Joe Paterno (Page 4)

OK, your justifications are shifting.  Previously, you suggested that they felt compelled to react in this manner to somehow counteract the Paterno worshippers/defenders.  You seemed to imply that they would have otherwise remained silent, but for the irrational Paterno worshippers/defenders.  Now, it's just they think he didn't protect the kids so they feel compelled to point this out whenever his name is mentioned.  Alright, I get that.  I still think it's in bad taste immediately after his death.

I think it seems pretty certain that people won't let it be forgotten and that's fine... just not at this sad time

I don't think that anyone who is suggesting here that there is a time and place for everything feels otherwise.  I know I don't. 

I am consistent in my belief... sometimes to a fault as you can see

something like this, i don't think there is a line

I think you respect the dead...

Well, hasn't this been a waste of time.  With Paterno, although I think Penn State knew enough for him to be removed as coach, I'm not comfortable at this point calling him a terrible person.  Maybe tomorrow, maybe never.  I would like to learn more about what happened.  I'm talking about what comes out of the investigation.  As an extreme example, someone mentioned bin Laden.  When he was killed, I was pleased that a terrorist leader was dead and hoped that his death would save lives.  However, the "ding, dong the witch is dead" stuff seemed odd.  To me.  Similarly, the celebrations outside prisons when criminals are executed seem inappropriate.  Again, to me.

His death provided a spark for the conversation.  A reason for him to be discussed.  A new event occurred in the developing story, which this time just happened to be the end.  With that comes many different and varying opinions, same as 3 months ago.  There have been multiple threads on the same subject many times in COJ, not just JoePa.  Additionally this thread is only titled "Joe Paterno" with no subject matter or guidelines, so naturally I would assume that all topics of discussion will be expressed, possibly ad nauseum, same as 3 months ago.  The purpose is the same as any other thread.  To the best of my knowledge his death did not change any of the facts surrounding the scandal or his long illustrious career.

When calling a spade a spade became poor form is unknown to me, regardless of timing.

When the timing is immediately after death, I think most people have been taught to respect the deceased regardless of any negative feelings you may have towards them...

I would think it became poor form centuries, maybe even milleniums ago???

I was taught it by my father and he by his father and so on and so on...

Let's say your local jackwagon a-hole triathlete guy is in a race with you.  You really don't like him.  He goes down on the bike hard.  He's just skinned up and his bike is busted, but he's going to be fine.  As you ride by, you call him an a-hole.  Appropriate regardless of timing?

Here's the thing, I think talking on a telephone in a restaurant while seated at the table is bad manners.  Others don't.  I think some people's behavior in this thread is in bad taste.  Others don't.

So everyone becomes a great person in death?  Only remember the good?

Obviously that's up to each person individually.  I don't think there is anything wrong with the people who remember both the good and the bad.  For that is who the person really was.  Remembering only the good seems just as justifiable as remembering only the bad.  They are both only half the story.  And they are allowed to look at any half (or whole) of the story they so choose.

I would argue that it's more appropriate to respect JoePa because of his many accomplishments, not because he died.  Everyone does that.

for the most part yes... minus Hitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, etc.

you never hear anything bad mentioned about anybody at a funeral and there's a reason... the bad is going to be remembered anyway

just because you don't vocalize doesn't mean it's not there...

When a thread is posted they are asking for others' input/opinions on the subject.  In your example I am calling him an a-hole unprovoked.  No one has solicited any opinion or input from me.  I would be verbally attacking him unprovoked, which is a different issue.  Now were he to provoke me in some way (i.e. throw a helmet at me, or just give me the finger) and I respond as you suggested, then no I see nothing wrong with it.

So, in other words, your blanket statement is meaningless without knowing the particulars of the situation.

We're not at his funeral, we're in an internet forum.  Everybody get so to express their views just the same as you.  Some people believe differently, and I'd say both beliefs are just as valid as the others.

Maybe what would be a good idea is for someone to start a "The good things about JoePa" thread to even things out?

Just getting into this thread now... didn't read all of it.
But the part about respecting the dead - I get that, to a point. But does this camp feel you must respect them... forever? Because I don't.

I had a family member who made my family's life hell for decades. I had about zero respect for her when she was alive, and I sure as heck haven't changed my mind after she passed.
  
Of course I acted "respectful" at the funeral and since then with my family in their grieving process. But actual respect? No. 

you gave me apples and oranges.  So I made a fruit salad. 

funeral was just an example to use to expand my point further past that setting...

even if Joe Pa was a "good man" in general, it's still not necessary to speak bad of him the day or two after his death???

That has been and will be discussed for years to come...

The Joe Paterno Thread Bipartisan Committee on Appropriate Post-Death Behavior has voted.  You're cool.

No need to respect forever just refrain from negativity during a time of mourning??? 1,2 days???

you explained my point very well...

Wow, just wow.  This thread makes me sad.  RIP JoePa, thank you for the good you've done, the lives you've touched.  You were flawed, but everyone has flaws, everyone has moments in life that show a very bad side of themselves.  I would caution those that are quick to judge, that one of the principles of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty, and all the facts of the child sexual assault case have not come out.

My sympathies also to the families of the abused children and the victims themselves, as they must have mixed feelings about the news.

Ah, I see the problem. I was taught that respect is earned, and pretending respect to someone  who does not deserve it is dishonest, something that a person does who cannot think and judge for themselves.

This does not mean that I go to a funeral and badmouth the dead. On the other hand, I also don't stand in the street and do it when s/he is alive. I just ignore the person, unless it is something like a discussion or forum where the specific topic is being discussed.

In this case (forum, right? ) from the little I know, he did a lot of good, that is overshadowed by a major screw-up.

so 'respect your elders" really means just the ones that have earned your respect?

you have to admit that there are certain situations that just demand your respect...

the dead and your elders are just two...

yes it does.

no it doesn't.

By most accounts this is not usually an issue unless there is a jerk around.  Most people will extend respect to each other up front.  But an old jerk is still a jerk undeserving of respect regardless of age.  Someone doesn't get to be a jerk just because they are old.  Dead, old, same thing.  They are who they are/were.  Age and alive or dead are irrelevant.

I think that is the fundamental disagreement.