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

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Not possible without squatting, a position which wasn't mentioned by McQueary.

Yes it is, unless the definition of "squatting" is twisted so much as to include any bend of the knee at all.

We've already demonstrated to you that at least some people would consider a moderate knee-bend position (such as a that of a football linebacker, or a tall anal rapist) a "standing" position, even if you don't consider it such. So, therefore, it's very possible that Mike McQueary may have witnessed an anal rape (with a moderate knee bend), and called it "standing".

Thank you for your time.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Always had a sense of humor. Remember "Winning"? "Duh, duh, dut, dut, duh...I'm lovin' it!"?

That was humor? I just thought it was the inane ramblings of a man who's definition of "squatting" was so rigid that the idea that a even single person (say, Mike McQueary, for example) might have a slightly different definition was so shocking and damaging to his world-view and view-of-self that it must be fought with every fiber of his being.

[ElvisL1ves]

Please, God, make it stop!

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Yes it is, unless the definition of "squatting" is twisted so much as to include any bend of the knee at all.

We've already demonstrated to you that at least some people would consider a moderate knee-bend position (such as a that of a football linebacker, or a tall anal rapist) a "standing" position, even if you don't consider it such. So, therefore, it's very possible that Mike McQueary may have witnessed an anal rape (with a moderate knee bend), and called it "standing".

Nope. The average 4' person's anus would be about 24" off the ground. An average 6'3" man's inseam would be about 36" with his penile attachment over the pubic bone being another inch or two above that, so approx. 38" off the ground. To anyone with the scarcest semblance of a brain, it should be obvious that to lower one's peen 14" closer to the floor a bend in the knee considerably more than 'slight' would be required. What would be required is what most honest people would call a squat.

But as the Zimmerman thread has shown as well, when people are sufficiently wedded to a certain scenario so that they're willing to ignore perfectly obvious facts and carry on as though those facts simply didn't exist, they are perfectly capable of keeping up that charade for months.

Doesn't change anything though. McQueary didn't see a rape. Paterno wasn't told of a rape. Paterno didn't cover up a rape (that night or any other night). And no evidence exists to show that any of Penn State's administrative officials did either.

So everyone at the beginning of the thread who said he/they did were wrong, and those of you who continue to cling to that claim now are wrong.

All of which, of course, makes me right.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

But as the Zimmerman thread has shown as well, when people are sufficiently wedded to a certain scenario so that they're willing to ignore perfectly obvious facts and carry on as though those facts simply didn't exist, they are perfectly capable of keeping up that charade for months.

13 of them, to be precise.

[iiandyiiii]

I don't know why, but this discussion brings me great enjoyment.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope. The average 4' person's anus would be about 24" off the ground.

I assume you mean 5', not 4'.

In average 6'3" man's inseam would be about 36" with his penile attachment over the pubic bone being another inch or two above that, so approx. 38" off the ground. To anyone with the scarcest semblance of a brain, it should be obvious that to lower one's peen 14" closer to the floor a bend in the knee considerably more than 'slight' would be required. What would be required is what most honest people would call a squat.

You are so wedded to your wrongness that to admit defeat would probably cause a mental breakdown. Make the boy a long-legged- type, and make the rapist a short-legged type, and you easily get a slight knee bend. And it's eminently reasonable that what you call a "squat", someone else might just call a "stance", even if the knee bend is a little past "slight".

But as the Zimmerman thread has shown as well, when people are sufficiently wedded to a certain scenario so that they're willing to ignore perfectly obvious facts and carry on as though those facts simply didn't exist, they are perfectly capable of keeping up that charade for months.

All the more comical considering there is actual video evidence widely available for free on the internet of such sex happening. It's very hard to believe that you don't realize this- anyone can find such evidence with a few minutes of googling. You're sticking to your ridiculous idea out of sheer stubbornness. Or perhaps you don't like looking at naughty videos... you just like discussing the anatomical possibilities of anally raping little kids.

Doesn't change anything though. McQueary didn't see a rape. Paterno wasn't told of a rape. Paterno didn't cover up a rape (that night or any other night). And no evidence exists to show that any of Penn State's administrative officials did either.

It's hilarious and sad that you are so sure- you actually think you know what did or didn't happen in that shower. You're sure.

That's the best part. Your certainty. It continues to amuse me, after all this time.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The average 4' person's anus

Do you read what you write?

[Drain Bead]

My daughter is 3.5 feet tall. She'll be 4 in January.

[ZebraShaSha]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope. The average 4' person's anus would be about 24" off the ground. An average 6'3" man's inseam would be about 36" with his penile attachment over the pubic bone being another inch or two above that, so approx. 38" off the ground. To anyone with the scarcest semblance of a brain, it should be obvious that to lower one's peen 14" closer to the floor a bend in the knee considerably more than 'slight' would be required. What would be required is what most honest people would call a squat.

But as the Zimmerman thread has shown as well, when people are sufficiently wedded to a certain scenario so that they're willing to ignore perfectly obvious facts and carry on as though those facts simply didn't exist, they are perfectly capable of keeping up that charade for months.

Doesn't change anything though. McQueary didn't see a rape. Paterno wasn't told of a rape. Paterno didn't cover up a rape (that night or any other night). And no evidence exists to show that any of Penn State's administrative officials did either.

So everyone at the beginning of the thread who said he/they did were wrong, and those of you who continue to cling to that claim now are wrong.

All of which, of course, makes me right.

Well, I am impressed - that you can type all that with one hand, that is.

[The Dord]

Can't wait till SA can't post on the boards anymore. This thread will bring back so many memories

[R. P. McMurphy]

Since the thread has been bumped (don't blame me) I might as well bring it current with this.

http://timesleader.com/stories/Sandu...setting,238501

Poor guy! Doesn't your heart ache for him? Life in prison is too tough for pond scum like him.

But . . .

He is regenerated and is prepared to fight this miscarriage of justice.

[CannyDan]

I think we can soon let Sandusky go free, and thus relieve his suffering. All we need to do is feed him a few dozen loaves of moldy bread and half a hundredweight of rotten bologna. Then we can be sure he'll never rape a child again. And we can do the same for all other serial child molesters, saving society ever so much expense, to say nothing of the suffering. We will call it The Starkers - Arpaio Cure!

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Drain Bead

My daughter is 3.5 feet tall. She'll be 4 in January.

Keep her away from paper towel tubes, and SA! He'll be wanting to use her to demonstrate his 'theories'.

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

http://timesleader.com/stories/Sandu...setting,238501
...
He is regenerated and is prepared to fight this miscarriage of justice.

From your link:

I was meeting with a man who was again ready to press forward...

Maybe he should stop doing that. When you're in a hole <snerk>, stop digging, and all.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Not possible without squatting, a position which wasn't mentioned by McQueary.

And your first 8 months of defense allowed squatting but said it was physically impossible for a 6'3" person to squat to that level.

The stress on the back and the legs would be just too much.

Once I proved you wrong by squatting to that level easily you changed your story and started talking about whether there was evidence that the knees were bent.

[Starving Artist]

You proved no such thing and I said no such thing. If you can prove I said it's impossible for a 6'3" person to squat to that level, I'll leave this thread and never return. And I'll suggest to you that if you can't prove I said such a thing, that you leave the thread and never return, for you have a history of lying that I'm tired of having to contend with/ignore.

Be that as it may however, squatting necessitates movement of the rear...uh, rearward...thus making copulatory movement even more difficult/unlikely/impossible to achieve with someone standing in front of but not straddled by you. This is how I knew you were lying. Plus McQueary makes no mention of having seen squatting, the boy being centered between Sandusky's legs, or of copulatory movement.

Additionally, Sandusky's age and likely state of physical conditioning makes copulation in such a difficult-to-maintain position highly unlikely even if he were able to get into that position in the first place.

In other words, I haven't abandoned my position on the difficulty Sandusky would have encountered in attempting copulation in that position; it's just that my opponents have chosen to focus attention on making false claims as to degree of knee flexion required and so on.

It is encouraging though that thanks to me we have been able, and continue to be able, to discuss the mechanics of the alleged crime in such a way that allows for a reasoned interpretation of the likelihood as to whether or not what McQueary claims to have seen was actually anal rape...provided he did indeed see what he claims, which I've begun to have doubts about and is countered by the claims of the self-identified victim who himself says he wasn't raped that night (although he says other abuses occurred on other occasions).

So, one hates to drag out the word 'Winning' once again, but...

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

You, SA, are a fucking moron.

If I link to a video of an older, gray haired, man fucking a midget, dog, goat, or other oriface at the correct height will you shut the fuck up?

[Starving Artist]

If you can show that he's 6'3" and the same age and condition that Jerry Sandusky was at the time, and that said fuckage is occurring 24" to 30" off the ground, and that the posture of said fuckor might reasonably be described by the impartial viewer as "standing," then I will concede that it might have been possible for Jerry Sandusky to have been engaging in anal rape the night Mike McQueary claims to have witnessed him doing so.

However, I think other elements of McQueary's description ("rhythmic" sounds which consist of only "two or maybe three" sounds; a lack of discomfort, stress or embarassment in the boy's expression; his description, as I allude to just above, of Sandusky "standing" behind the boy, etc., plus like I also said in the post that spurred you to call me a moron, the person claiming to be the boy in question and suing the school accordingly said himself that he wasn't raped that night.

So at the very best...the very best!...you might win a concession that Sandusky might have committed an act that no other evidence supports and which the alleged victim himself denies.

Not much of a victory if you ask me. But go ahead, post away! I'm sure iiandyiiii will delighted to watch whatever you come up with.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

However, I think other elements of McQueary's description ("rhythmic" sounds which consist of only "two or maybe three" sounds; a lack of discomfort, stress or embarassment in the boy's expression; his description, as I allude to just above, of Sandusky "standing" behind the boy, etc., plus like I also said in the post that spurred you to call me a moron, the person claiming to be the boy in question and suing the school accordingly said himself that he wasn't raped that night.

Ha! He's already backtracking. Which is not surprising, considering that probably every male over 13 years old (except, perhaps, for SA) is either a tall man who has had sex with a short person in such a position, or has seen such an event on the internet. Soon it won't be about the squatting- he'll be saying it was the "rhythmic sounds" or whatever that proves it wasn't rape. So much fun watching him spend so much effort on defending statements so obviously ridiculous.

[Ann Hedonia]

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

Since the thread has been bumped (don't blame me) I might as well bring it current with this.

http://timesleader.com/stories/Sandu...setting,238501

Poor guy! Doesn't your heart ache for him? Life in prison is too tough for pond scum like him.

But . . .

He is regenerated and is prepared to fight this miscarriage of justice.

A quote from the article ( emphasis mine )
"And while he's a convicted sex offender in Pennsylvania, he would like to be treated like every other convicted sex offender."

Sandusky believes he would be safe in the prison's general population, Rominger said.
"He said to me he can understand where some of the concern comes from, but he's not happy being stuck in a cell 23 hours a day," Rominger said."

I say.......BRING IT ON. If Jerry gets his way he'll have plenty of opportunity to study the physics of anal rape.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Ha! He's already backtracking. Which is not surprising, considering that probably every male over 13 years old (except, perhaps, for SA) is either a tall man who has had sex with a short person in such a position, or has seen such an event on the internet. Soon it won't be about the squatting- he'll be saying it was the "rhythmic sounds" or whatever that proves it wasn't rape. So much fun watching him spend so much effort on defending statements so obviously ridiculous.

Nope. Have backtracked on nothing; am still winning.

Cheers.

[Gyrate]

If only Sandusky's legal team had called you as a witness, he'd be a free man today.

[Baker]

Another article about poor, poor, Jerry.

http://news.msn.com/us/sex-offender-...ety-concerns-3

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope. Have backtracked on nothing; am still winning.

Cheers.

Sure, keep telling yourself that- it must be very important to you Most of the rest of us are either tall dudes who've had sex with short partners before (or the short partners!), or have seen it on the internet.

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope. Have backtracked on nothing; am still winning.

Cheers.

You've only been "winning" in your own mind. Of course you won't 'backtrack', since it would result in you actually recognizing your own stupidity, which ain't going to happen. You are the most willfully ignorant idiot I have ever seen. Seriously, dude, You are the prize. No one has ever come up to the level of your willful ignorance.

You win. We're all wrong.

I think we can all discount this 'Dipshit'....

[Guinastasia]

Do you think Sandusky now deserves to eat moldy food, live in a tent in 100+ degree heat, wear pink underwear, and work on a chain gang? Just curious.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Cheshire Human

You've only been "winning" in your own mind. Of course you won't 'backtrack', since it would result in you actually recognizing your own stupidity, which ain't going to happen. You are the most willfully ignorant idiot I have ever seen. Seriously, dude, You are the prize. No one has ever come up to the level of your willful ignorance.

You win. We're all wrong.

I think we can all discount this 'Dipshit'....

You ought to know by know this kind of stuff doesn't work with me. I said Paterno wasn't covering up for child rape and he wasn't. I said the shower rape everyone was so eager to pin on Paterno had not in fact happened, and it didn't. McQueary's description doesn't support it, as I contended almost from the beginning, and the Sandusky jury found it wanting as well. And now the victim, who's lack of testimony at the trial was alleged by posters here to be the real reason the jury acquitted Sandusky of the shower rape charge, has stated himself that he was not raped that night.

So I've been right every step of the way, and you guys haven't. And now, just to have one last avenue where you can still be wrong, you claim I'm the one who's a willfully ignorant and stupid.

Well, chum(p), all I can say to that is...

No u.

heh heh heh

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I said the shower rape everyone was so eager to pin on Paterno had not in fact happened, and it didn't.

Still funny. You know what happened in that shower. If you only you could see yourself from the outside... claiming to actually know what happened in a shower many years ago when you weren't there. I really wish you could see yourself- you'd have a great big belly laugh, just like me.

[Starving Artist]

Nope, sorry, you're wrong even about that. I don't know what happened in the shower. But I do know one thing that didn't.

And therein lies the rub.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope, sorry, you're wrong even about that. I don't know what happened in the shower. But I do know one thing that didn't.

Ha ha HA HA! You have magical powers, SA, to know what did or didn't happen. Or you're an idiot. Either way, it's a privilege to continue to witness your magic/idiocy/magic idiocy.

[Starving Artist]

[Baker]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Do you think Sandusky now deserves to eat moldy food, live in a tent in 100+ degree heat, wear pink underwear, and work on a chain gang? Just curious.

Not moldy food. I want him healthy, he'll live longer that way. So no 100 degree heat either. Pink underwear is ok, it's not like he'll be showing it to anyone. As for the chain gang, he's probably too old to work that way for long. But indoor labor, something really boring, mind numbing and repetitive, sounds good.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

You, SA, are a fucking moron.

If I link to a video of an older, gray haired, man fucking a midget, dog, goat, or other oriface at the correct height will you shut the fuck up?

This is a valid question and I would love to hear SA's response.

[Starving Artist]

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

You ought to know by know this kind of stuff doesn't work with me.

No shit. That's what I just said, fool. "Your own mind". The only place you can be right.... By torturing your own reasoning.... But of course you're right.... Bend that reasoning until it screams, maybe it can be made to agree with your original contention!!!!

SA's reasoning: OK! OK! Enough! Stop with the branding irons, already! I'll agree that you were right!

SA: So you agree that Paterno must be innocent, because Sandusky couldn't possibly fit his dick into a paper towel tube held at two feet off the floor? <shoves red-hot branding iron up 'SA's reasoning's ass>

SA's reasoning: <ass-sizzle> GAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! YES! PATERNO IS INNOCENT, BECAUSE YOU'RE FRYING MY ASSHOLE!, err, because you can't possibly fit that iron up my asshole... <ass-sizzle> AAAAAAARRRRRGHHHHH!!!!! Because Jerry couldn't possibly fit that iron up my ass... <ass-sizzle> YYYYAAAAAHHHH!!!! OK, ok!!! [mumblety-something] paper-towels can't fit up little kids' asses... <ass-sizzle> MMMMAAAAAAGGHHHH!!!!

SA: This is only going to continue until you get it right, you know. <shoves iron up his own reasoning's ass, again>

SA's reasoning: <ass-sizzle> GAAAAHHHHHHH! [quickly tries to reread entire thread] I can't figure out what the fuck you were arguing! Can you??? What the fuck do you want me to SAY?????

SA:<shoves iron up his own reasoning's ass, with malice aforethought!>

SA's reasoning: <ass-sizzle> YYYYYAAAAAHHHHHHGGGGGG!!!!!!!!! You're RIGHT!!!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!! STOP FRYING MY ASSHOLE!!!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!!!!

[Starving Artist]

Ah, how I love to see my enemies driven [crazy] before me and to hear the lamentations of their women [Enola]!

Ahem...no, dipstick. Paterno isn't innocent because Sandusky couldn't fuck two feet off the floor. Paterno is innocent because he is innocent. He never tried to cover up the rape of children. He was never told of the rape of children. He never knew of the rape of children.

The Sandusky/shower thing vis-a-vis the paper towel tube is important only in that it illustrates that what McQueary thought he saw - which everyone was so certain in the beginning of this thread that Joe Paterno knew about and covered up, heartlessly unconcerned about the pain and suffering of the children being so cruelly abused and concerned only about the welfare of Penn State and his football program - never happened!!! There was never a rape that night! So the crime everyone was so quick to accuse Paterno of knowing about and covering up, and the cruel lack of concern he supposedly had for the children involved, was pure fiction!!! Got that??? It was nothing but fiction!!!

I am right and you are wrong simply because I've been correct in this thread and you and your comrades have not. I was right about Paterno. I was right about the non-rape. And I was right that Paterno and Penn State's officials had not engaged in a ten-year conspiracy to subborn the oral and anal rape of little kids so as to benefit their football program!

I hold these truths to have become self-evident, and I bask in the validation and in the victorious vanquishment of my vile and villainous opponents in this thread which they guarantee.

[Guinastasia]

Well, Starving Artist? Are you going to answer my question or not?

[amanset]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Since he's in isolation, at least he's not feeling much butthurt.

Remember, rape is hilarious when it is done to a male.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Ah, how I love to see my enemies driven [crazy] before me and to hear the lamentations of their women [Enola]!

Ahem...no, dipstick. Paterno isn't innocent because Sandusky couldn't fuck two feet off the floor. Paterno is innocent because he is innocent. He never tried to cover up the rape of children. He was never told of the rape of children. He never knew of the rape of children.

The Sandusky/shower thing vis-a-vis the paper towel tube is important only in that it illustrates that what McQueary thought he saw - which everyone was so certain in the beginning of this thread that Joe Paterno knew about and covered up, heartlessly unconcerned about the pain and suffering of the children being so cruelly abused and concerned only about the welfare of Penn State and his football program - never happened!!! There was never a rape that night! So the crime everyone was so quick to accuse Paterno of knowing about and covering up, and the cruel lack of concern he supposedly had for the children involved, was pure fiction!!! Got that??? It was nothing but fiction!!!

I am right and you are wrong simply because I've been correct in this thread and you and your comrades have not. I was right about Paterno. I was right about the non-rape. And I was right that Paterno and Penn State's officials had not engaged in a ten-year conspiracy to subborn the oral and anal rape of little kids so as to benefit their football program!

I hold these truths to have become self-evident, and I bask in the validation and in the victorious vanquishment of my vile and villainous opponents in this thread which they guarantee.

It wasn't fiction. It was sexual assault. Or are you now saying that he is completely innocent. Because even if penetration could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sexual assault was. And in case you forgot, sexual assault on a child is a very bad thing.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Loach

And in case you forgot, sexual assault on a child is a very bad thing.

There you go again with your fables and fictions - I thought we'd already established, paper towel tube in um... hand, that it was beyond the realm of the physically feasible ?

ETA: BTW, Starkers ? Multiple exclamation marks. The tell-tale sign of a diseased mind.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Loach

It wasn't fiction. It was sexual assault. Or are you now saying that he is completely innocent. Because even if penetration could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sexual assault was. And in case you forgot, sexual assault on a child is a very bad thing.

The amazing thing (the "magical idiocy") is that SA is completely ruling out rape. He somehow knows it didn't happen. It's truly magical...

[ElvisL1ves]

Better than that, the reason he knows that is that 12-year-olds are only 3 feet tall.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope. The average 4' person's anus would be about 24" off the ground.

I think this pretty much sums up SA's post, his arguments, his hopes and dreams, his time on this board, and his reason for existence. He's arguing the average squatting anal height of people to save a child molester.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

I think this pretty much sums up SA's post, his arguments, his hopes and dreams, his time on this board, and his reason for existence. He's arguing the average squatting anal height of people to save a child molester.

Nope, he's arguing it to disprove a crime that airheads and lynch-mobbers like you were trying to use to accuse Joe Paterno of knowing about and covering up for in order to protect his football program.

Originally Posted by Kobal2

ETA: BTW, Starkers ? Multiple exclamation marks. The tell-tale sign of a diseased mind.

I learned it here.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Nope, he's arguing it to disprove a crime that airheads and lynch-mobbers like you were trying to use to accuse Joe Paterno of knowing about and covering up for in order to protect his football program.

And failing quite badly at it, since:

1) Sandusky was convicted of sexual assault on that boy anyway; and
2) McQueary didn't specify penetration so whether or not it occurred has no bearing on what Paterno knew or didn't know.

Also, McQueary described the boy as being "roughly a foot shorter than Sandusky". Not 4' tall like the description you've manufactured out of thin air.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, right, it was 3 feet earlier in the thread. Now SA/NLP's upped to 4.

Carry on.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

And failing quite badly at it, since:

1) Sandusky was convicted of sexual assault on that boy anyway;

Meaningless. For one thing, Sandusky was convicted on that charge because of his known behavior otherwise. Any other person without Sandusky's history and baggage would never have even been charged, given that no specific sexual act could be identified, no victim had been identified, and it would have been simply one man's word against another's.

Plus it doesn't matter in context. People at the beginning of the scandal and the beginning of this thread were commiserating over how awful and painful it was for this boy to have been anally raped by Jerry Sandusky and they were using that supposed pain, suffering and anguish to paint Joe Paterno as a cruel, sadistic, uncaring asshole and possible pedophile himself, who, concerned only with protecting his friend and football program, happily engaged in a conspiracy to cover up for and enable ten year's worth of oral and anal child rape.

And it all turned out to be bullshit!

And not only that, but bullshit based on a non-existent crime which as it turns out Paterno was never told about in the first place!

Hah! What a bunch of schmucks you all are!

Originally Posted by Gyrate

2) McQueary didn't specify penetration so whether or not it occurred has no bearing on what Paterno knew or didn't know.

Say what? McQueary himself said he never described what he saw to Paterno as rape.

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Also, McQueary described the boy as being "roughly a foot shorter than Sandusky". Not 4' tall like the description you've manufactured out of thin air.

This is the first I've heard of it. And certainly my many opponents here would have been trumpeting it to the stars had they known about it. When did he say that?

But, even so, that would make the boy roughly 5' to 5'3" tall, still necessitating a squat of some 8" or so.

And besides, the jury found no rape, and the alleged victim himself said there was no rape! (You know, the one whose lack of testimony was allegedly the reason the jury acquitted Sandusky of the rape charge to begin with? )

So give it the fuck up! I was right, you were wrong! Period! End of story! La guerre est finis!

[Vinyl Turnip]

Yeah, but Sandusky is going to die in prison for molesting kids and Paterno, who knew it was happening, died in complete disgrace. Poor old Artist, left behind to cry over his sullied heroes.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

... Sandusky was convicted on that charge because of his known behavior otherwise. Any other person without Sandusky's history and baggage would never have even been charged, given that no specific sexual act could be identified, no victim had been identified, and it would have been simply one man's word against another's.

And one molested boy's word too, of course.

This statement alone qualifies you as an unmitigated idiot. A man found naked in a shower with a little boy in the middle of the night would never be charged if he didn't already have a history of molesting kids? Think again, you dipshit.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Yeah, but Sandusky is going to die in prison for molesting kids and Paterno, who knew it was happening, died in complete disgrace. Poor old Artist, left behind to cry over his sullied heroes.

And the fact that Paterno died in disgrace is in itself a disgrace. Totally unwarranted and unjustified, as I'm sure he knew.

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

And one molested boy's word too, of course.

Don't know why not. Their words seem to be accepted easily enough and without question in molestation trials.

Plus he's stated that while he wasn't raped that night, Sandusky did indeed sexually abuse him on other occasions. Why would he lie about that night and then speak openly of other abuses?

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

This statement alone qualifies you as an unmitigated idiot. A man found naked in a shower with a little boy in the middle of the night would never be charged if he didn't already have a history of molesting kids? Think again, you dipshit.

As trial testimony showed, men and boys showering together on campus was not an unusual occurrence. I believe I also stated earlier in the thread that men and boys have been innocently showering together for as long as showers have existed. I realize you have this boy/man showering hangup, but it says far more about you than it does about me that you can't seem to separate this commonplace act from pedophilic sex.