At this point, I think it's also reasonable to believe that Paterno convinced Curley and Schultz not to report to the proper authorities. In a 2001 Curley sent an email to Schultz and Spanier throwing cold water on the idea of reporting to the proper authorities, saying "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday," referring to Paterno. If the information in this email is untrue, what was the incentive for writing it? This email was written 11 yrs. before the Freeh imvestigation. It's obvious that Paterno lied in his interview with Jenkins, and it's obvious that he was involved with an attempt to sweep the Sandusky issues under the rug. Did he do it to protect Penn State? Did he do it out of friendship with Sandusky? Probably a combination of the two.
Or maybe it was a stupid idea by Curley that he tried to sell by exaggerating JoePa's role. The lack of verification is why hearsay evidence is not permitted in court.
Mr. Spencer's commentary today has me rethinking my position on the role of Coach Paterno in the Sandusky situation. That said, Jake has a very valid point. And I'm hoping, Bob, that you will reconsider your post to Jake. We know you want to be respected for your opinions/beliefs. Thus we would hope that you would grant that same respect for other posters. Your retort to jake did not manifest any respect or reality whatsoever. Just sayin...
Thank you for your kind words, Charlie. It's easier to accept Bob's emotional outbursts with a little context. He might be the smartest guy in his public sector world; the proverbial Lord of the Flies; but on this blog he is mostly comic relief. It's important that we keep trying to make thoughtful contributions and not get dragged into his petulant sniping.
You're right, Jake. It is important that we keep trying to make thoughtful contributions. It is in this vein that I look forward to somehow, someway, someday Bob doing so... Haven't seen it yet after following Spencerblog for a long time but I'll keep looking for his first thoughtful contribution.
Charles - OK. You want a thoughtful contribution? Here goes. Paterno may not have broken the law, but he was arguably the most powerful man at Penn State and by his own admission, he didn't do enough. He could have acted differently and saved numerous children from the clutches of a child molester and rapist. He made a conscious decision not to do so. When these children were being molested, where was your god? Jakes god was Paterno, so we know where he was. Zimmerman claims the shooting of Martin was gods will. What kind of god is that? A man just killed 12 people and injured scores of others in Colorado. Many were children. Where was your god Charles? WHERE WAS YOUR GOD? Maybe you'll try to give me a standard generic answer like "god works in mysterious ways" or " No one knows gods plan for us" Try to give me a real answer Charles. One with substance.
I think God would say love one another, and leave the final judgement to me. He would also say he didn't make a perfect world. Madness like Sandusky and Holmes exists.
Jake - So how do you know god is a he? And how do you know what god would say or how god would act? You couldn't figure out Steve. How you going to figure out god? And if god allows madmen like Sandusky and Holmes to exist, and if he allows them to act without intervention as they go about harming innocent children, is he a god we want to worship? But for the sake of argument, lets say god is a he. And lets say god does exist. Then your boy JoPa is in a heap of trouble.
"Faith transcends reason. It is when the horizon is the darkest and human reason is beaten down to the ground that faith shines brightest and comes to our rescue." Mahatma Gandhi
Jake - It amazes me that someone who professes to be a Christian would be so unflinchingly supportive of a man who allowed a child molester to continue to commit his heinous crimes. Are you a member of the Catholic clergy?
Justice for Travon and justice for the children who were allowed to be raped because your hero looked the other way. How do you hypocrites look yourself in the mirror?
At this point, I think it's also reasonable to believe that Paterno convinced Curley and Schultz not to report to the proper authorities. In a 2001 Curley sent an email to Schultz and Spanier throwing cold water on the idea of reporting to the proper authorities, saying "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday," referring to Paterno.
ReplyDeleteIf the information in this email is untrue, what was the incentive for writing it? This email was written 11 yrs. before the Freeh imvestigation. It's obvious that Paterno lied in his interview with Jenkins, and it's obvious that he was involved with an attempt to sweep the Sandusky issues under the rug. Did he do it to protect Penn State? Did he do it out of friendship with Sandusky? Probably a combination of the two.
Or maybe it was a stupid idea by Curley that he tried to sell by exaggerating JoePa's role.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of verification is why hearsay evidence is not permitted in court.
Or maybe it was a stupid idea by Moe or Larry. Get real Jake.
ReplyDeleteMr. Spencer's commentary today has me rethinking my position on the role of Coach Paterno in the Sandusky situation. That said, Jake has a very valid point. And I'm hoping, Bob, that you will reconsider your post to Jake. We know you want to be respected for your opinions/beliefs. Thus we would hope that you would grant that same respect for other posters. Your retort to jake did not manifest any respect or reality whatsoever. Just sayin...
ReplyDeleteHey Chuck - Go F yourself
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words, Charlie.
ReplyDeleteIt's easier to accept Bob's emotional outbursts with a little context. He might be the smartest guy in his public sector world; the proverbial Lord of the Flies; but on this blog he is mostly comic relief.
It's important that we keep trying to make thoughtful contributions and not get dragged into his petulant sniping.
OK Jake. I'll leave you two alone now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Jake. It is important that we keep trying to make thoughtful contributions. It is in this vein that I look forward to somehow, someway, someday Bob doing so... Haven't seen it yet after following Spencerblog for a long time but I'll keep looking for his first thoughtful contribution.
ReplyDeleteChuck - You and Jake are defending the defenders of a pedophile, and you're going to be being critical of me? That's pretty funny.
ReplyDeleteCharles - OK. You want a thoughtful contribution? Here goes. Paterno may not have broken the law, but he was arguably the most powerful man at Penn State and by his own admission, he didn't do enough. He could have acted differently and saved numerous children from the clutches of a child molester and rapist. He made a conscious decision not to do so. When these children were being molested, where was your god? Jakes god was Paterno, so we know where he was. Zimmerman claims the shooting of Martin was gods will. What kind of god is that? A man just killed 12 people and injured scores of others in Colorado. Many were children. Where was your god Charles? WHERE WAS YOUR GOD? Maybe you'll try to give me a standard generic answer like "god works in mysterious ways" or " No one knows gods plan for us" Try to give me a real answer Charles. One with substance.
ReplyDeleteBob talking about God is like Obama talking about free enterprise.
ReplyDeleteJust doesn't ring true.
Jake - OK. You answer the question.
ReplyDeleteI think God would say love one another, and leave the final judgement to me.
ReplyDeleteHe would also say he didn't make a perfect world. Madness like Sandusky and Holmes exists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJake - So how do you know god is a he? And how do you know what god would say or how god would act? You couldn't figure out Steve. How you going to figure out god? And if god allows madmen like Sandusky and Holmes to exist, and if he allows them to act without intervention as they go about harming innocent children, is he a god we want to worship? But for the sake of argument, lets say god is a he. And lets say god does exist. Then your boy JoPa is in a heap of trouble.
ReplyDelete"Faith transcends reason. It is when the horizon is the darkest and human reason is beaten down to the ground that faith shines brightest and comes to our rescue."
ReplyDeleteMahatma Gandhi
And logic. Thanks for the predictable answers.
ReplyDeleteOnly Bob would superficially respond to a conversation about God.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJake - It amazes me that someone who professes to be a Christian would be so unflinchingly supportive of a man who allowed a child molester to continue to commit his heinous crimes. Are you a member of the Catholic clergy?
ReplyDeleteJustice for Trayvon, but not for JoePa, typical liberal hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteHow do these people get up in the morning, knowing their whole life is a fraud?
Justice for Travon and justice for the children who were allowed to be raped because your hero looked the other way. How do you hypocrites look yourself in the mirror?
ReplyDelete