GatewayRedbirds.com

stlouie_lipp wrote:That's fine if you feel that way, and is why I prefaced my comment with "not to be rude", but to me, discussing this without reading the transcript is like discussing search and seizure without reading the Fourth Amendment. I strongly encourage all to read it so that they are fully informed. That's all I'm saying.

Except it is rude to say "if you want to talk about this you must read the testimony". What if I did that in Baseball Talk? You want to ask a question about Albert Pujols' pending free agency? What would you say if I said, not to be rude, but come back and ask your question after you've read all of Albert's stats page at Baseball Reference and at least the first 3 chapters of Moneyball. Then you'll able to talk about it.

Knowledge has never been a prerequisite for asking questions or making comments on any part of this forum. And this thread is no different. And my question, frankly, isn't a dumb one, is not one that there's a clear answer to, and is one that has been the source of pages of discussion in this thread itself.

The fact is that we don't know precisely what McQueary did or how Sandusky and the boy responded to him. And my question came after new information was revealed -- that McQueary himself said that he made sure it stopped before he left. I asked if that could be supported or not supported. Instead of being answered, I was dismissed.

lukethedrifter wrote:In the time you took to post that you could have read half the GJ report.

That's excluding time spent throwing up.

lukethedrifter wrote:

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.

In the time you took to post that you could have read half the GJ report.

It's not about the GJ report. It's about the attitude being presented on this thread.

You know what doc did in response to my question? She posted part of the GJ report that was highly relevant to the question I asked. That furthers discussion.

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.

Fat Strat wrote:

In the time you took to post that you could have read half the GJ report.

It's not about the GJ report. It's about the attitude being presented on this thread.

Especially if you'd rather not read the 9.5 pages of deplorable actions. Especially stuff that is irrelevant to the question that offers a valid position. But posing a valid question that could be answered by ten minutes of googling is more than a common occurrence here and shouldn't be discouraged.

No where in the report does it say "McQueary saw what was happened and turned around unnoticed and let it continue." No where does it say he explicitly stopped it either. All we can do is assume one way or the other...unless you believe the new 'testimony'. Mike McQueary: ‘I made sure it stopped

Whether he was complicit in the cover-up is another matter.

To be fair, it would eliminate some duplication if everyone read the report. But it's not that big of a deal to me.

Anyway,
the response to "are you sexually to young boys" took him several minutes. he repeated the question at least twice "Am I sexually attracted to young boys" and then still, instead of saying "HELL NO" he said I enjoy young people. and other non answers.

docellis wrote:To be fair, it would eliminate some duplication if everyone read the report. But it's not that big of a deal to me.

Anyway,
the response to "are you sexually to young boys" took him several minutes. he repeated the question at least twice "Am I sexually attracted to young boys" and then still, instead of saying "HELL NO" he said I enjoy young people. and other non answers.

That could also be what his attorney told him to say.

vinsanity wrote:No where in the report does it say "McQueary saw what was happened and turned around unnoticed and let it continue."

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.

[SHOW]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... 52011.html

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.

docellis wrote:To be fair, it would eliminate some duplication if everyone read the report. But it's not that big of a deal to me.

Anyway,
the response to "are you sexually to young boys" took him several minutes. he repeated the question at least twice "Am I sexually attracted to young boys" and then still, instead of saying "HELL NO" he said I enjoy young people. and other non answers.

Yeah. Then he kind of laughed (probably nerves) and said "oh well I love young people, I've showered with them after workouts, I've hugged them, I've touched their legs, but no, I'm not sexually attracted to them."

Kyle wrote:

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?

thrill wrote:

vinsanity wrote:No where in the report does it say "McQueary saw what was happened and turned around unnoticed and let it continue."

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.

I specifically quoted that just a page ago.