Joe Paterno passes away

[Azazello1313]

Joe's side of the story is out there among the insiders and those close to the family. It has been passed along by word from his son, who is an attorney. He has stated several times that it would eventually come out in public, but, he was waiting for legal processes to take place. I'm confident that it will still come out. What people will believe is up to them. I believe Joe's side of the story based upon the kind of man he showed himself to be throughout his life. If it turns out it isn't true, then I will be the first to admit that I was fooled and that there is no way to forgive Paterno. Even with his side of the story, I still wish he would have done more, as does Joe. He admitted as much. Here is his side of the story from what has been released on PSU boards for weeks now.

 

Based up on the allegations in 1998/99, Paterno forced Sandusky into retirement. Sandusky was never prosecuted, but was accused of indecent behavior.

 

Sandusky continued to show up on campus, and Paterno asked the President, Graham Spanier to ban him from the campus. He was told that he (Joe) didn't have the power to ban him, and Spanier would not do so, as he hadn't been convicted of anything.

 

how do you and paterno's other apologists square that with this, straight from dear leader's mouth?

 

JENKINS: Why did he (Sandusky) suddenly retire in 1999?

 

PATERNO: He came to me and talked about being a head coach, because the university that year had put in a voluntary retirement. He came to see me and we talked a little about his career. I said you know Jerry, you want to be a head coach, you can't do as much as you're doing with the other operation. I said this job takes so much detail and for you to think you can go off and get involved in fundraising and a lot of things like that.I said you can't do both, that's basically what I told him. I didn't even have him recruiting.

 

JENKINS: People have speculated that you had knowledge of the 1998 police investigation. You didn't hear any whispers, rumors, reports before Mike McQueary spoke to you in 2002?

 

PATERNO: I had never heard a thing.

[caddyman]

quite the opposite. I am on board that Joe made huge mistake. But, none of you were there and Sandusky will have his day in court. If I am fishing then this thread needs to be renamed Sandusky:Ruining the life of Joe Paterno: or How Sandusky flat out threw Joe Pa's name in the shitter. I thought this was a thread about the passing of Joe Pa and all that he has done for those that played for him in the last 40 whatever years. Maybe about his accomplishments, instead of some perverted fuk.

Please. Eff Joe.

[SNOWBOUND33]

quite the opposite. I am on board that Joe made huge mistake. But, none of you were there and Sandusky will have his day in court. If I am fishing then this thread needs to be renamed Sandusky:Ruining the life of Joe Paterno: or How Sandusky flat out threw Joe Pa's name in the shitter. I thought this was a thread about the passing of Joe Pa and all that he has done for those that played for him in the last 40 whatever years. Maybe about his accomplishments, instead of some perverted fuk.

One mistake? It multiplies like rabbits or rodents. He IS partially responsible for rape and sexual abuse. F JoePa(thetic)! Selfish MFer!

[Menudo]

In all honesty, hearing from those outside the situation has helped me put this in perspective. In defending him, I've actually gone away from my original thoughts on the situation. I am far from an apologist.

 

I do believe that Joe Paterno could have and should have done more. In doing so, he could have saved other kids from being attacked by that monster, Jerry Sandusky. That is a serious error in judgement that is hard to forgive.

 

I do not believe that his mistake takes away all of the good things he did with his life. Some have said that because he handled this situation in an awful way, that he was always a scumbag and the reports of the good things he did are crap. That isn't true. However, all of the good things are completely tarnished by his error in judgement because of what resulted from his inaction.

 

I think some have gone too far in their critique of Paterno. I've heard people say what he did was just as bad as what Sandusky did. He was also compared to O.J. Simpson twice on these threads at the Huddle. I don't think that he is a scumbag that should burn in hell. I'm not happy that he died. I think those that take it that far are losing perspective just as much as those who are his apologists.

 

It is hard for me to come to this conclusion, but, his inaction DID allow Sandusky to continue to harm other children. I don't think he would have sat on it if he knew others were being abused, but, that doesn't change the fact that his inaction did allow it to happen. Abuse of children is as heinous of a crime as there is, and my stomach cringes when I think of what happened to these kids.

 

As for your question about the 1988/89 firing, Az, you are correct. If he did fire him, then he lied during his testimony. More likely though, the story of what really happened according to the Paterno camp is exaggerated.

 

I still believe that none of us know exactly what happened, but, one thing has become clear. Joe Paterno could have done more and he didn't. Being the man I know him to be, he failed those kids in a big way when he had an opportunity to save them.

 

I still thank the man for the positive things he did, and I hope he rests in peace, but, the legend is definitely tarnished.

[caddyman]

In all honesty, hearing from those outside the situation has helped me put this in perspective. In defending him, I've actually gone away from my original thoughts on the situation. I am far from an apologist.

 

I do believe that Joe Paterno could have and should have done more. In doing so, he could have saved other kids from being attacked by that monster, Jerry Sandusky. That is a serious error in judgement that is hard to forgive.

 

I do not believe that his mistake takes away all of the good things he did with his life. Some have said that because he handled this situation in an awful way, that he was always a scumbag and the reports of the good things he did are crap. That isn't true. However, all of the good things are completely tarnished by his error in judgement because of what resulted from his inaction.

 

I think some have gone too far in their critique of Paterno. I've heard people say what he did was just as bad as what Sandusky did. He was also compared to O.J. Simpson twice on these threads at the Huddle. I don't think that he is a scumbag that should burn in hell. I'm not happy that he died. I think those that take it that far are losing perspective just as much as those who are his apologists.

 

It is hard for me to come to this conclusion, but, his inaction DID allow Sandusky to continue to harm other children. I don't think he would have sat on it if he knew others were being abused, but, that doesn't change the fact that his inaction did allow it to happen. Abuse of children is as heinous of a crime as there is, and my stomach cringes when I think of what happened to these kids.

 

As for your question about the 1988/89 firing, Az, you are correct. If he did fire him, then he lied during his testimony. More likely though, the story of what really happened according to the Paterno camp is exaggerated.

 

I still believe that none of us know exactly what happened, but, one thing has become clear. Joe Paterno could have done more and he didn't. Being the man I know him to be, he failed those kids in a big way when he had an opportunity to save them.

 

I still thank the man for the positive things he did, and I hope he rests in peace, but, the legend is definitely tarnished.

 

Impressive. Difficult but impressive.

[CaptainHook]

In all honesty, hearing from those outside the situation has helped me put this in perspective. In defending him, I've actually gone away from my original thoughts on the situation. I am far from an apologist.

 

I do believe that Joe Paterno could have and should have done more. In doing so, he could have saved other kids from being attacked by that monster, Jerry Sandusky. That is a serious error in judgement that is hard to forgive.

 

I do not believe that his mistake takes away all of the good things he did with his life. Some have said that because he handled this situation in an awful way, that he was always a scumbag and the reports of the good things he did are crap. That isn't true. However, all of the good things are completely tarnished by his error in judgement because of what resulted from his inaction.

 

I think some have gone too far in their critique of Paterno. I've heard people say what he did was just as bad as what Sandusky did. He was also compared to O.J. Simpson twice on these threads at the Huddle. I don't think that he is a scumbag that should burn in hell. I'm not happy that he died. I think those that take it that far are losing perspective just as much as those who are his apologists.

 

It is hard for me to come to this conclusion, but, his inaction DID allow Sandusky to continue to harm other children. I don't think he would have sat on it if he knew others were being abused, but, that doesn't change the fact that his inaction did allow it to happen. Abuse of children is as heinous of a crime as there is, and my stomach cringes when I think of what happened to these kids.

 

As for your question about the 1988/89 firing, Az, you are correct. If he did fire him, then he lied during his testimony. More likely though, the story of what really happened according to the Paterno camp is exaggerated.

 

I still believe that none of us know exactly what happened, but, one thing has become clear. Joe Paterno could have done more and he didn't. Being the man I know him to be, he failed those kids in a big way when he had an opportunity to save them.

 

I still thank the man for the positive things he did, and I hope he rests in peace, but, the legend is definitely tarnished.

Good for you Menudo.

 

You came around much quicker than I thought. As the years go by, I'm sure this whole situation will make you even angrier.

[Cunning Runt]

Impressive. Difficult but impressive.

 

If you read carefully what he wrote, there's really no difference in the overall gist of his sentiments between his original position and this one.

 

I'm not seeing any anyway.

 

And that's ok. But to give pats on the back? Not sure why.