Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I were a PSU fan, I wouldn't be bringing up stonewalling for criminal investigations and cover ups.

 

EVER.

If you believe you can intimidate expression of opinions by smearing all PSU fans by associating them with scandal you are foolish. Hopefully you are merely trolling without any such expectation. PSU fans are bitterly divided regarding the past and argue about it amongst ourselves, but when outside trolls try to exploit it against us to quiet expression we close ranks quickly and calmly tell them to pound sand. Please do so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe you can intimidate expression of opinions by smearing all PSU fans by associating them with scandal you are foolish. Hopefully you are merely trolling without any such expectation. PSU fans are bitterly divided regarding the past and argue about it amongst ourselves, but when outside trolls try to exploit it against us to quiet expression we close ranks quickly and calmly tell them to pound sand. Please do so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My statement has nothing to do with intimidation, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy.  PSU employed, and provided the means (through resources, not to mention the celebrity that came with his position) for a monster to molest children for years.

The most popular figure to ever be associated with that school, a football coach of all people, at best turned a blind eye and at worst was complicit in this scandal.

The admin apparently also felt that protecting the program trumped justice for the victims, and protecting future victims.

 

I stand by my initial statement, and your indignation doesn't move me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement has nothing to do with intimidation, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy.  PSU employed, and provided the means (through resources, not to mention the celebrity that came with his position) for a monster to molest children for years.

The most popular figure to ever be associated with that school, a football coach of all people, at best turned a blind eye and at worst was complicit in this scandal.

The admin apparently also felt that protecting the program trumped justice for the victims, and protecting future victims.

 

I stand by my initial statement, and your indignation doesn't move me at all.

You don't know what hypocrisy is. Saying that an entire fan base is permanently banned from discussing something because of actions taken by coaches or administrators is asinine. I don't care if we're talking about Penn State, Minnesota, or any other school. I assume, under your bizarre world view, that fans of Minnesota sports teams may now never be a part of a discussion about drug use among athletes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe you can intimidate expression of opinions by smearing all PSU fans by associating them with scandal you are foolish. Hopefully you are merely trolling without any such expectation. PSU fans are bitterly divided regarding the past and argue about it amongst ourselves, but when outside trolls try to exploit it against us to quiet expression we close ranks quickly and calmly tell them to pound sand. Please do so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may have missed the overall intention of the post.  Sanctimonious posturing comes off poorly when a scandal happened in your own backyard, especially when it was considerably worse.  Obviously, most PSU fans felt badly about what happened and in no way supported the mess that was the Sandusky Scandal.  However, today's World is all about perception.  A PSU fan is better off not being so vocal about this topic, just like Michael Vick's cousin would be if he were blasting people for chicken(****)fighting.  Some arguments you are just better off staying away from!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have missed the overall intention of the post.  Sanctimonious posturing comes off poorly when a scandal happened in your own backyard, especially when it was considerably worse.  Obviously, most PSU fans felt badly about what happened and in no way supported the mess that was the Sandusky Scandal.  However, today's World is all about perception.  A PSU fan is better off not being so vocal about this topic, just like Michael Vick's cousin would be if he were blasting people for chicken(****)fighting.  Some arguments you are just better off staying away from!

Almost 100% accurate, but there is a LARGE contingent of PSU cultists that will argue until the day they die that their hero (Jo Pa) did all the right things, never knew anything, etc.  Hell, they elected an attorney general (Kane) based almost solely on her position regarding the PSU scandal.  She has since been found guilty of perjury, among other charges, and faces jail time.

The school continues to honor Paterno, and the biggest argument around is whether to put the statue back up.

 

For a fervent PSU backer to posture over what JRob did/didn't do is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your signature says a lot about you.

 

 

You know what is really funny. My signature only came about because OTHER POSTERS kept telling me that Cael Sanderson was the one and only person who could save wrestling during that whole J Rob induced natty duals conspiracy. I loved how JRob and Casber targeted Sanderson with their phony condemnations regarding that whole thing.

 

So YOUR GUY is what caused my signature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSU Football should've been given the death sentence.

But, because in the modern era of MONEY First and MORALS last, they were not.

 

Joe Pa reps that era regardless of his involvement.  Anyone that can't see that can't consider themselves objective or educated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have missed the overall intention of the post. Sanctimonious posturing comes off poorly when a scandal happened in your own backyard, especially when it was considerably worse. Obviously, most PSU fans felt badly about what happened and in no way supported the mess that was the Sandusky Scandal. However, today's World is all about perception. A PSU fan is better off not being so vocal about this topic, just like Michael Vick's cousin would be if he were blasting people for chicken(****)fighting. Some arguments you are just better off staying away from!

You may be right that some fights are not worth fighting. I live between the Pro- and Anti-Joe cultists all the time, positions which are entrenched beyond reason and evidence. (How can they be so sure of their versions?) Pro and Anti JROB positions seem similarly dug in and extreme.

 

I understood the intent of condemning a sanctimonious post, it was not missed, but I'm not buying in to the "I need to be more careful because I'm a PSU fan" sentiment. I choose to push back and expose the troll post as sanctimonious itself. Will probably ignore your good advice and do so again. Hopefully, feeding trolls is not addictive.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very different when he is a person of interest in the investigation due to the fact that he may have destroyed evidence/helped cover it up.  It would be one thing if he immediately informed the admin about the situation, and then referred law enforcement to the uni for all comment.  Instead, he took the matter into his own hands and became a part of the investigation.  JRob probably had the best interest of the athletes and university in mind, but in doing so he opened them up to potentially millions of dollars in liability (student lawsuits in case of OD) as well as potential NCAA sanctions. Both of those are unacceptable to admins, so J had no chance of surviving the investigation.  

 

The important points here are that:

 

1. We don't know that he destroyed evidence or helped cover anything up. This is nothing but forum guesswork.

2. He may well of have informed the admin about the situation at an appropriate time, and it was immediately taken 'out of his hands' at that exact point in time.

3. I've been involved in situations that are not entirely dissimilar from this one - and sometimes, the responsibility has to be 'passed up' the chain, and at that point - those that pass it up the chain are restricted from any further involvement.

 

J may have had a responsibility to not cooperate directly with law enforcement at the instruction of University officials, because that was taken out of his hands.

 

I am not saying that is or isn't the case - but what I'm trying to communicate here is that those that claim non-cooperation=guilt are not looking at the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dtl = headshuck = cant handle what MINNESOTA'S ath director did to their wrestling coach who messed up

See how easy this is. Anyone can do what you did.

You got me TBar(not). But you know what. I'm not a Gopher fan and I would rather be compared to headshuck than the 2 zeros I compared you to that you are exactly like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement has nothing to do with intimidation, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy might exist if one of the posters that offends you were employed as a PSU administrator who was guilty of "looking the other way". As far as I know that is not the case. What is the identity of the hypocrite you're exposing? Spanier? Curley? Schultz? Or is dead Paterno posting? Or maybe you have your own "basket of deplorables" (thanks Hillary) that are automatically hypocrites because their opinion regarding PSU and JRob differ from yours?

 

PSU employed, and provided the means (through resources, not to mention the celebrity that came with his position) for a monster to molest children for years.

The most popular figure to ever be associated with that school, a football coach of all people, at best turned a blind eye and at worst was complicit in this scandal.

The admin apparently also felt that protecting the program trumped justice for the victims, and protecting future victims.

So all this is an example for your misguided hypocrisy assertion and not an attempt to discredit a poster who happened to be a PSU poster? Ok. I'll give you benefit of the doubt since there is nothing at stake.

 

I stand by my initial statement, and your indignation doesn't move me at all.

Didn't expect any movement from you. Just pointing out what could very well have been an attempt to discredit a poster through a unproven association with an unrelated incident. Of course, you have pointed out that was not the case. My post was clearly incorrect given your pristine intent. And in the same spirit of your denial of intimidation, I offer my sincerest apologies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important points here are that:

 

1. We don't know that he destroyed evidence or helped cover anything up. This is nothing but forum guesswork.

2. He may well of have informed the admin about the situation at an appropriate time, and it was immediately taken 'out of his hands' at that exact point in time.

3. I've been involved in situations that are not entirely dissimilar from this one - and sometimes, the responsibility has to be 'passed up' the chain, and at that point - those that pass it up the chain are restricted from any further involvement.

 

J may have had a responsibility to not cooperate directly with law enforcement at the instruction of University officials, because that was taken out of his hands.

 

I am not saying that is or isn't the case - but what I'm trying to communicate here is that those that claim non-cooperation=guilt are not looking at the big picture.

--------------------------------------------------

 

Big or little, the picture is the same. You cooperate with law enforcement or you are impeding justice. Something you can be prosecuted for.

 

What is sad about the whole thing is that Robinson's failure to cooperate brought on his getting fired. He did it to himself no matter what else happened.

 

When you talk to police you tell the truth to the questions asked or you totally shut up and get legal counsel. That Robinson tried stonewalling and not telling the truth has wrecked what would have been a great legacy at Minnesota.

 

The smartest thing the University can do now is to get rid of everyone associated with him and bring in a new crew for coaching as well as get rid of every kid involved in the drug use and pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The important points here are that:

 

1. We don't know that he destroyed evidence or helped cover anything up. This is nothing but forum guesswork.

2. He may well of have informed the admin about the situation at an appropriate time, and it was immediately taken 'out of his hands' at that exact point in time.

3. I've been involved in situations that are not entirely dissimilar from this one - and sometimes, the responsibility has to be 'passed up' the chain, and at that point - those that pass it up the chain are restricted from any further involvement.

 

J may have had a responsibility to not cooperate directly with law enforcement at the instruction of University officials, because that was taken out of his hands.

 

I am not saying that is or isn't the case - but what I'm trying to communicate here is that those that claim non-cooperation=guilt are not looking at the big picture.

 

 

 

Big or little, the picture is the same. You cooperate with law enforcement or you are impeding justice. Something you can be prosecuted for.

 

What is sad about the whole thing is that Robinson's failure to cooperate brought on his getting fired. He did it to himself no matter what else happened.

 

When you talk to police you tell the truth to the questions asked or you totally shut up and get legal counsel. That Robinson tried stonewalling and not telling the truth has wrecked what would have been a great legacy at Minnesota.

 

The smartest thing the University can do now is to get rid of everyone associated with him and bring in a new crew for coaching as well as get rid of every kid involved in the drug use and pushing it.

 

 

You are absolutely 100% dead wrong here. Lookup the 5th amendment, read and learn.

 

'Stonewalling' is a term that is irrelevant and inappropriate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing the 5th amendment isn't going to get you very far in a breach of contract case. Here are the termination standards for a majority of states with the ones most relevant to the discussion highlighted. 

 

The majority of courts have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Agency approach, which pro-

vides in pertinent part:

 

A principal is privileged to discharge before the time fixed by the contract of employment an agent who has committed such a violation of duty that his conduct constitutes a material breach of contract, â€¦..

Restatement (Second) of Agency §409(1) (1958).

ii. Nevertheless, it is advisable to spell out the meaning of “cause” for termination. Here are

some suggestions:

  1. (1)  Failure or neglect by employee to perform duties of the employee’s position;

  2. (2)  Failure of employee to obey orders given by the company or supervisors;

  3. (3)  Misconduct in connection with the performance of any of employee’s duties, in-cluding, without limitation, misappropriation of funds or property of the company, secur- ing or attempting to secure personally any profit in connection with any transaction entered into on behalf of the company, misrepresentation to the company, or any violation of law or regulations on company premises or to which the company is subject;

(4) Commission by employee of an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, theft, unethical business conduct, or conduct that impairs or injures the reputation of, or harms, the company;

  1. (5)  Disloyalty by employee, including, without limitation, aiding a competitor;

  2. (6)  Failure by employee to devote his or her full-time and best efforts to the company’s business and affairs;

  3. (7)  Failure by employee to work exclusively for the company;

  4. (8)  Misappropriation of a company opportunity:

  5. (9)  Failure to fully cooperate in any investigation by the company;

  6. (10)  Any breach of this agreement or company rules; or

  7. (11)  Any other act of misconduct by employee. 

Edited by Flying-Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...