Jump to content

Tim McG

Members
  • Posts

    5,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Everything posted by Tim McG

  1. Giants got thumped last night, but the good news is the Mets beat the Dodgers; still in 1st place.
  2. And maybe now we can get at the truth of the whole matter. But please note: Paterno is not named nor was he a part of the cover-up according to the article. In fact, Paterno did what he was supposed to do: Paterno testified before a grand jury that McQueary was "very upset" and said he saw Sandusky "doing something with a youngster. It was a sexual nature," according to a transcript. Paterno testified he told his boss, Curley. Curley and Schultz contacted McQueary about a week and half later about the incident. In an alleged e-mail dated February 26, 2001, Schultz writes to Curley that he assumes Curley's "got the ball" about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" and "contacting the Department of Welfare," according to a source with knowledge of the case. Further, according to Pennsylvania law, Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do which was to report to his boss and they must do this: Pennsylvania law requires suspected child abuse be reported to outside authorities, including the state's child welfare agencies. Then, according to the article, Curley and the other Penn State authorities decided to not notify authorities and instead try to cover it all up with a "more humane" way of dealing with it all. Again, Paterno was not a part of any of that. The trial, of course, will reveal more, I am certain.
  3. I figure it's going to be a tight race in both the NL and AL West Divisions the rest of the way. Good news is that'll make for some great baseball from here to October. BTW...any "bad mojo" you can send the Dodgers' way will be most appreciated, too.
  4. I think you are spot on. She had to have suspected something, I figure.
  5. Mets look pretty good right now so do your Rangers, Jim. Nice come-backer vs the A's last night.
  6. Gotcha. Good advice, Chuck. Oh, and Chuck? Get to know me first. I'm not as evil as those who attack me assume and persist in promoting. Fair?
  7. OK. Has anybody noticed that as soon as I post anything controversial, the posters from another Jazz site show up and rehash stuff from some issue they personally had with me and then offer nothing as proof? I dunno, but the word "petty" springs to mind. See also: The Grudge thread. Just sayin'.
  8. Malice drinks one-half of its own poison. ~Seneca
  9. 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.
  10. 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. 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.
  11. 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? 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.
  12. I'm not sure how you got that conclusion out of anything I said, or anybody else. By not doing more, and not doing anything very quickly at all, he enabled Sandusky. He also effectively enabled him by allowing him continued access to the PSU facilities with little boys when he KNEW Sandusky had been fired for likely abusing little boys. I hope you'd agree as a Debate Coach (or whatever you claimed to be in the past) that enabling somebody and being the reason somebody does something are two different things. Again, it is your constitutional right to be enabled to believe what you want to believe. I prefer fact over unfounded and media inspired hysteria. After those Penn State authorities go to trial, I think you will find the truth will out.
  13. Note the completely vertical arm slot when the ball is released. That is the very definition of a 12 to 6 yakker. It was a curve disquised as a bean ball. If Blanco stood there and got hit, Mattingly would have been out there whining how he didn't attempt to get out of the way. It was a bullshit call.
  14. Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have already started. Salem would pale in comparison.
  15. Again, the "what ifer's" will never be satisfied.
  16. It was a bullshit call. But no matter...the Giants sweep the Dodgers by shutting them out all three games. First time in the storied rivalry's 130 year history. The June Swoon is complete.
  17. Rust never rests. My bad knees are sheer testament to that fact.
  18. Nobody? Well, I seriously doubt that, Aggie. Look man, you want to believe Paterno was the reason Sandusky abused all those kids and for 15 years [or more], then that is your constitutional right. I, however, will wait until all the trials and all the facts have been tried in a court of law before deciding guilt. Fact is, the authorities charged with stopping Sandusky and long before the shower incident, did nothing. Then after the shower incident they did nothing. I dunno. Which carries more weight? Personally? I think the facts will speak for themselves.
  19. Fair enough, Dan. My point, however, goes to who is the perpetrator of the abuse and who had the legal authority to stop it. McCleary was an eye witness, but did not inform the Child Protective Services. That is his job. The authorities, those above him and Paterno, did nothing about the accusation. Sandusky was the abuser. Not Paterno. The people charged with stopping him did nothing either then or years before [and that is where the most children were hurt, not because of one shower incident]. Again, to foist blame on Paterno is to misunderstand how the system works and how to gain a conviction.
  20. No doubt. But anyone who has had to report on child abuse [and the above posters obviously have not] will always say the very same thing: I wish I could have done more to stop it. Fact is, Sandusky was abusing kids long before the shower incident and no matter how much we want an immediate end to this shit, it will continue until the authorities step in and stop it. One day, 48 hours, a weekend is but a drop of water in the comprehensive OCEAN of trauma perpetrated upon a child at the hands of a serial predator. That is the reality of it all, Larry. And no matter how many times certain posters wish to berate me or impugn my character and profession, the simple fact of the matter is catching then prosecuting these bastards takes time. Of course the child[ren] will suffer. Nobody wants that. But these people are consummate liars. Even his own defense team wanted us to believe that all these victims were lying and because they wanted money. Anyone who thinks this is an easy slam dunk of a thing to do has no idea what it takes. I, however, do. And blaming Paterno for decades of abuse by Sandusky is sheer foolishness. Sandusky could have and should have been stopped by authorities years before, but they chose to ignore it...and the children suffered because of it. Still not Paterno's fault. Again, if this was an easy thing to do, there would be no child abuse. And people here can get on me all they want, but that will not change the facts in the matter.
  21. Saved for posterity. When you become a legal authorized/required reporter of child abuse then you can talk to me, Chuck. Until then, well.... I think, and stop me if I alrerady said this, once the fact is separated from the frenzy, it will be enough to exonerate Paterno. And again, the "what if'ers" of the world will never be satisfied.
  22. Don't sweat the small stuff, Jim. I predict your guys will be just fine. The Giants OTOH....
  23. Denial is not something to aspire to, Rostasi. Just sayin'.
×
×
  • Create New...