Agreed. Isn’t the mission of this board to fight ignorance? Ignoring ignorance just perpetuates it.
Indubitably. Watching that douchebag get his ass handed to him in every single debate is entertaining enough. But when he declares himself the victor while lying on the mat semiconscious, it becomes comedy gold. Sobbing in ATMB that a mod hurt his tender feelings is just the icing on the cake. I hope that thread never ends
It is important, Rhthmdvl, to understand that in the last few pages (though he’s hinted at it before, by suggesting that for all we know, Sandusky really was just giving the boy “lessons in showering,” a claim his scumbag lawyer has actually made), SA is seriously suggesting or implying that Sandusky himself (not just Paterno, who he had earlier said was the only subject of his solicitude) did not do anything seriously wrong when he was standing directly behind a naked boy in a position that an intelligent eyewitness interpreted as “definitely some kind of intercourse” or (paraphrased elsewhere in the GJ report) "subject[ing] to anal intercourse). He seriously believes (or pretends to, or grossest of all, wants to) that this is, or could be, a-okay.
It’s important to know who you might be suggesting cutting a break for (this applies to both SA and anyone who would suggest he’s getting a raw deal here).
There are some good things coming out of that thread. For example, the paper towel tube test is quickly becoming a standard amongst crime investigators.
Many people felt Paterno should have done more like call the police, based on the nature of the report
Others think that, because he reported to his superiors who were supposed to call the police, he did enough
There is a debate there with valid points on both sides.
Then there is a separate group of people called Starving Artist, and we don’t really know where he stands, other than the fact that anything anyone else says or proposes as a valid point against Paterno is argued against - which leads him to bizarre territory, but it’s fun to follow him there.
This is typical of the lies you’ve been telling throughout these threads. My contention is that someone of Sandusky’s height would be unable to engage in anal sex with an average ten-year-old in the position McQueary described.
Quite the contrary. If I wanted to take the time I could list at least two hundred lies you’ve told in the Paterno thread alone, and probably a great deal more. Neither you nor anyone else can point to a lie of mine. Oh, sure, you can claim some, but you can’t prove a one exists outside your fevered imagination, and each one I’d list would be demonstrably provable. You have in fact been the most deeply and prolifically dishonest poster in a thread full of dishonest posters.
I disagree. The best thing one can do for a troll is drag him out in the open and make sure everyone knows just how completely hopeless and stupid he is. That said, I don’t know that Starving Artist is a troll. But he’s certainly, as Miller correctly put it, a skeevy, intellectually dishonest moron.
Just yesterday, I was thinking about starting a GQ thread, asking for a spot check on the SA’s assertion that Man on Boy rape violates the laws of physics. It doesn’t, obviously, but I wanted SA’s auto-de-fe to get a wider audience - just, you know, in case someone out there might encounter him in different threads and think that perhaps he had a shred of credibility. He doesn’t, obviously.
I was too tired last night and resolved to pursue it this morning. So imagine how hard I laughed seeing that his bullshit had been dragged into the open in ATMB! And then he went and made his own thread about it, just in case there was someone who hadn’t yet smelled the bullshit! Really the more threads we have about this loser, the better for everyone.
To that end, here’s a few of my favorite Starving Artist highlights: (links lead right to his posts, which I won’t quote although, I think I probably should, for posterity.
You said that no one had posted any authority for the proposition that it was criminal for a grown man to be naked in near proximity to/touching in any way an unrelated naked boy, despite your asking for it.
I pointed out that three weeks ago I had posted the Pennsylvania indecent exposure statute, which minimally Sandusky was in clear violation of on the undisputed facts.
You haven’t responded because to do so would require conceding that you, yes, lied like a rug when you made your claim that there was no such law and that your request for a citation to such a law had been ignored.
I’m afraid I’ve completely missed the thread in question. (I’ll wait till it’s made into a movie, then just watch the theatrical trailer.)
When I saw “SA … FFS … 50 pages” I assumed the discussion was about global warming, though that couldn’t be right: aggregating all threads in which SA questions AGW must be far far more than 50 pages by now.
However, I see it has something to do with football so I’m going to ask “Who keeps moving the goal posts?” And, “What do scientists need to falsify the [whatever], since the next boy wasn’t anally raped, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, …nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, nor the boy before that, …”
Haven’t read the relevant portions. I’m not quite rational when it comes to questions of the sexual exploitation of children, had I witnessed the event in question, I don’t know if I would have reached for a phone or for a tire iron.
I’m surprised however that SA did not reach for his Old Reliable, and blame the whole thing on drug-addled liberal hippies and our degradation of moral culture in locker rooms. How very odd.
Honestly, I think what we have here is a case of epic denial. For SA, Paterno represents the best of a generation that he thinks of as “the grownups”, when This Shit Didn’t Happen. Taking that as an absolute, he has to try to find as many possible ways to show that’s true, because each way is it’s own comfort. So we have:
Nothing bad was happening in that shower.
Even if it was, it could not possibly be rape, so it wasn’t all that bad.
Even if it was rape, Paterno couldn’t have possibly understood that from what he was told.
Even if he did understand it, he more than did his job when he reported it.
So it didn’t happen four different ways, and whenever one is attacked, he falls back on another.