(04-17-2012 10:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actually yes. Your words: "This was not a Penn State." What has Penn State, or anyoen who works there, been proved to be guilty of?

Thank you. Your silence is deafening. You too have shown to assume someone guilty until proven innocent.

LOL..quite a stretch there don't you think? Is Penn State a person? I only said Penn State as in they were two different issues...but lots are trying to lump both together. You would suck at being a prosecutor.

(04-17-2012 10:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actually yes. Your words: "This was not a Penn State." What has Penn State, or anyoen who works there, been proved to be guilty of?

Thank you. Your silence is deafening. You too have shown to assume someone guilty until proven innocent.

I think the difference between the SU and PSU situations are very different in that PSU officials actively covered up the evidence, whereas the SU officials cooperated with authorities and are doing so now, again. There is no dispute about these statements so we can reasonably assume them to be accurate.

(04-17-2012 10:48 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  I think the difference between the SU and PSU situations are very different in that PSU officials actively covered up the evidence, whereas the SU officials cooperated with authorities and are doing so now, again. There is no dispute about these statements so we can reasonably assume them to be accurate.

Htown, you are entitled to your opinion, but you did not start a thread and claim:

(04-15-2012 02:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Apparently you are convinced he is guilty I believe in due process

...then continue to show how different it is to another situation, use an example to show you obviously believe they are guilty, even though they too have not had due process. Doesn't matter how damning the evidence looked, Duke Lacrosse case looked bad too: and they were all innocent.

Had he not used the above line, a sentiment he has repeated previously, while blatantly showing he does not fully believe in due process in all cases, I would probably not have an issue with this. But during this entire thing, he has been all about due process for Syracuse, but never willing to grant Penn State the same courtesy, and quick to condemn them as well.

Nothing annoys me more than hypocrisy, and this is a prime example of it.

(04-17-2012 02:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:48 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  I think the difference between the SU and PSU situations are very different in that PSU officials actively covered up the evidence, whereas the SU officials cooperated with authorities and are doing so now, again. There is no dispute about these statements so we can reasonably assume them to be accurate.

Htown, you are entitled to your opinion, but you did not start a thread and claim:

(04-15-2012 02:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Apparently you are convinced he is guilty I believe in due process

...then continue to show how different it is to another situation, use an example to show you obviously believe they are guilty, even though they too have not had due process. Doesn't matter how damning the evidence looked, Duke Lacrosse case looked bad too: and they were all innocent.

Had he not used the above line, a sentiment he has repeated previously, while blatantly showing he does not fully believe in due process in all cases, I would probably not have an issue with this. But during this entire thing, he has been all about due process for Syracuse, but never willing to grant Penn State the same courtesy, and quick to condemn them as well.

Nothing annoys me more than hypocrisy, and this is a prime example of it.

Now you read minds

I'm done with you...off to ignore.

No, I just read what you write.

and if you want to put me on ignore, so be it. But pretty sad when you have no defense for yoru own words, other than to pull a Cartman:

Well, it looks like he changed his story again. So since some were claiming he was now credible in saying Fine didn't do it, what does this say?

Zach Tomaselli claims sexual abuse

Quote:Zach Tomaselli, just five days after saying he had been lying the past few months about his claims that former Syracuse assistant coach Bernie Fine sexually abused him as a child, said Wednesday he was indeed abused by Fine.

Tomaselli released a statement on Wednesday in direct contradiction to his previous comments to Syracuse local media last Friday.

"Yes, my credibility with the media is shot but I am not going to give up now," Tomaselli said in a statement. "Bernie molested me. PERIOD."

For the record I am not saying this makes Fine guilty, I am just pointing out that since the recanting of the accusation was THE ENTIRE premise for this thread, using some of the statements above as the basis for this logic, that the recantation proved Fine's innocence, that would make the recanting of that statement means he is guilty, correct? Otherwise every statement above using his denial as evidence were complete horseshit.

More poop...this is just getting weirder

Seems like #2 accusor has taken his name off the defamation suit--like I said Boeheim while opinionated was right when he said there was a bunch of lies.

The problem with the media is they love to print salacious headlines when a story breaks but they will not follow up when the sotry doesn't follow their initial laided out script.

http://www.nunesmagician.com/2012/4/18/2...e-syracuse