Happy Birthday Starving Artist! Thought you’d appreciate something from an age when things were simpler.
NO!!
I haven’t worked out how to use my ignore list yet.
Click on “User CP”. About six or seven options down on the left side, you’ll see “Edit Ignore List”. Click on that and type [del]Starving Artist[/del] the username of the poster you wish to ignore into the text box. Click OK.
All done!
Oh my. Wow. Just wow.
Once upon a time I held a certain opinion of SA. My Partisan Meter was in the high range. My Whack Job Meter registered (depending on the exact thread) somewhere in the medium area. And my Skeevy Meter usually twitched around someplace below the half way mark. He was sometimes entertaining, in a “what kind of creepy bug is that, anyway?” kind of way. After the above quoted post (not to discount others in this thread and the other thread, most of which I have been unable to force myself to read) my opinion has changed.
My Partisan Meter reads basically the same, as I’ve seen only the usual amount of misplaced blame directed at SA’s favorite “Librul” targets. (Again, I may have missed something, but I’m not gonna read any more of his nonsense to find out.) But now my Whack Job Meter has bent past the peg and continues to spin uncontrollably around the dial, actually creating a small, inrushing vortex of SA-Crazy as it does so. I’ve had to put a bucket over it until a technician with protective gear arrives. And my Skeevy Meter has snapped off the peg, spun at near light speed, shattered its cover glass, and finally exploded into a huge cloud of disgust particles which are settling everywhere around my desk. What a mess!
Really, SA, you’re beyond the fart in the punch bowl, or the giant steaming turdpile in the parlor. You’re like some disgusting vermin with a positive self image, too stupid and too self important to remain underneath the rock that might charitably hide you from observers. You scuttle out and make your loathsome comments in the clear light of day when you would be better off inscribing them in your most secret diary. And then burning the diary.
You have in the past displayed yourself to be astoundingly and overpoweringly impervious to fact and to reason. You always (well, maybe there was one exception somewhere, sometime, but I’m not really expecting contradiction here) present your own fantasies and apocryphal stories (it’s hard to tell which is what) as factual evidence, and cling rigidly to them in the face of all actual proof to the contrary, even embellishing and expanding upon your fictions as if your ever more fevered imaginings were the same as finding supportive cites. You’ve taken such to a whole new level in this very thread. Hell, you’ve carried it to a whole new universe.
In point of fact, you’ve repeatedly rejected using actual cites as not being to your liking, condemning them (as I believe I correctly recall) in favor of your own “life experience”. No surprise really, since on the rare occasions you’ve offered a cite it has turned out to make a case opposite to whatever you thought it was proving.
You might be a troll, but I think instead that you are profoundly disturbed. Your ongoing and logarithmically increasing apologia for pedophilia makes that clear. I’ve known a few people in my life whose world view was as much at odds with objective reality as yours. Luckily for them, they were undergoing intensive psychological therapy. You might consider doing the same. Or you might not.
I’ll not use the ‘ignore’ feature because I have my own right here, called a scroll wheel. I’m sure I will still take an occasional glance at your demented maunderings, and might even get out my poking stick (the one I use to turn piles of excrement in the yard) once in a while when it suits my fancy. I can sometimes enjoy a chortle at the people on Jerry Springer just like most people, although not as a steady diet. But I will be careful to put on my rubber gloves first. Because now you thoroughly disgust me.
Personally, I prefer not to use the ignore function, but I have to admit it can give one a certain sense of satisfaction, kind of like turning off Rush Limbaugh in mid-rant.
I reported this for you, just in case the mods missed it while trying to avoid SA’s revolting hand-waving.
More of a rythmic motion than a wave, I think.
They’re not.
Mr. Paterno sends correspondence from the afterlife begging you to please stop vouching for him. His reputation is sullied enough as it is.
ISTM that those other things are that you really really really disagree with SA, and that - from your perspective - he “gives off the strong impression” etc. and “the sole tendency of his desire” etc. - IOW, highly subjective between-the-lines judgments that you’re deriving from the posts of someone towards whom you have tremendous animus. That, plus an attack SA based on the posts of someone on another MB, who you’ve decided is probably also SA.
Not much in any of that, IMO. YMMV.
You did ignore it because you failed to reference it and excised it from your quote, even though it directly addressed the question that you subsequently asked.
No it’s not. Actually, it’s very logical.
It’s logical to assume that when people are trying to make a case based on someone’s posts, that they would quote the posts that most strongly support the case they’re trying to make. So that if I don’t see that in the posts that they quote it’s even less likely that I would see it in the posts that they passed over.
However, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that there is some nuance that these people missed or that they failed to articulate their point well enough. For this reason I forthrightly noted that I had not read the relevant pages of the other thread. But the basic point remains valid nonetheless.
You don’t know that. There were only two or three slapping sounds; that’s nowhere near enough to tell whether a rythmic motion was going on.
It’s more than likely that what was really going on was the boy was being given some Zen instructions.
‘And that Johnny, is the sound of one hand clapping’.
</channeling SA>
Dumbass SA will blow this off but:
Listen to what this man says. He’s the only one here (other than possibly SA) who has first-hand knowledge of man-boy rape.
Thanks again MrD, and again . . . sorry for that shit.
Poll is currently at 81 to 3 (uncertain) to 1 (SA, pathetic) that “fondling” meant clearly and unambiguously sexual contact and/or sexualized touching.
Dumbass keeps his silence, of course.
Yeah, you ignore the shit that you have no answer for, like your lies about there not being an indecent exposure statute of the fact that buttfucking a boy, or trying to, would violate that statute. Of course you ignore it, you are a congenital coward.
And the drafters of the statute made it “vague crap open to interpretation” just for the purposes of ensnaring you, Sandusky, and other virtuous boy-showerers with the sinister goal of [I forgot].
Dumb fuck to the nth.
Frankly, I doubt that. Wish I didn’t.
That sure is a well polished helmet.
All I know of his character is that he could and did.
A 5 page thread so far. Well, that’s certainly helped to put SA out of peoples’ minds.
Thank you. We can certainly disagree civilly.