I have a feeling this slipped by everyone in the midst of this train wreck, but well done.
Calling a “sack of shit” is grossly insulting to sacks of shit.
Well, sometimes I mock myself while mocking others. Thing is, for me this is ironical self-deprecating humour, while to them, it’s always with a sneer and an attempt at undeserved superiority.
Examples:
Something I might say: “Well, you may choose to believe that, but I’ve talked it over with my fellow residents of Valhalla and our consensus is you’re wrong.”
Something OMG might say: “Well, you may choose to believe that, because you’re a pussy liberal communist gaywad poo-poo-head.”
Well done, 8 of 17.
Continuing with that bit of hijack, man, I’m tired of all this “hive mind” business. That complaint’s hardly innovative, probably slung around even before some underfed cave person first entertained the notion of prostitution as a career path. But it recently seems to have acquired a certain vogue in every sizable online community in which I dip even a tangential toe.
Is it ever valid? Invariably either (1) the accuser simply can’t fathom why multiple respondents would believe differently from she despite not being carbon copies of each other, or (2) the complaint descends into a laughable ball of misjudgment and irony as fifty-seven other commenters pop up all decrying the aggressive conformity mandated by the hive mind. Gr.
So in support of your outlandish argument, you completely dismiss MrDibble’s first hand experience. I wasn’t going to assume you were a troll before, but this has completely changed my mind. How absolutely repellant.
Further, I haven’t used the ignore feature in forever, but I can’t think of a better addition to it than you. Hell, I don’t know if I even found the other pervert on the board as disgusting. Congratulations. I thank the heavens I’ll never have to witness your tripe again.
So, er, how many pages are we allowed in this one before the OP considers us dumb?
August 28, 1958: the last known date on which Starving Artist changed his mind. It’s been pancakes instead of French Toast ever since.
And now you know the rest of the story.
This has just gotten sad. It’s gone beyond funny. Beyond pathetic. Now it’s just sad.
This level of self-delusion is what leads people to drink flavor-aid that they know was laced with a deadly poison. Instead of re-thinking their views, they just entrench until there’s no way out. I suppose it’s intended to be inspiring, like the young man who immolated himself out of despair for his future in Tunisia. If the stance was supportable, or even debateable I guess it could be.
But the case doesn’t hinge on this one incident in the Penn State showers. There are plenty of other data points and to myopically focus on a perceived inconsistency in this particular incident is missing the big picture in an epic way. It’s a sign of a broken mind, and that’s just sad.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve noted in the other thread that I think it’s more likely than not that there was no rape (in that particular incident), mostly because of the strong similarity to several other shower incidents involving Sandusky in which there were no rapes, but that I’m skeptical of the “physics” argument, mainly because with his arms around the kid, he could have easily been lifting him off the ground.
That said, I don’t think there’s anything skeevy about discussing the physics argument, FWIW. I wouldn’t have thought SDMB posters were so delicate and sheltered, and in fact I doubt if they are, and this is probably just another “let’s bash SA” mobbing.
I should qualify a bit that I’ve not actually read the past several pages in which the physics argument is thrashed out, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that I’m wrong. But I have read the “highlights” in this and another thread in which the skeeviness of SA is purported to be demonstrated, and based on that, that’s how I see it.
“I haven’t actually read the argument as presented, but I’m going to comment on it anyway because I think posters are just being mean to poor ole SA.”
Why waste your time like that?
Why ignore my next sentence, which directly addressed your question?
This is why SA is a vile piece of human garbage. Not because he holds a political viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to the one that most posters hold. Not because he’s breathlessly stupid.
Because he dismisses a first-hand report from an adult survivor of child rape as being somehow different from the report of child rape witnessed by McQueary. Because he can’t or won’t fathom that someone he admires might possibly have done something morally reprehensible. Only people he doesn’t like do bad things - people he likes are above reproach.
And in order to keep them above reproach, he has to find a way that anal child rape cannot happen. Even if a victim comes forward and details such an event.
Such diminishing of real human suffering is what makes him a vile piece of human garbage.
Yep. Just when you think he can’t sink any lower, he pulls out something like that.
And I’m STILL waiting for him to address Sandusky’s other victims, when we point out that the guy has been accused of rape before. There were multiple accusations of anal rape of young boys. And yet, he doesn’t care.
Mr. Dibble, I’m so sorry to hear that happened to. And I’m so sorry to see how someone could casually hand wave it away like that.
Well, to be fair, at this point his attitude may have a large element of “I don’t like many of the people on the SDMB, and I’m durned if I’ll give them the satisfaction.”
Stronger curse words than “durned” didn’t exist until filthy hippies invented them in 1968.
You’re missing out on a number of things.
-
It is skeevy that in the course of insisting that rape was physically impossible, he gives off the strong impression that any non-rape physical contact between a soaped up naked man and boy is a-okay, and could rightfully have been minimized by Paterno. He has repeatedly come back to the suggestion that maybe what McQueary reported was merely naked man-boy “wrestling,” “hugging,” “lessons in showering,” “playing hide the soap.” He does so with the strong implication that these are all acceptable forms of horse-play, as long as the old p. doesn’t make it quite into the old a. (Why else would the moron focus so obsessively on whether it was “rape” or “non rape molestation,” a distinction irrelevant to the law or to Paterno’s moral obligations?). He has also claimed (liar that he is) that there is no authority that makes naked man-boy showering anything other than an everyday occurrence (I pointed out that as between unrelated persons, especially with touching or slapping sounds or bending over a kid’s ass), these actions are almost certainly criminal under (at least – at least) the indecent exposure statute. The dishonest fool hasn’t responded to my multiple citations of this statute, and that’s okay – what’s not okay is his baseline insistence that naked man-boy “horseplay” would be hunky dory.
-
It is skeevy because he makes up fictitious “facts” to support his “rape is impossible” obsession. He claims that McQueary couldn’t clearly describe what he saw from six feet away (McQueary swore to “some form of intercourse.” Intercourse in this context can’t mean much else other than anal rape.). He invents the corroborating fact that the boy had “no apparent look of distress or pain” (I’m assuming that’s a moronic attempt at creating a fact out of McQueary’s not describing the kid’s expression one way or the other), which is in contrast to his invented “fact” elsewhere that a child rape victim would presumably be screaming to wake the campus or dying of blood loss. Someone who sounds a lot like him (a LOT) posted on another board the lie that the victim was “three feet tall” and thus incapable of being raped by 6’ 3" Sandusky, also noting the fact that a ten year old’s head would only come up to the waist of a man Sandusky’s size (how convenient for Sandusky if that were true!).
-
It is skeevy because he insists on talking for weeks about his “physically impossible to rape a child” without a single bit of proof or calculation or science other than that he is “certain” because Sandusky would have to squat so far down. It took another poster about five minutes to establish that the crotch of a tallish man was well under a foot higher than the ass of a ten year old boy, based simply on the relative inseams of men’s and boy’s pants.
-
It is super skeevy because he merely brushes aside the first hand testimony of someone who was raped from behind in circumstances AFAICT near identical to those in Sandusky’s case, with no more respect for the victim or the value of his assertions, justifying his callous ignoring of fact and the victim’s attack by saying “I’m sure there were material differences.”
-
It is super-skeevy because the sole tendency of his desire to create a per se presumption that tall men can’t rape medium sized boys is a hall pass for perverts and/or an incentive not to investigate reports of child rape because we know that they are physically impossible, and thus those who fail to act vigorously on a report of one are in the clear. He generally doesn’t come out and say it in so many words, but by focusing obsessively on “rape is impossible,” which is of ZERO legal or moral relevance given that clearly SOME illegal sexualized conduct was going on (indecent exposure at a minimum), he implies that if there wasn’t rape, there wasn’t a need to call the cops at all, etc. This doesn’t make sense, focusing on rape, when many sexualized things or contact short of rape would equally have obligated Paterno to do much more, unless: (a) SA believes that almost-rapes or mere-fondlings are pretty much okay (skeeve!); (b) Paterno’s obligations would only be really serious if there were rape (skeeve!); or (c) the theory he or his doppelganger put forward on the PennLive board in the open, which is that McQueary made the whole thing up, nothing happened, and Paterno is absolutely blameless. Now that I’ve seen those other posts, it seems most likely to me that (c) is what is really going on or what he would love to convince himself of.
-
Equally if not more skeevy, if I am right in reading the PennLive posts as his (and really, they track moronic trope per moronic trope), he does all this backpedaling and loving-detail boy-rape “analysis” because he’s convinced that most allegations of pedophilia are motivated by fabricated complaints by people seeking to extort money. The person who wrote that and all of SA’s other claptrap is one who wants to pretend or act as though we live in a world where pedophilia is safe, legal, and rare, and accusations of misconduct with children should be heavily discouraged so as not to squelch (I honestly can’t bring myself to type out whatever benefits this cretin has posited we will lose by discouraging men from showering with boys).
Hey! We had “gosh-danged” before Woodstock!
At least I think we did. I dunno for sure any more.
I did a lot of drugs. Maybe. I think…
I know we’re not big on attaboys around here, but that was quite good. Thank you.
Huerta is a loon with serious reading comprehension/honesty/hysteria problems. Not a single one of his allegations are correct or supported by fact, including the smaller ones and his surmises as to what my posts imply. He’s a loon, and that’s all there is to it.
So then you do think McCreary saw Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy?
I didn’t ignore it.
You qualified your post by saying you read the “highlights” but that’s just another way of saying you didn’t take the time to read the original posts.
You’re basically saying posters are overreacting to a single poster but then deliberately point out that you haven’t actually bothered to read the posts in their entirety. What’s the point in that? It’s inane, asinine, and just plain dumb.