Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Penn State accusations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Penn State accusations

    Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky was a child molester since 1999. Sandusky was fired that year for taking a shower with a little boy.

    If you knew one of your friends was a child molester, would you watch him walk around your football facilities with children for another 12 years?

    I doubt it.


    Read the Grand Jury report. Joe Pa told investigators that Sandusky was "fondling" or doing "something of a sexual nature" in 2002. So you fired the man for child abuse in 1999, you were told he was again in the shower with a little boy "fondling" him or subjecting him to "something of a sexual nature" and you don't tell anyone other than your Athletic Director?

    You feel comfortable enough to allow Sandusky with unlimited access to your facilities with children?

    Get real.

    If you know someone is preying on little kids, and you turn your back and ignore the situation, you are allowing it to happen.

    If it's not the law, then it needs to be changed. You should be required by law to report sexual assualts to the police, period. It's disgusting.

    Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary absolutely disgust me. They actively participated in the covering up of multiple children being molested and watched him parade around possible victims.

    They all share responsibility.
    Last edited by Since86; 11-11-2011, 10:59 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Penn State accusations

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Joe Paterno knew that Jerry Sandusky was a child molester since 1999. Sandusky was fired that year for taking a shower with a little boy.

      If you knew one of your friends was a child molester, would you watch him walk around your football facilities with children for another 12 years?

      I doubt it.


      Read the Grand Jury report. Joe Pa told investigators that Sandusky was "fondling" or doing "something of a sexual nature" in 2002. So you fired the man for child abuse in 1999, you were told he was again in the shower with a little boy "fondling" him or subjecting him to "something of a sexual nature" and you don't tell anyone other than your Athletic Director?

      You feel comfortable enough to allow Sandusky with unlimited access to your facilities with children?

      Get real.

      If you know someone is preying on little kids, and you turn your back and ignore the situation, you are allowing it to happen.

      If it's not the law, then it needs to be changed. You should be required by law to report sexual assualts to the police, period. It's disgusting.

      Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary absolutely disgust me. They actively participated in the covering up of multiple children being molested and watched him parade around possible victims.

      They all share responsibility.
      I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think Paterno is "on par" with Sandusky, who, you know, actually committed the crimes.

      Comment


      • Re: Penn State accusations

        You know the more I think about it even if Joe Pa took it to a higher authority(outside of campus police) I still think this was going to end up covered up because they're enslaved to the institution that is Penn State.

        You have to protect the reputation at all costs regardless of human decency. You may think I'm overreacting but doesn't it sound like this is why they tried to keep this hidden for so long? I mean what did the police do? Nothing the BOT? Nothing.. Nobody did anything except delay the inevitable.

        That and the men loving boys network is highly influential and powerful. Either he kept his mouth shut or he disappears like the DA from this case did.

        Not to absolve Joe Pa because that's impossible here but I think this is actually bigger than him and the President of Penn State at this point.

        Comment


        • Re: Penn State accusations

          If you know someone is preying on children, and you do nothing to stop them, you are responsible for those victims. Your inaction lead to the terrorizing of more victims. You had the power to prevent them from being molested, and you refused to do anything.

          You allowed it to happen. (Collective you, of course)
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Penn State accusations

            We have a fundamental difference of opinion. That is all.

            Comment


            • Re: Penn State accusations

              And now one of the mothers of a victim, victim #1 in the Grand Jury report, say's that Sandusky was taking her son out of school without her knowledge or consent.


              The woman, who was not identified, said: "I'm infuriated. ... Even if [Penn State] had the slightest inclination that anything inappropriate was going on it should have been reported, or at least brought to my attention. I didn't even know he was leaving the school with my child, taking him out of classes. They never told me that."


              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Penn State accusations

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                See, I can't agree with this line of thinking. A guy who had second hand knowledge of alleged misconduct, who reported it to his superiors, should be on par with the guy that did the actual act? Can't buy into that. You are really twisting this situation into your own narrative at this point.
                No he shouldn't be on par with Sandusky but Paterno and any other administrator who repeatedly saw Sandusky with young boys after the first incident turned a blind eye because of the damage it would do to the PROGRAM. They knew what was going on. They are partially responsible for every other victim after that and there has to a price to pay for such blatant disregard of young victims. And this went on for years and years. It truly is sickening.
                Last edited by presto123; 11-11-2011, 01:57 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Penn State accusations

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  No he shouldn't be on par with Sandusky but Paterno and any other administrator who repeatedly saw Sandusky with young boys after the first incident turned a blind eye because of the damage it would do to the PROGRAM. They knew what was going on. They are partially responsible for every other victim after that and there has to a price to pay for such blatant disregard of young victims. And this went on for years and years. It truly is sickening.
                  I know this. Haven't argued otherwise. I just don't think he's on par with Sandusky. The rest, I absolutely agree with.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Penn State accusations

                    I don't think Paterno's on par with Sandusky, however I guess there are just different levels of scum. Compliant scum and active scum.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Penn State accusations

                      Thought I'd share this. Very good article, but it sounds like to me a man that understands what is happening, but he's just not ready to accept the god-awful role Paterno played during the ordeal. Like knowing your dad just died, but not really accepting it fully.

                      But still a very good article and worth the time to read, IMHO.

                      The End of Paterno



                      Let me start with this: I am writing a book about Joe Paterno. I am getting paid a sizable amount of money to do so, some of which I plan to donate to the charity of Joe’s choice, some of which I plan to keep. I have been working on this book, on and off, speed bumps and traffic jams, for a couple of years now. I moved away from my family, to State College, for the football season. I had many hard feelings about that. But I believed — as my wife believed — that it was the right thing to do. I came here to write about one of the giants of sports.
                      And my wife and I both felt that the only way to tell the story, for better and worse, was to be around it every day.

                      The last week has torn me up emotionally. This doesn’t matter, of course. All
                      that matters are the victims of the horrible crimes allegedly committed by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. I cannot say that enough times.

                      Sometimes, I feel like the last week or so there has been a desperate race among commentators and others to prove that they are MORE against child molesting than anyone else. That makes me sick. We’re all sickened. We’re all heartbroken. We’re all beyond angry, in a place of rage where nothing seems real. The other day, I called it “howling.” I meant that in the purest sense of the word — crying in pain.


                      So, two points to get out of the way:

                      1. I think Joe Paterno had the responsibility as a leader and a man to stop the horrific rapes allegedly committed by Jerry Sandusky, and I believe he will have regrets about this for the rest of his life.

                      2. Because of this, Joe Paterno could no longer coach at Penn State University.
                      Beyond these two points, though, I said I wasn’t going to write about this because I feel like there’s still a lot of darkness around. I don’t know what Joe Paterno knew. I don’t know how he handled it. I don’t know if he followed up. I don’t know anything about Paterno’s role in this except for what little was said about that in the horrifying and stomach-turning grand jury findings. People have jumped to many conclusions about Paterno’s role and his negligence, and they might be right. I’ll say it again: They might be right. But they might be wrong, too. And I’m writing a book about the man. I can’t live in that world of maybes.

                      It hasn’t been easy to stay silent — nor is it my personality. As anyone who knows me will tell you, I will write 5,000 words about an infomercial I don’t like. But I thought it was important that I stay out of the middle of this, observe the scene, and I still think that’s important.

                      But — well, I’ve already said that my emotions don’t matter here, that they are nothing like what the victims went through, but for the purposes of this essay I’ll tell you them anyway: I’ve been wrecked the last week. Writing a book comes from the soul. It consumes you — mentally, emotionally, spiritually, all of it. I have thought about Joe Paterno, his strengths, his flaws, his triumphs, his failures, his core, pretty much nonstop for months now. I have talked to hundreds of people about him in all walks of life. I have read 25 or 30 books about him, countless articles. I’m not saying I know Joe Paterno. I’m saying I know a whole lot about him.

                      And what I know is complicated. But, beyond complications — and I really believe this with all my heart — there’s this, and this is exclusively my opinion: Joe Paterno has lived a profoundly decent life.

                      Nobody has really wanted to say this lately, and I grasp that. The last week has obviously shed a new light on him and his program — a horrible new light — and if you have any questions about how I feel about all that, please scroll back up to my two points at the top.

                      But I have seen some things in the last few days that have felt rotten, utterly wrong — a piling on that goes even beyond excessive, a dancing on the grave that makes me ill. Joe Paterno has lived a whole life. He has improved the lives of countless people. I know — I’ve talked to hundreds of them. Almost every day I walk by the library that he and his wife, Sue, built. I walk by the religious center that tries to bring people together, and his name is on the list of major donors. I hear the stories, the countless stories, of the kindnesses that came naturally to him, of the way he stuck with people in their worst moments, of the belief he had that everybody could do a little bit better — as a football player, as a student, as a human being. I’m not going to tell you these stories now, because you can’t hear them. Nobody can hear them in the howling.

                      But I will say that I am sickened, absolutely sickened, that some of those people whose lives were fundamentally inspired and galvanized by Joe Paterno have not stepped forward to stand up for him this week, have stood back and allowed him to be painted as an inhuman monster who was only interested in his legacy, even at the cost of the most heinous crimes against children imaginable.

                      Shame on them.

                      And why? I’ll tell you my opinion: Because they were afraid. And I understand that. A kind word for Joe Paterno in this storm is taken by many as a pro vote for a child molester. A quick, “Wait a minute, Joe Paterno is a good man. Let’s see what happened here” is translated as an attempt to minimize the horror of what Jerry Sandusky is charged with doing. It takes courage to stand behind someone you believe in when it’s this bad outside. It takes courage to stand up for a man in peril, even if he stood up for you.

                      And that’s shameful. I have not wanted to speak because it’s not my place to speak. I’m Joe Paterno’s biographer. I’m here to write about the man. I’m not here to write a fairy tale, and I’m not here to write a hit job, and I hope to be nowhere near either extreme. I’m here to write a whole story. I’ve had people ask me: “Will you include all this in the book?” Well, OF COURSE I will — this is the tragic ending of a legendary career. I’m going to wait for evidence, and if it turns out that Joe Paterno knowingly covered this up, then I will write that with all the power and fury I have in me.

                      I will wait, though. I will have to wait.

                      But then, yeah, I opened my big mouth. On Thursday morning, I went to speak at the “Paterno and the Media” class on the Penn State campus — I have spoken at the class the last two or three years. This was obviously one day after Paterno had been fired, and the campus had been turned inside out. I woke up wondering if I really should go. But I decided I had to go.

                      And when I was asked questions, I had to say how I felt. It spilled out of me. I suppose it caused a bit of a Twitter uproar — I say “I suppose,” because for the first time in memory I am not checking Twitter, and I think I’ll stay away for a while — but what I remember saying is:

                      1. Joe Paterno is responsible for what happens on his watch. Period.

                      2. People are making assumptions about what Joe did or didn’t know, what Joe did or didn’t do, and I can’t tell you that those assumptions are wrong. But I can tell you that they are assumptions based on one side of the story.

                      3. We are in a top-you world where everyone is not only trying to report something faster but is also trying to report something ANGRIER. One guy wants Joe Paterno to resign, the next wants him to be fired, the next wants him to be fired this minute, the next wants him to be fired and arrested, the next wants him to be fired, arrested and jailed, on and on, until we’ve lost sight of who actually committed the crimes here.

                      4. I think the University could not possibly have handled this worse. It was disgusting and disgraceful, the method in which they fired Joe Paterno after 60 years of service, and yes, I do think Paterno was a scapegoat. Of course he was. I’ve already said that he had to be let go. But to let him dangle out there, take up all the headlines, face the bulk of the media pressure, absolutely, that’s the very definition of scapegoat. Three people were indicted and arrested. A fourth, I hear, will be indicted soon. Joe Paterno is not one of the four.

                      5. It is still unclear what Paterno did in this case. It will remain unclear for a while. You might be one of the hundreds and hundreds of people I’ve heard from who know EXACTLY what Paterno did. He HAD to know this. He DEFINITELY knew that. He COULD have done something. I respect that. Joe Paterno’s a public figure. You have every right to believe what you want to believe and be absolutely certain about it. But since we have not heard from Joe, not heard from former athletic director Tim Curley, not heard from GA/assistant coach Mike McQueary, not heard from anyone who was in the room, I’ll repeat: It’s unclear. A determined grand jury did not charge Joe Paterno with any crime. A motivated reporting barrage, so far, anyway, has not uncovered a single thing that can tell us definitively what Joe Paterno knew.

                      You can say that he knew enough to stop this, and I’d say you were right. I have tried so hard to make it clear that I am not defending Joe Paterno’s actions or inactions, but I know that won’t be enough. You may be writing an email right now telling me how terrible child molestation is, how awful a person Joe Paterno is, how awful a person I am for wanting to wait and see. I understand. This case hits emotions that are unstoppable.

                      But I will say this: Paterno has paid a price here. His job is gone. His life’s work has been soiled. His reputation is in tatters. Maybe that should be the price. Maybe there should be more of a price. You don’t have to type: “Well, his price is nothing like the price of those victims…” I already know that.

                      But I think the way Joe Paterno has lived his life has earned him something more than instant fury, more than immediate assumptions of the worst, more than the happy cheers of critics who have always believed that there was something phony about the man and his ideals. He deserves what I would hope we all deserve — for the truth to come out, or, anyway, the closest thing to truth we can find.

                      I don’t think Joe Paterno has gotten that. And I think that’s sad.
                      And with that, I’m going back underground to wrestle with my book and doubts and emotions and everything that goes with that.
                      http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/1...nd-of-paterno/
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Penn State accusations

                        I'm no legal scholar. Is Btown still around?

                        Could Paterno or any other be charge with being an accessory to these Sandusky charges? They knew of the crime being committed and failed to report it to authorities. In a sense they also encouraged it by allowing access to facilities, etc. I know in some jurisdictions, criminal facilitation can be considered.

                        Is this possible?
                        Last edited by Stryder; 11-11-2011, 06:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Penn State accusations

                          Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                          I'm no legal scholar. Is Btown still around?

                          Could Paterno or any other be charge with being an accessory to these Sandusky charges? They knew of the crime being committed and failed to report it to authorities. In a sense they also encouraged it by allowing access to facilities, etc. I know in some jurisdictions, criminal facilitation can be considered.

                          Is this possible?
                          I don't know that he can be charged as an accessory. It is illegal to not report child abuse in Indiana. I don't know what the law in Pennsylvania though. From the way it sounds Pennsylvania doesn't have such a law.

                          http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/law-say...use%2C-neglect

                          Comment


                          • Re: Penn State accusations

                            McQueary is gone. He saw the writing on the wall and fired himself.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: Penn State accusations

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              McQueary is gone. He saw the writing on the wall and fired himself.
                              A pity he didn't do it sooner

                              Comment


                              • Re: Penn State accusations

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                McQueary is gone. He saw the writing on the wall and fired himself.
                                Didn't realize he was a ginger. That explains a lot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X