Tell ya what everyone, when this thread gets to 3,000 posts, how about we all call it a day? Eh? Because otherwise, this will literally never end.
I don’t know it, I was merely speculating in response to having been asked what Paterno would have thought upon being told of fondling. There had been an incident three years earlier where a parent complained Sandusky had hugged her child in the shower, an incident that Paterno may well have thought was misconstrued given that he came from an age when child sex abuse was seldom heard of, as was homosexuality in the macho world of football. IMO he may have felt in each case that Sandusky might have simply been being affectionate rather than sexually motivated. Again this is just speculation, but it seems credible and at least possible to me.
To you and precisely one other voter, last I checked the poll. Almost everyone else, 190+, thought that in the context it occurred, it was nothing but sexual.
As I’ve also pointed out ad nauseum, there’s no actual proof that McQueary himself said “fondling.” All of his own sworn testimony has been to “some form of intercourse” or “extreme sexual contact, way over the line.” “Fondling,” as far as I can tell, is very likely either Paterno’s dumbed-down characterization of this (but Paterno never claimed in any interview that he thought or meant something non-sexual) or the GJ’s paraphrase of Paterno.
It’s a phrase that the anti-Paterno crowd has been bandying about all through the thread and now suddenly you want to discredit it?
Have you no response to having been busted four times out of four for your most recent list of lies?
You didn’t bust me on anything and no one here thinks you did. No one. Just ask.
Follow real closely:
–“fondling” is still sexual assault and Paterno didn’t need to know anything more to take forceful action, regardless of whether it was him or McQueary who used the word;
–there is no evidence that McQueary did, in fact, use it;
–therefore there is no basis for your sixty moronic threads attempting to suggest that McQueary talked about two totally separate things or was “uncertain” what he saw; and
–Paterno himself in the aftermath of the scandal never attempted to defend himself by claiming he had a mental picture of something possibly non-sexual when he said fondling. He could have, but he was not as stupid as you so he did not.
–none of it matters because your entire stupid attempts to discredit McQueary and bolster your doddering old hero are a red herring
And now, since our friend Huerta is so eager to call me out for not responding soon enough to please him, I should probably announce that we’re having some people over for dinner tonight with my chicken and dumplings being the requested dish, so I must bid you adieu for a while. Don’t take any wooden nickels, and most of all don’t believe a word out of Huerta’s mouth.
Wow, what an arrogant twat…
Man, those people are hungry!
Be sure and regale them with your spirited defence of Joe Pa, particularly the bits concerning the paper towel tube test and the 100 lined up ten-year-old boys.
May the chicken be pink in the center and the dumplings be crystalline in texture.
Hopefully he didn’t take it to heart when someone told him to keep fucking that chicken. Of course, a chicken might serve better than a paper towel roll for simulating sex with a ten year old boy.
If you were in to that sort of thing, and your guests didn’t mind, of course.
The recipe does say “Bone the chicken”.
Appreciated.
duplicate
‘Dumplings’?
Is that some sort of code?
*Ceterum censeo Starving Artist esse delendam
*
I was thinking less Cato and more Cartman (audio NSFW).
And let’s not be hatin’ on chicken and dumplings, people.
No one’s hating on dumplings. We just worry about SA’s secret sauce.
Your link pointed somewhere other than I think you intended, BTW . . . .
Cartman Huerta88 est!
They’re gonna let Sandusky visit with his grand-kids.
I hope they don’t leave the sonofabitch alone with those kids.
David
Visitation allowed with eight of them under parental supervision, one judge has ruled.