UM reaches $490 million settlement with Anderson accusers

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,200
21,805
1
Let's look again at the majority of these posts, we have myself stopping in for some drive by snark, WHCAnole who I actually believe I emailed in the past and maybe talked on the phone. Can't find the email or number anymore though, and the obsessed weirdo her who likens himself to be some soldier for justice when he's in reality defending those who covered up CSA.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Let's come back to this in a year and show me all the changes in the public narrative. I mean something big, even a story on CNN , you know, in breaking news, blah blah. but that isn't happening. And you will pathetically continue with this fight for some strange reason(s).
Fighting for the truth is not a strange reason.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
It does not pain me because nothing is changing. In your fantasy world it's changing, it is gaining traction nowhere outside of your fantasy land.
The general public does not care.
You are out of touch. More people every day learn the truth. That's not some cataclysmic event, but all movement towards truth is good.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
It isn't working 🤣 But I'm obviously in your head!
You aren't. I'm amused how much time you waste on a message board for a team/school for which you have no affiliation. Get a life!
The narrative is not changing as the ESPN documentary just did. Paterno was not cleared and neither was Sandusky.
There was never any chance that ESPN was going to change the narrative. They had the opportunity to do that with Van Natta's investigative reporting years ago and the editors killed the story.


There are supposedly other major news outlets (Business Insider, for one) working on this. Hopefully their stories will be fair and not afraid to challenge the current media narrative.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
And I've told you what I will accept. That's on you
If I give you a name, you will claim it is made up. Tell me what consider verifiable (hint: you will not do this because you will have to admit you are wrong and you are unable to do that).
Lol! Have at it rooster! 🤣
Your new nickname will either be Ginger or Boots, I haven't decided which yet. Have you run into any sick ostriches lately?
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
As cowards

Coward too letting his mentor rot unjustly in prison
Just to be clear people who don't speak up are cowards, and yet I do speak up and I am also a coward?

So if everyone a coward except for you?

Your logic is more warped than your sense of self worth, Ginger.

Troll.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
You aren't. I'm amused how much time you waste on a message board for a team/school for which you have no affiliation. Get a life!
I am and that is why you can't let go. I think you should take your own advice but it's clear your life is made up and rather nothing.
There was never any chance that ESPN was going to change the narrative. They had the opportunity to do that with Van Natta's investigative reporting years ago and the editors killed the story.
Proof of this conspiracy?

There are supposedly other major news outlets (Business Insider, for one) working on this. Hopefully their stories will be fair and not afraid to challenge the current media narrative.
There is no such proof in that Ziegler crap. Van Natta said he was okay with what his editor allowed. BTW, he really had nothing much to say that was a bombshell or would have changed the narrative as we have discussed before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
If I give you a name, you will claim it is made up. Tell me what consider verifiable (hint: you will not do this because you will have to admit you are wrong and you are unable to do that).
I've spoken on that subject and don't want to get banned. Who would help you with your psychoses?
Your new nickname will either be Ginger or Boots, I haven't decided which yet. Have you run into any sick ostriches lately?
🤣 I was hoping you could do better rooster.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Just to be clear people who don't speak up are cowards, and yet I do speak up and I am also a coward?
You are a coward because you make phony assertions about yourself while remaining anonymous and then challenge people to disprove it. Plus. you are not really "speaking up" since you are anonymous. If Bradley and the Paterno's believe Sandusky to be innocent and won't speak up because they fear for their jobs or reputation then they are cowards for letting their former colleague and friend rot in jail unjustly.
So if everyone a coward except for you?
You are definitely one and if what you say (which I don't believe) is true about the Paterno's and Bradley then they too are cowards. Funny, how you blame MM for not going to the police by himself but excuse the silence of the Paterno's and other coaches who YOU say know Sandusky is innocent.
Your logic is more warped than your sense of self worth, Ginger.
I keep pointing out your faulty logic and it's fun!
JoeBot
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
I've spoken on that subject and don't want to get banned. Who would help you with your psychoses?
Coward. There is nothing I can tell you that would cause you to admit you were wrong. Even if I gave you a name you'd tell me I made it up. Even if I provide with with a proof of life photo (like I did before), you'd claim it was photoshopped. It is obviously painful to you that I am not a whack job but a successful, highly educated, decorated scientist.
🤣 I was hoping you could do better rooster.
You don't even get the reference, Skid.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
You are a coward because you make phony assertions about yourself while remaining anonymous and then challenge people to disprove it.
You are also anonymous, so criticizing my anonymity is amazing hypocritical.

I've never made a phony assertion about myself and I have in fact PROVED I am who I say I am. You have never volunteered anything about yourself. You are the coward, not I.
Plus. you are not really "speaking up" since you are anonymous.
So you think whistle blowers can't be anonymous? I don't think you thought that line of argument through there, Boots.
If Bradley and the Paterno's believe Sandusky to be innocent and won't speak up because they fear for their jobs or reputation then they are cowards for letting their former colleague and friend rot in jail unjustly.
You would do the same thing, coward.
You are definitely one and if what you say (which I don't believe) is true about the Paterno's and Bradley then they too are cowards. Funny, how you blame MM for not going to the police by himself but excuse the silence of the Paterno's and other coaches who YOU say know Sandusky is innocent.
Funny that you equate not reporting the sexual assault of a child with speaking to the media. Troll.
I keep pointing out your faulty logic and it's fun!
My logic is rock solid. Yours has more landslides than California. I hope that doesn't adversely affect your ostrich farm, Ginger.
This is a nonsensical term.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
I am and that is why you can't let go. I think you should take your own advice but it's clear your life is made up and rather nothing.
My life is far more full of accomplishments and joy than yours is, Ginger. Leave those ostriches alone!

Proof of this conspiracy?
It's not a conspiracy; it's bad journalism.
There is no such proof in that Ziegler crap. Van Natta said he was okay with what his editor allowed. BTW, he really had nothing much to say that was a bombshell or would have changed the narrative as we have discussed before.
Of course, Van Natta said that after the fact. Listen to the original phone call with JZ. It's all there.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Pot meet kettle
There is nothing I can tell you that would cause you to admit you were wrong. Even if I gave you a name you'd tell me I made it up. Even if I provide with with a proof of life photo (like I did before), you'd claim it was photoshopped. It is obviously painful to you that I am not a whack job but a successful, highly educated, decorated scientist.
Like I've said. Answered.
You don't even get the reference, Skid.
Sure I do Super Chief
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
You are also anonymous, so criticizing my anonymity is amazing hypocritical.
Except I don't make up a phony background and then dare others to disprove it.
I've never made a phony assertion about myself and I have in fact PROVED I am who I say I am.
You have never proven anything.
You have never volunteered anything about yourself.
It is not relevant
You are the coward, not I.
You are a coward to try and make bets and refuse to prove your phony background while hiding behind anonymity. You are the coward
So you think whistle blowers can't be anonymous? I don't think you thought that line of argument through there, Boots.
Are you a whistleblower?
You would do the same thing, coward.
Nope
Funny that you equate not reporting the sexual assault of a child with speaking to the media.
Your post makes no sense. Are you high again?
JoeBot
My logic is rock solid. Yours has more landslides than California. I hope that doesn't adversely affect your ostrich farm, Ginger.
Your "logic" is fantasy
This is a nonsensical term.
It's perfectly descriptive
 
Last edited:

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
My life is far more full of accomplishments and joy than yours is, Ginger. Leave those ostriches alone!
Your "accomplishments" are made up on photoshop and bought on Ebay
It's not a conspiracy; it's bad journalism.
No, it's responsible journalism
Of course, Van Natta said that after the fact. Listen to the original phone call with JZ. It's all there.
I've heard it and not really.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Your "accomplishments" are made up on photoshop and bought on Ebay
They aren't in either case. You **** ostriches. See I can make ridiculous things up about you just as easily as you can make things up about me.
No, it's responsible journalism
No, it's refusing to admit they (ESPN) were wrong.
I've heard it and not really.
"Not really" = "at least kinda". But in reality very much so.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
They aren't in either case. You **** ostriches. See I can make ridiculous things up about you just as easily as you can make things up about me.
Silly boy
No, it's refusing to admit they (ESPN) were wrong.
It's being responsible journalists not conspiracy hacks.
"Not really" = "at least kinda". But in reality very much so.
No, it means it doesn't say what you allege.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Except I don't make up a phony background and then dare others to disprove it.
Nor do I. Had you not doubted me, we never would have gone down this path. I've literally proved in triplicate that I am who I say I am. I'm pretty sure you are the only person on this board who still doubts that.
It is not relevant
Then STFU about my background that is relevant.
You are a coward to try and make bets and refuse to prove your phony background while hiding behind anonymity. You are the coward
I'm not refusing to prove anything. First, I already proved it in triplicate. Second, I offered you additional proof but you had to tell me specifically what it would take and you hide behind "I don't want to get banned" which means that there is nothing I can show you that would make you admit you are wrong. Troll.
Are you a whistleblower?
Based on your logic, anonymous whistleblowers are cowards. Correct?
Nope

Your post makes no sense. Are you high again?
Learn to read.
It's perfectly descriptive
It's really not.

A "bot" most commonly (in today's parlance) means an automated online account that is used for spam, disinformation or propaganda. I think it is pretty clear that the people posting on this are actual humans and not bots.

"Bot" can also be short for robot in older usage, e.g. the "FemBots" in the Austin Powers movies. Used in this context you seem to insinuate that we are Joe Paterno lookalike automatons. This also makes no sense.

Go back to ostrich farming and leave the witty repartee to the literate adults in the room.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
It's being responsible journalists not conspiracy hacks.
To be clear, you are saying that Van Natta, who was ready to publish all of this before his editor killed it, is a conspiracy hack.

This guy:

is a hack? LOL.
No, it means it doesn't say what you allege.
Please explain then because it sure sounds like it does say what I allege.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Nor do I. Had you not doubted me, we never would have gone down this path. I've literally proved in triplicate that I am who I say I am. I'm pretty sure you are the only person on this board who still doubts that.
You have lied about who you are and can't stand that I call you out. You have proven nothing as I have shown many times before. I think many others doubt who you are but don't care. I like to call you out cause it makes you jump about 🤣
Then STFU about my background that is relevant.
No. If you insist on lying about yourself, I will continue to call you out. Maybe YOU should STFU about your phony background?
I'm not refusing to prove anything.
Yes you are
First, I already proved it in triplicate.
No you haven't
Second, I offered you additional proof but you had to tell me specifically what it would take and you hide behind "I don't want to get banned" which means that there is nothing I can show you that would make you admit you are wrong.
I told you what was necessary
JoeBot
Based on your logic, anonymous whistleblowers are cowards. Correct?
Anonymous JoeBots making up things about themselves then challenging others to disprove it are cowards.
Learn to read.
It's nonsense
It's really not.
It is
A "bot" most commonly (in today's parlance) means an automated online account that is used for spam, disinformation or propaganda. I think it is pretty clear that the people posting on this are actual humans and not bots.

"Bot" can also be short for robot in older usage, e.g. the "FemBots" in the Austin Powers movies. Used in this context you seem to insinuate that we are Joe Paterno lookalike automatons. This also makes no sense.

Go back to ostrich farming and leave the witty repartee to the literate adults in the room.
Some light reading
 
Last edited:

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
To be clear, you are saying that Van Natta, who was ready to publish all of this before his editor killed it, is a conspiracy hack.
No, it says his editor who Van Natta agreed with felt like running SOME of the stuff about MM was not reliable or proven and so decided responsibly not to run it.
This guy:

is a hack? LOL.

Please explain then because it sure sounds like it does say what I allege.
It does not.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
He doesn't grasp that he's playing a no win game. If he is the super accomplished guy he claims to be he looks even worse. Because he still got scammed. Saying how smart you are then falling for this nonsense just makes you look worse.
Do you believe he is who he says he is? You are right in that a real "scientist" would not spend this amount of time on here defending the indefensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
You are right in that a real "scientist" would not spend this amount of time on here defending the indefensible.
I agree. But it's not indefensible --- in fact the data clearly do not support your version of events.

Science follows the data even if it takes you to unpopular/uncomfortable places.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
No, it says his editor who Van Natta agreed with felt like running SOME of the stuff about MM was not reliable or proven and so decided responsibly not to run it.
The stuff that didn't agree with ESPN's narrative was cut. Even though Van Natta (award winning journalist) had it properly sourced. Funny that....
It does not.
Saying "It does not" without explanation is a waste of space, just like you.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
You have lied about who you are and can't stand that I call you out. You have proven nothing as I have shown many times before. I think many others doubt who you are but don't care. I like to call you out cause it makes you jump about 🤣
I haven't lied about anything which is why I get upset about it. I don't appreciate being called a liar.
No. If you insist on lying about yourself, I will continue to call you out. Maybe YOU should STFU about your phony background?
It's not phony. GFY.
I told you what was necessary
Tell me again -- I have no idea what you are talking about. All you've said is "something I can verify" but you haven't told me what that is because I sent you something in triplicate and that somehow wasn't good enough for you (because you will never admit you are wrong).
Anonymous JoeBots making up things about themselves then challenging others to disprove it are cowards.
Agreed. I've made nothing up though so that doesn't apply to me.
I understand how you are using the word and what you think it means. My point is that the term doesn't make any sense linguistically. Nothing on that first page explain why the term makes sense from an etmyological standpoint.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
I'm glad you admit you are not really a scientist. Confession is good for the sould
But it's not indefensible --- in fact the data clearly do not support your version of events.
It is and the data does not show otherwise. Your "data" are conspiracy theories.
Science follows the data even if it takes you to unpopular/uncomfortable places.
This isn't a science project.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
I'm glad you admit you are not really a scientist. Confession is good for the sould

It is and the data does not show otherwise. Your "data" are conspiracy theories.

This isn't a science project.
I agree that scientists don't defend the indefensible. I'm not doing that.

And I'm definitely a scientist. I believe I showed you my Google Scholar profile.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
I haven't lied about anything which is why I get upset about it. I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Only a liar would get as upset as you do. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
It's not phony. GFY.
It is phony and you know it.
Tell me again -- I have no idea what you are talking about. All you've said is "something I can verify" but you haven't told me what that is because I sent you something in triplicate and that somehow wasn't good enough for you (because you will never admit you are wrong).
Nope read back thru the posts.
Agreed. I've made nothing up though so that doesn't apply to me.
Yes you have made it up
I understand how you are using the word and what you think it means. My point is that the term doesn't make any sense linguistically. Nothing on that first page explain why the term makes sense from an etmyological standpoint.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣