• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
kujirakira said:
I like how the "fates are against Urban Meyer" ... yea... 2 NCs, ridiculous winning percentage, etc.
Not that I believe this junk, but he's clearly on the other side of #karma than the Piggy down in Arky.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he DID lose his 2-time defending Offensive POY, Heisman candidate, starting QB right before the season started. That's a huge blow to any team and sure to cost Urban some offensive productivity.......... Oh..... I guess as kind of worked out alright so far, didn't it? Well, they had to rebuild their entire Oline. No way that can be done with the talent and experience they lost..... Oh..... I see........Well, just look at the problem Urban will have going into next season. Who will the QB be? JT or Braxton? Who should start? The Pedsters are right. Karma is a bitch......
 
Upvote 0
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=175704027&mid=175704027&sid=890&style=2

Talking about the ND-FSU ending, I got this from one of the comments:

Regardless of whether or not the call was correct is irrelevant to me after reading that Kelly was whining about the refs in his press conference. Bush league...a coach should NEVER openly blame the refs even if he's right.
Click to expand...

I wonder what this guy (Player2BNamedL8r) thinks about chasing referees down to yell at them. Didn't Joesus get fined for that?
 
Upvote 0
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=175722250&mid=175722250&sid=890&style=2

Thread is titled "Question about Paterno's role". Some guy asks about a difference between an interview Paterno gave to police hours before the Grand Jury testimony, and what he said in the Grand Jury testimony, itself. So a lot of nutjobs give their opinions and "facts".

Simons96 comes in with true Penn State cultist logic. Note that the bold lines are NOT added by me:

NOWHERE does Joe ever use the term "sexual nature" except in his GJ testimony, and the context of those 2 words gets so misused, it is appalling. Here's what Joe said (or rather, what was transcribed), and keep in mind there's no cross examination and no indication of voice inflection. I am going to emphasize in bold the words EVERYONE misses:
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older - not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it - I'm not sure what the term would be - a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You're saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I'm not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either '98 or '99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.
I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told - I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Click to expand...

So, it was a sexual nature (non-bolded), but those 2 words get misused when quoting him. How do those words get misused? I only know of one way to use them.

"Would you like cream or sugar in your coffee?" "Yes, please, but just in a sexual nature."
"Did you turn in your time sheets on time?" "No, I didn't, because of the sexual nature."
"Hey, can you take this sexual nature to the library for me?"

So Paterno can't describe it at all, except to say that it was a sexual nature. That's the only god-damned way that he actually DOES describe it, and we're supposed to not pay attention to that?
 
Upvote 0
Those fuckin loons think they're breaking the whole case wide open because a year later, McQueary played on the PedoBear's golf team in a charity tournament - and they have someone who claims that they can prove it, because they also played on the team.

Some serious Matlock shit goin on over there today.
 
Upvote 0
The "Question about Paterno's Role" thread has to be the holy grail of revisionist history for The Cult -- a visiting poster says he has not followed the case closely and is asking the Cult for Joesus' role in the scandal. I love the pnnylion answer that Paterno had "no role" in the scandal. Who the hell did McQueary call on that Saturday morning? Who was it that decided not to ruin anyone's weekend?

Asking The Cult to explain Paterno's role in the scandal is like going to a used car dealership, telling the salesman that you have no idea what a particular car is worth but he should just fill out your blank check with whatever number he thinks is fair.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
https://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=175722250&mid=175722250&sid=890&style=2

Thread is titled "Question about Paterno's role". Some guy asks about a difference between an interview Paterno gave to police hours before the Grand Jury testimony, and what he said in the Grand Jury testimony, itself. So a lot of nutjobs give their opinions and "facts".

Simons96 comes in with true Penn State cultist logic. Note that the bold lines are NOT added by me:



So, it was a sexual nature (non-bolded), but those 2 words get misused when quoting him. How do those words get misused? I only know of one way to use them.

"Would you like cream or sugar in your coffee?" "Yes, please, but just in a sexual nature."
"Did you turn in your time sheets on time?" "No, I didn't, because of the sexual nature."
"Hey, can you take this sexual nature to the library for me?"

So Paterno can't describe it at all, except to say that it was a sexual nature. That's the only god-damned way that he actually DOES describe it, and we're supposed to not pay attention to that?
Click to expand...

Simons96 is clearly making a very basic mistake when it comes to Joesus' testimony. The way to get around Joesus' testimony to the Grand Jury is the Uncle Leo defense from Seinfeld. Joesus was an old man when he testified and was confused when he spoke. Sure, Joesus could still call plays telepathically from the press box on game days. But when he starts testifying about things of a "sexual nature," keep in mind that he was an old man.
 
Upvote 0
That's the magic of Paterno, hallowed be his name.

He was single handedly responsible for every positive thing about the university and also in control of nothing and oblivious to everything simultaneously.

If that's not believable, it also would have been illegal for Paterno to report sexual assault to the police.

If that's not believable, he was so old he didn't know what sexual assault was.

If that's not believable...
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
"Would you like cream or sugar in your coffee?" "Yes, please, but just in a sexual nature."
"Did you turn in your time sheets on time?" "No, I didn't, because of the sexual nature."
"Hey, can you take this sexual nature to the library for me?"
Click to expand...

Trying all 3 in the near future.

Will let the board know how it goes.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top