I think you might be on to something. But we should probably leave the poor little guy alone. I mean, someone who lashes out with such disproportionate rage when you make a complementary post about them (as opposed to when you’re giving them a schooling in engineering or gun control topics, as is usually the case) probably has a seriously terrible life.
The point is there are a broad spectrum of posters of all interests, education levels, and political positions here who do not agree with you. Why is that? Are all these normally intelligent people here ignorant or stupid? Are they all amoral cretins? Witch hunters? Preponderance does not make truth but it ought to make any scientific mind reconsider the facts and positions. And I didn’t say nor mean to imply that said reconsideration meant changing the position.
Perhaps I’m too harsh. But your story is incredible and incredibly convenient, and sounds very much like one posted before in here or one in a film from the 1970’s. Furthermore it’s unclear what a story involving you assuming what this “redneck” is thinking, at the same time you’re berating people here for making assumptions about pedophilia, has to do towards supporting yours or any point. It sounds like a morality play gone wrong. I’m willing to admit I don’t have evidence and give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and apologize.
Being a scientist I have a different set of oni. I have to convince others even if I’m 110% in the right. Every time. Again and again.
BTW, I can give you a pass on a lot of things, but just for the record, nobody cares about what else you’re doing. Again and again, in this thread and others, for years, you’ve made it a point to post that you’re too busy, have work to do, will be back later, etc.
Point 1, this isn’t a video game. No one is hitting refresh with one hand with their fingers on their clit with the other.
Point 2, you have absolutely no obligation to inform anyone as to when you’ll be back. You’re a working adult and if you don’t want to post that doesn’t mean you “ran away” or were “ducking the question.” At least not to me.
Point 3: It implies that you have a much more important and busy life than all us slackers on this message board. I work three jobs for actual money; it’s rare I have less than a 60 or 70-hour week now. I assure you that you are not busier than I, and probably not a lot of other people.
Look, Una, you hold something of an exalted position around here and in general I respect you, as I imagine most do who’ve been around long enough to learn of you. But frankly, some chinks in your armor have been exposed in your posts to this thread. In your posts to both Elvis and me you’re you’re showing a gair bit of intellectual conceit and arrogance, and you’ve arrived at several wrong conclusions. Had I less respect for you, I’d set about using those wrong conclusions to criticize and belittle you in an effort to knock you down a notch, but instead I’ll just answer your main points and let you decide for yourself where you’ve been in error and what adjustments you might want to make in arriving at conclusions in the future.
First, no, the fact that I’m outnumbered here is meaningless to me in terms of questioning my stance in this thread and whether I am correct or wrong in taking it. For one thing, I know for a fact that there are many people around the country and on Penn State’s campus who agree with me regarding Joe Paterno, as well as the advisability of utilizing fact and proof rather than mere assumption, and assumption based on outraged emotion at that- to arrive at conclusions as to someone’s guilt, whether in the courtroom or in out.
Secondly, and in regard to the 7-11 story, there simply isn’t any reasonable way that I can prove it 110% or to any greater degree than my words alone can accomplish. If you were here I could take you to the store and let you quiz the women who work there, who could tell you at least that the part of the story that takes place in the store was true. They would know the boys were in my way while trying to figure out which candy bars and bags of chips they wanted, that they excused themselves politely and moved to another register, that I paid for my chocolate-covered cherries and left, followed moments later by the boys who returned a couple of minutes later to pay for the drinks they had no money for when they left.
As to the clown who assumed I was up to no good and tried to stare me down, there was really no question as to how things looked to him and what his problem was. Why else would he stop halfway between his car and the door to the store and stand there, spread-legged, hands on hips, trying to burn a hole through my eyes? From his standpoint I’m sure things looked quite fishy. He pulls up at the south end of the sidewalk and sees me loitering at the north end largely out of sight of the women working inside, a couple of boys walk out of the store and as they approach me I engage them in conversation follwed by giving them money, whereupon they run excitedly back into the store.
Now I’m sure that all looked fishy as hell to someone a product of today’s pedophile-hysteric society. He didn’t know that I wasn’t loitering but had merely stopped on the way to my car parked further north to unwrap one of the cherries I’d bought and drop the wrapper into the trash can standing there. He didn’t know that the boys and I had had a previous pleasant encounter and that I might want to thank and reward them for their courteous and considerate behavior by helping them to get the drinks I already knew they may not have had enough money for. So what looked from all outward appearances to him as skeevy as hell was in reality perfectly innocent, and he was wrong about every assumption he was making.
Still, it’s true that I myself was making assumptions about what he thought, so I felt the honorable thing to do would be to acknowledge that, as the lessen still stood that appearances can be deceiving and that things which look bad for several different reasons may still be perfectly innocent.
So that’s what I did. But instead of acknowledging the perfectly obvious point I was making, the illustrious ignorance-fighters in this thread chose to ignore it complete and put the focus on my assumptions about him and whether or not the kids’ mother wanted them to have the drinks. It was probably at about that point when you felt the object lesson backfired, but it did so only because my opponents were determined to avoid the actual point. I agree that the timing was exceedingly coincidental and I was struck by it at the time, but there was nothing I could do about that.
Thirdly, my reasons for occasionally announcing it when I’m leaving a thread are primarily out of consideration for posters who may be expecting a response to something they just asked or a point they just made, and also, frankly, to short-circuit accusations that I’m bolting the thread, which many of our more childish posters are inclined to do (and which has already happened several times in this very thread). This issue has been brought up before and other posters have said they either appreciate the heads-up or understand how other posters might. So you see, no insult and no sense of superiority is at work at all.
I believe your story is true. IMO It is entirely irrelevant to the Paterno story. Explain to me how it is comparable, and what lesson we are to draw from it.
OK, then I’ll say that my opinion is you are incorrect with respect to Paterno’s moral obligations. I won’t insult you, I simply say that I think you are incorrect. I have actually read this entire thread since day 1; my late appearance in this thread was not the result of a drive-by. I’ve read all the evidence posted and linked in here, read all the opinions, and in my opinion it appears that Paterno utterly failed from a moral sense. It seems so clear-cut to me despite your lengthy explanations that your continued defense appears to rely on evidence or positions not presented within this thread. It’s possible you’re in the right and I’m just not getting it, nor are 95% of the other posters in here. I do not think there will be any synthesis between thesis and antithesis here.
I said I gave you the benefit of the doubt and apologized for doubting you on the 7-11 story. I’m not certain what more I can do on that point.
I believe your intent, but believe me when I say it comes across as snide and dismissive. And you say other posters appreciate it, I believe I’ve seen many who feel it is dismissive. I remember being told off for it very, very early in my career, when I did the same. So I quit.
But Una, it did. The narrator.
famelica artificem? Probably a medium-sized carnivore which preyed on homines liberales. But I’d need to check the fossil record to be certain.
Or he a pedophile trying to rationalize all the naked wrestling he does with little boys in the shower (hey they weren’t screaming, so no harm, no foul!)
Thank you, and may I say that had the thread’s other posters taken the same approach the entire thread would not only have been much more civil and less hysterical but the pertinent elements easier to spot.
It’s one thing to simply have a disagreement as to moral culpability and another entirely to jump to such conclusions as Paterno’s alleged intention to cover up Sandusky’s behavior, that he was a knowing pedophile enabler and likely pedophile himself, that he deliberately decided not to call the police, that he was more concerned with the welfare of the football program than he was with the children Sandusky had been raping, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
And while we’re on the subject, I think you will agree there has been a great deal in the way of nonsensical and illogical accusations thrown at me and the few other posters to the thread who expressed sentiments similar to mine, and our opinions and words have been mocked and mischaracterized and lied about. I have to confess that I’m wondering why, with your trained and analytical mind, you’ve chosen to challenge me rather than putting them in their well-earned place.
Yes you did and I meant to thank you in my last post. I’m tapping one letter at a time on my iPod touch and the going is slow and tedious. My apologies for having overlooked it.
Well, the situation I find myself in is whether or not to stop advising people who may appreciate information in order appease people who don’t care for me anyway and who call me every name in the book and will continue to do anyway, and frankly I’m not inclined to favor the angry, insulting dissenters over the other posters who appreciate the notice and are probably more polite and reasonable as well. And then of course there’s the “Where are you, did you run away?”’ crowd to contend with.
Things would be a lot easier on this board if people weren’t as childish, petty and ill-behaved and dishonest as they often are.
I think calling you a pedo was completely and utterly out of line. But I’ve been lectured at repeatedly, including by message board staff members that this is the Pit and I shouldn’t expect fairness, honesty, or people to do the “right” thing, so I try to let my eyes glaze over at many insults. Analytics can’t fight “poopy pants” insults here. I’ve been subjected to more than my share of sexual slurs and death threats by “salt o’ the earth” Dopers, which over more than a decade has made it such that I really feel very little connection to this “community.” Oh sure, there are a lot of good folks here, but I’m an outsider and will probably remain such. Which is why I work directly for the Straight Dope, which I enjoy very much, and not for this message board.
But “why didn’t you post earlier” or “why didn’t you address all these other folks” is a dangerous game to play, which can be turned around on the asker very easily. Nobody should really be going there unless this is going to be a 5,000-page thread. Today it just hit me that I thought I had heard a certain story before, as it suddenly seemed very familiar. I’m sure I must have been mistaken, but at the time it really seemed familiar. So let’s leave it at that as it has been addressed, and I really do not want to become cross.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist;]
Thirdly, my reasons for occasionally announcing it when I’m leaving a thread are primarily out of consideration for posters who may be expecting a response to something they just asked or a point they just made, and also, frankly, to short-circuit accusations that I’m bolting the thread, which many of our more childish posters are inclined to do (and which has already happened several times in this very thread). This issue has been brought up before and other posters have said they either appreciate the heads-up or understand how other posters might. So you see, no insult and no s]]ense of superiority is at work at all.
[/Quote]
Could you answer the questions psychobunny and I asked? I assume that’s what you were intending, before.
Also, Una, I’d be interested in you scientific and analytical take on my description of the the physical mechanics involved had Sandusky been raping that boy. At the time I was under the impression from what other posters had said that Sandusky allegedly had the boy bent over with his hands on the wall and that Sandusky was in full contact, having bent over the boy at least far enough to wrap his arm around around the boy’s waist. In going back over what McQueary said today, it appears the boy may have standing rather then bent over and that Sandusky had his hands on the boy’s waist rather than his arms encircling the boy at the waist. I don’t think this more upright posture, if that’s what it is, would materially affect the physical difficulties I described before but I wanted to mention it for the sake of accuracy.
My belief is that a 6’3" man would have to bend at the knees so far in order to acheive penetration and the make copulatory movements that his legs would doon give out if he didn’t fall over backwards first. And of course this ignores secondary questions such as lubrication (I assume anyone who’s tried sex in the water without other lube knows what I mean) and the fact that McQueary, even though he mentioned that both Sandusky and the boy turned and looked at him, said nothing about Sandusky in a crouching stance or what you would expect to be at least discomfort on the boy’s face. All in all, I’m just pretty damn convinced that anal intercourse is not what McQueary saw and I’d like to know what your analytical engineering mind makes of my analysis - assuming of course that you can get past the “ick” factor well enough to think about it objectively.
And on preview regarding your last post, “Fair enough” is how it strikes me. Thanks for the response.
OH MY GOD STOP IT PLEASE. Please. I am begging you. You can claim that you won the thread and go home if you JUST STOP MAKING THESE POSTS.
I thought I had answered psychobunny but maybe that was a different post. I’m on my iPod now and getting around the thread (and composing posts :)) is clumsy and difficult. If you’ll recap them for me here I’ll do the best I can.
Thanks
Do you have any idea how silly you’re being? If you lack the ability to summon up the detachment and objectivity needed to arrive at a factual analysis of what really happened that day, you should at least be able to summon up the self-discipline to stay out of the thread.
Do you have any idea how creepy you’re being by posting multiple, repeated graphical descriptions of what you imagine the anal rape of a child to be like, complete with loving descriptions of lubrication and the look on the child’s face? I feel like I need to scrub my keyboard with bleach just having typed that. This is foul.
Do you have any idea how disgusting you are? If you lack the empathy and intelligence to understand why posting long, loving descriptions of child rape is utterly creepy and horrifying, and least have the decency to chop your fingers off so you can no longer type.
ETA: hi MsWhatsit! Great minds and whatnot 
So you want a “scientific” analysis of the rape of a small child? Dude, I would pay real money to have your posting ability removed.
Yes, we must all stick our heads in the sand and refuse to consider the facts while at the same time condemning people for actions we know nothing about other than vague allegations.
Trust me, things like this get talked about in courtrooms every day and you know what? The judge doesn’t bang his gavel and shreik “Stop! These are too many details and they’re icky!” And you know why? It’s because the courts recognize the importance of determining whether a man actually did the things he’s accused of before convicting him.
If you can’t deal with the hard questions necessary to conclude what really happened that day, you have no cause to point accusatory fingers at anyone and little cause for being in the thread. Grow the fuck up or get out; I’m tired of your silly histrionics!