Wow, you are all over the map here. Too much coffee? Not enough coffee? Breakfast burrito banging at the back door?

“Doctor Uncle Bobby”

You apparently think that a cover up can exist with only person. Even if that were true (it is not), there were at least seven people that would have had to be involved in your so called cover up. Therefore, it would have had to have been a conspiracy. So you either don’t know the definition of conspiracy or your…

While I agree there is no standard recipe for cover ups, the one thing that has to be present in a successful cover up is the principal parties agreeing NOT to discuss it. This did not happen. Even the courts agree: there was no conspiracy; only misdemeanor failure to report (which are bullshit charges, as the…

None of those emails indicate a cover up (unless you use tortured logic to make them fit into your conspiracy theory worldview). There is no mention of “silencing” McQueary. Or finding the victim to pay him off. Or to not talk about this with anyone. Without those elements this would be the worst cover up in the…

Are you implying it is impossible that he is telling the truth?  

I mean isn’t the answer here: just don’t work in the gig economy if you don’t like the gig economy?

1) You are incorrect. The employee manual at the time didn’t say “call the police”; it said “talk to your supervisor.” So if you want to throw stones at that policy, I guess you can, but you can’t say Paterno didn’t do what he was supposed to do (per policy). Also, if the police needed to be called, McQueary (the self…

Here’s nice summary of talking points for you.

1) First of all, it is not mutually exclusive for the guidelines to apply AND for it to be a police matter. But it wasn’t a police matter. Second, it doesn’t matter what the NCAA guidelines are now (except to show that Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do, both then and now).

(retyping this. Hope it posts this time)

Apparently my reply didn’t post. Cool.

1) Yes, they do. I’m not sure why you refuse to admit this. Do you not understand the guidelines the way they are written? It is quite clear.

Wow, you are committed to redefining moron every single day of your life. Kudos and accolades to you, brave scholar!

You are one amazingly dim bulb. Being a university employee, and being the one who reports it, absolutely means that they are “involved” (language used in the guidelines).

Agreed.  But I think there is a tendency by non-scientists to look for non-scientific reasons to discredit a paper they don’t like the conclusions of.  If you can throw stones at the science, have at it.  If the science is sound, IDGAF who funded it.

Not that there aren’t shady scientists, but if a scientist gets funding from PETA or EDF or Surfrider or Greenpeace would you similarly say that the research is biased and shouldn’t be trusted?

Your interpretation of this is the tortured one. If children were an special case, it would be stated as such in the guidance. Further, you wrote “No student athletes or athletic department staff were involved in Sandusky’s molestation of a child” This in incorrect. Athletic Department staff (McQueary) was involved by…

Please show me in the NCAA language where it says to treat adults differently than children. Hint: it does not. You are really good at being wrong.

Couldn’t they go to tokens?  Then the price of a token reflects the tax, and it’s still a one “coin” experience.