Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 50 of 50
  1. #46

    Re: Penn State Penalties



    Quote Originally Posted by psuasskicker View Post
    - Vacating wins was done because had they come forward with announcing Sandusky's problems in '01, it would have hurt the reputation of the school and program, which would have hurt recruiting and the viability of the program. Thus it created a competitive imbalance. Thus, vacate wins during that time. Doing so from '98 was stupid and arbitrary. Sandusky was formally investigated and cleared. I don't think I've heard anyone in the PSU administration alleged to have done something wrong between '98 and '01.
    I believe they are saying that Sandusky was investigated in '98 and that investigation was hushed and swept under the rug just like they tried to do with the mcquery investigation in '01. A victim actually came forward in '98 but the prosecutor declined to press charges. A prosecutor who later disappeared? Probably paid off handsomely and living in tahiti.




  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post

    It is perfectly logical, and it is supported by common sense.
    So? How is that the measuring stick for whether or not it was a just ruling?

    Your saying "common sense" as if this issue were as simple as '1+1=2' far from it. This ruling wasn't simply a result of objective necessity. Just the fact that a board met and discussed the ramifications says otherwise.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 07-24-2012 at 03:59 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  3. #48

    Re: Penn State Penalties

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post
    I believe they are saying that Sandusky was investigated in '98 and that investigation was hushed and swept under the rug just like they tried to do with the mcquery investigation in '01. A victim actually came forward in '98 but the prosecutor declined to press charges. A prosecutor who later disappeared? Probably paid off handsomely and living in tahiti.
    Yeah I get what they're saying, it just makes no sense. It wasn't swept under the rug. Investigations are supposed to stay silent. First, the person being investigated shouldn't know they are being investigated if it can be avoided, as it compromises the integrity of the investigations. Exception being if someone else is in danger and you need to get them out of danger, then it should be known. Once he's exonerated, reporting further on it should NOT be done.

    And you're being way too idealistic. The DA you're talking about was FAR more likely killed.

    - C -
    ---------------------------------------------------

    www.oblongspheroid.com

    A blog about any and everything football.

    Twitter: oblong_spheroid




  4. #49

    Re: Penn State Penalties

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    So? How is that the measuring stick for whether or not it was a just ruling?

    Your saying "common sense" as if this issue were as simple as '1+1=2' far from it. This ruling wasn't simply a result of objective necessity. Just the fact that a board met and discussed the ramifications says otherwise.
    Yes, it is complicated.

    I was responding to strez' "Thank you for actually using reason and common sense," which I thought was out of line. I should have used a quote block, but I didn't. "Common sense" could have been used to support other outcomes, too, as you imply.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  5. #50

    Re: Penn State Penalties

    Quote Originally Posted by psuasskicker View Post
    Yeah I get what they're saying, it just makes no sense. It wasn't swept under the rug. Investigations are supposed to stay silent. First, the person being investigated shouldn't know they are being investigated if it can be avoided, as it compromises the integrity of the investigations. Exception being if someone else is in danger and you need to get them out of danger, then it should be known. Once he's exonerated, reporting further on it should NOT be done.

    And you're being way too idealistic. The DA you're talking about was FAR more likely killed.
    The elected small town DA wasn't making a lot of money and both Sandusky and Penn State have deep pockets. Sandusky was a very generous political donor via his charity, and if you think he and the DA, who's wife worked at Penn State didn't know each other...

    Dude is enjoying a nice retirement courtesy of chester the child molester, who he hooked up with a get out of jail free card. I imagine the timing of his disappearance coincided with the Mcqueary investigation picking up steam.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland