Why am I not seeing the word ‘BANNED’ after this person’s name? He’s gone way beyond ‘entertaining moron’ to ‘seriously disturbing’ in this thread. Enough is enough. Kick his ass out of here.
You’re not seeing ‘banned’ because: a) I’m not trolling; b) I’m discussing objective facts objectively; c) what I’m claiming is almost certainly factual and true and not luridly motivated; I have a lengthy board history that is free from skeevy behavior regarding sex and have never behaved skeevily to other board posters; and d) people don’t get banned here because other people don’t have the intelligence or discipline to keep themselves out of threads they can’t handle, or to scroll past posts they don’t want to see, or to put the offending poster on ignore.
I tried to let the thread drop by not posting for two days and letting my opponents have the last word, but no, psychobunny had to come back with her silly Taiwanese Toilet story or whatever in an attempt to discredit my theory, so naturally I had to point the various fallacies in that comparison. The simple fact is that we can’t get to the truth of the rape allegations without considering these kinds of stark details. I tried hinting at it and alluding to it and got nowhere because the people in this thread were so deeply wedded to their conviction that anal rape happened to that boy that they wouldn’t even begin to consider an alternative suggestion. And they are so wedded to it still that instead of being happy for that child that he wasn’t raped, they’re outraged at me for proving he wasn’t. People have completely taken leave of their senses in this thread and you can hardly blame yours truly that they had to be smacked in the face with reality to prove they weren’t thinking straight.
Now, I’m prepared once again to let the thread die, or to discuss aspects of it that don’t involve rape allegations. But if people want to continue to insist that that boy was raped that night, they’re going to have to have something other than blind assertions to make their case, and they’re going to have to contend with the same unpleasant details that would be considered in a police investigation or presented to the jury in a courtroom.
Yeah. Whatever. Just go.
It really boils down to:
-
SA thinks there are perfectly innocent reasons for a grown man to be showering naked with a ten-year-old boy alone at night in a fashion which involves close physical contact of some sort, and that these reasons are likely and plausible enough to warrant no serious concerns about that scenario; and
-
The rest of us don’t.
I suppose one could describe “being of the opinion held by a huge majority of people” as “having a mob mentality” but it would involve the same sort of twisted logic and handwaved rationalizations that resulted in option 1) above.
“Honey, have you seen the paper towels?”
“Don’t come in here! I’m doing something…for science. On second thought, could you hold something for me? It’s for science.”
There are only two possible reasons SA thinks men, soap, showers and young boys make a fine innocent mix. The most charitable is - he’s insane. The more plausible he’s amply and repeatedly demonstrated in the two threads. Either way - enough is enough.
Why do you insist that the boy is only the height of a typical 10-year-old? Is that the one fact you think is incontrovertible? The boy’s age? There’s a very good chance he wasn’t 10. Even if he was, he could be a tall 10-year-old. And if he was older, he could easily be taller. I know some 13-year-olds that are 6’ tall.
Of all the facts in this case, the boy’s age is probably the least well known. McQueary did not ask the boy or check his ID. He was just making a guess. You can’t base the improbability of the sexual position based on the height difference of Sandusky and a proto-typical 10-year-old at a perfect 50% height percentile.
“So it’s your testimony that the defendant did fondle you and sodomize you in the school shower when you were approximately ten years of age?”
“Yes.”
“We’ve heard expert testimony from Dr. Artist, who said—based on his extensive experience in the field—that due to the defendant’s age and the position of your relative anatomies, anal penetration would not have been possible. How do you respond to that?”
“Um… I guess maybe he’s not as limber as Sandusky was?”
“And I believe he also testified—testified that according to his own research, naked fondling of a young boy by an adult male who is not a relative is not necessarily sexual, or even improper. How do you respond to that?”
“I guess… there’s a lot of sick old men in the world?”
<ROBBLE ROBBLE ROBBLE>
“ORDER!!!” <BANG>
The cardboard tube thing is so ludicrously over the top that I have to believe we are being trolled. I mean, maybe it was obvious to everyone else ages ago, but SA just seems so damned sincere with all his talk of lubrication and thrusting and 10-year-old anuses. Anyway, this thread won’t make much sense anymore now that he’s joined handy and Cesario in the illustrious ranks of my ignore list, so I guess I’m out.
[Fucking Liar Alert] 25 pages up I did just that. Because this stupid, dishonest fucker probably didn’t make it out of tenth grade, it’s a lead pipe cinch his retarded attempts to play Boy Lawyer don’t extend to finding a statute book, let alone reading it (he didn’t read the GJ indictment for the first month of the thread IIRC), it’s not surprising that he chose to ignore the following, but I’ll repost it, because no doubt then he’ll realize his mistake (read: lie) (ha).
Standing behind a ten year old boy with your arms wrapped around him and your genitals exposed and in direct proximity to his buttocks is, in the books of any non-insane, non-sick, non-fucked-up, person “likely to offend, affront, and alarm.” Our proof, even putting aside objective standards of sanity, is that it freaked the Hell out of McQueary.
The psycho pseudo lawyer will no doubt carry on his merry way, but this statute alone is enough to indict Paterno. Naked Showering Between Unrelated Men And Boys, With Touching, Is Illegal. Full Stop.
[/FLA]
[QUOTE=Huerta88;14724639
The psycho pseudo lawyer will no doubt carry on his merry way, but this statute alone is enough to indict Paterno. Naked Showering Between Unrelated Men And Boys, With Touching, Is Illegal. Full Stop.
[/FLA]
[/QUOTE]
Yes but you can’t rule out the possibility that he came into the shower area fully clothed, slipped on the soap and all his clothes got caught on a nail and ripped straight off only to be stolen by gophers who then pissed on him forcing him to have a quick innocent shower.
Liberal.
“Proving.”
“Happy that [in some alternative made up reality] he was only sexed-up-but-not-quite-raped by a creepy old man.”
What a sick, stupid, retarded fucker this is.
I really should stay out of this but I don’t like being called an idiot. The truth is that I have repeated ad nauseum that I don’t care if actual intercourse took place; there was still a crime in progress (and I appreciate the cite of the statute). However, I feel compelled to fight ignorance and SA’s assertions are just so ludicrous. Anybody who can do squats can have sex. There is no difference in the muscles used. He makes these statements like that Sandusky’s arms had to be extended two feet in front of him when McQueary said they were on the boy’s waist. We have posters here who are over a foot taller than their spouses who somehow manage to have sex. I suggest that SA check out some (adult) gay porn and he will certainly see that people manage to have standing sex all the time.
Paper Towel Tube experiment, day 1:
Tentative at first, worried about catching on the edge, legs a little tired but seems to work
Day 2:
Starting to get a rhythm, cardboard not very soft
Day 3:
Need to take a break, significant chaffing
Day 4:
Lined the inside with significant amounts of lubrication, much better
Day 5:
Disaster! Tube completely disintegrated at high speeds
Day 6:
At grocery store, noticed I am strangely drawn to the paper towel aisle
And so, another Charmin squeezer is born. Or should I say Bounty. Whatever.
Enough, people.
There are only 2 options here.
Either SA doesn’t get it and isn’t going to get it, meaning that trying to argue with him is pointless.
OR
SA is just fucking with you, meaning that trying to argue with him is pointless.
Either way, this horse has been dead for a good 10 pages now.
Whichever one is the ‘quicker picker upper’, I suppose.
Seriously, y’all, this is one of the weirdest and most unpleasant threads I have ever read here.
While I have typically disagreed with many, if not most, of Starving Artist’s positions, this is the first time he has made me disgusted.
I thought he was fucking a paper towel roll.
Starving Artist, the paper towel tube test is clearly a test that can prove or disprove the reported behavior, but I think there is still a critical question surrounding it:
When did Paterno perform the paper towel tube test to know he shouldn’t call police?
I am surprised that this thread is still open, and that no one’s been banned, given the explicit descriptions of child rape.
But suddenly I realized that the mods have either:
• Given up on reading this thread (The smart ones? Approx. 1000 posts ago).
or
• Are laughing at us.
Either way, i don’t blame 'em.