And of course, we already have testimony from someone here on the boards who had been raped by a man slightly shorter and fatter than Sandusky when he was 8 years old in a standing position, without lube.
Starving Artist waved him away because there must have been “material differences” in the two situations.
Okay, let me see if I get the psycho-logic:
(2) is self-evidently the most reasonable, the default, assumption for what McQueary actually saw; but
(1) slightly detracts from (2) (but not really because in the course of rescuing the fallen boy, Sandusky would necessarily slap his feet on the floor several times);
but (1) need not be given any weight because the rhythmic sounds the witness heard can be independently proven by a non-witness not to have been rhythmic, and hence totally inconsistent with sex
Is that the pile of shit that passes for his “argument?”
I guess it is, but I still can’t take it seriously. I still think it’s intentional diversionary tactics. His instinct is always to start a side argument on an irrelevant point such as the seventeenth century definition of fondling or the paper towel tube. It’s stupid, it’s mendacious, and it doesn’t fool anyone, but it does bog the thread down. He’s willing to do it till every sentient poster presses ignore, whereupon he would no doubt proclaim victory from having shit all over the thread with illogic and irrelevance. But I’ll still be there, worry not!
This thread is still alive?
I’m flabbergasted every time I open the Pit and find this thread towards the top.
WTF? I understand SA is both an idiot and a rank apologist, but does anyone outside of State College’s immediate environs have any doubt that Sandusky is a serial rapist?
Hell, the school, student body, and many in the football program have accepted it. Were it not for the veneration of JoPa and his proven culpability, not a manjack would be uninvolved in the sharpening of pikes.
Leave SA be. He’s Horatius at Pons Paedophilia.
Au contaire. They prove the relevant fact that there is no unassailable proof that McQueary saw was anal rape.
Well, in the first place we’re talking about anal rape, not “molestation” which carries a different connotation in the minds of most, and second, the nature of the sounds is most germane, as you well know as you’ve attempted to use thrm time and again to support your claim of rape. If the sounds indeed cannot reasonably be characterized rythmic, then they no longer support your theory but instead suggest that they were caused by some other activity not rape.
It’s most amusing to hear you ask what relevance the sounds have now that they don’t seem to support your case. 
And again, McQueary did not say simply that he saw “some form of intercourse”. He threw “fondling” in as well as a possible alternative, thereby making it clear he really didn’t know what he and was making presumptions.
That you can say something like this when even McQueary himself offered an alternative possibility for what he believed he saw is yet more evidence of the hysterical inanity that has characterized virtually every post you’ve made to this thread.
McQueary saw something consistent with molestation. Even if it turned out to have an innocent explanation, it should have been investigated. Paterno failed to ensure that it was investigated. Therefore, Paterno is morally culpable.
There, takes away all of your concern about anal rape.
But just look at the guy’s name. McQueary. He just WANTED to see some hot man-on-boy action! This is the real argument that SA should be making. Anybody with a name like that can’t be trusted, and obviously just wanted in on some of that action.
Here’s what really went down.
As McQueary made his way into the showers he shouted, “Dear God! Sandusky! Why didn’t you tell me? I could have joined you two for a bit of fun!”
Sandusky, realizing in horror what McQueary was thinking said, “My good sir! You are terribly and horribly mistaken! For you see, I was just teaching this young lad a thing or two about showering! Whilst playing a game of keep-away with this fine bar of slippery soap, the boy lost his balance and pushed against the wall instinctively. I was only helping him regain his sure footing. The very idea of anything unsavory going on is beyond comprehension. What kind of man are you anyhow, McQueary.”
“Sure,” said McQueary, as he began to come into the shower. “I’m sure that’s exactly what’s going on here! Now, come here while I teach BOTH of you a thing or two about proper showering.”
“Get out! Get out right now! This is a travesty! There is no impropriety here Mr. McQueary, and your actions betray the gentlemanly way!” Sandusky was taken aback with fright and astonishment that McQueary could read such lurid intent into the showering lessons. It was probably the saddest moment of Sandusky’s life, when he realized that showering with young boys in public showers alone at night were just the golden-year relics of a better time now lost forever.
Convinced that the old man was keeping the boy to himself, McQueary decided to just make up the bit about fondling and “something of a sexual nature,” to get Sandusky back for denying him what he secretly desired.
This truly is what occurred that night. Starving Artist has just been coy and wanted to keep this ace up his sleeve. Now of course, there is no argument you can make that could convince him, or anyone else who reads this account, otherwise. Sandusky is truly a virtuous man, and McQueary a jealous know-nothing low life who thought of nothing but his own selfish desires.
I have little doubt myself that Sandusky is a serial rapist. I just don’t think that what McQueary happened upon was an incidence of it.
And there is no “proven culpability” on Joe Paterno’s part. At least none that I’ve seen in this thread or anywhere else. If you’d like to offer whatever proof you think you have, I’ll be happy to take a look at. After all, I’ve said all along that Joe Pa shouldn’t be condemned without evidence, and if you have something in the way of proof of Mr. Paterno’s malfeasance I’ll be happy to reconsider my position in regard to him.
You have my condolences. 
As for me, I am indeed happily unfamiliar with midget porn. Still, the physics remain much the same and I doubt that you’ve seen a 6’3" male actor buggering a midget from behind with both flat-footed and standing one in front of the other, with the tall guy holding on to nothing but the midget’s waist, unless, like I said before, he had the balance and physical conditioning of your typical Cirque du Soliel performer.
And isn’t unfortunate for Paterno that when the known serial rapist of boys was caught naked in a deserted locker room with a naked 10 year old boy at night - it just happened to be the one time he wasn’t serial raping a boy.
Darn those showering lessons.
How have you come to this conclusion? I mean, it’s obviously the correct one, but I’d like to know the thought process that lets you disregard the one instance* where there was a third-party witness and accept all (or some) of the instances where it was just Sandusky and victim.
[sub]* And what a coincidence, that “one instance” just happens to be the one instance we know Paterno knew about. Odd, that.[/sub]
Three sounds can’t make a rhythm? Shit, someone tell Freddie Mercury!
It wasn’t Paterno’s responsibility to ensure it was investigated. His responsibility was to report it to the school’s administration, which included the head of Penn State’s duly accredited 256-member police department. He did this right away and without pulling punches. The only reason people are using this flimsy “he didn’t call the cops” excuse to blame him is because they wanted to nail him all along but had nothing until the head of Pennsylvania’s state police, in an obvious instance of CYA in light of ten years of child abuse not discovered or acted upon, decided to publicly blame Paterno for not reporting the second incident ten years to the municipal police, rather than according to written law and standard campus practice as he did. Lacking substantive evidence of malfeasance on Paterno’s part, this was all the lynch mob needed to do what they wanted to do in the first place and bring down Paterno.
Good grief! And you’re an attorney too! :smack:
Name a Queen song that has a rythm of three sounds made but once. :rolleyes:
Buddy, you’re an old man poor man, pleading with your eyes gonna make you some peace some day.
Simple. The evidence in the McQueary incident indicates to me that anal rape isn’t what he saw. I’m inclined to think that in light of so many other accusations of events that took place over a ten year period that there is likely something to them. I originally thought that Sandusky was raping the kid in the showet as well, but a detached, objective analysis of the event as described has convinced me otherwise. And Paterno has nothing to do with it in that case as he was never told of rape in the first place. Should evidence emerge that casts doubt on some of the other allegations I may change my mind about them too.
Starving Artist, your arguments have gone from out right absurd to just plain desparate. You cannot possibly believe the shit you’re coming up with.
SA, how come you keep quoting and responding to every single one of Huerta’s comments and questions except the ones about if that is you on the Penn Live board?
If you are ignoring it because you think its irrelevant, see it from our point of view. A person who writes just like you, who has said some of the same things as you, has taken it even further on those boards but not here, in defending Sandusky and most instances of naked touching adults and boys, and we’d like to know why?
Is it just me, or is that more than one note sounded 2 or 3 times and then no more?
Are you people more than even vaguely aware of what you’re reading? :rolleyes:
Chet, I can name that song in three notes.
Jack, Name That Tune!
Stomp, stomp, clap.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
What is Starving Artist is Moron, Chet?
The fact is, I’ve already answered his question. He just hasn’t been bright enough to pick up on it.
And just for the record, I’ve ignored a great deal of what Huerta’s had to say. If I wete to try to contend with all of his lies, misrepresentations, tortured logic and hysteria, I’d have time for nothing else.