OT-PSU 7/17 Plane Demands....
Its getting hotter at Penn State.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/17/3263795/plane-flying-over-campus-take.html
I don't know how this isn't considered a terrorist act. that banner is very threatening. You'd think they'd scramble jets to order it down.
Enough things have been hit by planes (including small planes) at this point that one circling something threatening to bring it down qualifies as a threat.
It doesn't. Not remotely.
but in this case....
I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way. It's stuipid. I'm saying that's the way I expected it to be.
It's reactions like this which make air travel such a pain in the ass. People have become so overly sensitive and fearful that the smallest thing out of the ordinary from their limited perspectives becomes interpreted as a potential threat. To even make the assumption that these people are suggestion that they're going to crash a plane into the statue is absurd and defies logic.
At worst, this is nothing more than a threat of VANDALISM and destruction of private (public?)property.
I'm starting to believe you.
/s, right? Please?
In my opinion, phsyically taking a statue down isn't considered a terrorist act. Now if it said, take it down or we will blow up Beaver Stadium...well that would be considered a terrorist act.
According to "The Thinker" statue in Cleveland that was blown up in 1970, it's all clearly a matter of how they plan to take down the statue that designates something as an act of domestic terrorism or not....
That statue just looks like some guy sitting on a toilet...with another arm coming out of the bowl to attack him.
MGoBoard has quickly fallen off the deep end in the past week and a half. Fall camp really needs to start.
The only thing worse than inane threads is people complaining about inane threads in July.
Example of an inane thread: "Projected depth chart for 2013/2014?"
This past week and a half: "Let's all argue about justice and debate the magnitude of a legal issue."
One's a pretty common type of occurence. The other one falls into a category that usually elicits 15 "NO POLITICS!" replies instantly when brought up here. The conversation has long since exited the scope of this board. Or at least what it used to be.
I think it's time for a "what are you drinking this early afternoon?" thread.
Because nobody's first or second attempt to take anything down is to drive a plane into it.
Make your title: PSU 7/17 Plane Demands....
Let's keep it to 1 thread a day. Also... HOW HAVE THEY NOT SAID THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN THE STATUE.
Incompetence of leadership got them into this mess. It's sure not helping them get out of it either.
Done
On this I'm actually with the BOT. If they had announced that they were taking the statue down within a few hours or days of the Freeh Report, it could've been recharacterized later as the administration bowing to public pressure in the heat of the moment. On the other hand, if they undertake a careful and holistic review of all the University's ties to Paterno, the Paterno family, and the Paterno name (ties which, my PSU friends inform me, are legion), and then they decide to take down the statue (presumably along with renaming other stuff / making other changes) in a few weeks or months, it'll be harder for anyone to write off the school's actions as mere spontaneous reactions instead of careful, considered measures.
I know this is a different issue altogether, but I think about how Tressel resigned on Memorial Day when it was clear that his position was untenable, and then OSU was able to recharacterize that event months later as a "firing" for NCAA purposes. Moving too quickly in response to public pressure is a recipe for a lack of clarity and accountability later on; and in this circumstance, allowing the Paterno statue to stand for a few additional weeks or months while the administration deliberates is not an exigent matter.
They spelled "Center" wrong.
SMU received the Death Penalty for cheating with the use of money to secure superior recruits.
Seems like a lesser offense than the blessing at the highest levels of PSU of the rape and abuse of dozens of children over more than a decade.
The Death Penalty. It didn't come to my mind but through a media story. PSU football has been the emperor with no clothes. (Literally.) I've been slow wrapping my head around the full extent of the deserved consequences for PSU & its football program. But now that it's been said, it seems rather obvious.
The entire operation of PSU football was running around naked and no one would tell them that they were naked because they went to a tailor who said they were clothed?
#lookupliterally
I would hate to be the one to make that decision. So sad that it has to come down to that and some people may feel justice will not be served until this happens. I just tend to think of the impact on hundreds of students and employees that are already under that death by association tag. Either way, there is no justice (in my mind) that can right the wrong of this situation. So much damage caused by this man and the others who did nothing to stop him.
Without taking a position on whether or not the death penalty is warranted here...
Any article / post that says "Yeah but SMU got the death penalty and this is much worse" misses the entire point of the discussion. The question isn't whether what happened at PSU was morally worse than what happened at SMU (I think it very obviously was); the relevant question is whether NCAA sanctions are an appropriate punitive mechanism against what happened at PSU. You might as well say, "Oh my god the shootings at Kent State in 1970 were so much worse than what happened at SMU, how could the NCAA sit on the sidelines like they did?!"
The question isn't whether what happened at PSU was morally worse than what happened at SMU (I think it very obviously was); the relevant question is whether NCAA sanctions are an appropriate punitive mechanism against what happened at PSU.
Those two things are tied together to some degree. The NCAA death penalty, as its most well-known, was applied to SMU for badly cheating at amateur football. That's created a long-lasting association between the two, because we as sports-watchers don't really have much else to go on as far as when the death penalty should be used. Also, it's always fair to ask, if the punishments for two acts are the same, whether the punishment for Bad Act A should be the same as the punishment for Bad Act B. There is only so much indepedent logic to a punishment. In other words, the fairness of a punishment is always somewhat tied to the nature of other punishments...Anyway, I think it would be morally ugly for the NCAA to punish PSU to no greater degree than it punished SMU. It should punish them worse or not at all, however inconsistent that might seem.
I completely agree with your last statement. If the NCAA feels that this is a situation in which they must intervene, then lay down the hammer. If not, let it face all its consequences in court.
There is one key distinction between Penn State and SMU: SMU cheated to gain an advantage on the field, therefore the NCAA punished their product on the field. While there is no doubt that what happened at Penn State was morally worse, it was not done in an attempt to gain an advantage on the field.
I think that the criminal process should deal with these crimes, and the offending persons have all been fired from the university. Other than the fact that one of the persons covering up and enabling the crimes was the football coach (and all his wrongdoing took place outside the scope of his coaching activities), this really has very little to do with the football team, and it especially doesn't have anything to do with the current football team.
Why did PSU cover up? To protect its football program's pristine reputation. That reputation was a big part of their recruiting pitch. For years, recruits cited their desire to be a part of the "Grand Experiment."
Not to mention that without the cover up, Paterno might have been forced out much sooner, which would have denied him his precious record and led to coaching instability.
PSU had nothing to do with it. And when was the last time NCAA penalties DIDN'T affect "innocent" players, coaches, and fans? The penalties are almost always after the guilty players, coaches, or administrators have moved on. But, this has everything to do with the football program because protecting it's sacred reputation was the driving force behind the coverup - not nearly so much protecting the overall university's reputation. In that light, PSU clearly was gaining an advantage on the field (relative to what they would have had, had the Sandusky case broken much earlier).
The University President and the full athletic hierarchy covers up Sandusky for over a decade (and allows him to continue for over a decade), versus an event that has nothing to do with the athletic department and occurred in a flash instant.
According to the article, the man flying the plane didn't even know the message beforehand. It's just a rather expensive way somebody is using freedom of speech . Of course the "Or we will" sounds threatening, so that's something to monitor, but that's about it.
According to the article, the man who owns the place the plane took off from said that his staff usually doesn't know the message. His staff does not include the pilot. And he didn't say they didn't know what this one said. He's just trying to avoid criticism of his company.
But yeah, freedom of speech. Incidentally, it'd be fucking epic if some rival's fanbase went after the statue before/after a game.
Allow me to address this little controversy in the manner of many PSU posters who insist the e-mails aren't specific enough to attribute knowledge to Paterno:
"How do we know what statue it's referring to? What if they're talking about the statue of the Nittany Lion outside the stadium? Why are you jumping to the conclusion that this refers to the Paterno statue just because it's coming around the same time there's controversy about the Paterno statue? On any given day there are several statues all over campus and this could be about any of them."
If by "that" you mean that the e-mails aren't specific enough to attribute knowledge to Paterno, yes. That's the main talking point for the pro-Paterno crowd at this point.
The first e-mail refers to "Joe" in the title. Pateno defenders say that could be any "joe" at the school or even Joe Amendola, Sandusky's attorney 14 years after the e-mail. They also say that just having the name "Joe" in the title doesn't mean Paterno knew about the e-mails.
The second e-mail refers to "coach" being anxious to hear what's happening with the investigation. The Defenders of Joe insist that this is a reference to Sandusky, not Paterno. So Sandusky was talking with Spanier, Graham and Curley about the '98 investigation but Paterno knew nothing.
I'd wager my entire bank account that those comments are from BWI.
We used to have a blast on rivals 10 years ago making fun of that place with the endless conspiracy theories (Lloyd Carr is related to the refs, Lloyd paid off the refs, the old crowd noise rule was invented to screw PSU over against Michigan in 1993 even though the rule was invented in the 80's, etc.)
We would also laugh over who had the dumbest reason for getting banned from that place. As I recall, one was banned for posting the final score. One was banned for correcting an error a PSU poster made about stats in a game and one poster was banned for saying, "Good game."
This was ten years ago, mind you. How nice that a decade has past and that board is still full with nothing but whack-jobs.
BWI so I Googled and found it. One of the first posts has a link to a new site called The Joe We Know.
I very much doubt the Board Of Trustees will get any respite from this - land, air or sea if someone could manage that - until it does in fact come down someday. If it doesn't, it will always be perceived - and rightly so - that they cared more about a man and his legacy than what happened under his watch.They need to be constantly reminded of what they really should do.
That being said, I am pretty sure they might offer a compromise and remove the Empty Seat Shrine from in front of Bryce Jordan. Nothing would shock me now if it came from State College.
I've seen you avatar many times, obviously, since you post frequently. I've never looked at it closely and have only ever glanced at it while reading your posts. I always thought it was a gay skunk with a rainbow over it's head. Now I know that's not the case. It's actually a punky chipmunk with angelwings. Very telling.
on their dumbass board is a good thing, in my opinion. Probably could have used different wording to strengthen their message, but whatever.
We do not forget.
I wish this entire ugly topic would become forbidden on this board. All it does is gives us a chance to look like the worst of RCMB. Sadly, we are succeeding.
I've been on this blog for a little while, and I still can't figure out what RCMB stands for. The best a google search gave me was Radio Control Modelers of Baltimore, which actually works surprisingly well in this context. Help?
All those MSU fans who are "that guy", that's their board.
http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/Michigan-State-Spartans-Messag…
Well that's a black hole I don't need to go down. Thanks for the link, I guess. First thread I saw was titled, "You're offered sex with Kate Upton, Do You Do Her?"
Nvm, I'll keep my questions to myself from here out.