Damnit! The first rule of the SDMB collective is that you don’t talk about the SDMB collective!
I’m not a very partisan guy, but I would judge by his username that he is and that he probably suspects “hive mind” of everyone who isn’t a whacky iconoclast, such as himself.
Wait a minute. You mean he might actually be. . .a black conservative? OMG!!!
[Cousin Vinny]
You were serious about dat?
[/Cousin Vinny]
Shoulda said “Cousin Vinny to Omg”, if that wasn’t clear.
Well, it didn’t happen in a shower, the guy was merely the wrong side of 50, not 60 (although by the look of Sandusky, in a lot worse physical shape), and he was probably 3" shorter than Sandusky. But then, like I said, I was a very short 8yo. Oh, and I had a knife at my throat, but that doesn’t affect the mechanics at all.
But we were both initially standing (until my legs gave out from the weight and the pain when he was done with the sodomy - the irrumatio was another story) and I did have my hands braced on something.
So, the basic details serve to verify that your physics-based objection is bullshit.
Mods need to close the thread.
And (with horror and apologies and all that) – thanks for your testimony. Seals it, quells the troll, all that.
Yeah, even among the presumptive PSU faithful, where he apparently felt more comfortable voicing his more extreme (and stupid) views. Mind you this makes me re-visit my theory that he only arrived at his physics-based theory about “three foot tall boys” after he bombed on the “no old person ever heard of or could imagine rape” thing. No, he’s been nursing his loving descriptions of how to rape a “three foot tall boy” for months.
We also learn the genesis of his “McQueary was really unsure of what he saw when he reported to Paterno” (about events that were taking place six feet in front of him). It’s not, after all, based on some faux semantic distinction between “fondling” and the very different (no it isn’t) “sexual contact.” It’s based on his mental pretense that McQueary was actively lying. He couldn’t quite bring himself to say that here, knowing it was no rah rah PSU forum, but he’s been internally thinking/pretending it all along. Explains a lot (while raising a lot of other questions about his sanity and mendacity).
I note that he’s not responded to most of the posts here, including mine calling him out on his lie about how nobody had responded to his request for cites on why it might be illegal for a man to shower next to a boy he was touching from behind (hint: indecent exposure statute, at minimum, cited by me almost a month ago). Little pansy seems to have decided to fight it out in the ATMB forum? No worries, I’m sure he’ll be back, and will deny being that PennLive troll as well.
Just don’t make a mockery of mocking him. That would be overly meta.
People who use the word “that” twice in a row are misbegotten brazen-faced mammets.
Oh shit, I do that that sometimes.
Better writers than anyone here have done it.
And no, Huerta88, I’m hardly quelled, nor has my mind been changed. As I said, I suspect there were material differences. Sorry, but buck up! Think of all the new opportunities you’ll have for lying, speciousness and hystrionics.
So, it wasn’t rape, but child abuse lite?
I agree with what everyone else is saying about the fiction of an SDMB hive mind.
So – you concede you lied about no one having provided a cite for why man-on-boy nude showering was illegal or improper? Given that I did so, a month ago?
“I suspect there were material differences.” After a victim of from-behind boy-ass-rape testified that it’s quite possible. How probative your suspicions and materialities are!
What a sack of shit.
Good thing, else we’d have to shun you. Not of the body, and all that.
That “that that” that that earlier poster mentioned is indeed annoying.
And that’s that!
This.
After having to read your quote of this, I am now thinking of installing one of those “ignore with extreme prejudice” add-ons that sometimes gets talked about.
At this point, I hope he’s a troll. Because words simply don’t suffice otherwise.
I’m betting it’s because you’re getting as hot and bothered over the idea of child rape as SA is.
I don’t say that because you’re conservative posters, but because you’re both insipid assholes. 