Oopsie. Can I just nominate Loach, then?
You may, but I have been irked and I am petty, so it’s fair to say that I will make an arbitrary and unfair decision regarding… ahem… certain nominees.
Some years, of course, there just are not deserving candidates, and no award is made.
Which makes the honor all the greater when it is, and don’t think I don’t appreciate it!
But while I have you on the phone, so to speak, can I just ask: was Loach in fact right about the proper way to display the award?
Because while I certainly don’t want to disrespect this generous commendation in any way…well…let’s just say that it can be a trifle uncomfy.
I am sorry you found it so. It may make you feel better to know that I personally tried out your award in the same fashion before giving it to you, and I found it to be similarly uncomfortable.
Nonsense. First of all, I continue to be amused/appalled at your objection to exculpatory evidence, and second of all the only older guys I’ve defended are Joe Paterno, who is not known to have had any romantic relationship other than with his wife, and Woody Allen, who’s done nothing creepy. Middle aged men are allowed to marry young women, after all, and I don’t recall you ever making a similar judgement about Frank Sinatra, James Woods, Hugh Hefner, or any of the countless other older men who’ve married young women.
So that’s only two older guys I’ve defended in pedophile or creepy older guy threads in my 11 years here, and one of those guys isn’t remotely even in the running.
So that leaves only one guy I’ve defended in old guy/young woman threads, and I haven’t defended him on the creepy charge much, as that’s a value and moral judgement people are free to make for themselves. What I’ve defended him against are false charges and beliefs regarding his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, and there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that no matter how often I do it, unless you happen to believe that certain accusations are so objectionable they warrant suppression of the truth, which seems to be exactly what you believe.
Go fuck a paper towel tube or a rolled up copy of Boys Life.
Hah!
The impotent lamentations of a vanquished foe, hoist on his own petard with no way out!
Music to my ears! 
Actually, your side is losing, and you know it. And your side deserves to lose, and you know that precious well, too.
Side? What is this side, you speak of BG?
Far as I can tell it’s just me against fifteen or so dishonest crackpots, some of whom are just your typical impassioned nitwit who can’t abide anyone not in lockstep with them and who reflexively blames any disagreement on evil intent; others who are merely years old political adversaries carrying a grudge and lying because that’s all they’ve got; and others yet who are truly evil assholes who are quite happy to believe an innocent man guilty and who resent like hell anyone who confronts them with incontestable proof of his innocence, often often choosing to point the finger of blame at them as well.
I’m pleased to be on the side I’m on.
You also defended Jerry Sandusky. In fact, the whole paper-towel-tube argument was put forth to support your claim that Sandusky could not have had sex in a shower as the witness alleged. It had nothing to do with Paterno.
Wrong on both counts. I didn’t defend Sandusky as a person and I didn’t defend him from charges that he was a pedophile. I merely argued that what McQueary saw that night wasn’t rape, and you know as well as I do that the Sandusky jury also found McQueary’s description to fall short of conclusive evidence of rape. And regardless of how reprehensible a person Jerry Sandusky is, in this country we do not convict people of crimes they didn’t commit simply because they committed similar crimes elsewhere. If Sandusky didn’t rape the kid that night then he didn’t rape him and there is not one thing wrong with saying so.
And it ties in with Paterno because many of the thread’s posters took McQueary’s suppositions as gospel and were using them to pile blame on Joe Paterno, up to and including such nonsense as Paterno knowing about the pain the kid was alleged to be suffering that night and not caring all the way to his being a gleeful and vigorous longterm pedophile himself.
It’s extremely difficult to believe you don’t already know all this as it’s been explained over and over again in the Paterno thread.
That Sandusky was not convicted means only that there wasn’t sufficient evidence, and (if I recall correctly) the victim that McQueary witnessed him with did not come forward to testify at the trial. Other victims did. The bar for a criminal conviction in court is pretty high, as it should be, but failing to meet it is hardly proof of innocence. Yet you have argued to a far greater certainty than the court verdict; that Sandusky didn’t, and couldn’t have, raped a boy in that shower.
You defended Sandusky then, and you are doing it again right now. Your claim that you have only defended two men is wrong.
As I said, I’ve never defended Sandusky as a person nor have I defended him from charges of pedophilia and I’m content to stand on that as being in keeping with my prior statement. And that will be all I have to say on the subject since the mods have instructed that Paterno thread subjects be discussed only in the Paterno thread. And I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to get a warning for violating that rule, now would you?
That Gary Glitter really turns you on, huh?
You know he thrives on the ire of others, people. Just ignore him.
I want to nominate Gack for the award, for his chicken immolation experiment (henceforth to be known as “gacking a chicken”) by which he “conclusively proved” that the Holocaust didn’t happen. The parallels are uncanny.
You all know who else fucked his girl friend’s daughter, right? Hey, I saw it on TV.
Ugh. Don’t have this argument with him again. I think he gets off on it.
… Hitler ?
Wait, what? Given the horrors I see in supermarkets every day, not only did the Chicken Holocaust take place, it’s still going on RIGHT NOW. :eek:
I’ve never considered Woody Allen any kind of pedophile for dating Soon-Yee, though I’ve been hearing things about accusations from another one of Mia’s daughters that has me rethinking that belief. Mia and Woody were never married and never lived together and Previn says that she never really saw much of Woody when she was younger, and that he was never a father figure to her as she already had one. I believe that all to be the truth. On top of all that, their relationship seems to have worked out obviously.
Worse is Celine Dion who began dating her current husband when she was what, 15 or 16?, and met and became close to him when she was like 12. I don’t hear anybody complaining about that whole situation - at least not loudly.
All of that said - I don’t think Woody is a creep for being a “guy that started dating his daughter” but rather just an asshole for dating his girlfriend’s daughter. It’s just not a cool thing to do.
ETA: PS, I still think SA is a gross creeper that’s gross.