I agree with this too, I think. I have no idea what you're getting at with the ".....already offered that tidbit" remark. Hope it's not the "My morals are better than your morals" thing.

Adults having sex with adolescent teens is russian roulette. Sometimes it doesn't twist the adolescent's mind and sometimes it does. Public policy and common sense prohibits it. It's "good" policy.

And every sane person abhors rape of anybody, particularly young people, and those who do not take the most decisive actions available to stop it. If this discussion is a contest to see who is the most incensed by this story, then we have some clear candidates for victory. But I'm not sure their morals are any loftier than the rest of us.

I also Agree

At the end of this statement, you have added the "cool" smilie. That appears to lead the reader to believe you think a 16 yr having sex with a 26 yr old is ok.

But then you say this...

I guessing this post more accurately conveys your opinion.

Anyone else catch this paragraph in the WSJ story this AM?

"Unraveling who knew what in this case could be difficult at Penn State, which was exempted in 2009 by the state from disclosing most records.

Unlike most publicly funded schools nationwide, Penn State is required only to release an annual tax form and the salaries of its directors and highest-paid employees. Information such as meeting minutes, emails and text messages are exempt from release".


With the benefit of hindsight and of who clearly knew what and when, that's quite a convenient little piece of legislation right there.

I too read the 23 page GJ report. I wish I had not.




Tim

this

Mr Paterno a pillar of morality? No.


Superman, you are wrong, simple as that. Devil's Advocate:rolleyes: yeah, that's the ticket

True, Tobra. It looks as if Paterno is NOT a pillar of morality. It had been my understanding that Paterno was just the opposite. What is so hard for people to understand, unless it's a desire to play moral "kind of the hill" by casting aspersions on other posters? It looks as if Paterno failed miserably. Failing miserably at moral decisions is what Paterno had developed a strong reputation for NOT doing. How does this make me wrong?

DonDavis, both are my opinions, in a way. For me, my first tryst was a good experience. But again, many instances of sex between adults and minors result in emotional scarring. A great many. Particularly ones like those at the root of this discussion. Those instances are always DEEPLY scarring. And so, the best policy is for sex between adults and children to not occur. Which is the basis for public policy and law. Which I agree with.

I wonder how these remarks of mine will be misconstrued.

I am sorry no sympathy for anyone but the victims here. They will survive but they will never again be whole people..... ever.

JoePa does not deserve cheers or student support and the pompous Spainer deserves to have his testicles twisted with a vise grip pulp fiction style! What an ass...... We are talking about the savage rape of a ten year old by a 60 year old pervert.

This is precisely what the catholic church did. Here in Philadelphia Cardinal Anthony Joseph Bevilacqua is now defended by a criminal attorney and the new head of the church is a proven obstructionist from Denver CO. His claim to fame is the crafting of legislation in support of the statute of limitation... sent here to clean up the mess....

There is no difference, protect the institution, protect the powerful.....

sickening....... truly sickening.

Apparently these people all lived in the same neighborhood, the Paterno family, Sandusky family, McQueary family. The kids played with each other, the families were close. Maybe that had some bearing on McQueary's reaction to what he saw. I don't know. It would be a shocking thing to see from a man you grew up respecting and were so close to, that their family was close to. I can't understand any other reason why he would have left without trying to stop what Sandusky was doing. I'm not excusing him, just trying to understand him.

Guys, sorry but he's done ,and before the end of the year.

Supes, go back and read what you posted on the first 3 or 4 pages of this thread, you are all over the place, in a pretty contradictory manner.

No, I don't think I was. I've investigated enough labor grievances to know that asking questions is a good step to perform BEFORE making judgment. I was asking about the facts and noting that Mr. Paterno is fairly renowned for his moral high ground positions.

And quite frankly, after reading through ALL these posts, the most damning actual evidence against Paterno I see here was posted by McLovin:

"But on Tuesday, a person with knowledge of Mr. McQueary’s version of events called Mr. Paterno’s claim into question. The person said Mr. McQueary had told those in authority the explicit details of what he saw, including in his face-to-face meeting with Mr. Paterno the day after the incident."

This falls way short of a flat-footed statement by a first-party witness that Paterno knew the details of what McQueary had seen. Paterno's testimony to the grand jury, according to my understanding, is that he was unaware of the details. Saying this to a grand jury is pretty darned dangerous if it is not true. In my experience, in the light of a full investigation and interview of everyone involved, this kind of lie would likely be uncovered. If there is testimony by someone more than a third-party who claims to have knowlege (this third-party testimony would be hearsay if they did not witness the conversations) that McQueary told "those in authority," and that "those in authority" means Paterno (other persons in authority exist who talked to McQueary), then I'd like to see that.

Having said that, again, it looks to me as though Paterno, at a minimum, knew enough to shake someone by the shoulders and get the facts (if he did not have them). And then, of course, his only reasonably course of action would have been to call the police and the Athletic Director, in that order.

But those facts are not established by the statements made on this forum. I asked questions. Sorry if that seem to you like I was "all over the place." I am not a moral relativist, as many of you appear to be insinuating.

The sports-opinion-writer article link in the first post comes nowhere near providing enough evidence to form a judgment. I'm glad some of you are not judges.

And again, lest someone accuse me of "sticking up for Paterno even though he didn't do what he should have done," based on the information I have seen, I would agree that Paterno's response should certainly have been much more vigorous than it was. He should have pressed McQueary for enough details to understand what to do. He appears to have not done that, though we really don't even know that. Maybe he did. Maybe McQueary refused to tell him. We do not know.

And I'll also say that it looks like Paterno had enough information about Sandusky to prohibit his use of university football facilities, and should also have done that. So yeah, this looks very bad for Paterno. Paterno, who used to be considered a model of moral behavior.

If I were investigating this, I would be very curious about what Paterno knew and didn't know and about what he said and didn't say, and to whom. And I would seek out that information as part of my investigation, which would precede judgment. Apparently, some here would do those steps in a different order.

I guess what got me was the ease in which the heads went into the sand.... Speak about tests of true character..........

To beat the often quoted Edmund Burke to death:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.





Tim

Riddle me this?

Moral, Immoral, wrong or illegal:

18 year old adult but a senior in HS....bangs a 23-24 year old first teacher? Doesn't matter if if it's guy/guy, guy/girl or whatever.....

exactly

there is just NO EXCUSE for not calling the police. none

-You know, in aviation we are trying to prevent mistakes by creating an environment where people feel comfortable speaking up.

Colgan Air 3407 crashed February 12, 2009, killing 50 people. This crash was caused by an aerodynamic stall in icing conditions while nearing the airport at low altitude. The captain was flying and lowered the flaps and landing gear, which caused the plane to slow. The first officer said nothing. The airspeed slowed to stalling speed, the first officer said nothing. The plane stalled, and the captain pulled BACK on the yoke, the exact OPPOSITE of his training from day one...and the first officer said NOTHING. 50 people dead as a result. All because one idiot was flying and another idiot sat there MUTE.

There are many parallels between that crash and the current issue at Penn State. Joe Paterno was told by McQueary that a child had been sexually abused in the showers in the football building, and he told his superiors. Which indeed was all he was required to do....but you know, if the first officer of of Colgan 3407 had said to the captain "We're stalling", would she be any less dead? The captain of that flight was clueless. A student pilot with 20 hours knows how to get out of a stall, but not this guy. SHE NEEDED to grab the plane from the captain and save everyone's lives, but she didn't. Joe Paterno is like the first officer on 3407; He told his captain that the plane was stalling, then sat there while he and the rest of the plane were flown into the ground without making any effort to save everyone's lives. Now his career is in shambles, and an utterly HORRID footnote will accompany every description of what would have probably been the premier coaching career in college football history. All because he simply wouldn't put his hand up and say "Hey...has anyone thought that maybe law enforcement needs to be contacted about this?"

N!

PS: I've grabbed controls from Captains twice in my 18 year career in the airlines.

Joe's gone,, just announced it

You called it...