You heard a description of standing anal rape of an 8-year-old in this thread. Why do you keep asserting that it’s not possible?
There were material differences!
I’m heartened to see that the Showering Lessons Gambit has gained a new plot point. There was no lube in the shower. Nope. No lube. Nothing slippery at all in there. Just, you know, soap … but then he was playing keepaway with that, wasn’t he. Didn’t even get it anywhere near the kid, because that would ruin the game.
I’m right here fuckwit.
I don’t have any time for your gay-ass games and secret messages. Save them for texting to your three foot tall boyfriends. If you have (finally) an answer to whether and why you posted that appalling crap at PennLive, say yes or no. It’s three characters, at most.
Cite to the fact that some “lynch mob” existed before it came out that Paterno coddled and stood silent to protect a pedophile and a bogus botched cover-up investigation. Cite (just one) to the fact that anyone (other than PSU fans fed up with a doddering 80 year old clinging delusionally to power, to the detriment of the team) wanted to “bring down Paterno in the first place.” In doing so, recall that I and others here know about college football, and know that there are no such cites. You have shit, and you are shit.
No it does not (see the poll where you were humiliated) and no we are not (Sandusky is formally accused not of “rape” but sexual assault). Clearly, he did rape Victim No. 2, and many others. But your persistent contention/pretense that if he did not, that is a game changer and all that’s in play is a “naked hug,” is fucking gross and what has had you rightly condemned as a disgusting pervert.
There is no sworn testimony from McQueary that uses “fondling” as “a possible alternative.” McQueary’s sworn testimony (you know, the evidence, unlike your fuckwitted speculation) was to “some sort of intercourse” and “subjected to anal intercourse.” In any event, of course, “fondling” is (per the IMHO poll where you were utterly humiliated) the same as “sexual contact” to all thinking adults, and anal intercourse is a form of sexual contact, so there would be no “alternative” or inconsistency. But it’s even worse than that, your utterly stupid denial. The word “fondling” (which means sexual contact, anyhow) is from the Grand Jury’s characterization (not verbatim quote) of Paterno’s ten year after the fact characterization of what McQueary told him. And Paterno, knowing the Grand Jury was not thrilled about what went down, had every motivation to avail of every softening weasel word he could, so that McQueary’s report of “extreme sexual conduct, way over the line” might morph into something still sexual and quite clearly criminal but less blatantly demanding of Paterno’s active investigation and follow up.
Let me repeat: There is no sworn testimony in which McQueary can be shown to have used the word “fondling” nor to have suggested that it was an “alternative explanation” to anal rape.
You – fuckwit – are not free to pretend or testify that there is.
Was McQueary (who was there – you were not, you retard) then lying (as you suggested under your alternate persona on PennLive) about his belief that the sounds were “rhythmic?” If he was not lying, and we allow you to substitute your non-eyewitness testimony (you’re not entitled to give testimony, retard), does this do away with his separate statement that he “heard something that sounded like sex?” If so, how so, retard?
*Fascinating Rhythm,
You’ve got me on the go!
Fascinating Rhythm,
I’m all a-quiver.
When a mess you’re making!
The neighbours want to know
Why I’m always shaking
Just like a flivver.
…
I know that
Once it didn’t matter -
But now you’re doing wrong;
When you start to patter
I’m so unhappy.
…
Oh, how I long to be the man I used to be!
Fascinating rhythm,
Oh won’t you stop picking on me?*
In general, I think it’s a mistake to get too hung up on the technical details of what McQueary told the GJ. He’s talking about an event that he witnessed 10 years ago; people frequently misremember small details of things that happened 10 years ago, (even if he was clear on them at the time, which I also doubt, as previous).
But that cuts both ways, and I don’t think you can refute McQueary’s testimony by quibbling over whether 2 or 3 slaps are rhythmic. OK, so maybe he was wrong about that, and it was really 5 or 6 slaps. Whatever it was, the point he’s saying is that it suggested some sort of sexual activity to him.
The great thing about rock, paper, scissors, rape is that when you play rape, you get to claim that the other person really didn’t see rape getting played. Instead, what you were really doing was whatever it is that wins you the round, whether it be paper, rock, showering lessons, whatever.
No one is interested in having your hands anywhere near their ass.
Please keep that in mind in your personal life as well.
I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry that this thread is turning into Rape: The Musical.
For those of you updating your Starkish to English translation guides, be advised that the condition of having “little doubt” equates precisely to having a “suspicion”.
(A nattily dressed man with excellent posture and an even-eyed gaze is shown in to see the mayor.)
Mayor: Lieutenant, I understand there’s been a break in the Sandusky case.
Bizarro Columbo: Yeah, that’s right.
Mayor: Well?
BC: Well Mr. Mayor, it’s like this. I did the same thing I always do: start with a rock-solid conclusion and work backward to make sure all the clues fit.
Mayor: I beg your pardon?
BC: See, the other day I woke up and I was lying in bed, when suddenly I hear a voice come booming out of the sky. It says “JOE PATERNO IS A GOOD AND HONEST MAN WHO DID NOTHING WRONG. THIS IS THE GREATEST OF MY COMMANDMENTS, WHICH THOU SHALT NOT CONTRADICT.” Plain as day. And I tell you, it really made me reconsider the facts of this case.
Mayor: Is this some kind of joke?
BC: Stay with me. See, if Paterno is a good and honest man who did nothing wrong, and he didn’t contact the police about what McQueary told him, then it must not have been a crime. And if there was no crime, it couldn’t have been rape. Which means…
Mayor: Lieutenant!
BC: That’s right. No rape took place. It all fits. Say, that’s a great-looking kid you got there. Plays Little League, eh?
Mayor: Lieutenant, put that down and get out of my office.
BC: Sure, sure. Oh, there’s just one more thing. You ever heard of a game called “keepaway with the soap”?
Mayor: GET OUT!
BC: Yeah, well. It’ll all be in my report.
Hey retard – you aren’t a lawyer, so you don’t know anything about what “due process” means.
You aren’t a scientist, so your deranged lunatic “forensic analysis” is worth crap.
And – Paterno was fired after a two and a half year highly professional investigation of his and everyone else’s conduct and inaction. There was nothing “mindless,” no evidence of “emotionalism,” in the thousands of man hours that went into this investigation. The University was aware of the investigation and the facts coming out for months if not longer before the indictment. Paterno got more thourough consideration of the proposal to fire him, in the course of the investigation and in the Board of Trustee’s meeting (that there is no vidence was “mindless” or “emotional,)” than any fired college football coach in history that I’ve heard of.
I feel compelled to do no such thing you fuckwit. “Secret message?” WTF do you think this is, the Babysitter’s Club (oh Jesus I hope I didn’t just write that – no, I did – forget I said it and for fuck’s sake don’t go near any children, for babysitting, for hide the soap, for anything).
Secret message? I can honestly say that in ten years on this board I have never seen anyone so mind-alteringly stupid as to suggest that posters are obliged to guess what you are saying.
I know what’s going on, you can’t deal with the shit you posted on that other board so it’s all games and frantic footwork to avoid owning up to it. Silence and continuing to ignore my four-times-repeated question would have been much, much less damaging to your position (which would still have been stupid and untenable) than this ridiculousness.
The megalomania and Messiah complex are one of the more disgusting aspects of this fool. No one else has repeatedly claimed to have “won.” No one else claims infallibility. No one else points fingers at his rivals like a second grader"they’re all a bunch of poopy pants!!"
There’s something particularly shrill and effeminate to his tone that, well, I can’t help but finding consistent with his defense of Sandusky’s actions. Just . . . fundamentally unmanly. Which is what it is, but lays him open to a high likelihood of hypocrisy as I doubt he in his would-be conservative persona has much history of defending the type of male-on-male sexual attraction and contact that he’s so fervently trying to explain away here.
He’s stuck. If he answers substantively, and tries to deny it, I’ll post another link, calling more attention to it. Just about everyone will conclude that there’s almost certainly no two ways about his having written that. The particularly foul assertion that McQueary definitely made his report up to advance his career (yes, because making a private report to his boss about a crime that could only ensnare the football program in scandal is how you rise through the ranks in college football) would alone be enough to kill this thread or make him slink off.
So he’s reduced to mincing coy claims that he’s fully addressed the matter, but I’m too stupid to have gotten his “secret message” in which he addressed it in code (secret message, what on fucking earth?!).
Prediction: He’s flailing away as we speak and will eventually check in with some lame ass alibi that introduces a bunch of tangents and irrelevant made up “facts.”
I’ll tee it up nicely again for when he finally figures what he wants to go with.
SA:
(1) did you write the PennLive threads maintaining that the ten year old victim was “three feet tall” and thus impossible for Sandusky to rape?
(2) If you deny it, do you disagree with the contention that McQueary (none of whose sworn testimony has been inconsistent, none of which contains the word “fondling” or “I have an alternative explanation as to what I saw other than the anal interecourse I testified to under oath earlier”) is probably or certainly lying in his consistent sworn testimony that he saw “some form of intercourse” and testified to Paterno about “extreme sexual conduct, way over the line?”
The next Day
BC: Mayor, Mayor! I’ve got the PERFECT way to prove to you that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Sandusky to rape that boy.
Mayor: Lieutenant, I’m giving you 10 seconds to get out of my office before I ask you to turn in your badge.
BC: Stick with me Mayor, please. You won’t regret it.
Mayor: ugh
BC: Ok, so you see this paper towel tube sir? Pretend this tube is a young boy’s rectum.
Mayor: GET OUT! NOW!!
BC: But, but sir… I have a scientific demonstration which proves it was physically impossible for Sandusky to rape the boy in the shower that night!
BC begins to unzip his pants
BC: You see, a 3 foot tall boy’s rectum would be about a foot and a half off of the ground. So I’d have to be squatting like this, see. And now… if I just… try to work it in… oomph See! I’ve fallen right over! There’s no way I can squat so low to the ground and fit my dick inside this tube in a standing position!!!
Mayor: That’s it! Badge! Now! And then get out of here! I never want to see you again, you sick twisted fuck-sack.
BC: Fine! slams down badge But you haven’t seen the last of Bizzaro Columbo! I’m going straight to the defense attorney!
*Notice: This is a derivative work. All characters Copyright Vinyl Turnip. *
I agree with you that his pussy-footing response to the question suggests that he is in fact the author of those posts.
However, I note FTR that he didn’t actually say “secret message”. He said “not so secret message”. That means the opposite of “secret message”.
Reminds me more of Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny.
Is this thread the all-time low point of the SDMB? Good Christ.