You could just wait for Harlequin to publish it in book form.
No! Keep engaging him, please.
That thread is the most awesomest ever! Humping paper towel rolls! “Line up 100 ten year old boys” and ask them about anal sex! You can’t have sex with a short woman from behind!
I literally laughed until I was crying over the “Line up 100 boys” bit. I mean, what kind of an ignorant fucknut is discussing sexual abuse of a young boy, and starts out an argument with “Line up 100 ten year old boys”? And then goes on to, yes, specifically suggest asking them how they would feel about being anally raped!
The guy’s a fucking moron, and also the gift that can’t help itself from continuing to give.
Rejected. NAMBLA Press will reportedly have an eBook version, but I highly recommend using an anonymous proxy server if you’re interested.
I’m a bit hesitant to wade in, but I seem to be missing something. Off the bat, I should say that I have no interest in football and pay little mind to the RO of the Week, so I haven’t kept up on the gargantu-threads.
Here’s my weak-assed perception: There are lots of very good, very plausible, and very convincing reasons to suspect that Paterno was diddling some boy in the particular instance in question (other charges don’t seem to directly play into this particular kerfuffle). SA has been sticking to a 12-Angry-Men-type argument, saying that despite all the other evidence, there is a rational, physical reason why said diddling could not have taken place. Again, I’ve only seen this from a distance, but it seems that people have been engaging him by presenting more and more voracious arguments as to why the surrounding evidence is absolutely damning, while he is getting more and more explicit saying why it was physically impossible—that the surrounding evidence could have other, less diddly explanations.
A problem is (in my understanding, which I’m posting here to have clarified) that in order to explain why it was physically impossible, SA has to get somewhat graphic and direct. He’s been escalating because in his opinion no one has directly addressed his comments; people have gone back to the surrounding evidence. They’ve gotten skeeved because of his escalation in trying to explain, and then equating his descriptions with some ugly motivations that have nothing to do with what he’s trying to say. To put it another way, if SA was arguing that despite all other evidence to the contrary, Paterno could not be guilty because he was in another room (and here are the steps he’d have to take to get there), people would be accusing him of architectural leanings. Or something.
Note: I’m not chiming in on the worth of either side, just what it seems like to a casual observer.
How far off am I in my perceptions? Did SA also contend complete innocence all around because he doesn’t think diddling was possible at that moment? Did SA also contend that diddling was okay anyway? It sure seems like he’s getting painted as if his general attitude towards diddling is heinous.
Has the overall monstrosity of the crime coupled with SA’s general tendency towards epic logic fails (sorry SA, but you have some severe partisan blindness in a lot of threads) tilted the Board’s typically austere stance towards argumentation? Or by not wading through a thousand posts, have I missed something much larger?
(Of the several ongoing threads, was this the right one to post in? Shit, I didn’t even swear. Oh wait, there I go!)
Is this some kind of a joke? Paterno has never been remotely accused of diddling any boy.
I’m not sure universal blocking of trolls is that wise an idea. Let’s say someone is constantly posts threads like “Give the pedophile Nazis a break!”, and the only responses are from the few that agree with the premise. Since we aren’t allowed to list those we block, a newbie checking in will see disgusting threads unopposed by other posters, making it look like the SDMB is a haven for assholes…which would also have the effect of attracting even more assholes.
Fairly badly, as your post supposes that it is Paterno, as opposed to Jerry Sandusky, who is alleged to have molested a kid in the shower.
No one has avoided SA’s arguments, though no one relishes discussing the details of man-boy sex the way he does.
We have noted that his specific contention – that a tall man could not physically penetrate an average ten year old boy – is specious nonense. That has been based upon the millennia old history of man-boy sodomy in any multitude of positions. It has been based on the personal experience of guys in the thread who have gone at it in the shower with female companions, from behind, who were roughly a foot shorter (at the risk of TMI, I’d ask for a show of hands). And most recently in the main thread, horrifyingly enough, a poster has been brave enough to testify that he was Sandusky’d by an adult when he was no more than eight years old, in exactly the same position.
This really is one of those instances where a cursory glance at the thread isn’t enough for an informed opinion that just maybe SA is being a devil’s advocate. He’s lied left right and center, moved the goal posts a thousand times, hysterically declared his victory and martyrdom, claimed that it was only liberals attacking him – and that’s even before you get to the sickening “line up 100 little boys and ask them if it’s worse to be anally raped or just dry humped in a shower.”
The poster did admit to not reading the threads. The poster apparently hasn’t read the news either.
Because it’s basically Recreational Outrage. That, and the fact that some people can’t stand it that someone, somewhere, doesn’t care what they think.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not a joke. He said he has no interest in football. One presumes that he also doesn’t watch the news on television (or goes out to the kitchen for a sandwich when anything sports-related comes on), and thus is honestly unaware that Sandusky is the accused, and that Paterno is (was, sorry) because of his role in the fact that Sandusky wasn’t behind bars over it YEARS ago.
I’m not in a position to comment on any of his speculations about SA’s statements, as I haven’t voluntarily read any post with his name on it for nearly three years.
You obviously haven’t read the threads either. I can’t imagine that you would be supporting his crusade if you had.
Having just skimmed the Paterno thread, I’m shocked that he got away with what he did to those poor boys in the 7-11.
I’m sorry for mixing up Paterno and Sandusky’s names–it was completely unintentional. I couldn’t name an NFL coach, let alone a college team, so this incident was the first time I’d heard either name. Paterno’s name in the main thread title and as the focus of many posts helped my sloppy mind make the mistake.
Oh, past the first reports and paragraphs, I never got more than an occasional headline. I work from home so take in only what I read (tv is for fun, not news).
I reported my post and asked for it to be changed, but in case mods don’t have the time to fix every poster’s stupid mistake, I’m posting here to apologize for the mix-up.
I had never heard of Paterno or Sandusky until the threads about them here on the boards. And Paternos name is always being mentioned and usually the primary one mentioned so I can see how it would be easy to mix up the names.
Besides, Paterno is much shorter than Sandusky. He could fuck a kid easy.
SA may not be the idiot “this time”, (although I disagree with you on that point) but he’s got a history of being a lying, disingenuous, partisan troll who can’t figure out that there is a difference between genuinely winning an argument by presenting an irrefutable case and wearing people down with bullshit to the point where they throw their hands in the air and walk away in utter disgust. Or he’s willfully not figuring that out. I’m inclined to think the latter.
We do - but then he’s ‘quoted’ in replies so we’re exposed to it anyway.
Ah, the idea I had was that SA’s claims were based on the witnesses’ account of Sandusky’s and the boy’s relative positions–that he wasn’t denying that ugliness could have taken place, but that *as described *it would have either been physically impossible or the relative positions would have been different than the witness reported. The reply of “um, yes it is. Plenty of differently heighted consenting adults have done similar things in similar positions and no one had the difficulties you’re talking about–no matter how many times you repeat it or how graphically you describe it, those consenting adults didn’t have the problems you’re describing.”
I can’t remember specifics of the actual 100-boys post, but in the lead-up I thought he was saying something to the effect that X may be horrible, but Y is a thousand times worse–eventually saying something along the lines of “just ask any random sampling of 10-year old boys whether X or Y is worse.”
Again, I’m not trying to pick sides per se, but this seems like a good place to get a grasp of what’s going on Board-wise and clarify my perceptions of what’s happening without wading through a thousand posts.
Not to mention that arguments splitting hairs over the exact nature of the contact between Sandusky and the child, as if actual rape would be the only valid, prosecutable offense, are completely beside the point. Sandusky has been indicted by a grand jury for this specific incident, as well as dozens of a similar nature. The upcoming trial will determine whether any of several possible offenses related to this specific incident have actually occurred, so until then anyone who presumes to put forward an explanation other than the statements enumerated in the grand jury’s report is speculating, pure and simple. SA is perfectly free to make up whatever absurd scenarios he may like to explain away the offense, but no one else is obliged to refute them, and we are perfectly within our rights to ridicule these scenarios if, as they do, they appear ridiculous on their face.
He is claiming to have “proven,” based on paraphrased testimony synopsized in the grand jury report, that when the eyewitness was described as having seen the 6’ 2" Sandusky standing right behind a ten year old victim who was leaning forward with his hands braced on the wall, with his arm around the victim’s waist (after hearing rhythmic slapping sounds that made him think someone was having sex) that it is physically impossible that Sandusky could have been penetrating the boy. He has a bunch of bogus quasi-scientific rationalizations for why this is a “fact.”
It is a complete non sequitur because:
–Paterno’s moral obligation to do more is based on what was clearly some form of sexual molestation that (to quote the eyewitness’s testimony to Paterno) was “fondling or sexual contact” and “way over the line.” It doesn’t matter if it was “really” successful rape.
–He hasn’t “proven” anything – he’s a likely high school dropout playing biomechanician, in the face, now, of a post from a former child sex abuse victim who says that it was all too possible for him to be anally raped in Sandusky fashion, because that shit happened to him.
–The suggestion that there are degrees of okayness in sexual assault, and that an old man rubbing his naked cock against a young boy’s naked backside is orders of magnitude “better” (the sick fuck actually demanded that we should be “overjoyed” that in his made-up scenario the boy was “only” being dry (or I guess wet) humped by a naked old man, not penetrated) is sick as all Hell.
–The eyewitness has separately testified under oath that what he saw was “definitely some form of intercourse.”
There, I’ve saved you the work of reading all those posts. There’s no defense of this troll just as there is no meaningful defense of Paterno.