things. Legal investigators only look at the latter.

PocketChads · 11-06-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 72off

i can see this, for sure. and then when AD meets with GA to ask him about it, AD keeps going on about, "what is wrong with you, trying to get someone in trouble for horsing around?"

GA is perplexed, but just assumes horsing around is code for anal rape

Tumaterminator · 11-06-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

Which is a path probably not at all unlikely for any GA in any program.

dids attacking pointless logic itt is not helping this thread. i was stating nothing besides a fact, preemptively denying what it might mean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

wiper,

I have no interest in talking about hypotheticals. Just silly at this point.

disagrees with ^ and furthers nonsense itt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

ATA,

The story is that Joe pushed dude to retire in 99. He's not somebody who was under Joe's supervision when this occurred. Somebody comes to you with a vague accusation about a former employee- do you turn into Columbo or do you put the situation in the hands of the people responsible for that individual?

dids he was his assistant coach for 30 freakin years, PROBABLY bff/like family too. on campus all the time. i mean cmon, former employee? lol, you have no idea what is going on.

PocketChads · 11-06-2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

Can't we assume that the investigators have better knowledge of this situation than our speculation and assumptions about how people are supposed to act?

sure, but it is basically the definition of foolish to think that this must be the reason anyone was or was not charged for anything.

hint: politics

someone earlier brought up "oh, you guys are so stupid to think that the DA doesn't care about rape when it comes to JoePa"

which was an epic strawman. i don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence by explaining this, but what the DA is afraid of is what happens if JoePa is found not guilty or even just if his constituents/jurors never believe JoePa could be guilty of anything

**Dids** · 11-06-2011, 10:12 PM

Not really sure how much more clear I can be that I'm not talking about his moral responsibilities. I've said a few times that I wouldn't make (or I guess at least hope I wouldn't make) the same choices he did.

I can tell you that if I described this situation to my boss, or my HR director, their advice would be to get myself out of the situation ASAP and put it in the hands of the appropriate authorities (what I'm not sure about is if they'd suggest my hypothetical employee contact the police, if of they'd suggest that the employee talk to HR and HR would contact the police).

vixticator · 11-06-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketChads

i don't see how it seems implausible that GA is afraid to graphically describe stuff to JoePa. he surely saw him as some kind of perfect, pure being, or at the very least, a poor innocent old man

i can easily buy incompetence on JoePa's part, too, just saying, ok, inappropriate conduct, no need to say more, GA, m'boy, i will tell the AD

Page 7 says "Paterno called Tim Curley, the AD and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the next day... and reported to him the GA had seen Sandusky fonding or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." This is what Joe Paterno said he heard in the grand jury report so that cannot be true.

ut2010 · 11-06-2011, 10:14 PM

How the **** was Paterno fooled? Your ginger graduate assistant brought this to your attention 9 years ago and Sandusky was still strutting around campus all this time.

AtThe Aquarium · 11-06-2011, 10:16 PM

Dids,

Joe Pa isn't some common employee who might properly clean his hands by notifying his higher-ups. He IS Penn State. As soon as he found out what was going on sending the info "up" the food chain isn't just morally suspect, it's pretty egregious.

**Dids** · 11-06-2011, 10:17 PM

Tuma,

Yes, my point is that none of us have any idea what's going on. You're the one making assumptions in that case.

shemp · 11-06-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

ATA,

I'm not trying to debate if what Joe Pa did was right on some grand moral scale. I imagine if I was in that situation I wouldn't do what he did.

What I am arguing is that I can easily see a chain of events that make his statement truthful, or at a minimum not the obvious falsehood some seem to be suggesting. In part this is because Joe making false statement at this point (there's been a prolonged investigation that did not implicate him*, every eye in the world is looking at PSU, etc) would be amazingly stupid, even for a situation with a whole lot of stupid.

*- seriously- there's two guys who have been charged with doing what some are suggesting Joe must have done. Can't we assume that the investigators have better knowledge of this situation than our speculation and assumptions about how people are supposed to act?

Well, the basis for the prosecution it seems is that while anal intercourse got lost between the GA and Paterno, unspecified misconduct of a sexual nature got lost between Paterno and the AD-- and the latter gets you Paterno testifying for you. I guess I'll have to believe him for now.

pvn · 11-06-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

I can easily see Joe snap passing on a complaint phrased that way to the people he believed to be responsible for following up on that sort of situation. He's a head college football coach and may not feel like the actions of a guy he pushed out years ago were something with which he should concern himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

ATA,

The story is that Joe pushed dude to retire in 99. He's not somebody who was under Joe's supervision when this occurred. Somebody comes to you with a vague accusation about a former employee- do you turn into Columbo or do you put the situation in the hands of the people responsible for that individual?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dids

The point is that per the statement, a vague accusation was all Joe had to go on.

WTF dids? Are you ****ing serious? It's none of his business cause he already fired the guy? I mean of all the retarded **** in this thread (and there are some ****ing doozies) this is got to be top 3.

Are you saying joepa has no control over who has access to PSU facilities or goes with the team on bowl game trips? Even if it was just a "vague" accusation, he can make sure this guy isn't on PSU property or travelling on PSU's dime.

As for the GA, making excuses for him would be LOL if it weren't so ****ing serious. Yeah, he told joepa, that's a good first step. And then, when nothing happened, he didn't go any further. He shoulders a LOT of blame here IMO.

Tumaterminator · 11-06-2011, 10:17 PM