|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:11:07 GMT -5
I'm gonna help you out here. Punishment, aka 1 year ban will make an example of PSU as a deterent for mismanagement, it's the best thing to reinforce a reminder to prevent abuse. Punishment is simply that, punishment. Maybe you need to setp aside. You have no solutions, other than mushy logic and mushy avoidance of punishment, wringing your hands type of stuff. where is any sort of evidence that giving PSU bowl bans and scholarship losses, or giving them a year off from football, will deter any future mismanagement? the people who were involved: Joe Paterno: Disgraced and dead Mike McQueary: Unemployed Jerry Sandusky: In jail for life Tim Curley: Likely to lose university benefits and end up in jail Gary Schultz: See Tim Curley Graham Spanier: Forced out of job; may face prosecution Penn State football: Object of national ridicule; struggling to recruit quality players. Penn State university: Likely to face around $100 million in lawsuits. Isn't all of this a punishment? You're talking about "avoidance of punishment" as if everyone involved made out like bandits. The whole thing has already been extremely damaging to Penn State, the football program and a number of high-profile administrators. Or are you just ignoring that? |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:16:58 GMT -5
huh, I'm not even judging those examples, I don't even care about punishing the catholic church other than via the appropriate criminal prosecutions. I pay taxes to PSU, it receives federal public funding, my school is also part of the NCAA, which PSU is a member of. Not sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe I / we could have a different discussion if I was a Catholic. in the abstract, I could care less about the Catholic Church. (a) your taxes go to fund the military, which was systematically covering up rape and sexual assaults for many years. A considerably larger percentage of your tax money goes to the military than it does to Penn State. (b) you "could care less" about an organization that consistently covered up for serial child molesters? the scale of atrocities at penn state pales in comparison with the sheer numbers of assaults committed by people within the Catholic church. Isn't this supposed to be about punishing offending institutions and sending a message that will prevent future misconduct??? (c)  |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 21:19:44 GMT -5
I'm gonna help you out here. Punishment, aka 1 year ban will make an example of PSU as a deterent for mismanagement, it's the best thing to reinforce a reminder to prevent abuse. Punishment is simply that, punishment. Maybe you need to setp aside. You have no solutions, other than mushy logic and mushy avoidance of punishment, wringing your hands type of stuff. where is any sort of evidence that giving PSU bowl bans and scholarship losses, or giving them a year off from football, will deter any future mismanagement? the people who were involved: Joe Paterno: Disgraced and dead Mike McQueary: Unemployed Jerry Sandusky: In jail for life Tim Curley: Likely to lose university benefits and end up in jail Gary Schultz: See Tim Curley Graham Spanier: Forced out of job; may face prosecution Penn State football: Object of national ridicule; struggling to recruit quality players. Penn State university: Likely to face around $100 million in lawsuits. Isn't all of this a punishment? You're talking about "avoidance of punishment" as if everyone involved made out like bandits. The whole thing has already been extremely damaging to Penn State, the football program and a number of high-profile administrators. Or are you just ignoring that? I see. So once Reggie Bush gave back his Heisman and USC forfeited victories, that should have been it for USC? As to your question, no those things are not punishment for PSU. And as to the other question, no I am not ignoring that. Humiliation is not punishment, it's a feeling. This is kinda like a Crime & Punishment book discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:20:56 GMT -5
it seems you have completely given up on defending your terrible arguments that are almost exclusively inaccurate or at the very least highly exaggerated. you're lucky that everyone agrees with your general position (disgust about what happened in the Sandusky affair) or you'd be getting ridiculed left and right. |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:25:39 GMT -5
I see. So once Reggie Bush gave back his Heisman and USC forfeited victories, that should have been it for USC? As to your question, no those things are not punishment for PSU. (a) forfeited victories are a joke. nobody remembers that usc "lost" a rose bowl. also, nobody cares that reggie bush gave back his heisman. this was a punishment of USC for violating NCAA rules. (b) lol yeah okay. good to know that criminal prosecution, loss of recruiting and multimillion dollar lawsuits are not punishment. i'd continue this discussion but your arguments in favor of the death penalty are even more terrible and disingenuous than the usual ones. |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 21:27:51 GMT -5
huh, I'm not even judging those examples, I don't even care about punishing the catholic church other than via the appropriate criminal prosecutions. I pay taxes to PSU, it receives federal public funding, my school is also part of the NCAA, which PSU is a member of. Not sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe I / we could have a different discussion if I was a Catholic. in the abstract, I could care less about the Catholic Church. (a) your taxes go to fund the military, which was systematically covering up rape and sexual assaults for many years. A considerably larger percentage of your tax money goes to the military than it does to Penn State. (b) you "could care less" about an organization that consistently covered up for serial child molesters? the scale of atrocities at penn state pales in comparison with the sheer numbers of assaults committed by people within the Catholic church. Isn't this supposed to be about punishing offending institutions and sending a message that will prevent future misconduct??? (c) a) You can't ban the US Military. You can punish commanders and units. b) now you are going way off context. Saying I don't care about the Catholic Church doesn't equate to not caring about individual abuse. so this becomes more and more a discussion about nit-picking my words - -------- I believe the PSU football program should be punished. I'm guessing you do not. Whatever your reasons are for not wanting to have PSU football punished so be it. And BTW, I really could care less about PSU football in the grand scheme of things. And tomorrow, the PSU shall be punished, I'll be interested to see your response to the specific punishment enacted. BWT, I'm not a big believer in scholarship reductions. I do believe they should ban football for one year, and I don't really care abou the so-called financial ramifications, that's PSU's problem. |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 21:33:43 GMT -5
I see. So once Reggie Bush gave back his Heisman and USC forfeited victories, that should have been it for USC? As to your question, no those things are not punishment for PSU. (a) forfeited victories are a joke. nobody remembers that usc "lost" a rose bowl. also, nobody cares that reggie bush gave back his heisman. this was a punishment of USC for violating NCAA rules. (b) lol yeah okay. good to know that criminal prosecution, loss of recruiting and multimillion dollar lawsuits are not punishment. i'd continue this discussion but your arguments in favor of the death penalty are even more terrible and disingenuous than the usual ones. I'm not in favor of a death penalty, this is tiresome, your arguments are your arguments, you are entitled to your opinion, and whatever respect one chooses to give it. b) no those are not punishments of PSU. They are not by any definition. Those are all consequences and outfall from the actions of the PSU and PSU individuals. Good Luck tomorrow, and please continue your attempts to discredit those who support institutional punishment of the PSU football program.!!! |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:37:23 GMT -5
And BTW, I really could care less about PSU football in the grand scheme of things. i see you are still struggling to understand the caring continuum. |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:45:12 GMT -5
b) no those are not punishments of PSU. They are not by any definition. you mean besides the definition of "punish" in the dictionary? |
|
|
|
Post by truffleshuffle on Jul 22, 2012 21:55:52 GMT -5
I believe the PSU football program should be punished. I'm guessing you do not. that's because you don't know what the definition of the word "punishment" is. all of the people involved in covering up or not properly prosecuting sandusky are disgraced and/or dead (except for one guy who's now the governor of the state, lol). the school's reputation is in tatters and so is the football program. good players don't want to play there any more. the school will be hit by tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. your use of the word "consequences" is nonsense. when you were a little kid and you mouthed off to your parents, you got punished with grounding or extra chores or whatever; i.e., there were consequences for your poor behavior. numerous people, the entire school and the football program are already suffering much greater negative consequences than if the situation had been handled properly in 2001. surely even you can see that. |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 22:21:05 GMT -5
And BTW, I really could care less about PSU football in the grand scheme of things. i see you are still struggling to understand the caring continuum. nope, not struggling at all. you're the one that cares about the caring continuum. I'm glad you have a diagram to guide you about caring. sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 22:23:59 GMT -5
I believe the PSU football program should be punished. I'm guessing you do not. that's because you don't know what the definition of the word "punishment" is. all of the people involved in covering up or not properly prosecuting sandusky are disgraced and/or dead (except for one guy who's now the governor of the state, lol). the school's reputation is in tatters and so is the football program. good players don't want to play there any more. the school will be hit by tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits. your use of the word "consequences" is nonsense. when you were a little kid and you mouthed off to your parents, you got punished with grounding or extra chores or whatever; i.e., there were consequences for your poor behavior. numerous people, the entire school and the football program are already suffering much greater negative consequences than if the situation had been handled properly in 2001. surely even you can see that. congrats, now you can stroke yourself by saying others don't understand. whatever. nope, I didn't mouth off to my parents, if I did I was probably pretty small and my dad belted me or something. boy, not the PSU punishment discussion is about me and now PSU, how wonderful!! Maybe the NCAA will punish me tomorrow, I'm sure you'd support that!! |
|
|
|
Post by ccmanlb on Jul 22, 2012 22:25:44 GMT -5
I believe the PSU football program should be punished. I'm guessing you do not. . numerous people, the entire school and the football program are already suffering much greater negative consequences than if the situation had been handled properly in 2001. surely even you can see that. well thanks for stating the obvious!! duh!! of course the consequences are greater, the cover-up and crimes are greater - is there a point there?? |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Rube! on Jul 22, 2012 23:32:07 GMT -5
For once I agree with you. tomclen's last post went beyond simple factual errors and even distortions to complete falsehoods. The idea that Paterno "fought" to get Sandusky emeritus status is an outright lie. Paterno and Sandusky hated each other. That's why Paterno told Sandusky that he would never be Penn State's head coach. It was Paterno who showed Sandusky the door. It was Sandusky's agent who negotiated emeritus status with the university. Paterno had nothing to do with it. So Hey Rube! you seem to be in the know. Why do you think all those guys went to battle for Sandusky? If Paterno hated Sandusky that much, why cover up for him, or even go to the President for him? I just doesn't make sense. I'm not talking about the later stuff, that is just to cover up the first mistake. But why did he take the plunge with the first mistake? I'm not sure what guys you are talking about. If you mean Spanier, Curley and Schultz, I wouldn't say they went to battle for him. They probably had the misguided idea that by keeping things quiet, they were protecting the university. I doubt that any of them really gave a damn about Sandusky. I'm not sure what you mean by the first mistake. If you are talking about 1998, then you don't have your facts straight. Curley, Schultz and the president knew there was an investigation, but it isn't clear they knew any of the details. When the Centre County prosecutor and PA AG declined to indict Sandusky, they probably took it as an exoneration of Sandusky. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Rube! on Jul 22, 2012 23:34:37 GMT -5
Yes, we are all aware the statue came down this morning. So? |
|
