Detroit Free Press writer on Joe Paterno: "Some think he did not take enough personal action."

[Zenophile]

Woody Hayes did a great deal of good in his career too, but I bet most of people here only know or only think about him for the punch. That's the way it's going to be for Paterno too. Sorry. Keep fighting the good fight for what you believe in though.

While I understand why you chose it as an example, I'm not sure that the Hayes/Paterno comparison is a fair one. A computer user can Google "Woody Hayes punch" and plainly see that Coach Hayes did, in fact, punch an opposing player. Whether or not Coach Hayes was an otherwise good man is certainly a matter for debate, but the incident itself is a documented fact.

The same cannot be done for Joe Paterno. There is no video of him conspiring to cover up the Sandusky incident (although this parody one is pretty funny), nor is there a shred of evidence that Joe actually believed Sandusky to be a pedophile yet chose to do nothing about it. People have chosen to have an opinion about Joe Paterno that it based -- all or in-part -- on speculative information (& in some cases on false information and fantasy).

This is just one component of the overall frustration that's part of the shared experience here (IMO).

 

[bamasota]

While I understand why you chose it as an example, I'm not sure that the Hayes/Paterno comparison is a fair one.. A computer user can Google "Woody Hayes punch" and plainly see that Coach Hayes did, in fact, punch an opposing player. Whether or not Coach Hayes was an otherwise good man is certainly a matter for debate, but the incident itself is a documented fact.

The same cannot be done for Joe Paterno. There is no video of him conspiring to cover up the Sandusky incident (although this parody one is pretty funny), nor is there a shred of evidence that Joe actually believed Sandusky to be a pedophile yet chose to do nothing about it. People have chosen to have an opinion about Joe Paterno that it based -- all or in part -- on speculative information (& in some cases on false information and fantasy).

This is just one component of the overall frustration that's part of the shared experience here (IMO).

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

 

[NitFan1974]

I bet there's a whole lot of people out there that think that, and they're neither boneheads nor trolls. They're people that don't watch college football, don't go on message boards, don't care about Penn State or Joe Paterno because they don't have the time or desire to follow every detail of a scandal that is, at this point, 4 years old.

My point was that nothing the writer said was factually wrong.

Anyone who claims not to have heard about Joe is a bonehead or a troll, or possibly both. The bottom line is that the more times the False Narrative is repeated, the more people will believe it as true, and ignore the facts. That is why True Penn State Fans, can never ignore these ignorant statements without speaking up and standing up for what is right.

 

[Zenophile]

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

What message was it that I claimed to not like?

 

[Mixolydian]

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

Thanks for pointing that out 4 pages into a thread where virtually no one took issue with what you quoted.

 

[Marshall30]

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

You and other diddle nuts keep repeating this utter crap. Joe did what he was required to do. There was nothing else for him to do including "moral obligation" which is a fantasy or calling the police.

Go away.

 

[Nosoj]

While I understand why you chose it as an example, I'm not sure that the Hayes/Paterno comparison is a fair one.. A computer user can Google "Woody Hayes punch" and plainly see that Coach Hayes did, in fact, punch an opposing player. Whether or not Coach Hayes was an otherwise good man is certainly a matter for debate, but the incident itself is a documented fact.

The same cannot be done for Joe Paterno. There is no video of him conspiring to cover up the Sandusky incident (although this parody one is pretty funny), nor is there a shred of evidence that Joe actually believed Sandusky to be a pedophile yet chose to do nothing about it. People have chosen to have an opinion about Joe Paterno that it based -- all or in part -- on speculative information (& in some cases on false information and fantasy).

This is just one component of the overall frustration that's part of the shared experience here (IMO).

I understand where you're coming from on this. My intent was not to directly compare what they did or did not do. Just a comparison how they're remembered in the public conscious. Like it or not, to the general public, Paterno is going to be more remembered for how it ended than anything he did up to that point. The average person is not going to Google and read all the details about Paterno and his involvement or lack thereof. They're going to remember that they saw somewhere that he was involved in the scandal.

 

[Nosoj]

Anyone who claims not to have heard about Joe is a bonehead or a troll, or possibly both. The bottom line is that the more times the False Narrative is repeated, the more people will believe it as true, and ignore the facts. That is why True Penn State Fans, can never ignore these ignorant statements without speaking up and standing up for what is right.

First, I guarantee that there are people that have no interest in college sports and do not know who Joe Paterno is, nor do they care. But that was not my point, nor did I say that anywhere in my post.

 

[Zenophile]

I understand where you're coming from on this. My intent was not to directly compare what they did or did not do. Just a comparison how they're remembered in the public conscious. Like it or not, to the general public, Paterno is going to be more remembered for how it ended than anything he did up to that point. The average person is not going to Google and read all the details about Paterno and his involvement or lack thereof. They're going to remember that they saw somewhere that he was involved in the scandal.

FWIW, my absolute favorite Hayesism:
"Because I couldn't go for three."

 

[Nosoj]

FWIW, my absolute favorite Hayesism:
"Because I couldn't go for three."

Something we have in common.

 

[cop113]

Again, I feel this is more evidence of the narrative changing. If that question was asked in 2012, there would have been a prepared, politically correct answer. In 2015, it is no longer considered to be a NECESSARY question so without a prepared response, Harbaugh moved on. We hardly ever hear the question any longer...history is continuing to slowly gather evidence, slowly form an evolved viewpoint....in the end, we will see more and more of a positive opinion, worldwide, of Joe.

It takes time folks: This monster molested countless children during decades in plain sight. It was evil, of the most heinous, most thought out, most devious kind, and it crushes lives and destroys empires. We're not going to see an about face flip in the space of 3 years....

Patience. And it sure would help a hell of a lot if this University stopped protecting Curley, Shultz and Spanier and made them take the stand. Anytime in the next century would be fine, I believe they have now set a state wide record for longest delays.

Yes the monster molested many children. Unfortunately, this happens everyday across the world in numerous organizations. The media made this a Joe Paterno Penn State issue as if this heinous action only happened here!

 

[Odwil]

This reaction from Harbaugh is not rare when a reporter has asked a stupid question which this was. It had nothing to do with the game. Some of Harbaugh's answers are raw but if analyzed it is because the questions have no relevance.
A couple weeks ago after being asked a series of "what if" questions he answered by saying, "If worms had machine guns, birds would be afraid of them."
My point is do not read any more into Harbaugh's answer beyond the point of it being inappropriate for the interview.

 

[91Joe95]

Hey trolls, the bot lost its court case and now has to turn over the Freeh documents. This is known as the beginning of the end.

 

[PSUinMICH]

All you did was babble. The next time you want to call someone stupid, look in the mirror.

You must be there (in the mirror) somewhere.

 

[Marshall30]

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

You're an idiot.

 

[harjeff]

I will never understand why some of you "live and breathe this topic". Joe is dead and gone and you aren't going to change anyone's opinion of him.
Especially since he admitted that he should have done more. Some love him, some hate him and some don't care. Such is life.

He didn't admit he shoulod have done more....Probably the most abused statement in history.....The full text was "IN HINDSIGHT" I wish I had done more. 2 Very important words that always seem to get convenientlly left out. Thos e 2 words dramatically change the statement as if I had know all that was going on and mhad more facts then I would have done more.

 

[Mixolydian]

He didn't admit he shoulod have done more....Probably the most abused statement in history.....The full text was "IN HINDSIGHT" I wish I had done more. 2 Very important words that always seem to get convenientlly left out. Thos e 2 words dramatically change the statement as if I had know all that was going on and mhad more facts then I would have done more.

Actually FOUR very important words that make the change even more dramatic as to what Joe meant...."With the benefit of hindsight..."

 

[Marshall30]

"Charlie Sheen, Charlie Sheen"......

 

[Woodpecker]

When the text of the article is examined ....

"Though Paterno is the winningest coach in college football history, his legacy is complicated by the sexual-abuse scandal involving his longtime assistant Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was told of an incident involving Sandusky and some think he did not take enough personal action to prevent further problems.

PSU removed a statue of him outside Beaver Stadium in 2012."

...there is nothing but facts stated. At no point does the writer either lie or speculate. You may not like the message, but you cannot argue that these statements aren't 100% truthful.

So if an article were to be published that says that "There are those who think that bamasota [we'll put your real name here] is a sausage-gargling douch nozzle" you'd be OK with it beacause that statement is factually correct?

 

[candid]

Harbaugh gave a pu$$y answer which is no surprise. Hey Jimmy, the right answer is "Joe Paterno followed protocol exactly as it was written. He was under no legal obligation to follow up with either JS or the shower victim. His actions were honorable and helped to convict JS"

Harbaugh gave a pu$$y answer which is no surprise. Hey Jimmy, the right answer is "Joe Paterno followed protocol exactly as it was written. He was under no legal obligation to follow up with either JS or the shower victim. His actions were honorable and helped to convict JS"

What you really think is that Harbaugh didn't jump on the psu band wagon and pretend to idolize JP. Did you ever consider the possibility that he, JH, felt he didn't know all the facts and an opinion is something that psu thrives on.

 

[Beano Rises]

I just sent the following to the Detroit Free Press. Posting here is very cathartic, but does not get the message to the right people.

...I strong suggest you do additional research on the incident. In regards to this incident: the right answer is "Joe Paterno followed protocol exactly as it was written. He was under no legal obligation to follow up with either JS (Jerry Sandusky) or the showervictim. His actions were honorable". As a matter of fact the NCAA who openly condemned JVP, now uses his actions as the template for reporting/handling suspected/reported acts of sexual misconduct with children.

This line of thinking is the crux of the issue. Is it really honorable to follow protocol when kids are being molested? For anyone outside of the Penn State / Paterno echo chamber, the answer is NO and will continue to be NO.

 

[WishfulLion]

Anyone who thinks Joe Paterno wasn't a great man had better examine himself pretty closely. He'll most likely find himself coming up way short on the Paterno measuring stick.

I feel that way about Woody Hayes, not exacty the same, but pretty damned close.

One punch....wipes our 40 years of goodness....I don't think so.

 

[Beano Rises]

Anyone who thinks Joe Paterno wasn't a great man had better examine himself pretty closely. He'll most likely find himself coming up way short on the Paterno measuring stick.

I feel that way about Woody Hayes, not exacty the same, but pretty damned close.

One punch....wipes our 40 years of goodness....I don't think so.

Joe Paterno was a great man who made a massive judgement error. It is this non-admission of the error by many on this Board that keeps alive the Enablers meme.

 

[Zenophile]

This line of thinking is the crux of the issue. Is it really honorable to follow protocol when kids are being molested? For anyone outside of the Penn State / Paterno echo chamber, the answer is NO and will continue to be NO.

This is an excellent example of the Hindsight Bias. There is a distinct & significant difference between "kids being molested" as an established fact and a non-specific allegation.

For anyone anywhere, the answer is: you have a protocol in place to ensure due process for the accused.

 

[WishfulLion]

Beano....bullshit. You don't know what he did and didn't do. Joe was over 70 years old, and did do something (making sure Curley, Spanier, etc. knew about this). Now did he continue to press until Sandusky was stopped? Obviously not. But why is it a moral failing that he didn't press, but not a moral failing that the police, who listened to Sandusky say (after being confronted by a mother about molesting children) "I wish I was dead"?

Do the police get a pass and get to hide behind the law/their jobs? Why doesn't anyone ask why the police didn't go to PSU and call in Paterno/Spanier/the locker room attendants and say the following, "We know Sandusky is a pedophile. We just don't have enough evidence. We want to protect the children, so we're telling you this is true, and that you should watch him closely. In fact, we strongly recommend you deny him access to the PSU facilities."

Now wait for the legal eagles to say "the police cannot do that". To which I say, "What about the children?' Shouldn't the police put the children above themselves and their jobs?" Failing that, why couldn't the police have done it anonymously as private citizens?

Oh, that's right - only Joe Paterno can be asked to get it perfect.

 

[BobPSU92]

This line of thinking is the crux of the issue. Is it really honorable to follow protocol when kids are being molested? For anyone outside of the Penn State / Paterno echo chamber, the answer is NO and will continue to be NO.

It is honorable to follow the law, which is exactly what Joe did. Try again, idiot.

 

[mhentz]

This line of thinking is the crux of the issue. Is it really honorable to follow protocol when kids are being molested? For anyone outside of the Penn State / Paterno echo chamber, the answer is NO and will continue to be NO.

Sounds like an open call to vigilantism to me. When has vigilantism been considered honorable?

 

[ChiTownLion]

Joe Paterno was a great man who made a massive judgement error. It is this non-admission of the error by many on this Board that keeps alive the Enablers meme.

1. Joe fulfilled his reporting duty when he delivered McQueary's stiry to Tim Curley.
2. Paterno EXCEEDED his reporting duty when he engaged the head of police to make sure the matter was in capable hands.
3. Joe followed up with Mike a couple times after that to make sure everything was handled appropriately.

In what world is it a "massive judgment failure" for Joe Paterno to go above and beyond the call of duty in reporting policy, procedure and law?