It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

95% of this thread deserves to be handwaved away.

Now now, let's not be too hasty here.

You've posted 446 of the 4,300 responses so only 10.4% of this thread needs to be handwaved away.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by CannyDan

I only just discovered the resurrection of this thread, and here you go, leaving again!?!?!?!?!?

Damn! I have only begun to point and laugh, point and laugh. Ahh, SA, you truly are a pathetic, skeevy, blindly stubborn, irredeemably ridiculous and wretched moron living fantasies in a Bizarro World of your own creation.

There is though one way to prove me wrong, and it isn’t by repeating your pitiable ‘arguments’. Just show this thread to your friends and relatives, have a few people read through it. If then you still have any friends, or anyone who will publicly admit to being your relative, they can post here telling us so. I am sure that I and most if not all of your other detractors will immediately apologize to you. Or have that person forcibly committed to an inpatient care facility, one.

You can take it to the bank that Skeevy Artist will be back to post more good stuff here. His Goodnight John Boy routine never ends. He is perpetually just about to step out, and never spares us details of his agenda.

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

You can take it to the bank that Skeevy Artist will be back to post more good stuff here. His Goodnight John Boy routine never ends. He is perpetually just about to step out, and never spares us details of his agenda.

Ah yes, his patented "I've been out drinking and I'm posting from my iPhone and that's why the only cite I've bothered to give in my last 300 posts actually proves the opposite of my contentions and I have to step out now for a while" defense.

Marvelous.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The obsession here is not mine. To the degree that I'm obsessed at all, it's with not allowing a hysterical, mob mentality prevail.

Actually, what you seem to be obsessed with is the following unsupported opinion:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Yes, I do think anal rape is impossible based upon McQueary's description of what he saw.

Nothing about that cherished opinion of yours has been vindicated in any way by the jury's verdict, despite your delusional insistence to the contrary.

The court found nothing that cast any doubt whatsoever on the possibility, or even the likelihood, of Sandusky's committing anal rape in that situation. All they found was that the situation wasn't proven to be anal rape.

The reason that you are now dubiously immortalized on these boards as "Mr. Paper Towel Tube Pedophilic Rape Test" is because you irrationally clung to the absurd assertion that the incident couldn't have been anal rape. Just as you are now irrationally clinging to the absurd assertion that the jury agreed with you about it.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I believe, and will always believe unless convincing evidence proves otherwise, that Joe Paterno had no idea what Jerry Sandusky was really doing with those kids [...]

If you get some new evidence that Paterno knew Sandusky was anally raping kids, or subjecting them to oral sex, or committing any other serious forms of sexual abuse and sought to cover it up, or that Paterno was raping kids himself (as has been so idiotically asserted in this thread as well), let me know and we'll talk.

This, I think, is at the heart of your willful delusion about the evidence. You want to believe that Paterno was innocent of any knowledge of "serious" sexual abuse, so you arbitrarily re-define "serious forms of sexual abuse" to include only a few specific acts that nobody's proved Paterno was aware of.

Moreover, to bolster your belief further, you likewise insist that any act Paterno was aware of couldn't possibly have been one of the limited set of acts you're willing to describe as "serious sexual abuse".

Neither of these arguments is rational or honest, and certainly neither of them has been vindicated by the outcome of the trial.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Your ability to rewrite reality to fit your own perceptions is astounding. Rare is the person who can read a statement where Paterno says he was informed that there was something sexual going on between a man and a child, and pretend it means that Paterno DIDN'T KNOW that there was something sexual going on between a man and a child.

I mean, really. I've argued for the involuntary commitment of people who thought they were becoming Jesus, that blamed 3M for stealing their idea for post it notes, and who thought that nurses were actually demons, but DAMN, SA, you are giving them a run for their money.

Brings the point. If the board admins felt a member was a danger to himself or others (SA), would they have any way of alerting the authorities? Would the authorities act on anything a person posts on a message board, and track him down if need be?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by The Man In Black

Brings the point. If the board admins felt a member was a danger to himself or others (SA), would they have any way of alerting the authorities? Would the authorities act on anything a person posts on a message board, and track him down if need be?

Excellent point.

On a related note, Soviet Communists had a habit of incarcerating dissidents in mental institutions, and "treating them" with drugs.

Makes a lot of sense when you think about it. These people were obviously deluded to the point of being a danger to themselves or others, and the authorities needed to act on it.

Fortunately it was pretty easy for them to track them down ...

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by The Man In Black

Brings the point. If the board admins felt a member was a danger to himself or others (SA), would they have any way of alerting the authorities? Would the authorities act on anything a person posts on a message board, and track him down if need be?

Certainly the police have tracked down and arrested people who posted death threats, but IMO, no matter that SA is delusional and a shitheel, he hasn't said anything that deserves calling the police over.

SA, that's the finest compliment you're probably ever going to get from me.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

In other words, your [Starving Artist's] speculation is worth more [than Louis Freeh's], despite not having done any actual research, seen any documents, etc. Whatever.

Have you read the Freeh report? Nowhere in there does the man even try the paper towel tube test! Clearly, the investigation was inadequate at best.

[Loach]

For the record I have had sex with a very short adult female. I had no problem penetrating any of her orifices. Even while standing. And there was a lot of experimenting. Science marches on!

[Starving Artist]

What a bunch of friggin' loons! So now we've jumped from Joe Paterno being a pedophile kiddie raper who was fine with Sandusky screwing kids in the butt because he was doing the same himself, to now me, because of my defense of him and my refusal to equate shower room hugs with anal rape, being a potential danger to others worthy of action by the authorities.

I've said before in this thread and I'll say it again: People like you are a greater threat to society than Jerry Sandusky or any sort of criminal. It is precisely to thwart people such as yourselves that our legal system requires due process and rules of evidence in order to assure that people don't get railroaded by lunatic hotheads who are unable to think straight and who reflexively villainize anyone who disagrees with them.

You are the real reason I've fought like I have in this thread!

[CannyDan]

Projection!

Lovin' it. Popcorn, anyone?

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What a bunch of friggin' loons! So now we've jumped from Joe Paterno being a pedophile kiddie raper who was fine with Sandusky screwing kids in the butt because he was doing the same himself,

I don't recall anyone accusing Paterno of being a pedophile. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong)

As for any accusations against you -- you brought it on yourself. Again, your obsession with the exact, explicit details is disturbing, to say the least. (Even Paterno said there WAS something going on that was sexual, not just hugging)

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What a bunch of friggin' loons!

How precisely, is insisting that when Joe Paterno testified he was informed that there was sexual conduct between Sandusky and a young boy, that meant he was informed that there was sexual conduct between Sandusky and a young boy, loony? From what you've posted here, I think we can agree that you are aware of loony-ness on a unprecedented level, so your expert opinion should carry some weight. But I'm still having trouble getting around your insistence that Paterno didn't know there was sexual conduct when he testified he was informed there was sexual conduct.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I've said before in this thread and I'll say it again: People like you are a greater threat to society than Jerry Sandusky or any sort of criminal.

Keep saying it loony.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I've said before in this thread and I'll say it again: People like you are a greater threat to society than Jerry Sandusky or any sort of criminal.

Hi Starving Artist, welcome back after your most recent widely-publicized departure from this thread.

Do you really not see how calling somebody who merely had the temerity to disagree with you on a messageboard "a greater threat to society" than a convicted serial child molester makes you look seriously irrational and intemperately detached from reality?

You keep throwing out ridiculously over-the-top exaggerated statements and then later trying to pretend that they're equivalent to more reasonable moderate statements. And then when people point out your contradictions and inconsistencies, you throw a tantrum and claim that you're just being hounded by a hysterical mob.

Of course I wouldn't venture any guess about your real-life sanity level based on your behavior in this thread as an anonymous messageboard poster, but you sure don't sound very rational in this context.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

As noted earlier, I think from the context of Curley's email it's more likely that Paterno was uncomfortable with bypassing Sandusky, and felt the matter should be brought up with him directly, as opposed to reporting it behind his back.

I agree. And in my opinion his years of power and influence probably altered his thinking somewhat (natural for most humans) to think he had the authority and wisdom to deal with the situation when in reality it was best left to the people with experience. You might argue that the previous incident was dealt with by the people with experience and nothing came of it, but I would counter that the process isn't perfect and if the police were aware of the same thing a second time, the probability of action increases especially given the red flags raised by one set of psychiatrists previously.



One of the funny things about your post is that SA will probably agree with it...while at the same time he states that Paterno reported to his superiors and didn't want to be involved because it wasn't his job...and he will separately deny and agree with both statements simultaneously.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Nothing about that cherished opinion of yours has been vindicated in any way by the jury's verdict, despite your delusional insistence to the contrary.

The court found nothing that cast any doubt whatsoever on the possibility, or even the likelihood, of Sandusky's committing anal rape in that situation. All they found was that the situation wasn't proven to be anal rape.

The reason that you are now dubiously immortalized on these boards as "Mr. Paper Towel Tube Pedophilic Rape Test" is because you irrationally clung to the absurd assertion that the incident couldn't have been anal rape. Just as you are now irrationally clinging to the absurd assertion that the jury agreed with you about it.

QFT. And indeed SA will forever be known as the SDMB laughing stock aka Mr. Paper Towel Tube Pedo.

P.S. And for those of you who don't see ads, you're missing out! "Pedophile State University- Get your tshirt for $19.95 + s&h".

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Do you really not see how calling somebody who merely had the temerity to disagree with you on a messageboard "a greater threat to society" than a convicted serial child molester makes you look seriously irrational and intemperately detached from reality?

I would if that had been what I said.

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

And indeed SA will forever be known as the SDMB laughing stock aka Mr. Paper Towel Tube Pedo.

The Paper Towel Tube was a perfectly cromulent way of illustrating the fact that the scene described by McQueary almost certainly precluded rape as being what he had happened upon, a finding confirmed by the Sandusky jury who knew a great deal more at the time of its deliberations both about what McQueary said and Sandusky's other crimes than did anyone in this thread.

And it was a perfectly cromulent way of illustrating my assertion that the thread's posters should rejoice in the fact that that young boy had almost certainly not been subjected to anal rape that night, an assertion that oddly enough brought no comfort nor surcease to the legion of posters allegedly seeking to identify with the horrors the young boy had endured. No, if anything they seemed even more outraged over the idea that rape had not taken place than they were that it had. A bizarre reaction to say the least! But I digress. The Paper Towel Tube served its purpose exceedingly well. It served it so well that for days the threads dingbats were at a loss to debunk it, whereupon they finally gave up and began to settle merely for making fun of it, which is an obvious sign to me that they'd given up entirely on the idea of a 60-year-old, 6'4" man carrying off butt sex two feet off the ground but would be damned if they'd give me the satisfaction of admitting it. So contrary to your obvious belief, each mockage of the Paper Towel Tube is an admission of defeat and amuses rather than annoys me. My objection is when people are allowed to reference it out of context in other forums while I'm not allowed to respond. It appears Marley and I have worked out a solution to that, so no prob. Mention it all you want. As I've said before, I'm proud to take a stand for truth, justice and the American way, and all three have been ably served by my friend The Paper Towel Tube. Justice did out, the forces of unthinking hysteria and mindless rage were thwarted, and the bad guy got what was coming to him by virtue of what could be proven in a court of law. I am proud.

The Pedo thing, on the other hand, is a perfectly cromulent example also, but of the over the top dishonesty and utterly chicken shit nature of many of my opponents in this thread. You can believe every word I say when I say I couldn't care or think less of the opinion or character of anyone who would say or believe any such thing, or find it amusing.

And now I must bid you losers good night...

Duh duh dut dut duh...I'm lovin' it!

[digs]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I'm lovin' it!

And that's one reason that we're creeped out.

[Enderw24]

Well you refuse to listen to any argument by any of the 150+ posters who have posted in this thread, not a single one of which agrees with you, SA.

So is there a poster on this message board that you'd at least listen long enough to consider an alternate viewpoint?
My guess is no but I had to ask anyway.

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

You can believe every word I say when I say I couldn't care or think less of the opinion or character of anyone who would say or believe any such thing, or find it amusing

And yet you expend tens of thousands of words stating precisely the same thoroughly debunked points, over and over and over again, directed at no one but these people you profess not to care about.

But of course, you are mentally disturbed and really can't help yourself. Just like you were going to abandon the thread but couldn't stay away more than a few hours.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by Loach

For the record I have had sex with a very short adult female. I had no problem penetrating any of her orifices. Even while standing. And there was a lot of experimenting. Science marches on!

There were obviously material differences!

Keep-away-with-the-soap!

Fuck a paper towel tube!!!

Two slapping sounds does not constitute a rhythm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

Two slapping sounds does not constitute a rhythm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandusky was a middle-aged white guy. Everyone knows they have no rhythm.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I would if that had been what I said.

It was what you said. This is the root of your problem here, Starving Artist: the only way you can keep any semblance of an argument going is by stoutly denying facts, even when it means contradicting your own earlier statements.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The Paper Towel Tube was a perfectly cromulent way of illustrating the fact that the scene described by McQueary almost certainly precluded rape as being what he had happened upon, a finding confirmed by the Sandusky jury

This is more denial of fact on your part. The jury did not find that what McQueary described "almost certainly precluded [penetrative] rape", or in fact precluded penetrative rape to any extent at all. All they found was that McQueary's evidence wasn't sufficient to prove the occurrence of penetrative rape---and, as I keep pointing out and you keep failing to acknowledge, nobody in this thread ever asserted the contrary.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

which is an obvious sign to me that they'd given up entirely on the idea of a 60-year-old, 6'4" man carrying off butt sex two feet off the ground

Again, this is simply contrary to reality. Everybody here still completely repudiates your bizarrely illogical convoluted reasoning that Sandusky was somehow physically incapable of committing rape in that situation. (And I notice that you've sneakily added a few years to Sandusky's age and at least an inch to his height to try to bolster up your flawed reasoning.)

If you want to go back to discussing the physical geometry of the situation, we'll explain to you once again why your claims are ridiculous. But imagining that everybody must be secretly agreeing with you is merely delusional.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

So contrary to your obvious belief, each mockage of the Paper Towel Tube is an admission of defeat

In other words, the only way you can persuade even yourself that your assertions are valid is by pretending that all rebuttal or ridicule of them means exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

Like I said, this isn't argument you're doing here, this is simply stubborn and irrational contradiction.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The Pedo thing, on the other hand, is a perfectly cromulent example also, but of the over the top dishonesty and utterly chicken shit nature of many of my opponents in this thread. You can believe every word I say when I say I couldn't care or think less of the opinion or character of anyone who would say or believe any such thing, or find it amusing.

To be fair, though, calling you a pedophile seems to be about the only way to recall you to any semblance of rational realism in this thread.

Pretty much any other extravagantly speculative or irrational claim seems to receive your enthusiastic endorsement. Whereas any reasonable criticism or refutation inspires you to declare that you will interpret it as meaning the opposite of what it says.

So naturally, it's a bit of a relief when somebody launches at you the unverified vile insult of being a pedophile and you respond along the lines of "That's an unverified vile insult!" At least that makes it clear that you're still capable of rational thought in some circumstances. Believe me, Starving Artist, you sound a LOT saner when you're angry about being called a pedophile than you do in the rest of the thread.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The Paper Towel Tube served its purpose exceedingly well. It served it so well that for days the threads dingbats were at a loss to debunk it, whereupon they finally gave up and began to settle merely for making fun of it

Does this include the bit where I debunked it from, you know, my own experience?

[El_Kabong]

Mention it all you want. As I've said before, I'm proud to take a stand for truth, justice and the American way, and all three have been ably served by my friend The Paper Towel Tube.

Sig line of the year.

[kayaker]

SA Halloween idea.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

There were obviously material differences!

Keep-away-with-the-soap!

Fuck a paper towel tube!!!

Two slapping sounds does not constitute a rhythm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am willing to go back in and continue experimenting. The sacrifices I make for you people...

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I've said before in this thread and I'll say it again: People like you are a greater threat to society than Jerry Sandusky or any sort of criminal. It is precisely to thwart people such as yourselves that our legal system requires due process and rules of evidence in order to assure that people don't get railroaded by lunatic hotheads who are unable to think straight and who reflexively villainize anyone who disagrees with them.

Leaving aside the specific details of the "physics" defense in general and the Paper Towel test specifically (neither of which I think much of), I agree with this statement.

While on an individual level a guy like Sandusky is obviously worse than posters in this thread (at least based on what we definitively know of them) on an aggregate basis it's a lot different. The facts-be-damned-it's-obvious-the-guy's-guilty-let's-lynch-him-and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on mentality displayed by most (though not all) posters in this thread is and has been responsible for far more injustice and suffering in the world than all the pedophiles combined.

[gamerunknown]

Keep shower hugging that chicken Starving Artist.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

Leaving aside the specific details of the "physics" defense in general and the Paper Towel test specifically (neither of which I think much of), I agree with this statement.

While on an individual level a guy like Sandusky is obviously worse than posters in this thread (at least based on what we definitively know of them) on an aggregate basis it's a lot different. The facts-be-damned-it's-obvious-the-guy's-guilty-let's-lynch-him-and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on mentality displayed by most (though not all) posters in this thread is and has been responsible for far more injustice and suffering in the world than all the pedophiles combined.

Wait... are we talking about another Jerry Sandusky, one other than the guy convicted on 45 of 48 charges relating to pedophilia?

No wonder we're all confused here... You're right - the rush to judgement that lead to us discussing charges against an innocent man (one who oddly has the same name as a convicted pedophile) is troubling and I do apologize for taking part in this. Consider me corrected and ashamed.

Mr. Sandusky, we apologize. We honestly thought we were talking about this guy, but we were apparently discussing this guy, who is completely innocent of all charges.

God, I'm so embarrassed.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

Leaving aside the specific details of the "physics" defense in general and the Paper Towel test specifically (neither of which I think much of), I agree with this statement.

While on an individual level a guy like Sandusky is obviously worse than posters in this thread (at least based on what we definitively know of them) on an aggregate basis it's a lot different. The facts-be-damned-it's-obvious-the-guy's-guilty-let's-lynch-him-and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on mentality displayed by most (though not all) posters in this thread is and has been responsible for far more injustice and suffering in the world than all the pedophiles combined.

And that, Kimstu, is what I said and who I was talking about when I said it.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Keep shower hugging that chicken Starving Artist.

Keep Lobohaning that keyboard, dipstick.

Just think, one day you'll grow up to be a big boy or girl and then you can start trying to invent gags of your own.

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Keep shower hugging that chicken Starving Artist.

I might have said, "Keep playing keep-away-with-the-soap with that chicken", but whatever.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Keep Lobohaning that keyboard, dipstick

"Dipstick"? "Dillweed"? It's like he stopped watching TV around the time Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In went off the air.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Like I said, this isn't argument you're doing here, this is simply stubborn and irrational contradiction.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

I might have said, "Keep playing keep-away-with-the-soap with that chicken", but whatever.



"Dipstick"? "Dillweed"? It's like he stopped watching TV around the time Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In went off the air.

Well, I started to say "asshole," but I felt it would conflict with the smilie.

And now I really do intend to let go of this thread for a while, at least until it's needed to address something that hasn't already been done to death. So...

Duh, duh, dut, dut, duh...well, you know the routine.

Chow!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's "ciao"!

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And now I really do intend to let go of this thread for a while, at least until it's needed to address something that hasn't already been done to death. So...

We are men of action; lies do not become us.

[Starving Artist]

Well, now that you mention it...


I keed, I keed.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Does this include the bit where I debunked it from, you know, my own experience?

Ahem...before you go...mind answering my question?

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ahem...before you go...mind answering my question?

Whoa, hey, look at the time, folks! Really gotta run! Ta ta and all that!

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ahem...before you go...mind answering my question?

Yes, I do.

As I said at the time you brought it up originally, I suspect there are significant material differences between what happened to you and the people and scene in the shower room that night. I suspect ages, heights and positions were different, and that your childhood perceptions of some of these might be skewed due to your size and the fact you were a child at the time. A guy broke into my house once and snuck into my bedroom while I was in bed. It was dark and I saw him only in silhouette and told the police he was about 6'1 and 195 lbs. From his fingerprints he was found and he turned out to be 5'8" and 140 lbs. So it's clear that differences in head height and body orientation can have a significant impact on a person's perceptions. Distortions of spatial dimensions between reality and childhood memories are something just about everyone experiences whenever revisiting rooms or fondly remembered locations from childhood are common too.

Now, having said that, I am not about to engage in a t cross-examination of you to try to drill down and try to get to all the hoary little details. These people can't handle paper towel tubes, and even I have no appetite for discussing what happened to you as a real, living person who's suffered through what you have, as opposed to doing what I've been doing which is engaging in an academic discussion on the importance of due process and the need for rules of evidence as opposed to reflexively and outragedly jumping to worst case consclusions and assuming people guilty thereby.

You can keep asking but the answer will remain the same. I'm not going to do it.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ahem...before you go...mind answering my question?

Do you actually expect him to reply to evidence against his point? And if he does, it will simply to say that it does not matter.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Yes, I do.

As I said at the time you brought it up originally, I suspect there are significant material differences between what happened to you.

Take comfort then, MrDibble. Getting raped as a child wasn't nearly as traumatic as you were previously led to believe.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by The Man In Black

Do you actually expect him to reply to evidence against his point? And if he does, it will simply to say that it does not matter.

Okay, here's some evidence against his point: as MrDibble previously described his attacks, he was subjected to considerable pain as a result of the attack, and terror as a result of a knife being used to force him to comply.

In the shower room incident, McQueary's otherwise detailed description of what he saw, the positions of the two people, what they did, what he did, etc. gives not a hint that the boy was in any sort of distress at all, let alone pain or even physical discomfort.

This is yet another one of the many aspects of this situation that led me to conclude that anal rape isn't what was going on that night, and when you combine that with the fact that from his previous descriptions MrDibble's attacker was not 6'4" and 60-something years old, I believe that without going into it further there is more than sufficient reason to think that his experience was different enough from what was happening in the shower room as to have no probative value in determining whether Sandusky could have been anally raping the boy that night in the position McQueary described.

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Take comfort then, MrDibble. Getting raped as a child wasn't nearly as traumatic as you were previously led to believe.

Quite the contrary, mon dipshit! As I just said, his experience was extremely painful, terrifying and traumatic. Nothing about the shower room incident appears to have been...and therein lies the rub.

I swear, I oughta be charging you people for this stuff! What are the going rates for remedial reading courses these days, anyway?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Take comfort then, MrDibble. Getting raped as a child wasn't nearly as traumatic as you were previously led to believe.

He should really take solace in the fact that it physically is impossible that it ever happened.

You see, Billy, humans do not have knees or hips. They are incapable of modulating the height of their waist.

If you need proof, here's a simple experiment you can try...

By the way, do you like gladiator movies, Billy?

[Starving Artist]

Hey, Hector, you still finding salacious titillation in the idea of lining up boys to ask them questions?

Haven't heard you comment on that since I set you straight. You just gonna let it lie and pretend the perv was never on you?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Take comfort then, MrDibble. Getting raped as a child wasn't nearly as traumatic as you were previously led to believe.

This is perhaps worth highlighting as an example of the dynamics of this thread.

This characterization of SA's words has no connection to anything he actually said, and in fact seems to contradict his actual opinion (as expressed in the second paragraph). But when it comes to attacking SA, anything goes.

SA himself has said many things in this thread that don't stand up to logic or the facts (including this latest claim that the Sandusky jury vindicated his claim about the "physics"). But everything SA says which can possibly be challenged is ridiculued, while blatant distortions like this one by Enderw24 are routinely served up, simply because he's on the right side of the argument.

If others in this thread would be held to the same standards as SA, they would look a lot like SA too. IMO 90% of the apparent silliness of his position is due to being one against a pile-on, and only about 10% due to the quality of his reasoning.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Hey, Hector, you still finding salacious titillation in the idea of lining up boys to ask them questions?

Haven't heard you comment on that since I set you straight. You just gonna let it lie and pretend the perv was never on you?

You're not suggesting that it was me who proposed lining up 100 boys and asking them about anal sex, are you? That was all you, Starving for Adolescents.

Billy, have you ever seen a grown man naked?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

SA himself has said many things in this thread that don't stand up to logic or the facts (including this latest claim that the Sandusky jury vindicated his claim about the "physics").

Ahem, actually my claim is that the jury vindicated me in concluding that McQueary's testimony did not support a conviction on the charge of rape.

Having said that, we're all entitled to our opinion and even though you disagree with me on certain points, your contributions to this thread are generally spot on and have been a welcome breath of fresh air. I note with amusement and disdain that you've come in for your share of pedophilia accusations and other forms of abuse yourself as a result. Must be something in the water.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

If others in this thread would be held to the same standards as SA, they would look a lot like SA too. IMO 90% of the apparent silliness of his position is due to being one against a pile-on, and only about 10% due to the quality of his reasoning.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly! Assuming we also agree that the problem with your assessment is your inability to properly estimate percentages.