The reason your descriptions appear to be trolling (even to me, someone who is slow to see anything as trolling) is that they are not relevant. Paterno was told that Sandusky did something of a sexual nature to a child in an isolated shower at night. That is the premise of the debate. Your descriptions are irrelevant to that and appear to be your “sneaky” way of using graphic depictions of child sexual abuse to troll those who disagree with you. “No, it’s not trolling, this debate has always been about exactly what type of sexual abuse it was! Really, guys!” You’re not that good at being sneaky either.
Anyway, maybe this will help you:
Famous communist soccer coach Mark Sism of Ivory Tower University is told by assistant Manny Festo that former coach Gerry Sandinsky was doing something of a sexual nature to a child in the soccer building showers at night.
Mark tells the ITU admins. The crime is never reported to police. Manny (the witness) is never questioned by police, so nobody could believe an investigation took place.
For the next decade, Mark, Manny, and Gerry are in close proximity. Mark and Manny continue to work together and Gerry is always around the soccer team. Mark and his players lend continued support to Gerry’s Second Left organization, the very same program Gerry is using to ensnare and abuse children. Gerry runs overnight soccer camps for 9 year old boys on an ITU campus. He brings kids to ITU soccer practice. When Mark sees Manny and Gerry on campus he tells himself “it’s not my problem”. When Gerry uses his past as a soccer coach with Mark to advertise the camps for 9-year olds and the Second Left program that lets him take charge of young children, Mark stands by and does nothing.
You want me, a rape victim, to do a scientific analysis on what you posted above??? You want to know what my “analytical engineering mind makes of my analysis?” You want me to consider such factors as whether his arms were circling or on the waist? Lubrication? The look of “discomfort?”
I see.
My only answer is that men, evil men, have been raping little boys ever since motherfucking woolly mammoths roamed the planet. They find a way.
Now I’m going to be very calm now and assume that you don’t keep a dossier on everyone and have no way of knowing my history. But I also will say that it’s time for the conversation here to end. I believe that even if I did not have a prejudicial history I would find your question strange and highly disturbing in its content.
Manda Jo, to answer psychobunny’s questions, I believe that if someone on campus sees a crime or possible crime in progress, he or she should immediately call whichever law enforcement agency is empowered to make arrests and conduct investigations who is likely to get there the fastest. This applies to breaking and entering, car theft, shoplifting or sexual abuse.
On the other hand, if the alleged crime is being reported after the fact by someone making vague claims that indicate they’re not sure what was happening, then I believe that the alleged crime should be reported in the manner established by law to whichever agency has been charged with investigating allegations of on-campus crime. McQueary said he felt that by going to Curley and especially Schultz, who was in charge of Penn State’s 256-member police force, he was going to the equivalent of a district attorney, who would then, as district attorneys do, have an investigation made to see if evidence existed of actionable crime. It’s entirely possible that Joe Paterno felt the same way too in reporting to them what McQueary told him.
I think that answer your question too, Manda Jo. If Paterno happened upon an apparentvrape in progress, he should have (and in my opinion would have) reported it to the nearest police force qualified to act on it, which may have been the campus police or the municipal police.
I didn’t know that you had been raped, or even that you are a woman. Needless to say I apologize profoundly for having asked you what I did.
But now, having said that, why the hell are you in this thread bragging about your scientific education and engineering and analytical skills and challenging me on a subject that you know to be a hot-button issue for you. I am sorry for what happened to you but I am almost gobsmacked that you’ve approached me on this issue, especially since you know my stance on it and the arguments I’ve been making. Frankly, I feel as though I’ve been sucker-punched. Honestly, you should have alluded to your rape when you first challenged me.
And no, this thread doesn’t need to end until it either dies of its own accord or some sort of resolution is reached. But I would suggest that you and anyone else who finds the difficult questions to be too difficult should spend your time in other threads with less painful subjects.
Doesn’t matter in the context of this thread. Here we’re talking about Joe Paterno and the whatever it was that happened in the shower room incident that McQueary happened upon.
I’ve let several of your posts slide since they tend to be long, would take some time to answer, and seem to come during a heated flurry of arguments with other posters, so I’ll take a few minutes to answer this before I call it a night. There are several reasons why I’ve I’m focusing on the rape issue, first and foremost among them being the fact that I’ve always felt the idea that someone of Jerry Sandusky’s age, size and fame would be engaging in the anal rape of a ten year old boy in the school’s athletic locker room/ shower. Then in response to my defense of Paterno we have poster after poster insisting that it was rape, and how could Paterno not know it was rape, and what else could it be besides rape, and why don’t I care more about the boy who experienced horrible anal rape at the hands of Sandusky more than I care about Joe Paterno? Are you seeing a pattern here? The supposed anal rape of a child is the core issue of the entire thread.
Still, for most of the thread I danced around the issue and tried to get the point across that whatever happened it was unlikely to be rape, and Paterno can’t be blamed for not automatically assuming it was.
But the more I tried to suggest that, the more shrill was the insistence that Sandusky was raping the kid and I was one of twenty different kinds of asshole depending on who you talked to for suggesting otherwise.
So finally I decided to just lay my cards on the table and explain just why it was that I didn’t think that boy had actually been raped, and so far no one seems to feel they can refute it. So instead they become hysterical and call me names and shriek about how graphic I am (as though there would be a more delicate way to explain it) and incredibly enough seem perfectly content to want to think and behave as though that rape had actually occurred while at the same time insisting that I stop posting facts and evidence to the contrary because it is too “disgusting”.
Well, I’m sorry but I happen to think that convicting people on nothing but supposition while deliberately turning a blind eye to evidence to the contrary is the most egregious example of a “my mind’s made up, don’t pester me with facts” mentality, and is far more disgusting than anything I’ve said or ever will say.
Frankly, the way I’ve seen so many people on this board behave over this issue, and with so few dissenting voices, has rattled me somewhat and shaken my faith in human nature. Clearly a much larger percentage of the population become loons over things like this and are perfectly happy to abandon reason in service to their bloodlust. It’s fucking frightening and gives me a much greater appreciation for trials and rules of evidence than I ever had before. And as will probably come as no surprise, it has educated me as to why Nancy Grace has become so successful. Previous to this thread I would never have imagined there were so many lunatic crackpots out there.
OK, I see what’s going on now. You’re fucking around with me and you think you can do it by playing the victim. You forget I said I’ve read this entire thread; if you don’t think I’ve not seen you pull this stunt with others in here over 49 pages you’re deluded. I thought by treating you as an adult (how many people in here apologized to you for anything they said, aside from me?) I’d get some adult treatment back. I see that instead we’re back to SDMB 101.
Mule muffins. This is another “fact” you’ve made up to salt your post and charge the atmosphere herein. I did no such thing and anyone reading this thread can plainly see that. The only thing I mentioned about science to you was:
[QUOTE=Me]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This was in direct answer to your comment about not having to justify being right. The one you made in this thread. If your mind twists that into “bragging” then you are honestly insane.
So the question is now why did you post the above false statement? And please don’t think you can shuck and jive me, and don’t try to spring off my throwaway line to Evil Elvis in the thread as “proof” of “bragging” about “engineering;” that would be silly and ignorant.
I brought it up to tell you why I would not be answering your disturbingly skeevy questions about the fine details of Sandusky’s alleged ass-raping techniques. You know, along the lines of that philosophy you yourself espouse of telling people why you won’t be answering their questions?
But I’m not going to even get into the crazy-quilt of side issues. All I’m going to do now is get you to unconditionally retract the lie you posted above, or I’m going to put you on Ignore as not being worth my bandwidth to read. This is a binary switch; pick one state.
Doing a bit of analysis, an average 10-year-old is about 54 inches tall. Assume the anus is located halfway that means it’s about 27 inches. Sandusky is 75 inches which means his penis is around 37 inches from the ground. That’s a difference of 10 inches. Not impossible to squat down that distance.
And we don’t know for sure the boy’s age. It’s not like anyone asked the boy how old he was. McQueary was guessing at his age. Is he a certified expert at estimating the ages of children? The boy could easily be older than that, which means he could be taller, which means the height difference could even be less. Or maybe he was a tall 10-year-old. Who knows.
And what does it really matter if it was penetration or not. Whether he was raping or merely rubbing up against the boy it is still just as wrong.
Do you people see this? Vague allegations? Oh, and trust him this is talked about in courtrooms all the time! Why, one time when ol’ SA was on trial…
Yeah, it’s completely crazy to think he’s ever crossed the line with a kid. I mean, that’s me! the character assassin! I invent this shit whole cloth. There’s nothing to indicate anything sick or vile lurking under the surface here.
Una already dealt with you with more grace than you deserve, and more eloquence than I am capable of, but I just want you to know that that feeling? The sucker punch feeling? You got that because, for just a second, you saw what a piece of slime you are. That’s called “empathy” you sick fuck. I know you’re unacquainted with the emotion.
SA, lets just focus on the primary point that most people focus on, as Carmady mentioned:
Paterno was told that Sandusky did something of a sexual nature to a child in an isolated shower at night
Let’s start simple:
Do you agree that a report of this nature from a trusted colleague should be reported (by someone) to the police (campus or municipal) for investigation?
I will note for the (oh so tired) record that the sick fucker thinks he can get away with (once yet still again) slipping in (heh, no wait, it’d be impossible for it to fit!!!) the allegation that McQueary’s report to Paterno were “vague claims that indicate [he was] not sure what was happening,” contrary to anything in Paterno’s or McQueary’s sworn testimony and the Grand Jury complaint, which speak only of “some form of intercourse,” “fondling or sexual contact,” and “subjected to anal intercourse.”
Fucker’s also back to pretending that any of us have said proof of rape is what makes Paterno morally guilty, as opposed to proof of knowledge of any form of naked (in sick fucker’s made up “evidence” world, not-quite-rape) molestation.
SA, I just have one further question for you. You have two hundred and fifty posts in this thread. One out of every ten posts from hundreds of contributors comes from you. You’ve spent months MONTHS arguing this in detail.
You haven’t been this passionate in any Bush bashing thread. You don’t show your face in the stupid Republican idea of the day thread. Every day there’s a new thread about some crime committed somewhere and we don’t hear a peep. But here you take a stand
What is it about the man boy anal rape that gets you so fired up unlike any thread ever in your history on these boards?
Oh, I’m afraid that’s a bad idea. Curley and Schultz are the “campus police,” that’s all the statute and “decades of precedent” (yes, he made that up) required JP to report to, he was affirmatively forbidden due to lack of “standing and proper training” (neither of which is required to exercise independent thought or moral action, but the liar will ignore this) from doing anything more than the bare minimum, 'cause that’s what mandatory minimal legal reporting laws are meant to forbid.
Thomas Harmon was the head of the campus police, so we know that the report needed to either go to him or to the municipal police. Neither Curley nor Schultz was considered “police”.
and
Staff making a report to the people responsible for contacting authorities in these cases are required to be informed that the authorities have been contacted. This is the problem with Paterno washing his hands of it and thinking it’s being taken care of - he never questioned that the report wasn’t made (which he was legally required to be notified about).
He’s setting the bar pretty high for himself here, no?
It was inevitable that he would begin affirmatively making excuses for Sandusky or suggesting that nothing really serious ever happened.
There’s just not enough daylight between what Sandusky did and what Paterno knew or could have known to say Sandusky is (as he clearly is) 100% and obviously guilty of serial sexual molestation (including but not limited to anal rape) but that Paterno is 100% blameless for not figuring this out and doing more. It just doesn’t fly, in view not only of McQueary’s report (not uncertain – that bullshit lie won’t fly, he ought to just retire it), but of all the other dodgy anecdotal data that was, and must have been, floating around campus, on team trips where Sandusky had little boyfriends in his hotel room, ad infinitum.
So the fool is ineluctably drawn to suggesting that there’s something less than 100% plausible about the reported conduct by Sandusky, thus rendering JP 100% a-okay on the moral compass. Of course it’s stupid, illogical, and counter-factual.
The other thing is that as was noted at an early stage, you are dealing with a poster who has or purports to have a passionate, passionate obsession with distinctions in detail between various forms of naked man-on-boy contact, sexual contact, and “anal rape.” Truly, there is no way to read his posts and not discern a desperate vested interest in making these distinctions without the slightest moral or legal difference.
It’s weird. I am not going to say he is a pedophile. But those sound exactly like distinctions that would be meaningful and valuable to pedophiles. And I cannot imagine what other population apart from Talmudic scholars of child sex abuse or shyster defense lawyers would have the slightest interest in pretending these distinctions meant anything or that one presumed form of sex crime on a child imposed different moral requirements on Paterno than some arguably minisculely-different sex crime on a child.
Some of this I think is you’re catching SA at a bad time (assuming there is ever a good time for him and above-room-temperature-IQ debate, which is doubtful). He had a lot invested in verbal diarrhea and emotionn in what he clearly thought was a game-clinching argument that people who grew up in the old days could not conceivably imagine or learn of child rape (again, he focuses on “rape” as though that is all that requires reporting), so JP gets a perennial free pass from ever acting on allegations of “child rape.” That bombed to such universal shock and derision and demonstrations of how people have known about child rape and pedophilia for millenia, including all modern Catholics, that I suspect even SA, whose colassal false pride never met an untenable proven false argument he couldn’t pretend to believe in and indeed declare victory on, felt he’d had his fingers burned and needed a new mantra. “It’s impossible to rape a boy in a shower” suited the bill and served much the same purpose of absolving Joe – because of this “fact,” Joe knew that no rape had happened, the disgusting scumbag can claim to be “overjoyed” at “establishing” that he was “certain” that no rape had happened, and therefore [implicitly] Joe did everything he could have.
Mind though that like the previous creepy allegation, “it’s impossible to rape a boy in a shower” also sounds like a pedophile get-out-of-jail-free card for, well, anyone who’s ever been fucking around with a boy in a shower. Whatever happened, it couldn’t have been rape, therefore, since someone said it was rape, and it “couldn’t have been,” it was nothing, everyone skates. Creepy as all fuck to be writing get out of jail free cards for such a user population.