And yet you are the only person posting in support of yourself, whereas people who say they don’t even like me can and do agree with me. It’s not a popularity contest, it’s strong circumstantial evidence that your extreme outlier position is very likely a wrong position that does grave violence to Occam’s Razor and to every notion of common sense and decency.
You’re a retard and I am quite certain you posted the below. No one else in the world can have quite your, uh, rhetorical talents, nor the same obsession with the mechanics of raping “three feet tall boys.”
No one has supported your position that rape was impossible or that McQueary was unsure what he saw or that Sandusky might well be totally innocent of sexual wrongdoing. Not a single person.
Your position on what “fondling” meant lost 190+ to 1 in IMHO, with the common sense position that in this context it could only mean sexualized touching. You really should have abstained from that vote, I know you couldn’t help yourself, but that lonely one vote is more pathetic and ridiculous by far than if had been zero.
And has anyone rlse noticed that I argue evidence, due process and a logical examination of the facts while my opponents argue mostly with name-calling and insults? Telling, I think.
No one else has noticed that because it is as untrue as it could possibly be.
Patting yourself on the head does not advance your case. Leave it to others to praise your impeccable logic, love of due process (you do not know what this means so for the love of God quit saying it). No, really, it’s quite undignified to tell everyone how great you are. If you’re that great, someone will step up to say so on your behalf.
Of course that’s not going to happen here, but your saying it on your own behalf is just silly and inane.
I’ve ACTUALLY done both of those, rather than imagined them. And you are incorrect. Grabbing a child to prevent them from faceplanting involves a wild grab at the nearest limb, generally an arm.
It was my own child and even still there was no full-body contact, nothing resembling a hug.
Do you have any idea what your analogy here means? You’ve basically said “just because he’s a child rapist doesn’t mean he raped THIS kid.” implicit in that is that Sandusky IS a child rapist.
So what the fuck are you arguing here? You’ve just conceded the most important thing!
Nothing of the sort happened and there was nothing the least bit dishonest in posting a highly accurate hypothetical based exactly on the facts in the Paterno thread. The only dishonesty was in your voting for the single stupidest and least likely meaning of “fondling” in the given context.
I challenged his bitchy little attempts to “bust” me by inviting him, in both threads, to identify a single element of the hypothetical fact pattern that was “biased” or “disingenuous.” He couldn’t, or at least certainly didn’t, and your intellect is no more up to the task. My post calling him out on the content-free nature of his criticism remains, literally, the last word in that thread, and 198 people and counting agree with my interpretation of what “fondling” meant in the Sandusky context. I will note that your lonely little vote for the stupidest definition has been joined by one other. Sock puppet or another lonely loon? Enquiring minds don’t give a rat’s ass.
I would think the way a person would react in such an instance would depend on their relative closeness, how tall and/or heavy the child was, the nature of how he was falling and how violently, and what a split-second decision would tell a person would be the safest thing to do given the slippery wetness of it all.
In other words, people react differently to different circumstances. In fact they often react differently even to identical circumstances. So the fact that people in Minnesota or you react one way when you see someone about to fall, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone else would or should do likewise under the same or similar circumstances.
I didn’t say any such thing. I said there was a previous allegation that he hugged a child, with the implication being that hugging rather than anal rape would be the most likely thing that happened, rather than anal rape.
Still, your presumption is correct. A person should not be convicted of one crime just because he or she has committed the same crime at other times. Otherwise the cops could clear up all unsolved murders simply by convicting a person of one murder and assuming he committed all the others as well. Our system of jurisprudence requires that every charge be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m surprised you don’t seem to know that.
And now if you’ll all excuse me, there’s this 7-11 nearby that has these great chocolate covered cherries…
His claim now is that he’s proven the dick was never in or even near the ass, both because of the “physical impossibility” and because when the GJ summarized Paterno’s testimony as saying (literally or paraphrase) “fondling or sexual contact,” this phrasing directly contradicts McQueary’s own sworn testimony about “intercourse of some kind” and the GJ’s summary of his earlier sworn testimony as “subjecting the child to anal intercourse.” In the fever swamp of his diseased brain, this (non-existent) contradiction absolutely cancels out the clear and credible sworn McQueary testimony (as though McQueary should have been able to control Paterno’s characterization of what he saw or the GJ’s summary thereof, or else he’s a liar). His batshit theory literally used this pretzel logic to say we have proof of no rape, and therefore it’s only reasonable to imagine the most likely reason for Sandusky to be behind the kid touching him, which he unilaterally asserts is that he was rescuing the kid from a fall.
It’s kind of too bad when – not that they are wrong – people get into the weeds explaining how his hypothetical of where McQueary would be relative to the “falling” boy is not the most reasonable way someone would grab a falling boy. He basically wins that way, because he can argue all day that his version is more “physically possible,” meanwhile having managed one of his trademark “coups” (in his mind) of getting his invented fact (“catching a falling boy”) into the record as though it were established by some inidependent testimony or evidence thereto, which of course it’s not. After that it’s just bickering over what would have been the most reasonable position for Sandusky to catch the boy when (as a factual matter) he did fall. Cheap ass stunt, he’s been doing it since the beginning of the thread, but we don’t have to play his game.
Actually Starving Artist, let’s go further than saying “I think”, I challenge you to find anyone that agrees with your analysis that it was not possible for Sandusky to do what is claimed.
Is there anyone out there in lurker-land that thinks SA argues “evidence” and “logical examination of the facts” on that point?
Who are these “supporters”? Name their names and cite their posts. I won’t even make you live up to your claim that there are MORE on your side than on sanity’s side. Just cite posts of people supporting your “look[ing] objectively at the facts” from three different posters and I’ll post “Starving Artist is right!” in 70-point font. I bet others would sign on, too.
I would say don’t be stupid, but that would be like expecting a baby not to cry. You obviously have poor reading comprehension or you would have recognized that I said ALL those things while shrieking AND in a messianic tone. :roll eyes:
It’s all there in black and white for anyone to see, but you are obviously blinded by your liberal bias. 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.
And as for your less than 6 scores…If you’re counting lies, poor reading comprehension, misrepresentations and blatant dishonesty, I figure YOUR score’s about 5.8 to, well, 0, favor of you, with numerous assists from the likes of you and worse. And trust me, it doesn’t speak well of the few Huerta supporters that you are a minor offender amongst them.
I’ve already proven you’re full of shit on, among endless other things, believing that it is not plausible that Peterno slipped in the shower and Bush tried to save him from falling by inserting his erect penis into Paterno’s luscious rectum (not unlike a mother grabbing a toddler;s arm before he falls on the pavement).
Clearly, I’m the only poster on the board with intellectual honesty and character, and the only way I can see that you would think such a thing is if you believe every other poster on the board respects you and believes what you say. I can assure you that is not the case.
And has anyone rlse noticed that I argue evidence, due process and a logical examination of the facts while my opponents argue mostly with name-calling and insults? Telling, I think..
SA’s next logical step:
It’s pretty clear the boy initiated this whole thing in an attempt to discredit Sandusky. Who likely put the boy up to it? McQueary.
Sandusky is clearly the victim in this incident.
Yes, he may have abused 10 to 20 other kids, but those are separate incidents that must be examined on their own merits. This one points straight to McQueary.
