I haven’t run away but I’ll repeat AGAIN what I have been saying. Let’s say that you are correct that no intercourse could have occurred. There was still a crime witnessed that required reporting to the police for investigation. You are so hung up on proving that there was no actual penetration that you are ignoring the fact that penetration is irrelevent to Paterno’s actions. If Sandusky was naked in the shower with a child he was committing a crime and Paterno had the moral obligation to report it to police and to follow up to make sure it was investigated and that Sandusky was not around children if he was exposing himself to them-EVEN IF NO PHYSICAL CONTACT OCCURRED!
“Seemingly inappropriate”? Doesn’t that imply that there might be some "appropriate " explanation? A bit of naked horseplay, like the type that Norman Rockwell captured in oil? Just some good ol’ fashioned grab-ass, the sort of boyish fun you might remember from your summers at Camp Pederast. Where a man takes hold of a naked boy and offers him a prolonged and spasmodic hug. You know, appropriate!
May not even rise to the level of “skeevy”? Skeevy is Steve Buscemi’s Prom photos, really ugly people making out, eating a bug, Ann Coulter, that sort of thing. This shit is light years past “skeevy”.
It hasn’t been mentioned yet because (like just about everything that comes out when you open your mouth) it is made up, not true, a lie.
McQueary did not “turn the lights on.” Rather (sworn testimony, eye on the ball), exactly the opposite.
GJ Presentment, pp. 6-7. All bolding mine.
I realize you think it would help your “case” (God it’s ridiculous to call your batshit lunacy a “case”) if there was some sequence where McQueary loudly opened the door and turned on lights that were previously off and only some time later saw Sandusky raping the kid, given your stupid ass suggestion that Sandusky would have been warned and would have take the few minutes delay to pull out and come up with an excuse. I get why you want this chimera, this fantasy, this fiction, to take the place of the real facts – that the lights were on and the shower was going and nothing about McQueary’s initial entry (turning on lights that were fictitiously off, making some loud noise that Sandusky would definitely hear over the sound of the shower) would have given Sandusky enough advance warning of a witness’s presence to stop what he was doing in time to avert being seen. Tough titty, you don’t get replacement facts that help your guy (and it’s really, really gross that he is your guy).
Nor, if McQueary thought he might have seen sexual contact, but might also have seen something very different, i.e., “non sexual fondling” (you moron), why would he be so “shocked” or “distraught?” After all, there was a 50% chance it was no biggie. (He was standing six feet away – I can’t say that often enough).
“Subjected to anal intercourse” does not correspond in any sane world with your made-up “naked hug.”
You are way too old, you sicko, to get away with wishing away actual sworn testimony in favor of your own opposite-land testimony.
Short version: stop lying.
The questions that you’re currently cowardly evading (just mine, reserve the right to supplement) stand at:
(1) why are you making up counterfactual lies about McQueary turning on lights that were off, when the lights were already on and were indeed what attracted his curiosity in the first place?
(2) do you admit that you lied when you claimed no one had produced any authority (my indecent exposure statute from last month is authority) for the impropriety of man-boy naked showering and touching?
(3) how do you explain away the fact that as of current date, the vast majority of poll takers (leaving out one outlier who voted for can’t be sure, and your comically-lonesome pretense vote that it means innocent affectionate touching) know and confirm that McQueary meant, and Paterno knew he meant, that “fondling” WAS sexual contact, not something opposite to it?
(4) did you or did you not write those batshit “three foot tall boy” posts at PennLive, and in either event, which parts of them, if any, would you be willing to denouce or disclaim?
Crickets.
Oh, my bad.
When you claimed “not a single allegation” that Huerta made was correct I assumed that meant you were denying his allegation that you didn’t believe Sandusky raped the child.
Apologies for stupidly believing that you meant what you said.
I promise I won’t make the mistake or overestimating your intelligence or believing you were trustworthy and logical.
Sweet fucking Christ, people, if you can read this and not have the word “TROLL” appear in giant green letters in your brain, then this must be your first day on the Internet (Wilkommen!). Lord Trollsly Trollsworth, the Fourth Duke of Trollingchester in the land of Trollsylvania couldn’t troll this much, even on St. Trolling’s Day with an electrified trolling machine.
He’s fucking with you and getting his rocks off doing it. It really is that simple.
And on the teeny, tiny, nearly infinitesimal chance that he’s actually sincere, then he’s clearly demented. You are not going to get him to concede, “Ok, you’re right about that.” Even if you hitch him up on an obvious, no-escape, not-up-for-interpretation matter, he’ll just ignore you. I mean, Huerta has done yeoman’s work posting the statute saying that, sex aside, what Sandusky did is illegal. He’s cited it twice (that I’ve seen), mentioned it again (maybe more than once), and yet – though Starving has responded to other posts by Huerta, he has yet to even attempt to address that statute.
Got that? He’s not interested in a fair debate. You cannot win. Stop trying to trip him up on factual matters – you’ll be right, of course, but you’ll get jack shit for your efforts.
So your choices are twofold. Either (a) call him a troll and ignore him (a popular option, but with limited entertainment value), or (b) choose to believe him and thus engage him on the relevant facts, not the “facts” he’s conjuring up with paper towel rolls and missing lube. Ask him how long he’s been a pedophile, if he prefers both genders or just little boys, if he’s ever been to a NAMBLA meeting, if he’s ever molested anyone on the Dope, etc.
Keep in mind, however, that even as you heap well-deserved scorn upon him, he’ll still get his jollies. Buyer beware.
Not to mention the absurdity – who the fuck showers with the lights off?
The blind?
SA’s every statement has been shown to be total bullshit and he himself has been revealed to be an even bigger piece of skeevy shit than perhaps any of us previously thought. So you all know what his next tactic will be, don’t you?
That’s right. He’s about to declare victory. Again.
Bets?
Your money’s no good around here for me to take the contra position, at any odds you might care to name, sorry.
After all the kids had left the shower, Jenny walked in, after turning off the lights. Her robe slithered down her shapley breasts, past her narrow waist and beyond her flaring hips.
“Ah,” Jenny exclaimed, “the humidity is making my skin sleek and misty!” Just then, she heard a footstep . . .
Cut it out. I’m assuming Jenny’s an adult female. And I’m a heterosexual male.
Discussion of or eliciting of that kind of sexual desire is way out of bounds for this thread, SA’s gonna report you for hijacking the very different theme and tone he had chosen for this thread. Start your own thread if you wanna talk about or provoke adult men being sexually attracted to adult women, you weirdo.
“…and tonights game, the Nebraska Cornholers host the Penn State Pedobears…”
I wasn’t aware that rapists were terribly concerned with proper lubrication, either.
Well, if the price of their willingness to come forward is that we throw due process out the window, then that’ not a trade-off that I’m convinced is in the best interest of either society or justice. How. Would you like to be convicted, torn from your family, sent to prison and be labelled a sex offender for the rest of you life on nothing but the word of a small child? Children often don’t realize the significance of what they’re saying may make things sound different than they mean, plus they’re highly suggestible. It would be easy for the police, a prosecuter, vindictive ex-wife or other enemy of some sort to have people imprisoned and labeled a sex offender on nothing but a child’s word, not to mention on the strength of superficial appearances. Due process is there for very good reasons.
Of course it’s better being raped! How is there any question? And why do you extrapolate from my desire to look at the facts that I fondling (in the sexual abuse sense) is “hunky-dory”? You people have making ridiculous assertions like that all through these threads. Is it really your opinion that to try to get to the bottom of one crime means all lesser ones are just fine? I’m not following the logic at all. The one has nothing to do with the other.
Starkers? Are the meds kicking in? Might be time to call it a night. We’ll still be here, and you will still be, well, you.
That depends on whether we embrace his principals or his mistress.
Rather have the hangman and the pox.
Hmmm, looks like you’re right. We can delete the rationale that Sandusky, if he had indeed been raping the boy, would have stopped when McQueary turned on the lights. See how easy that was? See how readily I will admit I’m wrong when presented with actual facts that prove me wrong?
Fact is, I was misled, as I’ve often been in this thread, by incorrect assertions made by the nattering nabobs, one or two of whom asked me in the thread about Mr. Paterno what else Sandusky would have been doing in the shower in the dark with a ten year old boy. I’ll have to file that away as bullshit along with the allegations made by other nabobs that Sandusky had the kid bent over with his arm wrapped around him. I should have known better than to take anybody’s word for anything in these threads.
Now, as to your assertion that what you
ETA: Oops, hit submit by mistake. More to follow…
Is that your family motto or something?
(I bet the family crest features a paper towel tube.)
Or a row of a hundred young boys.