Discussion in 'Sports Zone' started by Holdenteller67, Jan 2, 2013.
You can't be responsible for all the evil in the world.
Sure........that's exactly what's happening.
I'm just calling it like I see it. I think you dropped the political rhetoric because you want the thread closed. It wouldn't be a problem if they simply gave people who couldn't toe the line short vacations for violations of the forum rules but we both know they just close thread after thread while the same people repeatedly fail to adhere to the forum guidelines. However, that wouldn't bode well for you, now would it?
You don't know anything about me or anything.......in general. You'll just sit here and broadly paint someone whatever is most convenient for you at any given time.
Look at this thread alone.
First Brain, then burm and now me.
Brain is/was always wrong while burm and I are the type of people you seem to be able to sniff out for whatever reason. You just have all the answers, don't ya?
I have problems with sanctions when no NCAA violations occurred.
I'm not sure that anyone at Penn State "knew" about Sandusky. I honestly don't know what everyone there "knew". I won't repeat other things I don't know for certain but I will say that with 100% certainty that McQueary has committed perjury between his GJ and trial testimony.
I am sure that at least several people at the Second Mile "knew". Looking back, how people behaved, I'm simply sure of it. I honestly believe that a few people saw the good of TSM outweighing whatever may have been happening. I also know of one person who disassociated with TSM who must have known but didn't have the concrete proof to go after someone of Sandusky's stature.
Truth be told, I'm not a Penn State fan even though I have a lot of connections in the community. What happens to Penn State really doesn't concern me one way or the other. I would like to see the Commonwealth destroy the NCAA though.
I know exactly who and what you are. Your attempt to get this thread closed is laughable. Go away. You offer nothing to the debate as usual.
Offering nothing is still offering more than emotionally charged rhetoric.
See, that's your problem. Someone states an opposing opinion and provides facts to back it up and you pop off with something like this.
That is what I mean by offering NOTHING to the conversation. Your posts are pretty much worthless. Either talk about the facts or shut up and move on to other topics and stop trying to get the thread shut down.
Your opinions are not facts. Never have been. My comment regarding rhetoric was about your reply to burm, the post I initially quoted. That's your opinion, a skewed one at that.
Since when has anyone ever had an obligation to provide more than their opinion?
I'll be sure to remind you of your next post that doesn't warrant an international award.
And you can drop the shut down aspect. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. I hope you aren't so delusional that you think my pointing out your violation of forum guidelines classifies as an attempt on my part. Simply because you don't have the mental, physical or emotional capacity to post in a non-reactionary manner within the guidelines (non-political) doesn't mean that someone who takes notice is actively trying to close the thread down.
I don't care if the thread is open or closed. I have no emotional attachment to the thread.
If things were set according my preferences no threads would be shut down but people who, for whatever reason, couldn't avoid violating the guidelines would be subject to mandatory posting breaks. You should be so lucky considering you're likely one of the bigger offenders, as witnessed in this very thread. Furthermore, had you not spouted off the wild rhetoric, there's nothing I can say.
So again, what are you even talking about?
Sorry but I just do not understand taking away the championships from those players.
They had nothing to do with the crime ...... why should their college play be ruined.
Knock it off.
This is getting to personal. We don't need this. Keep it civil or this thread will go away.
Don't want to do that. Please don't make me.
And that is my point. They are punishing people who had nothing to do with the whole sordid mess. If they felt a need to strip Paterno of his wins then so be it, but to take it away from the university and the athletes who weren't even around at the time is just vengeance for vengeance sake. It neither punishes nor deters the people who were actually doing the wrong thing.
As has been pointed out, no NCAA violations were committed and therefore they overstepped their bounds while at the same time not giving Penn State their due process.
Some people on here think that what I am saying is tantamount to "defending the indefensible". No, it's me defending justice. Justice for the ones who are being punished who was nowhere around at the time.
I challenge anyone to point to a post or a thread in which I ever defended this act committed by Sandusky or Schultz or Curley.
I'm pretty tired of it as well.
Two other developments...
A State Senator has filed suit against the NCAA in Commonwealth Court over the distribution of the fine.
Some in Harrisburg have looked into what possible criminal charges could be facing Emmert provided Pennsylvania wins in Federal Court.
So punishing other athletes that didn't take money because an athlete takes a car for himself from a booster is justifiable, but not a school that has people connected to the school using it's football program and name to molest kids isn't, because other athletes in Penn State have nothing to do with the crimes of Sandusky and other officials that actually direct the state of the school?
If a father goes to prison for murder, or 'child molestation', .. his wife, his children, his mother and father, his brothers, .. every member of his family is affected negatively, directly or indirectly to differing degrees.
Such is the case with Penn St.
p.s. in your attempt to defend PSU, your analogies and examples are lame in this situation, .. you need to find a better way to make your case.
A player taking gifts/payment is aiding his teammates in a way, hence the competitive advantage, the prime mission of the NCAA. For example, would Newton have gone to Auburn if someone didn't pay his father? Would Auburn have won a title without Newton? An ineligible athlete participating definitely "aids" his teammates so sanctions are meant to maintain a competitive balance.
Wow! Talk about lame analogies.
One is an NCAA violation that provides his teammates an advantage. The other does not.
It's a perfect analogy.
In your mind, you have narrowed the Penn St. debacle down to three people, .. and yet many others have suffered as a result of their crimes.
My example shows that many suffer from the criminal acts of one.
I'm sorry you can't understand it.
Well hell then. Let's not stop with the whole university. How about the entire state of PA pay for it. How about every person in PA serve at least one day in jail. And while we are at it, how about taking just a bit more tax money from them to serve as punishment. Heck, why stop at PA? How about everyone on the east coast? I mean if the people who perpetrated the act isn't enough to be punished then punishing all of these other people REALLY ought to prove we hate child molesters.
You analogy is completely and utterly absurd and I am sorry you can't understand that.
My analogy is simple and accurate. If you can't see how one man's crime impacts not only himself, but his whole family, .. then I can now understand why you are so upset that Penn St. got what they got.