Quite the reverse. Untoward touching in the showers is probably a time-honored tradition, which the drug-addled hippies mostly stopped (they like their sex more in the open, I guess). I can see how SA would want society to go back to a time when men touching little boys forcefully would go back to the good ole days of being hidden and physically improbable.
Wow! It must be child rape month now!
Are you quoting Sandusky?
Dayenu!
This was one of my favorite exchanges in the thread. I’ve condensed it here, so that replies follow exact replies, but include links to each individual post so people can follow and see for themselves.
Oh, the little bitch is going to come back and say of course there’s adult on boy anal rape, he never said there wasn’t, it’s just that a 6’ 3" man couldn’t possible penetrate a ten year old from behind. It’s just physics. He has never specified the maximum height a man could be and rape a ten year old boy, nor revealed his formula for ruling out 6’ 3" men. It’s just common sense!
McQueary testified in December that the victim (whom he saw from about six feet away, being subjected to “some sort of intercourse” by Sandusky) was “about a foot shorter.” Apparently that is the magical height differential that makes sex from behind impossible. Despite the fact that many taller male posters here have likely hit it from behind with considerably shorter adult female partners in the shower – show of hands, TMI be damned. Despite the fact that an actual victim said in the main thread that he was Sandusky’d as a runty eight year old by an adult man (presumably of average height).
Googling around revealed that this troll SA, or someone UNCANNILY like him in retarded logic and deceitfulness, was polluting the PennLive boards back in December. Look for the posts by “Pritio Metrif.”
It almost has to be the same guy, no (complete with the gratuitous and fabricated (and preposterous)) assertion that the victim was “three feet tall,” the height of my four year old niece, when she was three). On the reasonable speculation that it is the same troll, note that, in that more pro-PSU forum, he was actually willing to accuse McQueary of fabricating the whole story to clear the way for him to rise through the coaching ranks by framing good ol Jerry.
I say same troll, or else the troll genome expresses with remarkable consistency.
He did. His hand has been stroking his Old Reliable throughout that entire thread. He also reached for some young boys’ chocolate covered cherries at a 711.
Point of physics. The inseam of a pair of size 10 boy’s pants is 25". Men’s inseams are 30-34" with 34 being a very tall man. This leaves a nine inch difference. The specific claim is the coach would “have to be squatting so far down that his ass would be closer to the ground than his knees”. This means his pelvis is no more than half the adult inseam height during the attempted copulation. If the man’s pelvis is 15-17" above the floor, and the boy’s is 25" then copulation would be difficult indeed.
Conclusion: A tall man would not “have to be squatting so far down that his ass would be closer to the ground than his knees” to achieve the necessary height for anal penetration of a ten year old boy.
I’m sure this kind of argument was made in the other thread, but frankly I’m completely uninterested in reading it, and the concept of a physics-based defense for Sandusky needs debunking any time it comes up.
On a general note, I find the kind of tortured physics Starving Artist is using completely unhelpful. Physics is good for many things, but it’s not so armchair CSI techs can evaluate claims of specific crimes committed years ago with no knowledge of the individual participants. It’s almost as stupid as the huge hijack over the validity of interracial rape statistics being applied to the specifics of the Duke Lacrosse case. The evidence isn’t a single data point and to act as if some specific data point, correct or incorrect, holds sway over the entire case is a monumental error of logic.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, right, right. I only quoted it for comedy’s sake.
Nice catch!
Hangnail ETA: Eh, unless this was a WHOOOOSH, in which case, nevermind.
Its February already? Jeez, where does the time go? Can’t believe its been a year since the first rape month.
I hate to think what we’ll be raping next year at this time.
Here’s the link to all his posts, including another reference to a “three foot boy” and the claim that McQueary was definitely lying, his “story” was falling apart, he did it to get Sandusky’s job, and a FOAF story about someone falsely imprisoned for three years for “allegedly sexually harassing a woman.”
http://connect.pennlive.com/user/pritio_metrif/index.html
Not naked showering with boys could well harm their development!
No amount of money will convince me it’s not the same author, though I suspect he’ll lie about that too.
Don’t be daft. They like their sex in the mud, he’s told us a million times. Showers remove mud. Ergo, hippie permissiveness can never take root in the showers of a university.
Maybe **SA **should petition that his bridge be moved to the nearest shower stall ? He could wrap himself in a protective [del]blanket[/del]shower curtain of fear.
I’m rather annoyed that they chose the shortest month of the year as Rape Month. At least we get 29 days this year.
A silver lining to this month’s too short rape-cloud. Silver like the color of Sandusky’s hair!
I think this has to be the fourth Starving Artist related thread. How about some of you grow some proverbial balls and just ignore the guy if he bothers you that much? This includes the topic starter.
(And, no, he doesn’t bother me any and, no, it’s not because he’s a conservative/conservative leaning poster.)
But tomorrow’s Groundhog’s Day!
It’s hard to ignore a guy who seems like he could be intelligent but is putting out some very disagreeable stuff.
I mean, you’re very easy to ignore, for example. But with guys like SA you get the sense that if you just explained something a certain way it’d finally click. At least, you get that sense the first few times you talk to him. It gets easier to ignore him the more shit he spews.
Yes it is. You have to be either ultra-partisan or completely bursar to not be bothered by SA.
It’s easy to ignore somebody. I wouldn’t want to only see that the only people who responded being those who agreed with him. To the wider world, that’s an implicit acceptance that his arguments make at least some sense. And that’s just not true.
I’d take the reverse tack. If they started ignoring him in those on-going threads, I’d say there was a distinct lack of courage on their parts.
This is either a big load of BS or you’re not particularly bothered by defense of child rape.
Before the Sandusky stuff came up, I didn’t mind SA too much in any other thread. His reasoning was definitely a bit off, but there wasn’t too much that was controversial.
But when his pitiful reasoning extended to a ludicrous defense of child rape involving denial, arguments based on bad physics, and an acceptance of inappropriate sexual contact as long as it didn’t involve full penetration, it crossed a lot of poster’s lines, if only for the poor logic if not also the complete immorality of the statements.