[Crowbob]

No, it does not, McLovin.

Your reiteration does explain why someone of questionable moral fibre would prefer the whole thing go away. It does explain why someone of questionable moral fibre would put his entire identity and the entire identity of Penn State for years to come ahead of the rapes of innocent children.

But why would "Joe Pa" do such a thing?

Is Joe Paterno so morally bankrupt that he would cast a blind eye rather than put an immediate end to such a nightmare?

Or did Joe Paterno have something he wanted to preserve something that he cherished more than even the lives of those innocent children?

Was it friendship? Was it career? Was it money? Was it legacy? Was it honor?

All these things are now gone. Joseph Vincent Paterno apparently believed the gamble that it would all go away was worth the risk to save something great.

What one thing does Joe Paterno still have? What one thing does Joe Paterno apparently believe is more valuable to Joseph Vincent Paterno than even the prevention of pain and humility, loss of a sacred trust, and a lifetime of shame these young boys now must bear?

Is Joseph Vincent Paterno a man of questionable moral fibre?

Or is he worse?