Goodbye, Joe

But remember, at that time in PSU history. Paterno had more power than the Dean. Yes the official rules of chain of command were followed but that just doesn't fly with me. Liek when the Board tried to push him out in 2004 because PSU was losing and they wanted him gone.

he said, NO.

And I would agree with you to a point except for Sandusky's foundation and the fact that Paterno made him retire. He knew what he was, and what he was capable of and decided he'd rather wash his hands of it than do the right thing.

IMO of course

If one of Sandusky's victims was YOUR kid, would you be satisfied that JoPa did all he could have been expected to do?

If one of Sandusky's victims was YOUR kid, would you be satisfied that JoPa did all he could have been expected to do? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I would not have my child being mentored by anyone other than myself. Maybe that is the bigger problem

And I would agree with you to a point except for Sandusky's foundation and the fact that Paterno made him retire. He knew what he was, and what he was capable of and decided he'd rather wash his hands of it than do the right thing.

IMO of course Originally Posted by budman33

had he in fact washed his hands of him we would not be having thbis discussion. They invisgated him in 98. Had they proscuted him who knows....you just don't know but it is easy to look back and say what might have been

That wasn't my point. Sandusky was the anointed one to replace Paterno. he was only 55 when Paterno 'retired' him. Paterno and PSU has had hindsight information since 1999. I still think they washed their hands of him in 1999 while knowing the foundation where they had a pedophile founder continued. I could not have lived with myself knowing this. This is where they are reprehensible to me. They could have leaked something if they were so determined to preserve the sanctity of Penn State.

We have hindsight now, many others have had it for over a decade. Pathetic

With Paterno's power he could have brought a pedophile to justice and PSU would have come out smelling like a rose. But I think he was ok turning a blind eye for an old friend. Tough call to make but he made the wrong one IMO.

PSU might convince people that it is trying to make amends if it closed its football program for 5 years and put all that budget to a victims' fund.

That is total ignorance. Football generates a PROFIT. That means it pays for the BUDGET and has money left over for other things. Without football, there would be no budget.

Now I have a suggestion.....why should the PennSt victims be paid more than any other sexual abuse victim? Why don't we all (especially those that are hollering we should have done more) put money in a national fund to pay all victims of sexual abuse the exact same amount. I have never understood the so called high profile cases demands for higher justice. Originally Posted by WTF

I think the reason to do this is because, when this case comes to court, and it will, PSU will be found to violate outrageous conduct and gross negligence. Both those standards remove any limitations on liability and pave the way for multi-millions in punitive damages.

And the reason those victims should be paid more? The reason is because PSU had special duties owed to those victims, and failed to live up to those duties. Actually, it can be argued that there was a conspiracy, not only to hide the sexual abuse, but also to promote it into the future.

The fact that JoePa was not indicted does not mean that he won't be. Nor that he won't be found personally liable in any civil lawsuit. Any insurance he might have carried personally (the University as a state institution was probably self insured since it is shielded in most lawsuits by sovereign immunity) may not apply since most insurance carries an exclusion for intentional acts (and presumably, intentional omissions).

WTF, you are completely on the wrong side of this. JoePa has not been indicted, so he will not be tried (as yet). But JoePa did not, I repeat, did not report it to the correct state agency (see my previous post in reply to TTH). It does not mean he can't be held in contempt, nor fired, based on his conduct, or lack thereof.

I think the reason to do this is because, when this case comes to court, and it will, PSU will be found to violate outrageous conduct and gross negligence. Both those standards remove any limitations on liability and pave the way for multi-millions in punitive damages.

And the reason those victims should be paid more? The reason is because PSU had special duties owed to those victims, and failed to live up to those duties. Actually, it can be argued that there was a conspiracy, not only to hide the sexual abuse, but also to promote it into the future.

The fact that JoePa was not indicted does not mean that he won't be. Nor that he won't be found personally liable in any civil lawsuit. Any insurance he might have carried personally (the University as a state institution was probably self insured since it is shielded in most lawsuits by sovereign immunity) may not apply since most insurance carries an exclusion for intentional acts (and presumably, intentional omissions).

WTF, you are completely on the wrong side of this. JoePa has not been indicted, so he will not be tried (as yet). But JoePa did not, I repeat, did not report it to the correct state agency (see my previous post in reply to TTH). It does not mean he can't be held in contempt, nor fired, based on his conduct, or lack thereof.

charlestupor2005, I thought you said you were going to leave this board forever? I see the ladies in the other forum handed you your ass.....did you come over here to inflict your WORTHLESS self on us? Soooooo many people wish you'd just disappear, FOREVER......you're such a worhless downer........

Charles I am traveling and can not respond with the proper fuc off but there is no wrong side in my stance in waiting for all the facts to appear. If you and olivia can not wait on justice may I suggest you two load up and head to Penn st and take matters into your own hands. Short of that I do not know what else to tell you vigilantes! Lol

No they do not. OJ and CA had a TRIAL. After which I had a more informed OPINION. You do know the difference between a trial and a grand jury right? Originally Posted by WTF

A, yes they do conflict on another, and B, NO ONE is denying what they knew and when they knew it. Paterno even said he didn’t do enough. HE ADMITTED IT. Why would anyone put him on trial? And yes, I know what a grand jury indictment is. For the record OJ and CA weren’t found innocent they were found not guilty. There’s a difference you know.

Do you not understand that the truth is in the eye of the beholder. In OJ's case, decades of police injustice towards blacks led to doubt in the jury's mind. Originally Posted by WTF

Oh poor OJ. Please. I’m so sick to death of mitigating excuses for criminals. Are you say because he’s black that’s why he killed those people? Well that’s just dumb.

That is not so hard to understand unless you have trouble putting yourself in others shoes. I could get a jury in Iraq to convict G W Bush of war crimes. See, I said Iraq and even then a Baath jury maybe needed. You have to be able to see things from others POV. You are acting as if your truth is the only truth, a common enough mistake. Originally Posted by WTF

I think W is a war criminal. He invaded a peaceful nation for the purpose of regime change. We aren’t supposed to be about that here in the good ole US of A. You are doing your typical smoke and mirrors to try and defend your position and impeach other’s (s’) facts because your position is indefensible in a sane person’s mind. The simple fact is this – again and everybody together – NO ONE is denying anything. They are ADMITTING it in the public.

Number one, he did not say that. He said he wished he had done more. We all could say that and it would be a true statement. It is a statement taken in the context of hindsight. Not much different than if your child had murdered someone. You will hve wished you had done more... Originally Posted by WTF

Semantics and juvenile semantics at that. Your twists are predictable because you are trying to use most heinous act possible to prove you indefensible position. The point is the university had every right to fire someone that supports a child rapist. And in the end, this bastard is going to spend the rest of his days and money trying to keep the money that the victims are going to take from him in civil suits. It’s inevitable, and your opinion will go the same way as the civil judgments against Paterno.

WTF are you talking about? "favorable ending" , my ass. It is ignorant statements like this that make me wonder about the sanity of this country.

He was fired from his job....the board had been wanting to get rid of him for a long time. Originally Posted by WTF

He did try to negotiate a happy ending. He wanted to stay to the end of the year and retire peacefully. Bullshit. He aided a child rapist so therefore he should loose his job since he aided the rapist in the name of the university.

You know, I’m not at all surprised that you would take the side of Paterno. Not that I think you are a child rapist, but you always take the most extreme position on any topic. We could be discussing the Rape of Nanking and you would defend the Japanese. I think you are juvenile and you like to argue.

You are kinda late to this party and not sure what you are trying to accomplish. It appears you are playing to some crowd after having seen which way the eccie wind was blowing. Probably a good marketing move on your part. [IMG]file:///C:/Users/JANEGR%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] Originally Posted by WTF

Are you fucking insane. We’re talking about child rape. You disgust me. Late to the party? Seeing what way the wind is blowing? I've been in the UK and out of pocket. The wind never blows to support child rapists in sane minds. Don’t try to condescend to me, because you can’t do it. As usual, you have descended into a mockery of a logical discussion just so you can try to demonstrate how “tolerant” and “forward thinking” you are. You’re neither, and everyone but you and your girl posse knows it.

Nice job, Olivia! +1

@Marshall

Say whatever you want. You'll land no punches. You're on Ignore.

I think W is a war criminal. He invaded a peaceful nation for the purpose of regime change. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I know this is off point but calling Iraq under Sadam a peaceful nation is a bit of a stretch.

Charles I am traveling and can not respond with the proper fuc off but there is no wrong side in my stance in waiting for all the facts to appear. If you and olivia can not wait on justice may I suggest you two load up and head to Penn st and take matters into your own hands. Short of that I do not know what else to tell you vigilantes! Lol Originally Posted by WTF

Paterno and his chain of command have all admitted to covering up the rapes. What's to wait on.

I'll also bet the rapist cops a plea.

I know this is off point but calling Iraq under Sadam a peaceful nation is a bit of a stretch. Originally Posted by Laz

I hear you. I meant and probably should have stated that Iraq under Sadam had not attacked us or any other country since they invaded Kuwait. No, there was no peace for the Iraqi people under Sadam’s tyranny, but that’s not really our business so long as Iraq was keeping it within the confines of Iraq.

Nobody is defending child rapist in this thread. If you are that stupid then I suggest a menopause therapy. Something is amiss if you think that. Or you are just being a ignorant bitch. Either way take a chill pill. The justice has a way of working these things out.

Paterno will now have plenty of free time to volunteer for Crime Stoppers.