Not Guilty

A forum partnered with WesternPaFootball.net
El-Moldo
Official BleacherCoach
Official BleacherCoach
Posts: 8637
Joined: May 15th, 2004, 11:58 pm
Reputation: 166
Contact:

Re: Not Guilty

Postby El-Moldo » June 29th, 2018, 9:23 am

Thank you Manfred. Well stated.



  • Advertisement
Crimson's Ghost
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 9731
Joined: June 24th, 2011, 10:43 am
Reputation: 747

Re: Not Guilty

Postby Crimson's Ghost » June 29th, 2018, 2:46 pm

Well from my personal experiences, nobody likes Catholic schools in District 6 (take this website for example). So I would generally think if there is a way to stick it to 'em, that is exactly what would be done if given the opportunity.  So the fact that it didn't happen, tells me there really wasn't anything there to begin with.  

You can't always bury you heard in the sand, gotta stay above it and look around. 

223113
Official BleacherCoach
Official BleacherCoach
Posts: 391
Joined: October 23rd, 2014, 6:09 pm
Reputation: 192

Re: Not Guilty

Postby 223113 » June 29th, 2018, 4:36 pm

El-Moldo pointed out something that I noticed, too.

When I read the article, there was 1 thing that caught my eye.

Now, maybe it was just poorly worded, but the sentence about, (paraphrasing) ... because the parents and students didn't comment, the accusations were unfounded.

Wait, what?
Is that how it works?
Just keep your piehole shut, mum's the word, and the accusations just,...go away.

Pretty soft "investigation", at best.

Like asking the fox, with feathers hanging out of his mouth, if he saw anybody eat the chickens.
He doesn't answer....

Unfounded, no chickens eaten here.

CharlesBarkley123
Freshman
Freshman
Posts: 11
Joined: June 24th, 2018, 11:00 pm
Reputation: 2

Re: Not Guilty

Postby CharlesBarkley123 » June 29th, 2018, 8:27 pm

223113 wrote:El-Moldo pointed out something that I noticed, too.

When I read the article, there was 1 thing that caught my eye.

Now, maybe it was just poorly worded, but the sentence about, (paraphrasing) ... because the parents and students didn't comment, the accusations were unfounded.

Wait, what?
Is that how it works?
Just keep your piehole shut, mum's the word, and the accusations just,...go away.

Pretty soft "investigation", at best.

Like asking the fox, with feathers hanging out of his mouth, if he saw anybody eat the chickens.
He doesn't answer....

Unfounded, no chickens eaten here.

Soft “invenstigation”. So you have first hand knowledge of the investigation????  When you want something to be you can twist any words to make yourself feel better.... as much as a lot of people would find joy to bring down the Cathloic schools. Assume a lot of these “transfers” come from public schools.... why would they want to leave their home schools ??? In some cases parents drive kids a long way to get to these private schools back and forth. That takes a commitment over the years along with the tuition and the school taxes for their home school... oh wait they don’t pay to go to these private schools right????   Same inside information you got from the “soft” investigation. 

223113
Official BleacherCoach
Official BleacherCoach
Posts: 391
Joined: October 23rd, 2014, 6:09 pm
Reputation: 192

Re: Not Guilty

Postby 223113 » June 29th, 2018, 8:53 pm

Lighten up Francis.

I don't have any first hand knowledge.
I was pointing out that, At Least the way it was worded in the article, it looked like the "investigation" involved reading a statement prepared by the school (the accused), and an unsuccessful attempt to get a statement from the "supposed recruits", and their parents.

In my opinion, IF that was the extent of the investigation, then yes, I would call that soft.

You may view those 2 measures as, "an exhaustive investigation."

I do not.

Carry on.

CharlesBarkley123
Freshman
Freshman
Posts: 11
Joined: June 24th, 2018, 11:00 pm
Reputation: 2

Re: Not Guilty

Postby CharlesBarkley123 » June 29th, 2018, 10:11 pm

223113 wrote:Lighten up Francis.

I don't have any first hand knowledge.
I was pointing out that, At Least the way it was worded in the article, it looked like the "investigation" involved reading a statement prepared by the school (the accused), and an unsuccessful attempt to get a statement from the "supposed recruits", and their parents.

In my opinion, IF that was the extent of the investigation, then yes, I would call that soft.

You may view those 2 measures as, "an exhaustive investigation."

I do not.

Carry on.

I was not one of the investigators so I don’t “view” anything other than what was reported.... and you admitted to no first hand knowledge... so I hope no one passes any judgements on you.... from what it “looked” like 

223113
Official BleacherCoach
Official BleacherCoach
Posts: 391
Joined: October 23rd, 2014, 6:09 pm
Reputation: 192

Re: Not Guilty

Postby 223113 » June 30th, 2018, 12:28 am

Do you even hear yourself?

You formed an opinion, based on what was reported.

That's what I did as well.
Everybody formulates opinions, every day, on any given subject, whether they have first hand knowledge, or not.

Thank you for telling us what you think is the only possible opinion one could reach, based on what was reported.

No thank you, I'll stick with the opinion I reached, based on what was reported.

Here's another opinion I reached, based on what you wrote. An argument/discussion with you is useless, since you possess the only possible correct opinion.

Over, and out.

OutsideLookingIn
Freshman
Freshman
Posts: 19
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 9:32 am
Reputation: 3

Re: Not Guilty

Postby OutsideLookingIn » June 30th, 2018, 7:52 am

In terms of potential findings for administrative investigations, "unfounded" for this one is incorrect. Unfounded means that the the incident was investigated and conclusively proved that it did not occur. In this case it was investigated and failed to disclose facts to support the allegation. The correct finding is "not sustained"-it wasn't proven or unproven. The Catholic culture is very well versed in not divulging information so this outcome should come as no surprise. The fact that the PIAA can't classify their findings correctly is equally unsurprising. 

Unfounded: The investigation conclusively proved that the act or acts complained of did not occur, or the member named in the allegation was not involved in the act or acts, which may have occurred. Exonerated: The act or acts, which provided the basis for the allegation or complaint occurred, however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. No Finding: The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation.Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint. 

CharlesBarkley123
Freshman
Freshman
Posts: 11
Joined: June 24th, 2018, 11:00 pm
Reputation: 2

Re: Not Guilty

Postby CharlesBarkley123 » June 30th, 2018, 4:36 pm

OutsideLookingIn wrote:In terms of potential findings for administrative investigations, "unfounded" for this one is incorrect. Unfounded means that the the incident was investigated and conclusively proved that it did not occur. In this case it was investigated and failed to disclose facts to support the allegation. The correct finding is "not sustained"-it wasn't proven or unproven. The Catholic culture is very well versed in not divulging information so this outcome should come as no surprise. The fact that the PIAA can't classify their findings correctly is equally unsurprising. 

Unfounded: The investigation conclusively proved that the act or acts complained of did not occur, or the member named in the allegation was not involved in the act or acts, which may have occurred. Exonerated: The act or acts, which provided the basis for the allegation or complaint occurred, however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. No Finding: The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation.Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint. 

So basically what your saying is..... nothing happened 

Manfred
Official BleacherCoach
Official BleacherCoach
Posts: 4771
Joined: August 2nd, 2009, 7:23 pm
Reputation: 216

Re: Not Guilty

Postby Manfred » June 30th, 2018, 6:16 pm

The tree fell in the woods, but no one heard it, so therefore it's still standing, right?
The world as we know it underwent a rebirth 11-8-16. Conservatives have made themselves heard!


Return to “Football”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 17 guests