<p>Consolation, thanks for pointing that out. I just realized myself that I said principal rather than superintendent when I re-read the article after a question.</p>
<p>“Ohiomom- where did I say it is the same thing? I made a charge based on emotion and without facts. It is offensive isn’t it.”</p>
<p>Tom, there are facts in the Grand Jury report and people have the right to connect the dots and express opinion. We are not on the jury. People are speculating and drawing conclusions, as are you.</p>
<p>sm- can you tell me what happened to the 1998 charge? Also what does Paterno say he was told about the 2002 incident- did the grand jury find he lied about what he was told? Did Paterno bury what he was told or take it further? Did the incident in 2002 end up being reported to someone in charge of the campus polcie? Do we know what Paterno asked or was told after that?</p>
<p>Ohiomom- the only conclusion I am making is that people are rushing to judgment without all the facts. I have made no final determination concerning Paterno.</p>
<p>“Interestingly, HE was the one who called in the authorities, not the principal and coach to whom the offense was first reported. Apparently their procedure must have been to go up the administrative structure. Hmmmm…”</p>
<p>BIG difference is it WAS eventually reported as required by law. Now, if it hadn’t been reported those who initially reported it SHOULD have followed up. The high school did the right thing.</p>
<p>Pennsylvania must be a whole other alternate reality if a football coach can allow some other person’s kid to be taken out of school without permission. I suspect I would have been going after one of them with a weapon if they took my kid out of school without my permission. Everything about this story is bizarre and sick.</p>
<p>Tom, i am confident when all the facts are in it will be much much worse. People are running for cover that knew. See my post on local lawyer. Paterno was the most powerful man on that campus. A word from him would have changed this but he was afraid to lose what they had built. That is how tragedies work.</p>
<p>zooser I was kidding in my post.</p>
<p>barrons I would not be shocked if it did become much worse. I think Paterno will not have the mental dexterity to defend himself even if he did not screw up here. I think he will be made to look weak and feeble and either a phony or incompetent by the time this is done.</p>
<p>^ I disagree. This man ran off people telling him to retire a few years ago and coached the PSU football team. He’s not weak, feeble or incompetent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In addition to the moral coward he is already revealed to be?</p>
<p>
But don’t you think that’s really what happened? The connection to the revered Paterno gave everyone else a pass in the area.</p>
<p><<i disagree.="" this="" man="" ran="" off="" people="" telling="" him="" to="" retire="" a="" few="" years="" ago="" and="" coached="" the="" psu="" football="" team.="" he’s="" not="" weak,="" feeble="" or="" incompetent.="">></i></p><i disagree.="" this="" man="" ran="" off="" people="" telling="" him="" to="" retire="" a="" few="" years="" ago="" and="" coached="" the="" psu="" football="" team.="" he’s="" not="" weak,="" feeble="" or="" incompetent.="">
<p>I’m not sure. For the past 2 football seasons, my son has commented that Paterno’s pep rally comments were generally mumbled, rambling, and incoherent. DS didn’t know anything about Paterno until he hit the PSU campus - and overall - he wasn’t impressed with what he saw. Felt that the man was good in his time, but that his time was LONG gone.</p>
</i>
<p>I really do not know. It is possible but Sandusky was not a coach since 1999. He may have been though highly of because of his charity work. Besides Paterno there are many famous people on the board of his charity including but not limited to Arnold Palmer for example.</p>
<p>I think a good attorney for whoever is on the other side of Paterno will chew him up.</p>
<p>New PSU President’s press conference on now.</p>
<p>annasdad- you believe Paterno was a moral coward because he knew and covered for Sandusky. In your opinion was he the only one that knew or did he keep others that also knew from going forward? If so how did he quiet people who were around the program that left? It covered from at least 1998-2011 so not everyone stayed all those years.</p>
<p>The Salon article was right. There could be staggering financial liability for Penn State if everyone who can sue actually does.</p>
<p>“Everything about this story is bizarre and sick.”</p>
<p>^^ I agree. Makes me wish Hunter Thompson was alive and writing about this. Not that I think his article would be funny - 'cause nothing about this story is funny - but HT could uncap what is weird and depraved in our icons and institutions. And that’s what we have here.</p>
<p>New Pres was asked if McQueary will be fired - he is on leave now - and Pres said that there are complexities to that situation that he is not at liberty to discuss. </p>
<p>Football season will not be cancelled. He says game tomorrow will be used as a vehicle to focus on childhood sexual abuse.</p>
<p>Watching the new president speak he mentioned that Spanier was a tenured professor. I have heard that Sandusky was a tenured professor also and that is why he was allowed an office on campus. I have no idea if that is true but since you are allowed to post things with no factual basis I thought I would throw that out there. If Sandusky was a tenured professor could Paterno have kept him off campus?</p>