sickening penn state football allegations

[jazzbo]

and the animosity behind it is thinly veiled.

Master of the understatement; it's not veiled at all. There's a reason I don't post much here and your "I'm ok Goodspeak's ok" attitude is one of them. I only came here because a couple regulars alerted me that the lunatic was shitting all over a thread and BINGO, it was true. Enjoy your musical discussions with him; I'm sure it will enhance your life if you like listening to complete garbage, which maybe you do. And now he'll get to play the drama queen martyr because of all the mean things I've said about him. Those should be hilarious in a clinical research kind of way.

Well, you're certainly showing your true colors, Cap'n.

[Larry Kart]

I have deleted Captain Hate's recent posts on this thread.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

If he says anything else untoward, I'll be deleting him.

[JSngry]

Captain Hate, this is General Principles. Your commission has been revoked.

[Soulstation1]

[Captain Hate]

Ok I'll try to argue this in a kinder and gentler way since "Jazzbo" said he agreed with most of my original points which have been deleted. Paterno ran a Tony Soprano operation at Penn State; think of it as the Happy Valley NAMBLA branch. He had complete control over the whole shit show and the school couldn't get rid of him when he was well past the state retirement age. Sandusky was his right hand man; he was the defensive genius behind Linebacker U. Without Sandusky (and the past where Paterno played the Temples, Youngstown States and Colgates of the world) there would be no legend; it requires a complete revision of history to suggest otherwise. When a low level member of the crime family saw a "made man" violating a youth in the shower, he didn't go to the police because Don Paterno was the authority. Tony Soprano Paterno did the absolute minimum to put an end to it, whether out of a misplaced old-school sense of loyalty or because you don't go against a made man. This is the same guy that ESPN shills like Musberger and Vitale have lionized for "doing more than the minimum when it comes to complying with the rules" yet that's all he did here. He could've had Sandusky arrested immediately but chose to act otherwise. Sandusky would continue to use the facilities and games on the road as a bait for his future victims; facilities where Paterno had absolute control.

The Penn State board of trustees saw the situation for what it was and fired the president and Paterno; it was long overdue in both cases, and they'll be paying out the wazz to the victims for good reason, but it was the right thing to do and the first responsible thing which had been done regarding the whole football program in a long time. If you want a sickening experience, go to some of the Penn State boards and view the cultists thinking that Sandusky was the only offender in this and the program should now proceed unscathed. They're in for a world of hurt if they think that's happening. This is the worst thing to happen in sports maybe forever and if the NCAA doesn't nuke that program from orbit and heap salt on the ashes, then they're complicit too. The program will be a pariah for a long time, particularly as the civil suits keep things in the public's eye. Paterno's dead so he's beyond any punishment for this, although the way he was dealt with could've been avoided if he had as much integrity as his shills say he possessed.

[Pete C]

Hate, I'd say that last post was the better approach and well argued. Nothing to be gained by teleporting animosities from another board.

[Captain Hate]

I don't know, Pete; I get pretty outraged when I see people acting like some football coaching POS is the real victim here and not the abused victims, who will never be free of what happened to them and probably all of them haven't been accounted for. I really felt a sense of catharsis in my original posts no matter what anybody thought of them. If that's considered trolling, I can live with that. But I understand where the mods are coming from.

[Blue Train]

You have to keep in mind.....you're used to dealing with him on a place without any moderators. He wouldn't have survived here the way he acted there for even more than a few of his unhinged posts on there. He definitely wouldn't have been only temporarily banned for the second time (before finally being banned for life.) on here....after his insulting other members personally with amongst other things their penis sizes and sexuality.

He's pretty much benign here. I have completely avoided him....well except for hinting that his and his wife's facebook settings are a disaster. It's amazingly easy to avoid him when you take into account he almost never discusses music and I never bother even looking at the sports and political threads. There is a lot of great stuff relating to music to be found in the archives.

If he had not bumped this thread (which I never noticed before...and did the whole poor "Saint" Paterno thing.) I wouldn't have bothered with this thread.

P.S. In the future if any moderator has a problem with me. Post it publicly so everyone can see what you're idea of "moderation" to at best a first time offender happens to be. If you look up the word moderator....being unnecessarily hostile, threatening and rude to someone who was never even previously warned that he did anything wrong....that won't be found there. I would put him on ignore but apparently I am not allowed to put a moderator on ignore.

I will no longer read any pm he sends me.

Just for the record....I understand the need of moderators (I have even stated on JC it needs at the very least one.)....or if I or anyone does anything that breaks a rule it's the moderator's job to give us a warning of some sort, or keep things from escalating. There is however a right and wrong way of doing it.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Blue Train

[Jim Alfredson]

I'm outraged by people who defend Paterno as well but personal attacks don't help to further an argument.

In my mind, Paterno is just as culpable as Sandusky for allowing the abuses to continue. I don't believe in heaven or hell but if there is a hell, I hope Paterno's in it.

[Pete C]

if there is a hell, I hope Paterno's in it.

According to Curtis Mayfield, if there is, we're all gonna go.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

P.S. In the future if any moderator has a problem with me. Post it publicly so everyone can see what you're idea of "moderation" to at best a first time offender happens to be. If you look up the word moderator....being unnecessarily hostile, threatening and rude to someone who was never even previously warned that he did anything wrong....that won't be found there. I would put him on ignore but apparently I am not allowed to put a moderator on ignore.

I will no longer read any pm he sends me.

For the record, I don't do the whole 'send a PM' thing and would just say something on the board....but that's me. If another moderator has a different tact, my suggestion would be to read it and pay attention. That make sense?

[Larry Kart]

P.S. In the future if any moderator has a problem with me. Post it publicly so everyone can see what you're idea of "moderation" to at best a first time offender happens to be. If you look up the word moderator....being unnecessarily hostile, threatening and rude to someone who was never even previously warned that he did anything wrong....that won't be found there. I would put him on ignore but apparently I am not allowed to put a moderator on ignore.

I will no longer read any pm he sends me.

Just for the record....I understand the need of moderators (I have even stated on JC it needs at the very least one.)....or if I or anyone does anything that breaks a rule it's the moderator's job to give us a warning of some sort, or keep things from escalating. There is however a right and wrong way of doing it.

OK -- At Blue Train's request and for anyone who's interested, here is "the unnecessarily hostile, threatening and rude" PM (it was headed "Stop it") that I sent to Blue Train, "who was never even previously warned that he did anything wrong":

'Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line:

"Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?"

Don't do anything like that again. It's a violation of forum rules.'

Some admittedly testy back and forth between us followed, which I'd also be happy to print verbatim--- again, should anyone care.

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

[JSngry]

What the moderators fail to understand is that Bad Things Happening make Peoples angry, and Angry Peoples cannot be expected to behave unangrily. Aggressive Indignation is the required Involuntary Imperative.

It's in the Internet Constistution. You can look it up.

[Pete C]

'Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line:

"Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?"

I don't agree that the fact of Goodspeak's occupation qualifies that as a "personal attack." If questioning others' choices is verboten, that closes down lots of opportunities for engagement/discussion.

[Big Wheel]

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

[Blue Train]

I don't agree that the fact of Goodspeak's occupation qualifies that as a "personal attack." If questioning others' choices is verboten, that closes down lots of opportunities for engagement/discussion.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

Exactly, I wasn't the one who brought up his career (and believe me I know he's a teacher.) or his legal responsibilities. He's posted that several times in this thread as making him the last word on the subject.

I asked the obvious question everyone had to be thinking....especially if they have children. He's a teacher who is legally required to inform about any abuse of a minor....but he has made it clear 48 hours, a week, month, infinity isn't that important to him in terms of reporting it. Poor "Saint" Paterno did everything he possibly could have done no matter how long it took, or the possibility if might have ended the horror much earlier. Those damn "What if'ers".

Shortly before my post in question....Mr. Nessa basically called him nuts. Valerie B called him delusional. Just in this thread alone read what people think of his position on this.

Aggie 87 even asked him "I hope you're quicker to report things when you find out about them than McQueary and Paterno were. For the victim's sakes." It might be a nicer way of putting it, but it's the same thing.

Did he or any of the others get a pm from someone whose default mode of "moderating" appears to be attack instead of "moderating"?

Maybe the moderators on here are so used to people attacking their decisions (see the Rodney King thread. The only reason I checked that thread is I figured a Rodney King, RIP thread can't lead to an argument by actual adults....I was proven wrong. It was like something The Onion would create.) or how they handle it that the default mode for him comes from that.

At most, that should have been maybe the 2nd pm he sent me if I disregarded his informing me I had broken the board's rule and I still continued to do it. I even asked him for a ruling from the site's owner....since I then and still don't agree with him. I get the feeling he never forwarded that.

After he did his job as a "moderator". I tried to explain why it bothers me that anyone would defend in my mind (and apparently this board's owner) an Enabler...you can't make up his response. I was apparently using something that happened to a family members to explain my "bad behavior."

Like I said, I have no intention of reading another pm from any moderator. If they can't post it in the light of day....don't waste your time. If that means I get banned that's fine. I can just go back to lurking. The only reason I finally registered over two years ago is that you can't use the search function without being signed in. The only reason I finally started posting was to help another member with regards to his Grand Niece.

If I could, I would put the supposed "moderator" on ignore. If saying that gets me banned. That's fine too.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Blue Train

[Tim McG]

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

Perspective is not "trumpeting your own credentials" nor is it license to put people down or impugn their character because of a chosen profession.

Look, if offering a point of view from a person who actually reports on child abuse seems inappropriate or a reason to blast someone, then I would also have to wonder who would you go see for a medical concern...your mechanic?

If anyone deserves a banishment its Mr. Hate who comes here to shit on members and the board itself. We'll handle Goodie, Mr. Hate should go back from whence he came.

Um, well, Dan...lest we too soon forget, you have been something of a difficult poster yourself in the past.

Where I agree with you regarding Hate, for myself, people change, as we all hope you have as well.

Edited June 28, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Big Wheel]

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

Perspective is not "trumpeting your own credentials" nor is it license to put people down or impugn their character because of a chosen profession.

Look, if offering a point of view from a person who actually reports on child abuse seems inappropriate or a reason to blast someone, then I would also have to wonder who would you go see for a medical concern...your mechanic?

A false analogy. Nobody here is saying that your point of view as a teacher is inappropriate or a reason to blast you, they're saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a doctor says (in the course of telling everyone he's a doctor and they should listen to him) stuff that opens his own medical competence and judgment up to criticism, then that's fair game.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Big Wheel

[Tim McG]

Hate, I'd say that last post was the better approach and well argued. Nothing to be gained by teleporting animosities from another board.

Animosities, I may add, generated because of a simple disagreement regarding the various social and political issues facing us today. On this BBS, it's OK to offer differing view points just so long as it doesn't become a pissing contest. I admit, I have had to adjust my own posting style to one that is a bit less strident. But I am neither a "piece of shit" nor am I stupid, insane or mentally incapacitated in any way.

Insults are the opiate of the unwise. I, however, have moved on. Life is too short to get that angry over any discussion which isn't life threatening.

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

Perspective is not "trumpeting your own credentials" nor is it license to put people down or impugn their character because of a chosen profession.

Look, if offering a point of view from a person who actually reports on child abuse seems inappropriate or a reason to blast someone, then I would also have to wonder who would you go see for a medical concern...your mechanic?

A false analogy. Nobody here is saying that your point of view as a teacher is inappropriate or a reason to blast you, they're saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a doctor says (in the course of telling everyone he's a doctor and they should listen to him) stuff that opens his own medical competence and judgment up to criticism, then that's fair game.

I have no problem at all with disagreement, Big Wheel. But to make veiled put downs of a type which impugn one's character and ability to discharge one's professional duties is pointless as it is entirely unnecessary...especially when the attacker has no understanding of the reporting of child abuse and/or how to gain a conviction. It takes time to bring it all to a point where the child can be removed and protected and that is something the anti-Paterno camp refuses to acknowledge.

Why that is a bone of contention escapes me.

Edited June 28, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Blue Train]

Since the "moderator" posted his post publicly (I know some boards have rules about posting pms public, which is why I didn't earlier)....I think everything should be public.

"Moderator"

"Stop it

Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line:

"Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?"

Don't do anything like that again. It's a violation of forum rules.

Larry Kart"

Me

"So, I posted that close to 3 hours ago and you posted minutes afterwards. Now, it suddenly bothers you?

I will tell you right now. I had a cousin who was sexually abused by a Priest. He later committed suicide. I have had a cousin who was murdered because he was Homosexual. I have no respect at all for Apologists of any kind....especially those who are supposed to be protecting children.

I formerly request a ruling from this sites owner."

"Moderator" He must have posted something and deleted it or edited out by mistake and not realized it, because the first sentence makes no sense.

"Sorry -- I meant to say "your cousin." But then I don't like people who cite injuries to others as justifications for their own bad behavior."

Me

"The guy who starts off being rude is going to lecture me about bad behavior? No wonder people have a problem with the moderators on here with an attitude like yours."

Once again, if the site's owner thinks I should be banned. While I disagree about all this. It's his site and more importantly his livelihood depends on it. I have lurked enough to figure that out.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Blue Train

[Blue Train]

Hate, I'd say that last post was the better approach and well argued. Nothing to be gained by teleporting animosities from another board.

Animosities, I may add, generated because of a simple disagreement regarding the various social and political issues facing us today. On this BBS, it's OK to offer differing view points just so long as it doesn't become a pissing contest. I admit, I have had to adjust my own posting style to one that is a bit less strident. But I am neither a "piece of shit" nor am I stupid, insane or mentally incapacitated in any way.

Insults are the opiate of the unwise. I, however, have moved on. Life is too short to get that angry over any discussion which isn't life threatening.

P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

If anything, seems like that would make it more OK and not less OK to bring it up. If you're going to repeatedly trumpet your own credentials as giving you authority to speak about a particular topic...others aren't allowed to do the same when criticizing you?

Perspective is not "trumpeting your own credentials" nor is it license to put people down or impugn their character because of a chosen profession.

Look, if offering a point of view from a person who actually reports on child abuse seems inappropriate or a reason to blast someone, then I would also have to wonder who would you go see for a medical concern...your mechanic?

A false analogy. Nobody here is saying that your point of view as a teacher is inappropriate or a reason to blast you, they're saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a doctor says (in the course of telling everyone he's a doctor and they should listen to him) stuff that opens his own medical competence and judgment up to criticism, then that's fair game.

I have no problem at all with disagreement, Big Wheel. But to make veiled put downs of a type which impugn one's character and ability to discharge one's professional duties is pointless as it is entirely unnecessary...especially when the attacker has no understanding of the reporting of child abuse and/or how to gain a conviction. It takes time to bring it all to a point where the child can be removed and protected and that is something the anti-Paterno camp refuses to acknowledge.

Why that is a bone of contention escapes me.

The bone of contention for whatever reason your mind can't seem to understand...yes, it takes time....forget, hours, days, weeks....every single second counts. Waiting 2 days to a week because he didn't want to ruin anyone's weekend is borderline criminal (if it was anyone but "Saint Paterno" they would have been at least indictment)....and while I also don't believe in Hell. If there is one "Saint" Paterno belongs there.

I ask again....WTF? do you think would have happened to you if you did the exact same thing and not even in the same Universe of Power as "Saint" Paterno?

I hope you're quicker to report things when you find out about them than McQueary and Paterno were. For the victim's sakes.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Blue Train

[Larry Kart]

'Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line:

"Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?"

I don't agree that the fact of Goodspeak's occupation qualifies that as a "personal attack." If questioning others' choices is verboten, that closes down lots of opportunities for engagement/discussion.

Assuming, as I do, that the passage in parentheses alludes to Paterno but essentially refers to Goodspeak -- because he is the one who teaches children (Paterno taught young men) -- it strikes me as a personal attack because of the phrase "somehow allowed," which implies that if Goodspeak holds the views that he does in this case (views with which I happen to disagree), then he ought not be allowed to teach children. To me that crosses over the line.

[Chuck Nessa]

Everyone needs to get a drink, sit down and relax.

[Tim McG]

'Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line:

"Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?"

I don't agree that the fact of Goodspeak's occupation qualifies that as a "personal attack." If questioning others' choices is verboten, that closes down lots of opportunities for engagement/discussion.

Assuming, as I do, that the passage in parentheses alludes to Paterno but essentially refers to Goodspeak -- because he is the one who teaches children (Paterno taught young men) -- it strikes me as a personal attack because of the phrase "somehow allowed," which implies that if Goodspeak holds the views that he does in this case (views with which I happen to disagree), then he ought not be allowed to teach children. To me that crosses over the line.

Thanks, Larry.