And you registered just to complain about it. What kind of Internet searches have you been running, anyway?
I’m just going to bring this quote back to the forefront again because it’s just so fucking hilarious.
I love it. I really love it. Starving Artist was seriously suggesting “keep-a-way with the soap” as an actual activity that legitimizes what Sandusky and the kid were doing.
Kids don’t play keep-a-way with the soap. Adults don’t play keep-a-way with the soap. Kids and adults together absopositively-fuckin-lootly do not play keep-a-way with the soap. There is no game in existence called keep-a-way with the soap.
Starving Artist, I’m really sorry to break this to you. But if someone, at some time, told you that they were playing “keep-a-way with the soap” they were lying to you to cover up for the shower rape that just occurred.
keep-a-way with the soap. Fuckin A.
The guy (I assume the poster is a guy) registered to complain about banning sock puppets.
No, nothing to see here.
And we have a winner! Both more childish *and *more delusional than SA! Especially childish, btw. Gonna try for more perverted now, for the Triple Crown?
Just curious, btw - what does the US Code of Federal Regulations have to do with anything, and what sort of lie do you think I’ve told about it? Long as we’re tapping on the monkey cage here, and all.
Can’t we all just forget our differences for just a minute, and focus our attentions on the topic at hand here? Which is graphic descriptions of child rape, and how that has absolutely no relevance at all to Paterno’s obligation to report the actions as they were reported to him, instead of being a graduate of the Starving Artist Junior Detective Academy?
Find a dictionary (ask your helper monkey if you can’t manage it) and see if “childish” includes your frothing-at-the-mouth irrational reply when I made a complimentary reference about you as the first post I made which mentioned you in this thread. However, given your usual schtick of “repeat the Big Lie and hope no one will scroll back a couple of pages” as a debate tactic, since you seem too uneducated to come up with anything else, I don’t know why I expect anything of you other than your generating more page hits on this message board. By all means keep posting, Krusty, every page hit helps us out with the rankings.
Do you believe I was also legitimizing “some sort of sexual activity not actually anal rape”? :rolleyes:
Clearly the implication was that it might have been a game dreamed up by Sandusky to facilitate wrestling, grabbing, etc., while naked with a boy in the shower. You can’t point to a word that supports your claim that I presented it as a legitimate game for men and boys in a shower.
Don’t feel badly though, I’ve been dealing with knee-jerk idiocy like that all through this thread.
You’re right, of course. I should have said “keep-away”.
This is where you need to thow in the Full Stop.
Read that sentence again. Forget all the chapters of The Wayward Orphan you’ve dreamed up. What you’ve just descibed above should have been all that Paterno - hell, any sane person - needed to do more than bump it up to their boss and forget about for it ten years.
How can you not see that?
In retrospect … please ignore my above post. When I posted it, I had not yet read the other thread in which **Starv **posits the notion that some poor underpriveleged boy may have actually *asked *Sandusky to bring him into a deserted shower room at night to get him naked and give him showering lessons … Showering lessons!
Are you fucking serious? I thought that term was laid bare (no pun intended) as the hyperbolic lunacy that it is. I had no idea **Starv **would actually argue for it in earnest. That post at once turned my stomach and cracked me up. It is without a doubt, the most fucked up thing I’ve read on this board yet.
I said many pages back that I didn’t think **Starv **was a pedophile apologist, just a Paterno apologist. I have just changed my mind. The man is fucking disturbed.
Showering lessons?! Hahahahaha!
You know, if Sandusky were really giving him showering lessons he’s sorely lacking in its fundementals, what with keeping the soap away from the boy and all.
Yea. It even tops his musings concerning the possibility that naked old man and naked young boy we innocently showering together at night in deserted changing rooms, like you do, and the kid slipped but luckily a naked old guy was there to catch him by putting him hands around his waist only for - dagnabbit - someone (probably a liberal) to come in and totally misconstrue the whole scene.
As far as SA is probably concerned it was lucky the guy had a stonking great, well-soaped erection otherwise the boy could have got really hurt.
EDITED TO ADD:
SA - for your own sake just go - you are never going to live this episode down - you’re never going to shake its stench.
You laugh, but thank God some kindly older gent with an unselfish concern for my welfare gave me showering lessons when I was a wee lad. Otherwise I might never have realized one had to stand under the stream of water coming out of that overhead thing with the tiny holes in it. Hell, it took at least six or eight lessons before I got it right.
Nah, you’ve got things all fucked up. You’re mixing up different things said in different contexts about different subjects. The keep-away with soap thing was a suggestion to explain one possibility as to how they might have been in the position McQueary saw them in as opposed to rape; the shower-teaching scenario was in answer to the allegation that it is ALWAYS wrong and illegal for a man and a boy to be in a shower together or naked in each other’s presence.
Feel better now? :rolleyes:
More later.
Yeah, I feel much better knowing that you think that it’s remotely fucking plausible that a 10 year old boy would ask a 60 year old man to bring him to a deserted locker room in the middle of the night for a showering lesson.
But keep fucking that chicken … or paper towel roll … or little boy … whatever it is that gets you off. You gigantic loser.
Sorry, but your inner dillweed is showing through again. I merely posited that such a scenario as one way a man and a boy might legitimately be showering together. I didn’t say it was probable or even likely in this case, but to the impartial eye it can’t be ruled out either, and would be a valid and reasonable defense in a court of law had Sandusky been charged simply due to being in the shower with the boy. But the main point - that there can be legitimate reasons for a man and a boy to shower together - remains valid.
Are you people even reading for comprehension, or just feverishly skimming for things to be outraged about? :rolleyes:
But Sandusky wasn’t charged “simply due to being in the shower with a boy.” So what’s the point you’re trying to make?
I’m happy to be known as the champion of due process and a staunch opponent of the unthinking, lynch mob mentality.
psychobunny was insisting that it was ALWAYS wrong for a man to be naked in front of a boy and/or to shower with a boy. The scenario I described was to rebut that.
At no point in this trainwreck, or any of the other trainwrecks, have you been ‘championing due process’ against anyone who thought that due process should not be followed. There is no lynch mob here, there are only people astonished by your inept attempts at excusing Paterno’s negligence.
Say, here’s another equally likely scenario. Aliens abducted both of them and beamed them into the shower. There is nothing legitimate about your little fantasy. It would never happen in a million years. If a lawyer presented that as his defense, he’d probably be disbarred for being fucking retarded.