No...my guesswork rubric, after Curley writes, "After giving it more thought and talking it over with joe....." still leaves me guessing whatever did Joe say to Curley....cuz...guess what....we still don't know!!

Ol Skool in a familiar, comfortable role....playing Toto to someone else's Dorothy.

Oh, boy.

You really wanna go there, old man?

Shall I remind everyone of how you lost your virginity to a girl that you found out later was your cousin?

Oops

Curley never writes "Paterno" Swiss. How do we KNOW he means Paterno. According to your reasoning (or its absence) assuming he means Paterno is "guesswork."

I think we all know which Joe being mentioned. Your deflecting from his point

If your so sure, I'll even make it multiple choice, you tell me what Joe said

A) Curley, squash that shit. Me, you, and Moe are going to protect the football program
B) Curley, I'll go to Police with you, but can't tomorrow, colonoscopy
C) Curley, fresh seafood on sale down at Super K, sure you wanna do this tomorrow? I got coupons
D) Curley, I've always wanted to to enable a child molestor. #67 on bucket list. please please please ?
E) Curley, I didn't witness this. McQ gave muddled recap. I'm warning of rush to judgement, find out facts for yourself first before mudslinging

_________________
Colbert on the #Steelers RB situation: "Where we were in running game last year was indicative in the talent at the position.''

Anybody can make up shit, VA, so have at it. In your case though, we all know why you left Pittsburgh ('least those of us that have been around awhile).

No, Hesske, that's where your reference to "reasonable inference" is applied. The content of the convo, though? Guesswork.

Swiss - who appointed you the arbiter of what is reasonable inference and what is not? Instead of having you declare what it is for me, I am going to fall back on my 33 years of learning and teaching about, among other things, reasonable inference. In the meantime you go ahead and keep guessing.

IC - in your clever little concoction you didn't allow me this option: Curley, I generally agree with the plan but let's tweak it a little. Why not?

And whatever we know or don't know it now seems that Joe continued to play an impactful role in the situation even after turning over what he knew to the so called proper authorities. You have repeatedly posted that he trusted Curley to handle it but any conversation with Curley after the initial contact, no matter what was said, casts serious doubt on one of your main points of Joe's defense.

That's fine, Hesske. I'll defer to your experience and cede that you're more "conversant" with the application of "reasonable inference."

That said, I'll submit that I'm more conversant than you with the particulars of child sexual abuse, and the reporting thereof, having worked with at-risk youth for 36 years. I've seen enough to know that what may seem like an easy call for all of us, just isn't necessarily when we're confronted with it. There's plenty of situations where people....capable, reasoned, intelligent people haven't reported stuff like this properly, and it's not necessarily because they're trying to protect their own ass. It simply gets fucked up sometimes by people that are either shocked by it or simply don't understand the various components....meaning the way victimization can destroy someone's life, the complexities in having pedophiles stop, the requirements of the reporting laws, etc. (and that's not even getting into the area of sexually reactive behavior).

Discussed in the same stillers.com chatroom where you told us about your cousin.

Calling it made up doesn't make it so.