thrill wrote:This is a good example of why I and others have asked people to know the facts before commenting. From page 7 of the grand jury report:
Warning - Graphic description of alleged rape of a child within the spoiler.
VICTIM 2
On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant ("graduate assistant") who was then 28
years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus
on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant, who was
familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get
some recruiting tapes to watch. It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the
locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard
slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant
put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose
age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal
intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.
I'm sorry, but that is a sworn statement that doesn't leave much room to interpretation. Nowhere does it say he intervened.
And one that I read.
Where in there does it say, for fact, the boy didn't run out after they saw McQueary? Where does it say it continued? I'm sorry, but even as a sworn statement it doesn't include anything to conclusively say it did or did not stop.
For one, how could both see them if it hadn't stopped?
thrill wrote:This is a good example of why I and others have asked people to know the facts before commenting. From page 7 of the grand jury report:
Warning - Graphic description of alleged rape of a child within the spoiler.
VICTIM 2
On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant ("graduate assistant") who was then 28
years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus
on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant, who was
familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get
some recruiting tapes to watch. It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the
locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard
slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant
put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose
age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal
intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.
I'm sorry, but that is a sworn statement that doesn't leave much room to interpretation. Nowhere does it say he intervened.
And one that I read.
Where in there does it say, for fact, the boy didn't run out after they saw McQueary? Where does it say it continued? I'm sorry, but even as a sworn statement it doesn't include anything to conclusively say it did or did not stop.
For one, how could both see them if it hadn't stopped?
Well I always assumed it stopped just because who's going to continue to rape a child after being spotted? I mean, that's just a logical assumption. I guess I don't know what the question/argument is about? My whole point is that we only have the facts at our disposal and as long as people know all of those facts, drawing other conclusions is purely speculative and kind of dumb. We have more than enough evidence to know this is a horrific situation with failures of moral responsibility at multiple levels, it doesn't really make a difference to me whether or not McQueary ran like a coward or went and physically intervened because he failed to report the incident to the police afterwards. He called his dad, he visited Joe Pa and then frequented the same facilities as Sandusky for years afterwards. He didn't do enough regardless of what he did in the moment.
C'mon, Fat Strat is one of the most respected members of this forum. I don't mind people suggesting that he read the report, but give the guys a little slack here.
thrill wrote:I guess I don't know what the question/argument is about? My whole point is that we only have the facts at our disposal and as long as people know all of those facts, drawing other conclusions is purely speculative and kind of dumb.
Fat simply suggested we can't know that McQueary let the incident continue as others suggested and was chastised for admitting he had not read the entire report.
This is my personal opinion - everyone's free to ignore or read whatever material they wish, be it source material or other people's posts. If nobody wants to answer Fat's question, then don't. If you don't like being told to read source material, then ignore it and don't read the source material.
However, I didn't take Lipp's advice as being rude or trying to create rules for the thread. I assumed it was just his opinion.
Fat Strat wrote:This isn't a special thread nor is it a restricted one. We should never foster an environment where someone can ask a legitimate question -- one that frankly isn't clearly answered by the information we have on hand -- and then is essentially told to go away. That's happened numerous times in this discussion.
That's just my opinion. But you guys might want to take a step or two down from your high horses and enable and further the discussion and spread of knowledge on the subject, rather than telling the less informed essentially that they can't play in your clubhouse until they meet the entry requirements.
I have to agree. I realize this is a horrific issue and people are sensitive about it, but people are being incredibly rude in this topic. This is especially true when taking into consideration the fact that the Grand Jury report is like 20+ pages long (and for what it's worth, yes, I have read the report and did so before entering this topic).
I mean, if this were a political or religious thread I could understand people getting angry over personal views, but we're all on the same side on this one, so I think it's over the line and unnecessary.
It's really not outrageous for people to ask that others be on the same page in terms of their knowledge of a situation before commenting and especially questioning things that those folks bring up. If I go start a thread in Baseball Talk titled "What if the Cards traded Pujols to the Yankees?", what do you think the response would/should be?
I don't think that's similar.
I think it's more like someone suggesting that we trade Matt Holliday, and getting a response like "Matt Holliday has a no-trade clause - maybe you should go to Cot's and read his contract details before commenting in this thread".
Fat Strat wrote:This isn't a special thread nor is it a restricted one. We should never foster an environment where someone can ask a legitimate question -- one that frankly isn't clearly answered by the information we have on hand -- and then is essentially told to go away. That's happened numerous times in this discussion.
That's just my opinion. But you guys might want to take a step or two down from your high horses and enable and further the discussion and spread of knowledge on the subject, rather than telling the less informed essentially that they can't play in your clubhouse until they meet the entry requirements.
I have to agree. I realize this is a horrific issue and people are sensitive about it, but people are being incredibly rude in this topic. This is especially true when taking into consideration the fact that the Grand Jury report is like 20+ pages long (and for what it's worth, yes, I have read the report and did so before entering this topic).
I mean, if this were a political or religious thread I could understand people getting angry over personal views, but we're all on the same side on this one, so I think it's over the line and unnecessary.
It's really not outrageous for people to ask that others be on the same page in terms of their knowledge of a situation before commenting and especially questioning things that those folks bring up. If I go start a thread in Baseball Talk titled "What if the Cards traded Pujols to the Yankees?", what do you think the response would/should be?
I don't think that's similar.
I think it's more like someone suggesting that we trade Matt Holliday, and getting a response like "Matt Holliday has a no-trade clause - maybe you should go to Cot's and read his contract details before commenting in this thread".
Close. It's like there's a thread about trading Holliday, then someone pipes in with a link to Cot's that says "he has a no trade clause" then that trade clause is discussed (I can't believe Moz gave that to him, what a bad move, this is awful etc) for multiple pages, at which time a new poster pipes in with "we should trade Holliday" and then someone pipes in with "no offense, but we already discussed this, either read the whole thread or read his contract details" and then it continues to get discussed for multiple pages among other things regarding his contract and then someone else pipes in with "we don't know in fact if Holliday would waive his no-trade clause but I bet he would" and then someone pipes in with "look, no offense, but you need to read his contract details, he has a no trade clause and that's all we know. Everything else is purely speculative" and then that person responding with "Hey that's not nice to tell me whether he would or would not waive it. You don't know. No one knows. And quite frankly, earlier in this thread you shouldn't have told people to look up whether or not he had a no-trade clause in the first place, you should have linked people to his Cot's page!"
Never mind the fact that Cot's had been linked to multiple times at the onset of the contract discussion on like page 3.
thrill wrote:Close. It's like there's a thread about trading Holliday, then someone pipes in with a link to Cot's that says "he has a no trade clause" then that trade clause is discussed (I can't believe Moz gave that to him, what a bad move, this is awful etc) for multiple pages, at which time a new poster pipes in with "we should trade Holliday" and then someone pipes in with "no offense, but we already discussed this, either read the whole thread or read his contract details" and then it continues to get discussed for multiple pages among other things regarding his contract and then someone else pipes in with "we don't know in fact if Holliday would waive his no-trade clause but I bet he would" and then someone pipes in with "look, no offense, but you need to read his contract details, he has a no trade clause and that's all we know. Everything else is purely speculative" and then that person responding with "Hey that's not nice to tell me whether he would or would not waive it. You don't know. No one knows. And quite frankly, earlier in this thread you shouldn't have told people to look up whether or not he had a no-trade clause in the first place, you should have linked people to his Cot's page!"
Never mind the fact that Cot's had been linked to multiple times at the onset of the contract discussion on like page 3.
