Quotes from SA regarding the other allegations against Sandusky:
“I don’t know anything about them and have no opinion”
"I have little doubt myself that Sandusky is a serial rapist. "
Let’s review:
“no opinion”
“little doubt”
Predicted responses:
If you’ll recall, those two statements were made in regard to two different subjects, but still there’s no inconsistency. I don’t know enough about the other allegations to have an opinion about the specifics of what is alleged to happened to each child in each instance, but there are enough allegations over a lengthy period of time to make these allegations I’m only vaguely aware of to be likely.
See? Easy, peasy. No contradiction; no inconsistency. And nothing wrong to admit…other than your apparent inability to discern differences in context.
You could have just said response #3 and saved a little typing
Subject/Context:
“Starving Artist, since you think Sandusky was wrongly accused (see SA’s paper towel tube defense), do you think the other 10 to 20 victims that have come forward are also incorrect?”
and response:
“I don’t know anything about them and have no opinion”
So, on a topic he’s knows nothing about, and has no opinion, he also has a firm opinion (“little doubt”) about Sandusky’s guilt.
This is the type of Nancy Grace jumping to conclusion about something you admit you know nothing about that is just…oh wait, sorry, that’s your line.
Nope, sorry, but if I were acting like Nancy Grace I’d be screeching that he’s obviously guilty, that the allegations so far are just the tip of the iceberg of his true depravity, and wondering why we even bother having trials for people like him.
In contrast, I merely said that given all the allegations over such a long period of time, it seems likely he is guilty.
See, a world of difference. So…
False equivalence, RaftPeople be thy name. 
The uncertainty principle meets Pedobear. Schrodinger’s catamite.
See below
Ain’t no Pedobear in this house.
Trust me, Starv, you don’t need to pad your post count in this thread.
You’re just ignoring what he said in response.
Which brings up one interesting downside of this over-the-top pounding on SA. Once you’ve proclaimed so long and loudly that he is a complete and dishonest moron, you find yourself boxed into a corner as well. You can no longer acknowledge that he might be making a valid point even on the occasion that he does, because that would be conceding that this retarded fool scored one off you, which might not do good things for your pride or standing in this crowd.
[I do note that you’ve been fairly restrained and logic-focused by the standards of this thread. Still that makes your reaction in this exchange all the more notable.]
I didn’t ignore what he said at all, he said it was out of context, I provided the context by quoting the post that initiated his response, showing that his context angle was incorrect.
Recap:
I asked him if all the other allegations were incorrect also.
He said no knowledge, no opinion.
Then he explains that the number of complaints leads him to believe at least some must be correct (little doubt).
That means he said he had no opinion and then later said he did have an opinion (that some must be correct).
Are you able to explain how he can have no opinion as to whether the allegations are correct/incorrect and at the same time have an opinion that at least some must be correct?
That was about the nearest SA has come in any thread to admitting he was wrong. sure - it’s only to prevent further embarassment and further exposure of his true sleazy self but still.
We now all know he’s not just some mad old loon but somebody truly disturbed and distasteful.
Maybe it’s time to let this thread sink into its own mire to be ever preserved in our bookmarks as a monument to this awfulness rather than let the impact get disappated in other less significant matters.
SA - walk away - hole, digging etc. There’s nothing you can say that’s going to retreive your reputation at this point.
The likelihood that 10 different accusers are all lying is significantly lower than the likelihood that any individual accuser is lying. So it’s logical and consistent for a person to say they are pretty sure a person being accused by 10 different people is guilty, while at the same time being unsure as to any individual accusation.
SA said he had no opinion about the other accusations in the context of a very detailed discussion about the merits of the McQueary accusation. In context it was clear that he was saying that by contrast he had no knowledge of the details of the other accusations and couldn’t have an opinion of their merit in the manner which he had regarding the McQueary accusation.
When SA said he was sure Sandusky was a serial rapist, it was a general comment about Sandusky, and did not address the merits of any specific accusation. Again, the likelihood that so many people are all falsely accusing Sandusky is very low, and this is not inconsistant with the fact that any given accusation may be false.
ISTM that this is all pretty simple and obvious, and SA has already pointed this out, and the only reason I can think of for your simply ignoring it is that you don’t want to lose face, as above. (In addition to the general tenor of this thread, your post itself had a mocking tone to it “haha, watch me take down this bozo”, which undoubtedly adds to your difficulties in admitting that you were wrong.)
Showering Artist has no opinion of the other accusations because they have no bearing on Paterno’s ouster. That’s the only thing he’s concerned about - defending Paterno.
Defending Paterno to the point that he’s painted himself into a Defending Sandusky corner.
Something about a petard should probably be noted at this point.
That’s undoubtedly true. It’s also true that the media and people in general - including virtually all the posters in this thread - have focused much more on the Paterno-related accusation than on the others.
What’s your point?
Which was exactly why I asked “are they ALL incorrect?” To see if he felt Sandusky was completely innocent of everything he was being accused of.
Simple question.
None of the explanation of specific details in each of those cases are relevant because it’s not what the question was, it was simply “are ALL incorrect?”
Of course it’s a mocking tone.
YES. Please calm down, Huerta! You’re scaring the children away!
It’s even better if you picture Starving Artist in this costume in his role as Bizarro.
That’s not what you asked.
I made my point. SA doesn’t give a shit about the other instances because the Victim #2 instance is the one he’s hung his hat on.
If every one of the 52 counts against Sandusky featured an MO of bringing a kid to a deserted shower room in the middle of the night for showering lessons, it still would cause a blip in his thinking because THIS is the one that Paterno is wrapped up in. And, golly, physics has just proved his point for him.
Understood, but what’s the significance of that? Again, the same applies to virtually everyone who has been discussing this case.
