Penn State protects child rapist that was former famous D-Coordinator

[rchiu]

Rchiu is a fine example of the "quality" students they admit into the PSU MBA program...and he got accepted before the school's reputation got hammered. Many more Rchius will be running around the PSU campus now:biggrin: I wonder what score he got in the GMAT. From this thread I can tell critical reasoning, sentence correction, and reading comprehension (basically the whole verbal section of the test) were not his strengths

690, 99% percentile on Quantitative, something like 85% on Verbal, not too good but good enough. That's 20 years ago. And yeah, right out of the MBA program, I got into one of the big 5 mgmt consulting company. That's the quality of student at PSU MBA. (by the way, not trying to brag but I also have a Master of Engineering from a top 10 engineering school, or top 3 in my field)

Good enough for you?

 

[mugs]

Let's see where do we start. Firsthand: obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience. Tell me this, was McQueary the one getting raped? Was that his "personal experience"? Did he have "direct" personal observation? Was he next to the boy and Sandusky when they were having sex? By all the account, he saw what he saw from a mirror first and he slammed the locker to let them know he was there. By the time he went around to the shower, Sandusky was not with the boy anymore. Was that direct observation? I mean you are so good in English, why don't you tell me that.

Are you seriously saying that because McQueary's visual observation was through a mirror, that makes it secondhand?

And let's see from the email you cited:

* * I* am*
having* trouble* with* going* to* everyone,* but* the* person* involved.* * I* think* I* would*
be* more* comfortable*meeting* with* the* person* and* tell* him* about* the* information*
we*received.*

So tell me with you perfect English comprehension, what exactly was Shultz having trouble with? Any capable English speaker would say he was having trouble with speaking to the organizations without first talking to Sanduksy. Is there anything which indicated he was having trouble/concern with going to any organization? Like what all you people/media claimed? protecting the all mighty JoePa legacy, football reputation.....etc...Anything?

Another point: Previously they were going to inform both, but now it's just a "maybe" for the Department of Child Welfare. So in your perfect English comprehension, does maybe equal to a no?

My contention is that before talking to Paterno, Schultz and Curley were going to report the incident to the Department of Child Welfare. After talking to Joe Paterno, they decided that they would only report the incident to the Department of Child Welfare if Sandusky wasn't cooperative (e.g. seeking professional health). This is a change of course, and the intervening event was that Curley spoke to Paterno and "gave it some more thought."

I believe your contention is that they did not change course after talking to Paterno? But in Spanier's response to Curley he speaks as if they aren't planning to notify the Department of Child Welfare. Why didn't Curley correct him if they were still planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare? And if they were still planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare, why didn't that happen? What about Schultz's response to Curley, why did he indicate that contacting the Department of Child Welfare was conditional? Why didn't Curley correct him? It's obvious that all three of them were on the same page - they weren't planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare unless Sandusky didn't cooperate with them. I don't know why you're unwilling to admit this.

And you want to discuss the first part of the email, I already talked about the part where they had "a conversation with JoePa and changed their mind" in the previous post and didn't think it was necessary to quote the part again, but here you are thinking I thought it was incriminating that's why I left it out. The whole fvcking point of the post was to discuss they had a conversation, but the result of the conversion was not not to go to any of the organization but to just talk to Sandusky first.

If you read that e-mail and don't conclude that notifying the Department of Child Welfare is conditional on whether or not Sandusky cooperated, you're either stupid or you're lying to yourself.

Even you admit that the email didn't say JoePa told them exactly that. But all of the sudden, you "know" what it means.

Yeah, I know what it meant. Everyone who reads it knows what it meant. I'm pretty sure you know what it meant, but you're not willing to admit it to yourself.

Since you claim you know English so well, guess all I can say is you are just another dishonest prick trying to twist email and bits of info to your views and belief, like the rest of the general public. Pathetic....

You cut me deep man...


You don't even need this e-mail to hang Paterno.

It is a fact that Paterno was aware that Sandusky was investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with young boys in 1998. It is a fact that McQueary reported to Paterno that he witnessed Sandusky doing something inappropriate in a shower with a young boy. It is a fact that Paterno did not report this information to the police or to the Department of Child Welfare.

These three facts, which are not disputed, make Paterno a child rape enabler.

It's much easier to hang Curley and Schultz, but I don't get the impression that you're defending them.

 

[DCal430]

I actually hope the Middle State Commission On Higher Education places Penn State on Probation. It would be a huge wake up call if the school's accreditation was placed on probation. They would change things real quick if that happen.

 

[Drako]

690, 99% percentile on Quantitative, something like 85% on Verbal, not too good but good enough. That's 20 years ago. And yeah, right out of the MBA program, I got into one of the big 5 mgmt consulting company. That's the quality of student at PSU MBA. (by the way, not trying to brag but I also have a Master of Engineering from a top 10 engineering school, or top 3 in my field)

Good enough for you?

Wow, congratulations.

You now have a degree of "Masters in delusions of grandeur" from Pedophile State University. Please continue with your ripe diatribe. It has been, and will be, deliciously entertaining.

 

[Anonemous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...e-plane_n_1772564.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[rchiu]

Are you seriously saying that because McQueary's visual observation was through a mirror, that makes it secondhand?

My contention is that before talking to Paterno, Schultz and Curley were going to report the incident to the Department of Child Welfare. After talking to Joe Paterno, they decided that they would only report the incident to the Department of Child Welfare if Sandusky wasn't cooperative (e.g. seeking professional health). This is a change of course, and the intervening event was that Curley spoke to Paterno and "gave it some more thought."

I believe your contention is that they did not change course after talking to Paterno? But in Spanier's response to Curley he speaks as if they aren't planning to notify the Department of Child Welfare. Why didn't Curley correct him if they were still planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare? And if they were still planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare, why didn't that happen? What about Schultz's response to Curley, why did he indicate that contacting the Department of Child Welfare was conditional? Why didn't Curley correct him? It's obvious that all three of them were on the same page - they weren't planning to contact the Department of Child Welfare unless Sandusky didn't cooperate with them. I don't know why you're unwilling to admit this.

Let me make it absolutely clear so you can understand. The only change in course was the talking to Sandusky, instead of just talking to other organization directly without giving Sandusky a chance to talk. You know, basic human right/due diligence, give someone the chance to explain himself before going out to the world, something with huge privacy implication, something they did not witness themselves? Something that could've been libel if they got facts wrong? And like the previous 1998 interview, a chance for Sandusky to explain?

The focus on the change of direction was absolutely not to disengage from talking to other organization. From the email, at the very least they would still talk to Second Mile, regardless of the outcome of the talk with Sandusky. Talking to Welfare is a bit more unclear, but there is also no direct mentioning that they were not going to talk to welfare.

I mean, really, with your perfect English comprehension, don't tell me you don't see that from the email.

You want fact? Here they are again. That's what you call simple and undisputed.
McQueary reported the incident to JoePa Sat. Feb 10
JoePa reported the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sun. Feb 11 Curley, his boss. Schultz the VP overseeing PSU campus police at the time.

Where is your undisputed fact that JoePa knew about 1998? Again, where is the email from or to JoePa, or one email mentioning that anyone spoke to JoePa about the result of 1998 investigation? You know that result when Penn DA decided to drop the case and basically saying Sandusky didn't committed shit?

So where is your facts again that JoePa protected Sandusky? What is his motive? Where is the fact about he wanted to protect his legacy, or Sandusky was like his personal friend that he must protect? Where was the fact that giving Sandusky to authorities, some retired guy not associated with PSU football anymore would hurt PSU football program? Come on, I am still waiting for facts supporting all you people and media's claim that JoePa protected Sandusky for PSU football, his legacy....$6.5 millions later. couple of emails with no direct reference to any of the things you people accused him of is all you got. At best you can say is you "know" something even tho nothing was mentioned specifically.

I will tell you if you go into contract dispute with shite like that, people would just laugh in your face.

 

[mugs]

Let me make it absolutely clear so you can understand. The only change in course was the talking to Sandusky, instead of just talking to other organization directly without giving Sandusky a chance to talk. You know, basic human right/due diligence, give someone the chance to explain himself before going out to the world, something with huge privacy implication, something they did not witness themselves? Something that could've been libel if they got facts wrong? And like the previous 1998 interview, a chance for Sandusky to explain?

The focus on the change of direction was absolutely not to disengage from talking to other organization. From the email, at the very least they would still talk to Second Mile, regardless of the outcome of the talk with Sandusky. Talking to Welfare is a bit more unclear, but there is also no direct mentioning that they were not going to talk to welfare.

I mean, really, with your perfect English comprehension, don't tell me you don't see that from the email.

Clearly they decided to talk to Sandusky first. But they also decided that they wouldn't talk to the Department of Child Welfare unless Sandusky was uncooperative. Pretty much everyone who read that e-mail can see that including Spanier and Schultz. And then there's the fact that they didn't actually talk to the Department of Child Welfare...

If you're going to dispute indisputable facts, you're wasting my time.

You want fact? Here they are again. That's what you call simple and undisputed.
McQueary reported the incident to JoePa Sat. Feb 10
JoePa reported the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sun. Feb 11 Curley, his boss. Schultz the VP overseeing PSU campus police at the time.

There you go again bringing up Schultz's association with the campus police even though he had no operational role in the police department. Just another example of your willingness to use misleading information to defend Paterno.

Where is your undisputed fact that JoePa knew about 1998? Again, where is the email from or to JoePa, or one email mentioning that anyone spoke to JoePa about the result of 1998 investigation? You know that result when Penn DA decided to drop the case and basically saying Sandusky didn't committed shit?

You're actually disputing that Paterno knew Sandusky was investigated in 1998?

/facepalm

So where is your facts again that JoePa protected Sandusky? What is his motive? Where is the fact about he wanted to protect his legacy, or Sandusky was like his personal friend that he must protect? Where was the fact that giving Sandusky to authorities, some retired guy not associated with PSU football anymore would hurt PSU football program? Come on, I am still waiting for facts supporting all you people and media's claim that JoePa protected Sandusky for PSU football, his legacy....$6.5 millions later. couple of emails with no direct reference to any of the things you people accused him of is all you got. At best you can say is you "know" something even tho nothing was mentioned specifically.

When did I say anything about PSU football or Paterno's motive? I have no idea what his motive was. I don't care what his motive was. This is the problem with people like you. You're focusing on PSU football and not on the fact that Paterno's, McQueary's, Schultz's and Curley's actions allowed children to continue to be raped.

I will tell you if you go into contract dispute with shite like that, people would just laugh in your face.

We're all proud of you for having taken a business law class at a "top 22" business school. This is actually criminal law, for what it's worth. It's doubtful that Paterno would ever be convicted of anything, but that doesn't mean he's innocent. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't the standard applied to ruining your legacy.


I'm done arguing this with you. It's been a waste of my time, and I'm on vacation for the next few days. You have repeatedly shown us that you're willing to ignore facts, distort facts and lie to defend Paterno. You have disconnected from reality.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

FWIW, PSU's MBA is ranked 44th. Not that it matters, but that ranks PSU's MBA as 10th in the Big Ten by my count. Now back to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

[waggy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...e-plane_n_1772564.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

ugh no surprise really.

 

[edro]

Viewing through a mirror isn't first hand... lol.

 

[waggy]

Viewing through a mirror isn't first hand... lol.

lol yeah. that's a /facepalm on that

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Viewing through a mirror isn't first hand... lol.

Not to a person with a PedoStateU ehdchookayshun. Compared to most of the nonsense rchiu has been spewing forth that seems downright intelligent.

 

[RPD]

So when I'm backing up in my car, looking at my mirrors, I'm actually experiencing this in the second hand?

The more you know...

 

[Gigantopithecus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...e-plane_n_1772564.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Ah, now we're getting back to those rumors that Sandusky was protected because he knew about other, more important PSU associates like wealthy boosters being involved in child sexual abuse. It will be interesting to see if the scum the Feds are investigating are big enough to be immune to national law enforcement, or if they were only big enough fish in the small PSU pond to be immune to local and maybe state authorities.

This could get a lot worse for PSU. And it's an election year - 'I directed the FBI to take down a ring of pedophiles' cuts across party lines and looks real nice to the voters.

 

[Drako]

Schultz and Curly go to trial starting in January. Why the hell are they waiting so long?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-penn-state-officials-trial-20120817,0,2576602.story

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-17/penn-state-officials-perjury-trial-set-for-january-start

 

[EagleKeeper]

Schultz and Curly go to trial starting in January. Why the hell are they waiting so long?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-penn-state-officials-trial-20120817,0,2576602.story

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-17/penn-state-officials-perjury-trial-set-for-january-start

Judicial calendars.

Also, allow time for the defense to get their ducks in order.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Judicial calendars.

Also, allow time for the defense to get their ducks in order.

More time for the guys to take the cowards way out and die of natural causes like Paterno rather than facing the music.

 

[EagleKeeper]

More time for the guys to take the cowards way out and die of natural causes like Paterno rather than facing the music.

Both seem healthy enough to avoid natural causes. I am sure that Joe P wanted to try to defend himself.

Dying is not an easy choice.

 

[Drako]

Both seem healthy enough to avoid natural causes. I am sure that Joe P wanted to try to defend himself.

Dying is not an easy choice.

LOL, it will be interesting to see how many of the PSU BOT die off this Fall before the trial.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I can envision some unnaturals depending on a sentence that equates to life +

 

[hclarkjr]

one of the victims is suing ped state. http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...exual-abuse-victim-scandal-joe-paterno-082412

 

[djnsmith7]

one of the victims is suing ped state. http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...exual-abuse-victim-scandal-joe-paterno-082412

I've been waiting for dozens of these to pop up. Looks like this may be the first of many.

Let it rain.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

...And Penn State still hasn't won a game since 1997.

 

[Meghan54]

I think Penn State was counting on beating Ohio, which Penn State should have done easily. But, I think this is going to be one tough year for PSU's football team. Maybe, given today's performance, PSU will win one or two games, but Navy, Temple, and Northwestern are playing tough this year.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Maybe the death penalty would have been better for PedoState. They wouldn't lose to Ohio if they didn't play Ohio.