Since you basically just re-posted the charge you'll understand if I do not accept your apology.
I'll just say that like others, I sure, I'm learning more about this scandal as I participate in these threads.
What I do not understand is why points of view on the appropriate way to perceive Paterno post scandal that differ from you and others should generate the vitriolic response it apparently does.
I apologize. This topic has brought out the worst in me. I think I would have handled it better had I disliked JoePa or been neutral when the story broke, but I was a "No way, don't say that about JoePa" guy. And then I read the GJ documents.
I'm not irritated by opposing points of view; I'm irritated (and at this point I am *not* referring to you) at JoePa deniers who have opposing facts. The "Sandusky was banned from campus," and "JoePa notified the head of the university police," and "the report says JoePa wasn't told about what happened" people.
Well, I also make exception for the non-lawyers who spout legalese on here, like "JoePa couldn't report it, because it would be hearsay" (umm - comment that's soooo wrong on soooo many levels).
So I welcome your opposing points of view and I apologize if I tread on them. I'm sorry if I'm snippy, but I lost a hero of over 35 years. And I may still snap at what I think are misstated facts, but I'm trying to get over it. My wife says I need to consult a grief counselor. And I'm not even much of a college football fan. I just read, and read. And I respected Joe Paterno. For decades.