I suppose some of your post is true.Wait ...
A is true.
B is true.
Doesn't that necessarily mean "A and B are true?"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose some of your post is true.Wait ...
A is true.
B is true.
Doesn't that necessarily mean "A and B are true?"
What was the finding of that investigation?I didn't say "found guilty/indicted/criminally charged." It's on the record that none of that occurred in 1998.
I suppose some of your post is true.
The implied relationship in your conflation was false.
Although it doesn't answer my question.
The implied relationship in your conflation was false.
What was the finding of the finding of the 1998 investigation?
Why do you hate Joe?Sandusky wasn't charged. Everybody knows that.
If "2+2=4" and "3+3=6", I fail to see how it's a conflation to say "2+2=4 and 3+3=6", but fair enough.
As regards #2, my response there is the same as to sluggo72:
Joe in 2001. He knew about the 1998 investigation, then 3 years later heard something from MM that involved these 5 phrases: "Jerry Sandusky ....... young boy ...... shower ....... both naked ........ late at night in a deserted Lasch Building."
Only folks without eyebrows wouldn't raise an eyebrow at that.
How was the event officially classified by DPW?Sandusky wasn't charged. Everybody knows that.
How was the event officially classified by DPW?
To whose perception are you referring?
are you playing dumb with me? I've seen you on twitter, so I shouldn't be surprised. nonetheless, this is too painful.....again, if your conscience is at ease believing in the "facts" that 99% of the country doesn't buy into because a certain narrative was already sold, packaged, & delivered contrary to your beliefs...and worse, any chance of a change in said narrative went down the ole sh*tter in the Spanier trial...well, sleep well, my friend.
i hope i'm wrong, and you can laugh at me one day, telling me, "i told you so".....but I'm not naive, it ain't happening.........sorry man, the fat lady has sung.
You're strengthening my argument...investigated and no charges, which means in 2001 it could certainly have been a case of "Oh no, here we go again with a baseless claim where he did nothing wrong." But I keep forgetting Joe was omniscient and knew everything about everything. If I hear someone is a stalker, then that person gets investigated and they find out he's not a stalker, he uses binoculars at night to star gaze. If that person gets arrested for stalking a few years later, what am I going to think? It's not irrational to think that people would believe he's just out star gazing again and the whole thing is being misconstrued. It's not an automatic jump to him actually being a stalker and that they got it wrong the first time.You are right. It was possible, in 2001, that it was nothing when "someone already investigated for inappropriate sexual behavior with children was witnessed naked with young boys in a shower late at night when nobody else was around."
But what exactly was the "upside" there in terms of not reporting to law enforcement?
The downside? As we all know, there was a TON of downside there.
Simply report to law enforcement. Let them decide if it was "nothing" or "something."
i guess that helps you....and you might even be right.....but what's the point when nobody else knows about it or believes it?
perception is reality.
in addition, the Paterno camp has been eerily quiet since the March trials.
you can all take a breath; local reports are that they found one of the two zippy the kangaroo costumes so the first game should be fine.
Unfounded."Investigated but decided not to pursue criminal charges?"
I don't know - how was it classified?
I'm no more interested in altering "99% of the country's opinion" than I am yours.are you playing dumb with me? I've seen you on twitter, so I shouldn't be surprised. nonetheless, this is too painful.....again, if your conscience is at ease believing in the "facts" that 99% of the country doesn't buy into because a certain narrative was already sold, packaged, & delivered contrary to your beliefs...and worse, any chance of a change in said narrative went down the ole sh*tter in the Spanier trial...well, sleep well, my friend.
i hope i'm wrong, and you can laugh at me one day, telling me, "i told you so".....but I'm not naive, it ain't happening.........sorry man, the fat lady has sung.
I'll admit that posting a photo of Jay in this thread is tantamount to provocation. It does seem noteworthy, however, that the OP then proceeded to "hijack" his own thread.So a thread about the hijacking of Akron's mascot is hijacked by people arguing about the Freeh Report. Is there any thread that folks won't turn into a Sandusky/Freeh/BOT thread?
I own the Pa plate.
A = Sandusky was investigated in 1998 (true)Sandusky wasn't charged. Everybody knows that.
If "2+2=4" and "3+3=6", I fail to see how it's a conflation to say "2+2=4 and 3+3=6", but fair enough.