Tim McG

Pretty much anything Brad posts but #75 prompted my tongue-in-cheek response you are referring to. I think you will find that rare is the day I do something like that, but as per your wishes, it won't happen again. Cheers. Tim

Is a cut-and-paste post in order to leave out whole chunks of information in an effort to put down another poster forbidden, too? Pardon my sensibilities, Larry.

In your rhetorical world view, "agree" and "goad" is a common dichotomy. Please. Your make-believe understanding of what it means to goad people is astounding, to say the least. Denial, at best. You're famous for this shit, Pete. Don't play games with me...we've already been down this road. You ain't kiddin' nobody with this pretend protest. We've met. OK?

*Fixed* Couldn't have said it better myself. Out of the mouth of a well informed person Strike three. Grab some pine, Meat.

Read it again, Jim: 1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident. Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police Yeah, I got that. Now let's read this again: Being accepted as a volunteer and allowing said volunteer to retain access was an entirely discretionary act on the part of the school, and unless Paterno's role in the school was that of a total pawn, he would have had the ability to veto this. But he and/or they didn't. Why not? Is it standard procedure at Penn State to allow anybody and everybody who retires from a position to retain full access? Did Sandusky threaten to expose other improprieties? Did Paterno & Co, not take the allegation seriously, figured it was a one-time lapse of an otherwise fine fellow and accept his resignation "with regrets"? Was everybody involved in the decision-making process so "old school" in their thinking that child rape was viewed as a "peccadillo" instead of an act of vileness, and gee, sorry you had to go through all this, Jerry, no hard feelings I hope? 1999 was not 1949. The notion of an adult "getting their jollies" with kids was no longer allowed to have any ambiguity attached to it. Paterno & Co, either A) outright refused to believe the accusation, even with an eye-witness account of one of their own; B) believed the accusation but didn't find anything particular wrong with it; or C) believed the accusation, found it repugnant, but still let Sandusky have full, unsupervised (one must assume) access to facilities so as to keep up appearances. A = Irresponsible & naive, B = Repugnant C = Borderline (at best) criminal negligence Under what set of circumstances do the actions of 1999 in the wake of the events of1998 not constitute a fundamental FAIL? C'mon, Jim. You cannot discount the fact the case was closed just to make your point. Otherwise, it has no basis in truth. That's really the most logical explanation, which renders the retaining of full access and privileges all the more negligent. It would have been one thing to just rid yourself completely of the guy but remain totally closed-lipped about the reason why, that's a fully corporate thing to do, bad, but "normal" enough. We have no legal grounds to accuse you further, but you have no legal right to remain anywhere near us. But if you have suspicion enough to get the guy out of your business plans but still keep him around in any and every other way, that's nothing more than a simple failure to grasp basic reality due to god only knows what convoluted delusions... Hey Jerry, you know, we don't think you're morally fit to be the future of Penn State, but, uh...here's the keys to the house and the car. Beer in the fridge, help yourself. Behave yourself now, ok? Good call, guys! So, again, suspicion, assumption, conjecture and assumption are as good as facts? Well, then let's get a rope and hang the bastard! Man, with all due respect here, I sure hope none of you guys work in the court system or are on the police force.

Happiest of Happys, Rolf!

Funny how that happens... This from the guy who attempted to goad me earlier. Look, you guys are hammering me...it isn't the other way around. You don't want me to react, then get off me. See also: personal responsibility Pressure from PSU? You bet. They didn't report the Sandusky/grad assistant allegation to the autorities either so I'd say it is quite possible PSU applied some pressure here. Let me add a few questions of my own: Could it also be that Paterno didn't do anything else because the case was closed by the authorities? Is an accusation as good as guilt? Why is it everyone here assumes the worst in people? Is it at all possible you all could be wrong about this? Paterno is a scapegoat because of the same PSU idiots who blew it back in 1998. Period. Sandusky is the criminal. Time to re-focus, guys.

Because, uh, they do that for everybody? Read it again, Jim: Oh? Who isn't familiar with the case now, Mr. Simple Facts?

Here ya go: 1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident. 1999 -- Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but stays on as a volunteer and retains full access to the campus and football facilities. Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police And I told you so.

Your posts are also amusing but typical. I don't know you in real life and perhaps you're a very nice person but on the baseball threads you come off rather boorish. This from Mr. Insult. Captain of the Olympic I-don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about Team. Sadly typical, Brad. I didn't hear the fine print but I did hear that he had signed with the Phillies. Hear fine print...? Sure. And I'm the idiot.

Um...OK. You said that you would get in the car and go to the police thereby trusting them to follow through [though the first thing they would ask is if you filed a report with CPS, you know, following orders]. You didn't say you would hunt the molester down yourself. Am I right? Isn't that exactly what I just said to Jim? Applying your logic, wouldn't that also be "acquit(ing) yourself of further responsibility"? There is a huge difference between telling some middle manager who probably owes his job to you, and telling the police who have a statutory authority to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. You are like the guys who were indicted; apparently you can't figure out that little lesson in civics. Going to the police in such cases is fulfilling my responsibility. Paterno did not do that. Nobody did that. Shameful. You seem to be conflating workplace decorum and criminal conduct. If you show up late for a meeting, your boss tells his/her boss, you end up with a reprimand. You rape someone in the storeroom, it is no longer a matter of workplace performance, but criminal conduct requiring police attention. He is a football coach, Leeway...not God. He may have tons of this power you speak of, but only with regard to PSU athletics/football. He is the best-known, longest-serving football coach, enormously prestigious and powerful. In Happy Valley, he is a god. But you don't have to be god to pick up a phone and call the cops. You just have to have a conscience. Paterno and the school admin guys chose to allow Sandusky to prey on kids rather than allow these things to come to light. That's why they are all fired and/or indicted. Paterno reported to his superiors. The mark of a good leader. No, the mark of a follower, hardly a good leader. Once again, this is not about Performance Management. Paterno only had an allegation from the grad assistant to go on; no proof Sandusky was/is a child molester. Even accepting your version, that's enough to report the allegation to police. Paterno is a coach not the CPS or the police or the court system. No, he is not that, nor expected to be. As a coach, teacher and school employee, he had an obligation to at least report it. This is not stealing paper clips, we're talking child rape here. Paterno was not the eye witness. That's a craven argument. Does he have to be to report an the witness testimony of someone under his command to the police? That's leadership. He didn't let anybody abuse children; Sandusky did that on his own and in secrecy. Sandusly did it, Paterno enabled it. Pick up the phione and calling the cops is NOT EVIDENCE nor is it legal and dutiful reporting procedure. You obviously don't know how the system works. Calling the cops is not evidence, but it give the cops a chance to gather evidence. You obviously do not know how the system works or why the checks and balances are in place regarding the reporting of child abuse. Paterno and his school VP and President cronies blew right through the checks and balances. Frankly, you really don't know what you are talking about here. I am as disgusted by the systematic abuse of children by that Sandusky asshole as you are, OK? Thank you. We agree on the most important point. Like there was some reason not to?

Um...OK. You said that you would get in the car and go to the police thereby trusting them to follow through [though the first thing they would ask is if you filed a report with CPS, you know, following orders]. You didn't say you would hunt the molester down yourself. Am I right? Isn't that exactly what I just said to Jim? Applying your logic, wouldn't that also be "acquit(ing) yourself of further responsibility"? There is a huge difference between telling some middle manager who probably owes his job to you, and telling the police who have a statutory authority to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. You are like the guys who were indicted; apparently you can't figure out that little lesson in civics. Going to the police in such cases is fulfilling my responsibility. Paterno did not do that. Nobody did that. Shameful. You seem to be conflating workplace decorum and criminal conduct. If you show up late for a meeting, your boss tells his/her boss, you end up with a reprimand. You rape someone in the storeroom, it is no longer a matter of workplace performance, but criminal conduct requiring police attention. He is a football coach, Leeway...not God. He may have tons of this power you speak of, but only with regard to PSU athletics/football. He is the best-known, longest-serving football coach, enormously prestigious and powerful. In Happy Valley, he is a god. But you don't have to be god to pick up a phone and call the cops. You just have to have a conscience. Paterno and the school admin guys chose to allow Sandusky to prey on kids rather than allow these things to come to light. That's why they are all fired and/or indicted. Paterno reported to his superiors. The mark of a good leader. Paterno only had an allegation from the grad assistant to go on; no proof Sandusky was/is a child molester. Paterno is a coach not the CPS or the police or the court system. Paterno was not the eye witness. He didn't let anybody abuse children; Sandusky did that on his own and in secrecy. Pick up the phone and calling the cops is NOT EVIDENCE nor is it legal and dutiful reporting procedure. You obviously do not know how the system works or why the checks and balances are in place regarding the reporting of child abuse. I am as disgusted by the systematic abuse of children by that Sandusky asshole as you are, OK?

He *didn't* wait ten years. He promptly reported it to his boss, Joe Paterno. That is exactly what you said earlier in this thread that employees are supposed to do - use the chain of command, not go to the police. You're not being consistent here. It's not really a matter of a lack of consistency. Goodspeak has not bothered to master the simple facts of the case. Arguing with him is a fool's errand. Right. You the resident expert on "the simple facts of the case"? Then educate me oh wise one. Show me where I'm wrong. It is the opiate of the self-important to claim such superioirty, BM.

Managers have their bosses, too. And they get managed as well. I was in management for a retail firm for several years before becoming an educator. There isn't a whole lot of difference except in the title.

The next Barry Zito...? One more year left on Zito's contract. It seems like an eternity, so I don't know that throwing crazy money at a guy this long in the tooth is such a good idea.

Fine. Then when the court throws out the case on the technicallity of not following proper procedure in reporting, investigating and prosecuting an alleged child molester, you can tell me that comment is justified. Really? Checking up on people every so often to see if the job is getting done to see if your trust is being validated is micro-managing? "Hey guys...that guy that we think is fucking all these kids, how's that coming? We getting anywhere on that? What do we know, where are we going with this? Let's not drop the ball on this one, ok, too much at stake, let's get it right." That's micro-managing? If you've ever been truly micro-managed, you'd realize just how absurd a statement that is... Micro-managed...in the public education arena? You have just got to be joking if you think that doesn't occur and on an hourly basis in my job. Obviously, you have never reported on child abuse or you wouldn't make such an unfortunate statement like you just did.

You've returned to this a couple of times. The problem is, we do know that child molesters continue to molest, particularly if they are never confronted, apprehended and some attempt at rehabilitation is made. Paterno indeed should have known that the man was going to continue to molest. IF we know a person to actually be a child molester. In this case, it was only an unproven allegation. There is absolutely no way to predict what will happen ten years into the future, especially when no charges were brough against Sandusky. What would support your claim then...supposition? Conjecture? Assumption? C'mon, Man...you need way more than that to suspect anyone of anything. The problem with this analogy is that Paterno didn't report anything to the police, did he? He reported to the people who should have. Again, one cannot go only to the police. By law, there has to be a CPS report filed FIRST. Then, the police step in. That is the grim reality of child abuse reporting, Papsus. Don't get on me because you think it ought to be easier than that. We are a Nation of Laws, not knee-jerk reactionaries hell bent for unproven justice. Unless we want to go back to vigilantism that is what needs to be done in order to catch these bastards, OK?

Something else a good leader does is make sure that those to whom he has delegated authority actually get the job done. Apprently the job here was to sweep the matter under the rug, because that's what got done, and apparently everybody was happy with that until they weren't, which has only been fairly recently. Well then, he really has been a Corporate Stooge all these years, then, which is OK by me. I always suspected as much, although it tends to wear on me how Corporate Stooges are given all this...veneration from other Corporate Stooges (of which, at the end of the day, in some form or fashion, almost all of us end up being). Joe Paterno was an Imaginary Great Man whose "greatness" existed, not due to some innate character traits of his own, due only to the allowances given him and imaged by his institutional Powers That Be. Outside of that, he was good at his job, probably a good husband & father etc. Good for him, but...so are a LOT of people. Can leadership at least be defined by what he did know about a relatively few hours in the past & the direction of his reaction? He reacted like a lower-level manager fearful of his job, not an executive who had the power to issue directives and expect those directives to be followed through to a clearly specified end (well, these days, everybody acts like lower-level managers except when it's time to justify their bonuses...). Which is "ok" (not really, but you know what I mean), but - either the guy had all this power or he didn't. Not a lot of in-between here. If he had it, he really, really did not use it wisely (and yeah, true leaders should look into the future, that's kinda what they're there for. To maintain the staus quo, you only need good administrators, which is a not-exactly-common skill set in and of itself, but ...). And if he didn't have it, then he's really just another chump who got punked out by The System, which is a drag, but not a particularly uncommon one. It's worthy of not too much more than a shrug and an "oh well, that's the way shit goes, happens every day and everywhere". So - did Paterno have the power, or was he a just another cog? The difference here is you see micro-managing as a sign of good leadership. I call that anal-retentive. A good leader hires/works for good people he/she can trust to do their duty. A poor leader micro-manages the hell out of them.

Um...OK. You said that you would get in the car and go to the police thereby trusting them to follow through [though the first thing they would ask is if you filed a report with CPS, you know, following orders]. You didn't say you would hunt the molester down yourself. Am I right? Isn't that exactly what I just said to Jim? Applying your logic, wouldn't that also be "acquit(ing) yourself of further responsibility"? He is a football coach, Leeway...not God. He may have tons of this power you speak of, but only with regard to PSU athletics/football.

Looks like Pat Burrell is on his way out...retirement. Burrell is done after 12 years in MLB

I hope the Phillies choke on it. Why? What can you have against them? Goodie is pissed because Rollins had the nerve, the nerve, to steal 2nd when the Phillies were up by 6 runs in the top of the 6th in SF last summer. Supposedly there's some unwritten rule that only the SF Giants and their fans know about that says you can't steal when leading by 6 runs in the 6th inning. However, he's okay with a pitcher throwing at a batter's head and sees it as a perfectly acceptable form retaliation just as long as it's a SF pitcher doing the throwing and a non SF played getting beaned. Um. Never said it was OK to throw at anyone. What I said was, Cousins needs to eat dirt each and every time he's at bat vs. the Giants. Retaliation for sliding into Posey head first and off line, is IMO completely justified to plunk the SOB....and it is and has always been a part of the game. Being OK and justified are two entirely different concepts. If it was your guy who got nailed like that you'd be plenty pissed. And what that incident has to do with the no-class Phillies is beyond me. On point: I was pissed that their no-class manager dissed one of the best pitching staffs in the Majors in public. That steal was a total in-your-face show of disrespect for the Giants and the ensuing brawl started by the Philly players was a big bunch of bullshit, too. They got squashed out in the playoffs and justice was served...in spades. Look man, if you're going to get it wrong at least tell it right. If I'm going to get it wrong? Sigh. I knew I was going to regret engaging in a discussion w/ you. Okay look, you obviously need a little reminder so here it goes. The Phillies "no class manager" never "dissed" the Giants pitching staff. A reporter asked Manuel if he thought that Cain and Lincecum were great pitchers. He replied that he thought that they were "very, very, very, good" pitchers but not great. How is that a put down/"diss"?? Furthermore, the Giants manager Bruce Bochy backed up Manuel. "I guess what Charlie's point is, is longevity," Bochy said. "He's right. When you call somebody great, they've done it over quite a few years." The brawl was instigated when the SF pitcher(Ramirez) beaned the Phillies batter(Victorino) with the next pitch and the catcher(Eli Whiteside) tossed his mask and started hopping up and down like a prize fighter at the beginning of a bout. Squashed out of the playoffs? The Phillies lost a 5 game series 3 games to 2 following an epic pitching duel that they lost 1-0. How is that being squashed? Beaten yes, but squashed? No. No. The incident started with a clearly designed in-your-face steal with a six run lead against a team with the worst offense in MLB. It was a no-class play called by a no-class manager who said way more than you are posting regarding the Giants' pitching staff. And so far as I know, the Phillies weren't in the WS, so they were squashed out; note I did not say soundly defeated or whipped. That facts back me up so you can misremember it all you like...just attribute what I actually said and not leave out half of it to make your claim. Fair? Hey Goodspeak- you ever play the game? I have. I pitched- and been on both sides of a lopsided score. Someone steals a base with a 6 run lead- you know how to stop it? Throw the guy out. Better yet- keep runners off the bases- can't steal if you're not on base. It's quite simple. So what if someone disses the pitching staff? Is it true? If not- so what? You beat them on the field. In a perfect world, I suppose that's true. But with a rival team who got their asses kicked by the Giants in the previous play-offs, that steal was total crap. It was clearly designed to piss off the Giants players. How anyone can't see that is hard for me to imagine. Phillies are a no-class team with a no-class manager. In today's game of mediocre pitching, you can never have enough runs. Although stealing with a big lead was frowned upon years ago, today's baseball mores have changed. Stealing a base with a big lead late in the game is still frowned upon. You just did a flip-flop on this topic. Mediocre pitching...proof? Mores? Do you watch the game? Rather typical for Brad.

Name them, or this statement is bordering on libel. Please provide some specifics to support the assertion that Paterno is a criminal... I'd be interested to hear them. As would I. JetMan? The stage is yours....

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation? I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate. We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody. Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge. "Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency. C'mon, Jim. You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno. I'm not for cutting anybody any slack, nor do I necessarily know that Paterno is guilty of any actual criminal offense. That's for the Pennsylvania authorities to discern, and god be with them as they proceed. What I'm not understanding is how anybody can defend Paterno's actions as those of anything other than a Corporate Stooge, and not see his dismissal as anything other than 100% appropriate, not because of any criminal action, but because of a failure to truly lead in a truly difficult situation (which is a function of being a Great Leader), or more likely, a failure to protect The Brand (which is a function of a Corporate Stooge). If we are in agreement on this much, then we have no quarrel at all. I have no doubt Paterno is a "company man", Jim. My problem is with the rush to judgment. Leadership is not defined by what he should have known ten years into the future, IMHO. It is defined by what he did in relation to reporting to his boss the allegations of child abuse brought to him by an alleged eye witness. Then allowing those charged with following through to do just that. His job is to coach football. His job is not to micro-manage the jobs of others or to seek out and punish child molesters. Think about it, Jim. If your house was ransacked and robbed would you get in your car and go looking for the thieves or would you make a police report and allow the people trusted with that duty to arrest then convict those criminals? That is what Paterno did: He made the report and allowed the people entrusted with that information to do their legal duty. They blew it, not Paterno. That isn't Paterno's fault any more than it would be your fault the police didn't pursue those thieves. Delegation of authority is what a good leader does. He can't do it all, Jim. No good leader can.

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation? I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate. We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody. Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge. "Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency. C'mon, Jim. You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno. You're restating exactly the same thing in different words. To the extent that anybody can understand what you're saying, I have not misunderstood what you were saying. I think your definition of "reasonably minded" might need some reengineering. It's pretty straight forward, Pete...and in English. Now, unless you are attempting your classic "Pete Chuches Goads a Poster" into a fit of pique program, I'm really not sure why what I wrote confuses you. I'll leave that for others to speculate.

Agreed. But there again, why do we fool ourselves into thinking that this wasn't emotionally draining for Paterno, too? Let me get this straight. You're saying that since no investigation was done by the vested interests in a case where law enforcement was not involved for so serious an allegation, then the assumption is that Sandusky was clearly innocent? Read it again, Pete. I am saying that if nothing comes of an accusation...any accusation, the propensity of all reasonably minded human beings is to think there is nothing to it.