Those are good. I was thinking a mix and match kind of thing for DP Man.
D for Despicable or Disgusting or Driveling or Doddering or Delusional or Deranged, etc.
P for Putz or Pervert (or Pedophile or Pederast, for those who think that shoe fits), etc.
Trying some out:
“Look, children, it’s Disgusting Pervert Man! Stay away, he’s dangerous!”
“Oh, there’s Deranged Putz Man and his paper towel tube again. What a creepy ignoramus he is.”
He’s done about 20 already, victory being defined by his saying so.
There’s more to it than that. There is a huge amount of false pride tied up in refusing to admit any error. This is someone who likely doesn’t have much going on good in his life, and who is hypersensitive to being called crazy (I’d dare say he’s been diagnosed or treated for one or more mental problems, and there’s nothing a crazy person hates worse than being called crazy). He’s painted himself into various corners and doesn’t have the humility or the who-cares-it’s-just-the-Internet detachment to get out gracefully, so he keeps thrashing.
Also, there is a very genuine and disturbing level of personal attachment to this notion that pedophilia reports are inherently unreliable and that investigating them robustly is equivalent to a witch hunt, as well as the fervently-held belief that there are many forms of naked man-boy interaction that are “perfectly innocent.” Anyone with an idee fixe like that is not going to be able to back off, because this goes, for him, way beyond the Sandusky trial. He thinks that Sandusky and Paterno are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “hysterical Nancy Grace imaginings about what’s really innocent man-boy showering,” which he (bizarrely but I guess at this point, sincerely) believes to be one of the significant problems facing America. He’s not going to back off and let (in his imagined world) Nancy Grace trample over Sandusky’s rights (by proxy, every man’s right) to give naked hugs to boys they’re showering with – not on his watch!
Finally, and consistent with the small, small life someone like this clearly has – his hero-worship of Paterno and Sandusky makes any condemnation of Sandusky a condemnation of him, of a large part of his life. Of course that’s childish, but it’s exactly like a fourteen year old hysterical girl lashing out at that little bitch Selena Gomez for stealing her Bieber away.
Answered and asked.
Defending the right to rape children is metaphorically bad.
You could take even fairly extremist views and still say “sure, I support blind partisanship, but why do you have your panties in such a twist and worry about something more important, like kiddie porn. At least I don’t think children should be raped.”
Now he no longer has that smidgen of a defense.
Agree on SA dealing with serious issues (or, as is increasingly obvious, NOT dealing with them).
Don’t forget that after many people here expressed concern and suggested that he at least get a professional opinion on his fixation on this, he said
My god, I can’t imagine what it would be like going through life unable to let go of something, especially something as perverted as this.
In fact, I’m going to quote myself just so that he reads it again.
You do not have to go through life like this.
Having utterly avoided this thread until this point, and having just dragged myself sideways through the whole festering mess of it, my only comment is this:
None of this is true. Not one word of it. SA, get help.
plau·si·ble/ˈplôzəbəl/
Adjective:
(of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable.
(of a person) Skilled at producing persuasive arguments, esp. ones intended to deceive.
Synonyms:
probable - likely - credible - believable - possible
Dictionary.com Answers.com
The Free Dictionary
In my opinion the scenario in which Sandusky merely grabbed the kid to keep him from falling after slipping on the wet soapy floor is entirely reasonable. It explains the two or maybe three slapping sounds McQueary heard, the position he found them in, and the fact that we have no further evidence of intercourse such as Sandusky in a squatting or crouching position and what I think we have to presume for lack of testimony otherwise the apparently benign expressions on their faces. Why would McQueary testify as to their turning to look at him but not to copulatory expressions on Sandusky’s face and pain or distress on the boy’s face? Frankly, I believe the slipped in the shower scenario - while still unlikely - is more credible and fits the facts as we know them much more closely than does the anal rape scenario.
I find it far more credible that they had both been abducted by Ohio State fans, drugged, placed in a compromising position, and then discovered while recovering from the effects of the drug.
Really, SA. You’ve lost your mind, dude. You’re seriously suggesting a “Whoops! I slipped in the shower and my penis went up his rectum!” scenario.
Also, I’ll take my answer off the air, since I have no intention of opening this nasty motherfucker again. Jesus Christ.
It’s not so much that I think Sandusky is being unfairly maligned as it is that: people are hysterically jumping to conclusions that the facts don’t support; that everyone is entitled to due process; that Joe Paterno has been wrongly convicted in the court of public opinion of allowing the presumptive acts to occur with no evidence and nothing but presumption to back it up; because people have been behaving hysterically and unthinkingly in this thread and this board is supposed to be opposed to the ignorance which lies at the heart of it; and because being called a pedophile and pedophile enabler by a bunch of hysterical crackpots simply because I suggested politely that given Joe Paterno’s sterling reputation we should wait until we have actual evidence of wrongdoing before we begin to condemn him pissed me right off and I therefore decided that if those assholes wanted a fight I’d give 'em one.
So what about the other 7 victims listed in the Grand Jury indictment? Some of them specifically testified that Jerry Sandusky did have anal intercourse with them.
At some point, we need to consider their testimony, and decide what is most likely.
Christ Jesus, he posted a dictionary definition! God, how I hate that! Worse, the dictionary repeats exactly what I said! SA, if I win the lottery tonight, I will have you tracked down. They will bring a video camera, an unabridged dictionary, and offer you a thousand dollars cash for every page you eat. It’ll be worth it. Won’t need to tape you shitting it out, already got that.
The Slippery Scenario. Uh-huh. I live in Minnesota, for six months a year traction is at a premium. You know that picture they put on the “Walk” signs? Guy leaning forward as he strides briskly along. You do that around here, they will call you “Faceplant”.
What happens when you see somebody slip? You reach out to them, if they are within arm’s length. Steady them. Seen it, done it, thousands of times. Never once have I seen anyone wrap their arms around someone else to prevent a booty bounce. Because they are not close enough, usually the instinct of reaching out is useless as well, people are not usually in that close a physical proximity.
And is this what Sandusky said? Or a puff of obscuring smoke from out of your fundament? The technical term being “making shit up”.
Nope, I’ve suggested no such thing. Based on McQueary’s own testimony there is zero evidence that Sandusky’s penis was ever in that boy’s rectum. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions based on nothing but supposition.
I would think you people would be happy that the evidence does not support anal rape in this case rather than clinging to it for dear life in the face of persuasive evidence to the contrary.
He didn’t read those (he pretends) and has no opinion on them, so they don’t make it a whit more likely that when McQueary swore that he saw Victim No. 2 “subjected to anal intercourse” and that he was certain, in later testimony, that what he witnessed was “some kind of intercourse,” he was, in fact, seeing intercourse.
There’s no testimony (that is, evidence) that countervails against this clear and affirmative testimony. The lunatic notion of “helping the boy up after he slipped” is the creation of nothing other than SA’s diseased imagination – it appears nowhere in the sworn testimony (which is all that is evidentiary here). Not even Sandusky made this claim, thus creating a potential he-said he-said situation. It is pure fabrication that doesn’t begin to be even a make-weight argument that would overcome McQueary’s clear, credible testimony, which is entirely consistent with other victims’ testimony as to Sandusky being a world class ass rapist.
This retard has in him another 50 pages of “it was almost certainly a slip and fall situation, that’s what the evidence proves.” Keep in mind you’re dealing with someone whose IQ would likely strain to top 80 and who almost certainly has one or more lesions on his brain. What comes out of his disturbed sensorium is not the stuff of life as lived by sane adults without significant mental disorders. He also believes McQueary made the whole thing up so he could steal Sandusky’s job, so keep that in mind too.
Other than the part about “subjected to anal intercourse” and “I was clear there was some form of intercourse.”
You are officially the stupidest fucker on this forum (and there’s a lot of competition).
We also have evidence that Sandusky had a history at the time of hugging boys (or at least a boy) in the shower. Just because is a bank robber, it doesn’t mean he’s robbed every bank he ever walked into. I’m of the impression that previous crimes or suspicion of crimes is inadmissible as evidence in the courtroom and that each charge must stand or fall on the facts pertaining to that particular case. I may be wrong about that but I don’t think so.
And Sandusky DID anally rape boys on other occassions. In one case, a child DID indeed scream for help (knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs).
Fucking READ it, Starving Artist. I fucking DARE you.
He’s being charged for each crime, dumbass. Not just one. And not just for “boys in the shower”. How retarded can you get?
Right, no hysteria from you, no sirree.
You saved me the effort, thanks.
And of course he is wrong that evidence of past crimes is never admissible or probative under, for instance, Fed. R. Evid. 404 (this will be a state court proceeding, but the Pennsylvania evidence rules track the federal ones closely or exactly).
Oh hey lack of accident. The fact that he’d had his dick in the rectums of half a dozen other boys is admissible and probative to any claim Sandusky (or his lackey here) might make that, say, his dick was proximate to or in Victim No. 2’s rectum as a result of an accidental slip by the lad.
Prior bad acts are also always admissible to impeach a witness’s general credibility, so if Sandusky’s lawyer is stupid enough to let this go to trial and stupid enough to let him testify that none of this stuff ever happened, it would of course be open season as to charge Y to point out that he had little credibility due to charges A-X.
It also says “seemingly reasonable”, and the scenario I decribed certainly seems more reasonable to me based on the evidence we have now than does anal rape. You might note also that “possible” is listed as a synonym. It’s little wonder to me that you hate it when people post from dictionaries.
I would imagine that adults in dry clothing would grab other adults in dry cothing somewhat differently than would a tall, wet and slippery adult trying to grab and keep from faceplanting a small, wet and slippery child in close quarters. Think about it and you’ll see I’m right.
Nope, on all counts. I’d prefer to define it as considering alternate possibilities that also fit the facts. And of course in this case even the shower scenario fits the facts more closely than does anal rape.
Right, except for the sworn testimony, repeatedly, by a competent and credible adult, who has repeatedly sworn that he saw “subjected to anal intercourse” and “some form of intercourse.” From six feet away.
There is no testimony to "slipped and slippery old man tried to grab slippery little boy. NONE. Not from McQueary, not from Paterno, not from Sandusky.
YOU ARE NOT A WITNESS AND YOU DO NOT GET TO INTRODUCE “FACTS” THAT YOU JUST MADE UP.
I hope one day you will be on trial, it’s clear you’re the kind of creep who if he hasn’t already, will commit some skeevy crime before it’s all over. Then, and only then, can you present your own invented “slippery boy needed help getting up” bullshit story. Not till then though.
No u. I’ve already proven you’re full of shit on (among endless other things) the “subjected to anal intercourse” thing. McQueary never said that yet you keep trying to fool people into thinking he had. You’re a dolt of the first order. And a loon of the first order. You have zero credibility in this thread to anyone with even a smidgeon of intellectual honesty or character.