It looks the same to me.
I doubt it. Ask any poster what their opinion is on the other cases (especially if they’ve read the grand jury testimony) and I’m pretty sure you’ll run across some strong ones. And you’ll see them connecting the dots to this particular instance - something that SA is willing to discount.
And here, we find that SA is unfamiliar with soap, as he would otherwise be aware that soap-lather on skin is slippery. Perhaps this explains why he has so much time to post to this thread. No one will come near him due to his BO, so he posts here for his social interaction, instead.
“Are they ALL incorrect?” is explicitly asking about every single one - it can only be answered affirmatively if every single accusation is incorrect. “do you think the other 10 to 20 victims that have come forward are also incorrect?” does not have the same all-or-nothing aspect to it.
RP is now claiming to have asked “Are they ALL incorrect?” because he would like to interpret SA’s answer as being that he has no opinion as to whether ALL are incorrect - this would then contradict his subsequent statement that Sandusky is undoubtedly guilty of some of them. But that was not explicit in his question at the time, and was not evident from the context of the question. Especially since he framed it as: “since you think Sandusky was wrongly accused (see SA’s paper towel tube defense) …?” IOW, he made specific reference to SA’s technical defense in the McQueary case, and apparently asked if something similar would apply to the other cases. SA’s response that he was unfamiliar with the other cases was appropriate in context.
Didn’t they try that with a bunch of dentists?
Oh no, wait. That was whether or not they would recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum.
9 out of 10 dentists surveyed would rather chew gum than be raped in the ass by Jerry Sandusky.
“I’ve come here to chew bubble gum and get raped in the ass. And I’m all out of bubble gum.” —The Tenth Dentist
This horse shit is STILL going on? Let’s cut to the chase.
To hell with Sandusky.
To hell with Paterno.
To hell with Penn State.
To hell with the rabid fans who are more upset that PENN STATE got slagged over this, than over the sort of shit THEY were ignoring or enabling or covering up for.
To hell with them ALL.
You are correct, at some point in my posts I misquoted myself using the word “ALL” and then believed the word “ALL” was in my original.
Which doesn’t change my original complaint or position because my initial objection was based on my actual quote as listed multiple times.
Despite the two major phrases of the sentence being clearly focused on the wrongly accused point, instead you key off the fact that the minor supporting/clarifying note in parenthesis could possibly, conceivably allow a response unrelated to the main ideas found in the quote? And then no mention of an opinion surrounding the larger point?
Even absent the paranthetical remark, I would still assume, based on the context of the discussion, that the question was about his opinion about the various specific charges, not a question of whether every single one is false. IOW, it was a question that could be answered by “all are true”, “all are false”, or “these are true and these are false”.
Again, the presumption - based on the question being asked in the wake of a lengthy discussion revolving around the details of the McQueary case - was that this was a request for a similar analysis and assessment of the other accusations.
It doesn’t matter the nature of the analysis or the source of the opinion - the fact of the matter was he had an opinion based on some data regarding the allegations (the number of them).
If someone interpreted that question as “do the other allegations also contain aspects that make them physically impossible and thus incorrect due to that one and only that one attribute” then sure, his answer was ok.
But that is such a ridiculous stretch of an interpretation that I honestly can’t see why you think it’s the correct interpretation. In my opinion that is the very definition of intellectually dishonest.
I disagree with you, but have nothing further to add, and believe my prior comments stand.
So that’s what you’ve been driving at. And here all this time I thought it was another one of your silly little “gotcha” attempts.
Look, this isn’t rocket science. Guin has been pestering me all through this thread wanting to know what I think about all the other claims against Sandusky and the kids involved. Implict in her posts was either why I still thought Sandusky guilty of rape in the McQueary incident or why I wasn’t showing concern over what has allegedly happened to them. I answered by saying that I didn’t know anything about them and therefore had no opinion. This obviously didn’t mean I was totally unaware that other allegations had been made, only that I didn’t know the specifics and hadn’t formed an opinion about the allegations or what was said to have happened to the children involved. On the other hand I had learned enough about the McQueary incident to have formed opinions about it.
Simply put, I’m afraid my posts are not where the intellectual dishonesty is to be found in regard to the issue you’re trying to make of this.
Now, to get back to Huerta and his insistence that I answer his certainty that I’m the PennLive poster, it appears that he still hasn’t figured it out. So perhaps he could revert to Plan B and prove it himself, as he claimed to be able to do if I didn’t fess up.
And speaking of Huerta, how come he’s been getting a pass on the - for want of a better term - homophobic insults he’s made toward me here on this aggresively anti-homophobe message board?
Ok, it may be silly to point out the thing you say that are contradictory, but it’s probably a little sillier to actually say them in the first place.
When you say a bunch of stuff about Guin, and then say “I answered by…” it sounds like you are saying you were answering Guin.
Is that what you are saying?
I haven’t really noticed, but even if I had, I don’t really want to play “Be nice to the pedophile.” Hell, I’ve only ever known one person who liked playing that game…
…the tenth dentist?
Maybe it is you and other self-righteous finger pointers should read all the facts???
-
Paterno couldn’t fire Sandusky because he had retired THREE YEARS EARLIER.
-
Sandusky had access to the grounds and facilities due to his work with the charitable foundation and being a professor emiratus or something like that. Meaning Joe Pa had NOTHING to do with Sandusky at the time and he was the 100% responsibility of the school.
-
He reported the accusations to the administration as well as to the head of campus police. So get off your high horse with that enabler BS.
Lastly, I sincerely wish the idiots like you actually cared about child sex abuse as much as you think you do, but all you do is crap out of your mouth whatever the media tells you. Oh, look, you mentioned the RCC, you and the other idiots in this thread to be fair, how original is that??? What? Nobody cares about children abused by their families, sports organizations, other institutions etc. etc.? No, it’s not important to take these tragic scandals and learn a thing or two about child abuse in our society and how it affects everybody, but we’ll just take a few high profile cases, wag our fingers like heros and go back to sticking our heads in the sand.
Braaavooo!!
Aw, ain’t it cute? Starkers got another pet monkey!
This is complete and utter bullshit.
It is the responsibility of any rational, law-abiding adult to report any violations of the law to the proper authorities and to prevent such actions from taking place again.
IF Joe Pa had even a reasonable suspicion that Sandusky was committing felonies on campus, it was his responsibility to do everything in his power to rescind Sandusky’s access to campus and athletics facilities. This includes talking to the relevant university personnel.
Football coaches have significant managerial control over football facilities, and he certainly could have drawn a hard line over who had access.
Also, if you think he didn’t have significant pull with the university administration about access to the grounds, especially involving potential felons, your powers of self-delusion are great (though I suppose your asinine conspiracy theories about ghost-written Harry Potter novels should have given that away already).
Speaking of facts, I just learned today that “Pa” stands for “Pedophile abettor”. God do I feel like a fool…all this time I thought it stood for “Pedophile aide” :smack: