In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1057
Online now 939 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Quick thought, maybe I'm trying too hard but I feel this point is valid.
So often we as a society want to place blame on what are probably innocent people because we don't want to believe deep down that there are crafty and evasive evil people in this world so we would rather attribute their systemic evildoings to the negligence of those close to that person. For example, think about a wife of serial killer who has just discovered that her husband is being charged with multiple accounts of murder. How often has that person been publically ostracized and at the same time overwhelmed with guilt because: "they should have known"? We don't give them the benefit of the doubt because we choose not to believe or accept that evil lurks in the shadows not in plain sight, because if it did, then there would probably a lot less evil in this world. My point, there were a lot of people who were closer with Sandusky than Paterno; some were probably members on that board. But instead of saying society failed (which it obviously did); it's easier to say a few men with ill intentions allowed for this to continue. Let’s face it, if society failed, then it means we and those entrusted to protect us failed too.
Yeah, it happens all the time. I can remember watching Bill Mahr when the whole Trevon Martin thing just happened. He showed blurry pictures of George Zimmerman saying how he didn't have a scratch on him. Zimmerman is full of crap, etc... Finally the pictures came out showing Zimmerman was pretty beat up. The media just doesn't give a damn anymore. First one with the story wins. Accuracy doesn't matter.
Note: I am in no way picking sides in the Trevon Martin thing. Just using it as an example how the media doesn't wait for facts.
not just believable, its a fact. this exactly what Costas told slaten about the first time he went on air about the freeh report. he said there was no time to read it so he skimmed the summary and was told by others that it was credible so he just assumed the 200+ pages contained solid evidence backing the claims made in the bulleted summary.
Probably the same story for every "news" organization out there. None of them actually read it. You know the NCAA didn't. I doubt Emmert even read the summary.
This post was edited by JettaPSU2001 13 months ago
Well said. The devil comes with a smile. We do little to honor the victims if we ignore there are evil people who deceive us in plain sight.
"You can take bowl games and you can take external things from people, but you can't take a warrior's heart."
Our BOT, especially the "Task Force" didn't read it before Frazier presser to accept it. Why should anyone else?
This morning I emailed Ken Frazier who actually responded. I asked him why he accepts such a flawed, biased, opinions not substantiated by facts, etc... His respond was simply I don't agree with your characterizations.
Of course, this is the guy who covered up the Vioxx knowledge.
You should reply back fine, but you don't agree with his love and admiration for Joe Paterno then. I keep trying to figure out who I consider the biggest snake in all of this, not counting Jerry. Frazier slinks his way closer to the top with every word I hear from him. If a man feels no remorse over people getting ill or dying from his pharmaceuticals, why would we expect him to feel any over ruining a man's reputation?
"A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep"- Glenn Carson
In Costas' defense, as he had said he had just landed in London, and he talked to a producer who claimed to have read the whole thing, and then followed up and said it was a very good report. That producer utterly failed Costas. This was probably my favorite part though:
“Joe Paterno had a long standing reputation, not only for melding academics and athletics as well as you possibly can, but a long standing reputation for active concern for young people, for following up, for walking the walk, for long after the player had been gone by following their career and walking with them and guiding them in some way, of demanding high standards. But it’s pretty hard to believe that a man of Joe Paterno’s background and character — with that kind of track record — that if he were really confronted with the basic facts of how horrific of what Jerry Sandusky was doing and continued to do was, I just find it very hard to believe that Joe Paterno would have said, yeah, well, the first thing we need to do is cover this up. His life defies that. Plus, as you know, if there was a coverup it was a pretty lousy coverup, because at least 14 people knew of what McQueary told Paterno. And there’s no evidence that Paterno ever went to any of them and said, ‘Okay let’s make sure we have our story straight.’ No evidence at all.”
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
I respond with well then answer these questions... and I listed a bunch of questions mostly around actual proof of freeh's conclusions. Also, I asked why we didn't hire someone with no ties to PSU.
Of course, no response
The no ties is a great question. Some independent report this was. If the people on this Board made up the Continental Congress, they would have asked the House of Commons to commission a report on the need for independence for the colonies!
The BOT wanted someone to put the blame on 4 men. Its that simple. No one will ever admit it but i would venture to say louis freeh shared his cnclusions with someone on the board and they said, here is 1.6 million more. This is what your conclusion is. While you are at it, after your PC, this non disclosure agreement kicks in and if you speak about it, we are coming back at you for the 8.1 million plus 30%
The real question that needs to be asked is this. If Lubrano is correct and Freeh received $12 million with PSU on the hook for $8.1, who paid for the other $3.9?
My guess is PSU still paid for it. Just lousy accounting.
Was your post TIC? Because that's pretty lousy.......Enron type accounting lousy.
This post was edited by PSU17 13 months ago
What about a group of board Members? Led by Surma, Peetz and Frazier?
lol, I wouldn't put it past this BOT.
My continued email exchange with Ken Frazier. Earlier I posted I asked him a bunch of questions in which he never responded.
So, I sent another email saying I wasn't surprised he ignored me. And asked him if he read Jim Clemente's report. To my surprise he answered with
"This one I can answer with reasonable efficiency. Yes I did."
My reply was "And it didn't raise any questions or concerns for you?"
I would ask, based on his leadership record, does he feel he deserves to still be a BOT member?
Is there anything the University is good at? lol
"DOMINATE the state" - James Franklin 1/11/14
I agree. He is actually answering a couple questions so I'm trying not to insult or get personal, just ask about some decisions. Alas, he's not going to say anything meaningful, I know that. I'm shocked he answered at all.
I didn't see this posted, sorry if I missed it:
Over 30 former Penn State football players will attend the Board of Trustees meeting this weekend.
Ken is answering your questions, or is his secretary replying to them?
You're right it can't be Ken because he used the word "efficacy", couldn't be him. LOL!
I don't think there is any way it's an accounting error. Either someone is wrong on how much it cost, or someone else helped pay for it. And if that's the case, it raises even more quetions.
Umm... the taxpayers and the students help pay for it.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports