Sandusky will be found not guilty with the evidence they have....McQueary is not credible...some of the victims have already said things didnt happen like what was written in the report...there will be reasonable doubt...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do you use such language in reference to other faiths, just to make a point? Perhaps you just reserve it for Christianity?"

Well, it's not really in the vernacular for other faiths. I guess I could say something like "Odin's beard!" like Thor did in the comic books, but it wouldn't really have the same effect. Otherwise I'd just be making it up. "MOhammed on a pogo stick!" "dali fucking lama!" uh.. "Abra-fucking-ham!" "Mitt fucking Romney!" Hey that last one sort of works, at least in some circumstances. Happy?

I'm not looking to you to make me happy or not. I'm sure the feeling's mutual, but I'm just glad I don't have to be around someone like you.

I like that one actually. Might use it.
PP, lighten up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But in an empty locker room full of showers? Hell no. I guess I can see taking a kid to the pool, and having him get a glimpse of you while you're both changing. But getting into the same shower stall? I can't see how that's not illegal.

I don't know for sure, but don't most men's locker rooms have open showers? I don't think there are stalls.

Did he take the kids to play football? If they were playing football, I'd guess they got dirty.

Given the available information, I don't see how he can not be guilty. I just don't think he'd admit to crimes in an interview after consulting his attorney.

Are you an attorney? I am. I've seen clients ignore their attorneys' advice all the time. Heck, I've seen clients ignore common sense, time and again.

Often it's because they think they can be the exception to the rule, or because they feel like they can perfectly navigate a very tricky situation. And some are just plain delsional -- either in the broadest sense (mental illness) or with regard to the issue at stake.

Either way, it rarely works. Usually they end up creating more problems for themselves. Sandusky is a perfect example. I can't believe anyone could listen to that interview and come away thinking he's innocent. That man needs to be locked up. NOW!

Anonymous wrote:"Do you use such language in reference to other faiths, just to make a point? Perhaps you just reserve it for Christianity?"

Well, it's not really in the vernacular for other faiths. I guess I could say something like "Odin's beard!" like Thor did in the comic books, but it wouldn't really have the same effect. Otherwise I'd just be making it up. "MOhammed on a pogo stick!" "dali fucking lama!" uh.. "Abra-fucking-ham!" "Mitt fucking Romney!" Hey that last one sort of works, at least in some circumstances. Happy?

I'm not looking to you to make me happy or not. I'm sure the feeling's mutual, but I'm just glad I don't have to be around someone like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hoped you guys were going to be talking about what the ramifications would be if Sandusky was hypothetically innocent. Maybe that's because the title is "What if Sandusky is innocent?". Would all the Penn State officials get their jobs back? What would happen with JoePa? Would news outlets apologize? Would people protest because it's so obvious that he's guilty? Oh man, it will not (and shouldn't) happen, but it'd be kind of eye opening in regards to the power of the media and the loss of the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

In my opinion, his ultimate guilt or innocence has no bearing on the fate of the PSU officials, including Paterno. They failed to react appropriately to the serious allegations with which they were presented. If those allegations turn out to be false, it doesn't excuse their failures.

Exactly. And he's admitted guilt to a crime.