because all pedos are gay, amirite.

your friend is a ******, and you aren't much better for sharing his view with the internet.

I'm simply making a point. Whatever.

so there's an acceptable level of sexual contact between a man and a boy?

i am not a psu cultist. stop treating me like i am.

lol triumph. im pretty surprised at you. you should be able to pretty clearly see the deeper/broader motivations here.

and you either haven't been paying attention to the posts in this thread, or you are willfully ignoring all the possible explanations for why paterno covered this up. the freeh report also had a significant passage on it.

hint: it's a ****ton more than "winnzzz" and "oh noez the disgrace."

im not treating you like you are. im responding in a rational manner to your post.

paterno was told there was sexual contact between sandusky and a boy.

i would very much like to know why the degree of sexual contact is material. can you explain that?

other than there being an acceptable level of sexual contact (and mcqueary was pretty ****ing clear on how serious it was), i certainly cant come up with anything else.

Triumph, come on man

LOL. No.

He's saying Paterno and Sandusky are gay. When Paterno found out about Sandusky was a pedo as well, he confronted Jerry. Jerry then said something like "If you report me, I'll tell everyone we are lovers." So Paterno backed off.

It has nothing to do w/ Paterno being a pedo.

Wha??

Not sure how this is supposed to make you or your friend look less ******ed, but I guess I'm double the dumbass for not understanding that.

slapping of skin is obv appropriate contact amirite?

Meh, I see what Triumph is getting at. If it's just some horseplay in the showers (i.e. soaping each other up and stuff) I don't see any need to report it.

r u ****ing serious? no adult male needs to be naked around a juvenile that is not their child period. beyond that, there is no reason said adult male should be touching/soaping up/etc. a juvenile that is not their child. even the straightest, non-pedo-est male in the world would be ****ing shot in the head if i found out they were soaping up my child.

WTF

At this rate this thread is gonna need the death penalty.

i THINK you are trolling, but:

except that we (including triumph) are starting from the assumption that joe was told about "sexual conduct." the above is not necessarily "sexual conduct," although i'd continue to argue that it's still highly inappropriate and could be "sexual conduct."

seeing as joe and mcqueary have both testified to the conversation being about "sexual conduct" and we have tons of other evidence showing joe knew about the "sexual conduct" in 2001 and 1998 leaves no question that paterno was 100% told without a ****ing doubt that sandusky was engaging in "sexual conduct" with a boy in the shower.

this argument doesn't have a leg to stand on here unless he wants to argue some lesser sort of sexual conduct is acceptable, which i obviously know he doesnt believe.

I deleted the dumbass part.

So you don't think there's any chance that Paterno might have been gay and had a relationship w/ Sandusky? With everything that's been going on, it seems like Jerry may have had dirt on Paterno. The dude was given a retirement package, allowed to bring kids to PSU and everyone was OK with it? That doesn't seem a bit odd?

I mean there's a chance Paterno was smuggling Haitian immigrants in through the border and Sandusky knew about it.

There's a chance Paterno was selling drugs.

There's a chance Paterno is an alien from space.

Your post wasn't very helpful or insightful. You also just drew a line straight from "gay" to "pedophile," which is going to rightfully draw ire.

Jerry obv did have dirt on Paterno. Paterno appears to have helped him cover up child molestation. Seems enough "dirt" to me.

No.
Yes, but it could just as well be the dirt that the Freeh report brought up. A clear showing that Paterno was aware of the '98 investigation, and did not do that much to follow through with the '01 report, to stop him from bringing kids on campus, or to stop him from bringing kids on bowl trips. Hadn't considered this, but if you are going down, I can definitely see bringing others down with you, and this seems like a more likely scenario then a gay relationship.

Lou Holtz said on ESPN last week he thinks Paterno felt like he "owed" Sandusky, because a lot of Paterno's success as a coach was due to the work of Sandusky on defense. He said Paterno was probably just fiercely loyal to his friend... to an absolute fault. Lou was quick to point out he wasn't offering this as an excuse for Paterno (he slammed him pretty hard overall), but just a possible explanation.

You can take that as a starting point from the initial allegations, and then as things start to get more serious it just snowballed into a huge cover up that then kept him from reporting it.

Sorry if people thought I was bringing up a pedo-gay relationship. I wasn't. But if there are kids from the '70's coming foward now, this whole thing may be much bigger than just 1998-present. You are talking 30-35+ years.

I just find it hard to believe that a guy that ruled w/ an iron fist only knew of the 1998 incident when tons of **** was occurring in the same building.

Oh I think this too, but seeing as we have enough here, I'm not going to open up any avenues for the crazies to go after. It would not surprise me in the least bit to find out that Joe knew of how Sandusky was for a lot longer. Perhaps excused a few missteps out of "loyalty" early on and then realized he had to continue covering it up no matter what otherwise it would end him.

When you have the power of an absolute monarch, you can get away with it for a while, apparently.

This makes a lot of sense especially w/ his "I should have done more." comment.

I mean I'm not surprised that people are coming forward with earlier allegations against Sandusky. The Seasock guy who was pretty much the sole dissenting voice in the Sandusky=pedophile allegations from the '98 incident was right that people don't just become pedophiles at the age of 50. (Coincidentally, this was the sole piece of evidence which led to a non-charge in '98 if the Freeh report is to be trusted, even though he was the only one saying it). Seasock was just wrong in assuming that this meant Sandusky was not a pedophile, rather than the correct assumption that it meant Sandusky had been raping boys for a long time.