Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
Kaplan: Royals interested in Z
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Hollandsworths mug's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
It wasn't even a teammate. Santo went Sprewell on his manager. But he's just "colorful" because, well, I'll let the people who see a difference explain their motivations themselves. -
Kaplan: Royals interested in Z
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Hollandsworths mug's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
So choking out your coach in the clubhouse and having to be pulled off of him is okay, but punching your teammate isn't because it's in the dugout and not the clubhouse. Quitting on your team and meaning it in the middle of a season is okay, but getting mad and saying you quit without really meaning it is bad . Being a continued jerk every day of your life except when cameras are pointed at you is okay, but Zambrano's continued antics aren't. It's all okay because they were HOFers, though. Nope, no personal vendetta/scapegoating going on here... -
His own testimony to the grand jury says that he knew about the 2002 incident and did the bare minimum. He knew that Sandusky had been asked not to bring his victims onto campus but still allowed to maintain an office on campus and have access to the football facilities. So the only thing on Truffle's list has even the slightest bit of wiggle-room is whether or not Paterno knew about the 1998 incident.
-
Kaplan: Royals interested in Z
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Hollandsworths mug's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Can't you see how brown lazy and disruptive he is? -
Kaplan: Royals interested in Z
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Hollandsworths mug's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
The organization that was in place at the time had a long history of using scapegoats to take the heat off of bad seasons, and a few members of the media had a long history of complying (especially when the proposed scapegoat was hispanic). -
That's a fair point. I assume most people in the area are reasonably decent people and the spontaneous support riot was just college kids being stupid.
-
. Who the [expletive] does he think he is? (besides a pedophile enabler?) He's a man who donated a lot of money to Special Olympics. Don't you know how much leeway that gives him?
-
He's the cliched case of a predatory pedophile who spent his entire life putting himself in situations to be surrounded by children. I get mocked sometimes by other parents because of my Free Range Kids support. I don't worry about some random stranger snatching my kid off the street for nefarious purposes. But this is exactly the kind of situation I do want to prepare my kid for. Unlike child-snatching, this is a real and (relatively) common danger. People who want to prey on children don't usually snatch them into the back of a van. They put themselves in a situation to be in authority over children and abuse that authority, usually while finding a complicit support structure of enablers who choose not to believe what should be obvious about their friend/colleague. Penn State football and Joe Paterno are very public entities. The more consequences they face, the more the public gets the message that it is everyone's responsibility to watch out for and prevent these situations.
-
So if Sandusky offs himself tomorrow, the NCAA can never act on this? You're conflating both what the NCAA can do versus a school, and the repercussions for NCAA violations versus legal/moral violations. This isn't Jim O' Brien at Ohio State. I'm wondering if the NCAA, in good faith, sanction a school for crimes that haven't been proven. Seems like a slippery slope if you're going to start doing that Sure they've been proven. The grand jury report is right there.
-
A number of people had a choice, and in each case that choice was: 1) Inaction or insufficient action, which made their lives or the lives of their friends and colleagues easier. 2) Action, which prevented children from being abused and raped by a predatory pedophile. Every single person who could have chosen 2 and instead chose 1 deserves all the scorn they have gotten, and for the ones who are famous enough to be remembered, that will be their legacy. Those people can be found in PSU football, PSU administration, Second Mile and local law enforcement.
-
Kaplan: Royals interested in Z
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Hollandsworths mug's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
See the sig. There'd be no reason Zambrano couldn't be allowed back except for a few people inside and outside the organization grinding an axe and looking for a scapegoat. -
Will be in jail for the rest of his life. Resigned and facing perjury charges, right? Same as above? Tell them about all the money Special Olympics got. That'll make them feel better. Dang it people, stop focusing on the famous person who hasn't faced any consequences for his humongous lapse in judgment.
-
It reads worse than it sounds. In the audio clip, it was less him dismissing the allegations and more him focusing on the support of the kids instead of the allegations, if that makes sense I get that's what he meant. It just comes off as kind of foot-in-mouthy. Not a big deal in the long run.
-
I would love to see a good article detailing the psychology behind why people disbelieve bad things about people they care about, and why it might cause people like the Penn State officials to fail so utterly in this situation. I'd love to see it, but this was not that article. It was just the apologists' rationalizations in article form.
-
This is why you can't let Joe Paterno speak. Because there's just nothing he could say that wouldn't sound bad at this point. To the kids who have gathered on his lawn for support tonight:
-
You're right that it won't happen, but it saddens me. It's easy for me to say, though, because it's not my institution's millions of dollars on the line.
-
Because anything less doesn't send a strong enough message that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated. It's sad for the innocent people in the program, but Paterno and Co. should have thought about that before they enabled a child rapist pal.
-
Some errors are serious enough to take down a lifetime of good reputation, and rightfully so. How much money do you have to donate to Special Olympics to make it okay to let a kid get raped? $1 million? $10 million? What's the $ to CRAR conversion formula?
-
The anger that child-rape enablers inspire in me is large enough to be divided into more than two parts.
-
except their stories weren't straight. paterno says he knew that mcqueary had witnessed something of a sexual nature. mcqueary claims to have told curley and schultz that a former coach appeared to be having anal sex with a young boy. what i don't understand is why you're so hung up on paterno possibly watering down mcqueary's account from "anal sex with a boy" to "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" when the grad assistant directly told curley and schultz that he thought he'd seen sandusky having anal sex with a boy. they were told twice that a likely crime had occurred and did nothing except push the guy off campus. I'm hung up on it because it's covering up. It's a light covering up, but it's covering up. It's a piece of the puzzle, and the picture that the puzzle shows is that Paterno and others did the minimum they thought they could get away with because they wanted to protect their friend while that friend was raping children. The reason we're talking about Paterno and not the others is because Paterno is the point of contention. The AD and the President lost their jobs and are facing felony charges. Paterno and his apologists are still angling for a quiet resignation that he planned on doing anyway.
-
-
Why did Curley fart around? My guess is because the coach and the administrators wanted to sweep this under the rug and needed time to get their stories straight. Why might Paterno euphamize what he saw? Because when your friends are involved, it's human nature to try to downplay things. That's why you are taking a stance that virtually no one agrees with, because PSU football is your friend. That's why small-town newspaper comment sections are filled with people defending their relatives who get caught committing crimes. And it's why Paterno and the PSU football program allowed their friend, a child rapist, to continue his predation for many years with nothing more than a cursory investigation.
-
paterno says he didn't know the exact nature of what happened, and nobody (mcqueary, mcqueary's dad, curley) has said otherwise. i'm choosing to believe him; you can choose to not believe him. i suppose if he's lying that it will all come out in the end. I've specifically acknowledged that both explanations are possible, I just find one more plausible.
-
yes, the AD made that change. you seem to be ignoring the fact that the AD sat down and conducted an in depth interview with the grad assistant, which is the most important part of this. you're acting like they did pass-it-down-the-line and by the time it got to the president, sandusky was just horsing around in the shower with a kid. curley (the athletic director) directly interviewed mcqueary. the grand jury's account is based on what mcqueary told them and what mcqueary testified to telling curley. the reason they indicted curley for perjury is obviously that his testimony contradicted that of mcqueary, and they did not find curley's repeated claims credible (that mcqueary had just said they were horsing around in the shower). I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the grand jury report. It's a PDF, so I can't easily copy-and-paste from it, but in this case I'll take the time to re-type it word-for-word. Bold added by me for emphasis. Before the investigation you are talking about, Paterno had an opportunity to pass the information along to his immediate supervisor. What Paterno testified to describing was significantly euphamized from what McQueary testified to seeing.
-
Just so we're clear, has the idea that the McQueary watered down his story to Paterno been reported as fact anywhere? Or is it just a construct created by people to defend Paterno?