- 04:51 AM
- 11/23/24
In one sense I'm a little tired of this subject myself. But in another sense this entire topic has been like a train wreck; as horrible as it is, you just can't look away even if you wanted to. And I for one can't fault rcade's decision making process in the way it's been handled here on SpoFi because it's a continually-evolving story with a new wrinkle every few days. And even the various aspects of the story that don't seem to be sports related always lead back to the football program and how the scandal will impact it going forward.
There are still a number of events related to the scandal that are waiting in the wings, too: the Paterno family's "sanctioned" report that responds to Freeh's; the upcoming trials of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz; Graham Spanier's fate and possible indictments; as well as Penn St.'s civil litigation trials and then their "new" football team taking the field. I know a scant few of these sub-topics are directly sports related, but they'll bear some mention in SpoFi as they happen, I'm sure. But I think the highest concentration of events related to the scandal are now just about over. There isn't much anyone else can do to Penn St. or Joe Paterno's legacy anymore.
posted by NerfballPro at 03:40 PM on July 23, 2012
The reason this is getting so much prominence is because it could be the biggest sports story of the decade.
Unfortunately. It's because one of the most successful (at the time) collegiate sports programs was used as a carrot to lure potential victims to being sexually assaulted where they wouldn't have been touched otherwise. And the entire episode over the years would've been thwarted had even one person stepped forward.
It's also an emotional issue for a few people, looking at some of the posts on a lot of discussion boards, including here on SpoFi. Getting personal for a minute, as most people on SpoFi know me mostly as a one-post-per-thread troll who doesn't engage much, I myself am about to become a father for the first time (step-father really; my fiance has an 8-year-old daughter) at age 45 and for the first time I'm becoming truly aware of all the threats to children this world has to offer. Call me naive, but I can't honestly even imagine anyone with such public prominence and responsibility in a civilized society committing such heinous acts, and others who choose to look the other way because the accomplishments of a sports program are placed higher on the priority list than the welfare and safety of children. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, everything about this story just boggles the mind.
All of what we're seeing and hearing in the news on this incident is designed to ensure something like this never happens again. If only.....
posted by NerfballPro at 11:02 AM on July 23, 2012
The first two links (45 links and 797 comments) work, BUT include both site posts/comments as well as locker room. Conversely, neither of the second two lockerroom-specifc links (34 and 360) work.
This should be working now.
posted by NerfballPro at 05:29 PM on January 09, 2009
Comment Editing
I'm a Yankees-hater myself (sorry LBB) but for the most part, I haven't seen a strong bias one way or the other concerning the Bronx Bombers; I've read most of the SpoFi archives. And though I thought the story justgary posted was cool, my first thought on it was "The Orioles tied for first in September!" rather than "Yankees blow a 10 game lead late in the season, suckers!"
For the most part, I haven't had an issue with the way the moderators operate this discussion board. It's one of the key reasons I keep coming back here (I must be a glutton for punishment).
One thing I'd like clarification about, though. There's a little blurb on the bottom of every SpoFi page that says "All posts and comments are copyrighted by their original authors." While I see the reasoning behind editing to keep the site and authors somewhat honest, doesn't such editing violate the copyright? Perhaps if you really had to make an example of someone, the entire post should be removed and a warning issued to the violator. Editing a post can change the author's meaning, and (s)he probably wouldn't want to own the statement after the fact. Am I misconstruing the meaning of the copyright as applied to this site? Any thoughts about this, anyone?