Jopa: fired - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tbomachines · #31 11-10-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Yes, I ignored them. I just consider the source of them.

nicely done

step 1: produce ridiculous nonfactual argument
step 2: challenge others to dispute it
step 3: ignore all refutations despite logic
step 4: ????
step 5: profit
step 6: declare argument holds water
step 7: repeat

Air&Road · #32 11-10-2011, 01:34 PM

Yes, it is indeed a theory. It couldn't be anything else just like those who disagree with it only have their own theories to back up their beliefs.

MTI · #33 11-10-2011, 01:40 PM

Classic . . . LB will no doubt criticize everyone for having a theory without facts or proof; then will fail to produce his facts or proof when other's respond to his challenge.

Can't Know · #34 11-10-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I can't think of ANYTHING more important than calling the police or otherwise ENSURING that this sicky never molested another boy. Fear of losing a career is no excuse.

If someone actually KNEW, I agree with you.

HOWEVER, a potentially slanderous report from someone else is NOT knowledge, it's unfounded allegation. Calling the cops at that point might be reckless or worse, you have to look at all of the circumstances.

As I said, if Jopa actually knew something and did nothing more than report it, it's reprehensible. But if not, there is no reason to repeat slanderous, damaging rumors, to the police or anyone else.

And that's the whole point. When you hear some slanderous thing about someone, how far are you expected to go with it? Apparently PS had some manner of procedure in place, and it seems Paterno followed through with that by forwarding what he had heard (again, not his own actual knowledge, just what he heard). Are you saying it was not reasonable for him to assume that the superiors would follow through to be sure it wasn't anything more than an ugly allegation? If nothing came from it, it seems he might have reasonably concluded that there was nothing to it beyond a vicious slur against a coach.

Air&Road · #35 11-10-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

If someone actually KNEW, I agree with you.

HOWEVER, a potentially slanderous report from someone else is NOT knowledge, it's unfounded allegation. Calling the cops at that point might be reckless or worse, you have to look at all of the circumstances.

As I said, if Jopa actually knew something and did nothing more than report it, it's reprehensible. But if not, there is no reason to repeat slanderous, damaging rumors, to the police or anyone else.

And that's the whole point. When you hear some slanderous thing about someone, how far are you expected to go with it? Apparently PS had some manner of procedure in place, and it seems Paterno followed through with that by forwarding what he had heard (again, not his own actual knowledge, just what he heard). Are you saying it was not reasonable for him to assume that the superiors would follow through to be sure it wasn't anything more than an ugly allegation? If nothing came from it, it seems he might have reasonably concluded that there was nothing to it beyond a vicious slur against a coach.

I pointed this out a few posts ago, but for YOU I will do it again. I was clear in PREDICATING my response.

IF he saw it or knew for sure it happened, he should NOT have stopped until the perpetrator was stopped. Period. If the facts are that he did NOT know for sure, then that is something different.

Air&Road · #36 11-10-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Classic . . . LB will no doubt criticize everyone for having a theory without facts or proof; then will fail to produce his facts or proof when other's respond to his challenge.

As I said. I just consider the source of the background noise.

aklim · #37 11-10-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

As I said. I just consider the source of the background noise.

If only everyone could be as disciplined as you are to provide all the facts with justification. What a world it would be

Can't Know · #38 11-10-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I pointed this out a few posts ago, but for YOU I will do it again. I was clear in PREDICATING my response.

IF he saw it or knew for sure it happened, he should NOT have stopped until the perpetrator was stopped. Period. If the facts are that he did NOT know for sure, then that is something different.

And I was clear in agreeing with you -- albeit under discreet facts that we simply don't know.

Which has been and remains my entire point in this whole thread.

Most people are running off and ready to string him up...without knowing the facts.

And while we should be ever-vigilant and protective of children (no one disagrees on that point, right?), it is nevertheless very sad that so many people are ready to jump on that "crucify Paterno" bandwagon...without any actual knowledge of the facts.

Which is analogous to Iran immediately assuming the three hikers were American spies and basically kidnapping them for ransom. Is not our society better than that? Can't we at least let the facts develop?

Air&Road · #39 11-10-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

And I was clear in agreeing with you -- albeit under discreet facts that we simply don't know.

Which has been and remains my entire point in this whole thread.

Most people are running off and ready to string him up...without knowing the facts.

And while we should be ever-vigilant and protective of children (no one disagrees on that point, right?), it is nevertheless very sad that so many people are ready to jump on that "crucify Paterno" bandwagon...without any actual knowledge of the facts.

Which is analogous to Iran immediately assuming the three hikers were American spies and basically kidnapping them for ransom. Is not our society better than that? Can't we at least let the facts develop?

I sure wouldn't bet any money that everyone agrees with you as related to the first part of your fourth paragraph. That's the saddest thing of all. There might be one wishing he was joining them in that shower.

SwampYankee · #40 11-10-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

If someone actually KNEW, I agree with you.

HOWEVER, a potentially slanderous report from someone else is NOT knowledge, it's unfounded allegation. Calling the cops at that point might be reckless or worse, you have to look at all of the circumstances.

As I said, if Jopa actually knew something and did nothing more than report it, it's reprehensible. But if not, there is no reason to repeat slanderous, damaging rumors, to the police or anyone else.

And that's the whole point. When you hear some slanderous thing about someone, how far are you expected to go with it? Apparently PS had some manner of procedure in place, and it seems Paterno followed through with that by forwarding what he had heard (again, not his own actual knowledge, just what he heard). Are you saying it was not reasonable for him to assume that the superiors would follow through to be sure it wasn't anything more than an ugly allegation? If nothing came from it, it seems he might have reasonably concluded that there was nothing to it beyond a vicious slur against a coach.

What is the downside to alerting the police? They find nothing and go away?

It's a moot point anyway, Paterno did know. McQueary (the current WR coach then coaching assistant), according to his own grand jury testimony, walked in on Sandusky having anal sex with a young boy in the shower. McQueary walked out, called his father and asked his father what to do. His father told him to get out of there. He later told Paterno what he saw. Paterno admits that McQueary told him something, he just doesn't recall if it was "fondling, touching or horsing around." Bottom line is Paterno knew Sandusky was naked in the showers with a young boy and chose not to alert the police. Or, if you take Paterno at his word that he did what was required by reporting it to the administration, how does he not follow up on that to see if anything came of any investigation? How does anyone just drop it all together and continue on, with Sandusky visiting the facilities on a regular basis, like nothing every happened?

And somehow or another, that spineless P.O.S. McQueary will be coaching on the sidelines as Penn State takes on Nebraska. It's beyond me how the f--- that can be allowed to happen.

aklim · #41 11-10-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

What is the downside to alerting the police? They find nothing and go away?

It's a moot point anyway, Paterno did know. McQueary (the current WR coach then coaching assistant), according to his own grand jury testimony, walked in on Sandusky having anal sex with a young boy in the shower. McQueary walked out, called his father and asked his father what to do. His father told him to get out of there. He later told Paterno what he saw. Paterno admits that McQueary told him something, he just doesn't recall if it was "fondling, touching or horsing around." Bottom line is Paterno knew Sandusky was naked in the showers with a young boy and chose not to alert the police. Or, if you take Paterno at his word that he did what was required by reporting it to the administration, how does he not follow up on that to see if anything came of any investigation? How does anyone just drop it all together and continue on, with Sandusky visiting the facilities on a regular basis, like nothing every happened?

And somehow or another, that spineless P.O.S. McQueary will be coaching on the sidelines as Penn State takes on Nebraska. It's beyond me how the f--- that can be allowed to happen.

Weird, ain't it? Paterno gets burned for not reporting hearsay to the police and McQueary, the real witness to the act gets off clear and free although he didn't report it to the cops either.

suginami · #42 11-10-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

My point, which seems to be lost in the rhetoric, is that we don't know all the facts. No one really does.

But we do have the Grand Jury Presentment. The entire document in pdf form is on MSNBC right now.

It's very graphic and precise.

Why so much concern about the rush to judgement of Paterno?

Where is your outrage about the victims?

Paterno and other officials at Penn State did the absolute minimum.

The red-headed guy, McQueary, then a graduate assistant, witnessed Sandusky’s rape of a young boy in a shower room of the football facility in 2002. He witnessed the 10 year old being anally raped.

And not only did he not stop it, he left. Just skedaddled. Think about that for a minute. A kid is getting assaulted, and with a hopeful heart he sees someone who might be able to help him. And the guy leaves.

aklim · #43 11-10-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suginami

And not only did he not stop it, he left. Just skedaddled. Think about that for a minute. A kid is getting assaulted, and with a hopeful heart he sees someone who might be able to help him. And the guy leaves.

Why should we expect more? Sandusky was a somebody, McQueray was a nobody. Why risk his own skin and career to go against Sandusky? Just report it to the boss and let it die.

Here is the question. What is McQueray LEGALLY expected to do? Report it to Paterno or the cops?

suginami · #44 11-10-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Why should we expect more? Sandusky was a somebody, McQueray was a nobody. Why risk his own skin and career to go against Sandusky? Just report it to the boss and let it die.

Here is the question. What is McQueray LEGALLY expected to do? Report it to Paterno or the cops?

I don't know how the law applies to him, but I find it morally reprehensible and unconscionable.

aklim · #45 11-10-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suginami

I don't know how the law applies to him,

but I find it morally reprehensible and unconscionable.

I would think it does apply to him. I believe teachers and nurses are required to report any suspicion of abuse to the cops. No ifs, ands or buts. We might be BFF but if I hear of it as a teacher even via what somebody else wrote, I have to send it off. I believe there was a case like that a few years back.

and apparently employed at this time. Guess that he did succeed in looking after #1