Isn’t your entire premise that Paterno did nothing wrong because he had no reason to know the extent of Sandusky’s abuses because McQuery was an unreliable reporter?
I know your answer will be bullshit, but it’s still a sincere question.
What facts? The ones you’re making up as you go along?
This is no doubt due to your vast experience in fantasizing about the scenario in question–I’ve no doubt whatsoever that your “examination of the physics” comes straight from your personal spank bank.
Proof that, in addition to being a pedophile enabler who gets off on long, detailed examinations of the “physics” of kiddie rape, SA is also incapable of telling the difference between “desperate” and “disgust”.
I imagine your ‘opponents’ (or, you know, people who disagree with you), have said their piece and (unlike you, or me for that matter), have moved on. Doesn’t matter. No one wins an argument simply by making the last post; you know that.
Your speculations, unsupported by any sort of credentials that might show you to be a credible authority on this subject, are not evidence of anything at all but the contents of your own head. As I have said at least twice before in these threads, this specific incident will almost certainly be examined at length in Sandusky’s upcoming trial. Speculate all you want, it’s your nickel, but the court transcripts will be the most credible record of what happened in that shower, not the silliness you’ve posted here.
And that’s pretty much all I have to say on that matter. There, if I don’t respond any further you can claim another poster ran away from your towering intellect.
If outlandish speculation counted as “circumstances and evidence,” my theory that 9/11 was actually a special effect performed with Legos and firecrackers would be met with joyous celebration. All those poor souls thought dead, now resurrected!
The other incidents aren’t the reason Joe Paterno was railroaded out of his job, nor are they the excuse so many of this thread’s posters have used to justify the unthinking hysteria they’ve brought to bear on him. If another thread were created to address those previous instances you’d probably find me among the missing. But in this case I just find the more serious allegations against both Paterno and Sandusky to be lacking in merit.
And if you see Guinastasia you might clue her in too. She keeps harping on the issue.
Oh not this horseshit again. The GJ summary of Paterno’s testimony was actually that McQueary told him of (at least in the GJ’s summary, which may or may not be verbatim) of “fondling or sexual contact” (which are not mutually exclusive you dumb fuck).
McQueary later testified that he had told Paterno of sexual conduct that was “way over the line” and that he was confident that what he had seen was “some sort of intercourse.” He saw this from six feet away in a lighted area.
There is no “unsureness” or inconsistency in any of the testimony and even you can’t be as stupid (oh yes you can) to suggest that “fondling” meant or would be heard as meaning anything okay or non-sexual in that context by a modern American speaker of English.
It’s pointless because you’re a troll, but let’s see how this goes among a broad section of reasonably intelligent (but you can vote too!) speakers of American English –
Fondling is not intercourse. This means that he couldn’t be sure which it was, which means he couldn’t be plus. Plus he didn’t explain what he meant by fondling. One would think that if he had seen fondling without a doubt he would have known what it was.
Paterno kept quiet while someone who was at the least fondling children continued to bring children to the campus.
Hardly a railroading.
A.) We don’t that he knew about the allegations.
B.) We don’t know that if he did know of the allegations that he knew they rose from seemingly inappropriate to skeevy, or from skeevy to criminal.
That’s a switch. Weren’t you acknowledging all along that McQuery reported the incident to Paterno and Paterno passed this information along?
It turned out he didn’t pass it on to anyone prepared to do anything about it, and he had years afterward to address the matter, but chose not to.
Are you trying to establish a lower threshold at which the molestation of children is no longer a serious matter?
Dumbass, he never said “fondling or intercourse.” He said “fondling or sexual contact” (or that’s how the GJ summarized Paterno’s testimony) and later clarified that he saw and reported “some form of intercourse.”
“Fondling” in American English is in no way inconsistent with “sexual contact.” It is a variety or subset of it.
Hey, while we’re at it, why don’t you make like Sandusky with a ten year old and check out how my little pole, err, poll’s doing as to what non-retards understand “fondling” to mean as between creepy old men (hey, you resemble that remark!) and boys in a naked touching shower environment.
He’s beginning to show signs of backing off. A year from now, he’ll vociferously deny that he ever defended Paterno and Sandusky.
It’s what he’s been doing assiduously (I said ass) this whole thread, yes.
In his probable alter-persona on Penn Live he had the stronger version of this, that child rape is impossible and most allegations of child sex abuse are fraudulent. In such circumstances, it’s really not worth fanning hysteria that will (somehow?) damage both innocent men and boys deprived of naked hugs by taking seriously any allegation of boy rape (impossible) or lesser skeevy contact (everything else, and just nowhere near as bad as rape because it won’t cause the kid to bleed to death).
People like you, Starving Artist, are the reason why so many victims are afraid to come forward.
Where is your compassion for the many victims of Sandusky? And okay, yes, being fondled MAY be better than being raped. Does that make it all hunky-dory then?
Have you been listening to Huerta again? I didn’t say it wasn’t possible, only that in that in this particular case it is unlikely bordering on impossible.
McQueary testified that he only heard two or maybe three slapping sounds - hardly enough for a rhythm, IMO.
[Perry Mason] Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. [/Perry Mason]
That’s right. So don’t you think that had Sandusky been raping the kid he would have stopped as soon as the door to the locker room was opened or the lights came on, rather than continue to pound away noisily while committing one of the worst and most heavily punished acts in the book, and stopping only after he’d been observed?
It doesn’t matter what you think he might have done, he obviously didn’t, since someone caught him doing it.
-
But you’re not a lawyer, dumbass.
-
If you were a lawyer, lawyers only make objections. They don’t rule on them. Here, I’ll help out. “Overruled as retarded.”
See, and that’s the key difference between how SA has approached this case and how everybody else has. Everybody who is not defending Sandusky, not arguing that Paterno had no obligation to go to the police, is going to the grand jury testimony to recount what was actually said. SA has spent a fuck ton of time going, “Well, don’t you think Sandusky would have stopped raping the kid if in fact that’s what he was doing?” “Well, don’t you think that a 6’3” guy would find it incredibly difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to actually rape a kid?" “Well, if McQueary can’t tell if it’s rape or just run-of-the-mill molestation, clearly he has no fucking clue what he saw, since wouldn’t you know what rape was if you saw it?”
Just all of this half-assed speculative garbage “proving” that what was reported couldn’t have been what was happening.
Never in the history of the internet has the following phrase been more apt and useful:
No. U.