You lose all credibility when you mention the 1970s accuser. The attorney who represented most of the victims in civil proceedings is on the record that this allegation is unfounded.

So long as it is not selectively enforced, I have no issue with this.  None of the “styles” listed in the dress code suggest fine dining and I can certainly understand why a restaurant might want to portray a certain atmosphere.  But that means they need to apply it to everyone, and I realize that is not always done. …

Wrong. “With the benefit of hindsight” means “If I knew then, what I know now” Of course if he knew then what he knew now, he wished he could have done more. But he didn’t (just like FDR didn’t know about Pearl Harbor ahead of time). The key being *Paterno didn’t know about Sandusky*. Full stop.

Not what he said. The exact quote is “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”  That’s like FDR saying, WRT Pearl Harbor, “With benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

Except that they were in 1998.  Try again.

I don’t think you know what a strawman argument is.  Either that or you have extremely poor reading comprehension.  Enjoy your afternoon.

I gave a you a site that aggregated all the reasons that Freeh is NOT the bastion of justice that you think he is (keep in mind, during his tenure at the FBI, he oversaw both the erroneous prosecution of Richard Jewel and the Ruby Ridge disaster).

You mean when he was “caught” in 1998 and not prosecuted because there was no case against him?

You realize that Jerry Sandusky was already retired in 1999, right? Paterno didn’t control his campus access.

Keep thinking that all reports of sexual assault (for example, those that contradict each other, and are factually impossible) are true.  Moron.

I’m saying there was no wrong.

Just because it isn’t “your” narrative, doesn’t mean he is wrong.

Because Child Services had no power? Because the police had no power?

Please refer to my original post. I said “new” evidence. The evidence isn’t new, but no one in the mainstream media would consider it because it didn’t fit their narrative. As more information came out (6 or 7 years ago) that didn’t fit their narrative, no one reported on it. Gladwell finally considered this evidence…

If you are genuinely curious (and I doubt it), I’d suggest reading:

Literally hundreds of people (many of whom actually had responsibility in this matter, e.g. police, social services) had the opportunity to do more and did not. Why focus on Paterno? The answer: page views.

How do you want me to back it up?  Do you want links?  As I said in an earlier post, books have been written on this.

The kids that came forward non-contemporaneously, e.g. after PSU announced they were pay millions to any accusers. Yep, no logical reason that economically disadvantaged young men from central PA would do that.

You are quite the cunning linguist, but have yet to bring anything meaningful to this discussion.

To cover up for his gambling, as well as his using a university phone to send dick pics to undergraduates?