In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2248
Online now 2465 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
As an out-of-state student from NY I can confirm leppy is full of shit (No surprise).
Especially the part about out-of-state tuition being cheaper than in-state NY tuition (LOLWUT!?)
I could go to any SUNY school for less than half the price - as well as most private schools in NY for less.
Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto
MM NEVER told Joe that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in the shower, he NEVER did. No matter how many articles you post and how many people you said told you in State College, it will never be true.
He thinks he knows more about PSU than PSU students. The guy is a joke
It's just verification of what I posted, brother.
I love how he posts Paterno's testimony and capitalized "IT WAS A SEXUAL NATURE" and then totally forgets about the next part that says "I'm not sure what it was." Apparently, Lemmy thinks that equates to MM telling Joe that he saw rape... even though MM acknowledged that he never used that term with Paterno and gave him a watered down version of the events.
I blocked leppy but saw this quoted by jive and had to respond so everybody can realize hoe full of S*** leppy is.
I am from saratoga springs NY, if I went to SUNY whatever the most i would be paying is 21k a year, PSU costs me just over 40k a year... Leppy is FOS makes stuff up and lets his hatred of PSU blind him
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
where u from in NY?
Dutchess County - East Fishkill.
Used to live in Westchester
Good stuff Leppy... That all sounds reasonable.
However, love him or hate him... The line above is funny
The RANT is a Romper Room for Degenerates - jwe
For those of you asking "what would joe do if it was his grandkids?" I point you to sue paternos interview with Katy couric, they let their grandkids be alone with Sandusky, who would do that if they thought he was was a pedophile?
This post was edited by ejb5212 14 months ago
That's not the question though...
The question...which I have heard asked to Jay several times on various espn radio shows....
What would Joe have done if the boy in the shower was HIS grandson. Everytime this was asked Jay avoided the question. He clearly does not want to answer that question.
You see that sign that says 'Rib Tips'??
I bet that happened before MM told Joe that he saw something in the shower. I bet it happened before 1998.
To answer my own question....
He really only has 2 answers, both of which make him look bad.
1 -"I don't know what he would have done". This may seem like the best answer, but if he answers it this way he is acknowledging that Joe could have done more at that point but he failed
2 - "He would have ripped his head off" - obviously we see how bad that answer would be
Everyone would react differently if it was their child or grandchild. Plus, you're acting like Joe witnessed this himself, or knew who exactly the kid was. Thing is, all Joe got was some info from McQueary, which he himself admitted that he watered it down for Joe. To me, that question doesn't make much sense.
Using the word "could" in "could have done more" is pointless. Everyone in the country "could" have done more...the question is if you know you need to do something. So it always comes down to what Joe knew or didn't know.
The question, IMO, isn't very relevant, because it assumes Joe knew that Sandusky was doing completely wrong things, but the only reason he didn't do anything is because he didn't care enough. Those assumptions are pretty much what we've been arguing for most of this thread.
There are a lot more answers than just the two that tbdbitl gave.
Wait a second, you dismiss it because it's not within the framework of another random question?
It's a more than legitimate question to ask why they would let their grandchildren play alone with Sandusky if they knew he was a child abuser.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Kind of hard to make the assumption either way without more evidence.
Well... it might not make sense to you, but 99.9% of the people who aren't wearing psu colors have thought that question was pertinent.
That's why so many people have asked that question. But how you "answered" it is exactly how to avoid answering the question.
You are inferring things that I am not inferring. I never said or hinted that paterno knew or didn't know who was in the shower. I certainly didn't infer that paterno witnessed it himself. You made all that up to obfuscate the question. This whole thing gets so convoluted because people from psu can't or won't answer the overly simple questions.
It such a simple question. That's the problem that has been created. The simple questions can't be answered because eveyone is trying to obfuscate the issue.
If paterno found out that it was his grandson in the shower with sandusky, what would he have done? Don't make it complicated. Don't infer what you think I may be thinking. Just 1 simple question.
Again... obfuscation....Your question may be more important... I'm not making an arguement for or against that. I'm not placing vaule on either question... you are placing value.
But that's still not answering the simple question. I would love to hear a paterno family member answer that question.
It really is such a BS question. You could go over countless scenarios where you would act differently if a family member was in trouble vs someone you don't know. It's a pointless question.
Addressing the assumptions: assuming Joe didn't know that the child was being abused, my guess is he probably would have either 1) talked to Sandusky about it, or 2) told the parents about the situation and let them deal with it as they see fit.
Just because you claim it's a simple question does not mean it is. Family has certain responsibilities for their own children that go beyond simply protecting them from abuse.
As an example, if you see a child you don't know screaming in the park, would you take care of it yourself or would you let the parents take care of it? Now let's change the situation to it being your own child? It's a situation that is perfectly innocent, but the fact that it's your own child (or grandchild) means you're handling it differently.
So just because Joe might have handled it differently if it was his own grandchild does not mean he knew something terribly wrong was happening. And that's without even going into the fact that Joe had no idea who the child was and had no real way of finding out, unless he wanted to play private investigator.
You're the one who dismissed ejb's question because it wasn't "THE" question.
As I just pointed out in my post above, the answer to your question doesn't prove anything. It serves little purpose when you aren't addressing the underlying assumptions.
Again, I respect your opinion... but I don't think it is even close to a BS question I have heard that question asked 1000x from a random dude like me to high profile journalists.
I understand that specfic behaviour may vary from person to person. But that is again obfuscating the heart of the question.
The problem with this question is that the only answer...a TRUE answer...can only make paterno look bad.
I'm not placing value... I just said that.... I'm not claiming it proves anything. I'm not trying to address any underlying assumptions. I just asking an extemly simple question.
Is this question so frightening that it has to be avoided at all costs. Why can't anyone answer the question.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports