Pedophile admirer?
Nope. I observed that you were unusually obsessed with the mechanics of male on male anal sex (undeniable, as witness your dozens of feverish posts on the details thereof herein). I observed “which is what it is” – homosexually inclined men such as yourself might, reasonably, focus on such things (though I doubt few do as fervently as you). I went on to say it got really creepy when you transferred that interest to man-on-boy anal sex mechanics (again, undeniable that you are obsessed with this topic). And then, noted that it was somewhat hypocritical to call yourself conservative, as real conservatives really don’t, on paper at least, like people obsessed with these sort of things.
Yep. Confirmed. I knew you were a punk ass little bitch without the nads to answer a simple yes or no question after six repetitions.
I’m not going to “figure out” some coded riddle bitch. Answer yes or no (no one else has “figured out” your pretended “answer” to my question), or have it presumed you did write those posts.
Oh, and I never claimed I’d be able to definitively prove you did. That was another poster. Not me. Can you, little bitch, make one single post without lying?
Asked and answered, I guess.
You haven’t, AFAIK, proven me wrong in one single instance in this thread, so the occasion has not arisen.
On the other hand, I have proven you to be a liar and fabricator dozens of times.
You lied about there not being a law against naked men touching naked boys.
You lied about no one having provided you with such law, after I cited the Pennsylvania indecent exposure statute twice before your assertion to that effect (you still haven’t addressed that).
You fabricated and stated as fact multiple completely imagined and counter-factual data points.
For instance:
The “fact” that Victim No. 2 had “no apparent look of distress on his face.”
The “fact” that McQueary identified “fondling” as an “alternative” to his consistent sworn testimony of “intercourse.” “Fondling” was only a word used in the Grand Jury’s paraphrase of Paterno’s self-serving characterization of McQueary’s testimony. There is no sworn testimony from McQueary stating that he was in doubt that anything other than “intercourse” or “extreme sexual contact, way over the line” was going on.
The “fact” that the lights were off when McQueary entered the locker room, thus “proving” that Sandusky would have moved away if he was raping the boy, thus “proving” that he wasn’t.
The “fact” that no one raised in the '50s could remotely imagine child rape, and that they would assume that if attempted, the child would necessarily scream out to the heavens and then bleed to death.
The “fact” that there was any evidence of the boy slipping in the shower (no one testified to that), which you then bootstrapped into “when the boy slipped, it was reasonable for Sandusky to rescue him by putting his arm around his waist.”
The “fact” that McQueary was wrong, three slaps couldn’t be “rhythmic.”
Yet you are the one prancing around in a girlish little victory dance, declaring yourself (a ninth grade dropout) grandiosely to be a master detective, an expert on due process, an expert on “musculoskeletal” matters, and an expert on due process. You declared that everyone else in the thread agreed with you.
This was met with precisely one poster who partially agreed with your position – FP says he thinks there may well not have been a rape when McQueary walked in, but he is by no means fool enough to chime in in support of your “it’s certain it was impossible for Sandusky to rape a boy” idiocy.
About a dozen or more posters came out to give the lie to your idiotic assertion that your victory had been acknowledged and said the effect of “Huerta may or may not be my cup of tea, but he’s right here and the skeevy pervert moron SA is a loon.” I’m still not doing your victory dance, but that’s the fact, as is your complete and utter humiliation in the IMHO post where I (the board as a whole, really) conclusively debunked your moronic pretense that anyone would think “fondling” had a non-sexual meaning in the Sandusky shower context.
In short, you have never proved me wrong, Sandusky is a serial rapist, Paterno was a coward, and you are a worthless piece of shit. Pretty good summary of the whole thread, I think.
Fun fact: someone with the same username as the Pennlive poster posted the second comment to the below story, also minimizing Sandusky’s conduct.
Nice little overtones of anti-Semitism. Why haven’t the liberal Jew media highlighted the Jew perverts the way they attacked the poor innocent conservative Catholics, he wants to know? Hint: there are no Orthodox football teams in the college football top ten, but of course the poster in question is a delusional partisan maroon.
I don’t have time right now, but if I can find the time later I think I’ll go through some of your posts of just the last few days only and point out line for line the many lies, misrepresentations and miscomprehensions they are peppered with. Should be fun.
Oh, and there’s no secret code - the answer you seek is plainly visible to the objectve thinker who is paying attention. It is easily discernable all throughout the thread, with a little extra “oomph” included in a recent post to see if even then you’d get it. The result so far I fear, is FAIL!.
But I mean that in the nicest way. 
Boy, you’re in for it now, Huerta. You’re really gonna get it!
Hey! When I said he’s “really going to get it”, I meant he was in for a point by point refutation! Not that! You guys are sick!
Yes or no pissant little bitch. Yes or no is all that counts bitch. No one has times for your little pussy games.
While we’re at it, same question as to that anti-Semitic tinged post on the Brooklyn molester.
Pussy bitch.
Shakin’ in my boots here.
Is it just me or has he gone particularly unhinged against me since I exposed that PennLive madness?
It’s you. I’m still the clear-thinking and objective forensic analyst of the facts/lack of facts that I’ve always been, and you’re still the same hysterical, over-reacting, unthinking nitwit that you’ve always been…only with a ridiculous touch of ghetto (i.e., laughingly calling me “bitch”, and misogynistic high-school threat behavior (i.e., calling me a “pussy”), both of which serve only to make you look even more ridiculous.
Yet no one agrees with you and many agree with me.
Oh – and you’re a pussy bitch.
Was that the point by point refutation?
No, I’m pretty sure that was you, as you’ve been the premier if not only PennLive nutjob in this thread.
Should be easy for you to find and post the link where I did that, then, you lying bitch.
I’m waiting bitch.
Right. Simple question – and be assured, I don’t give a shit one way or another, but I’m sick of your cutesy fucking dancing around the question:
Starving Artist, pretty please, with sugar on top, are you the PennLive poster or not?
The fact that most of the thread’s posters are aligned with you (as opposed to agreeing with all the idiotic things you’ve said) is far from proof that you’re right. After all, at one point most agreed that the Earth was flat. Same thing. 
Ooooh, you’re so street! (Where’s that quaking-in-your-boots smilie?)
Okay, so there are at least two of you who can’t recognize the facts when they’re right in front of your face. No surprise there.
So you’re a liar – again. You admit that bitch?
It occurs to me that had I admitted it, you wouldn’t have to ask.