You can’t reason with him, no. But when comes to rationalization, he has no peer. He can lay down a supposition, buttress it with conjecture and innuendos, and build a towering cathedral of booshwah. He is the Nijinsky of the false equivalence, a master of the non sequitur, he leaps from groundless supposition to nonsensical conclusion with the grace of a wounded gazelle.
If we drive him away, he’ll just go do this to someone else! Could you live with that on your conscience? Well, I could, but I’m assuming you are a better person than I am.
I’d abandoned this thread probably a couple thousand posts ago, figuring there was really no more to say. I’ve been kinda stunned that it stays up here, so I thought, WTF, one post to ask why.
In that vein, I wasn’t talking to SA - after all, I would hardly expect a worthwhile response from him. I was talking to those here who are still feeding him.
Predictably and in keeping with your status as an idiot, you’re missing the point…a couple of them as a matter of fact. Number one, making such incisions isn’t always illegal; and number two, Sandusky was not unquestionably raping tbe boy. An analogy to your incision scenario would be someone merely thinking he had seen such an incision being made on a living person but without actually seeing the scalpel making the cut or even coming into contact with the skin and with no sign of pain or distress from the victim.
You guys need to give this up. You are arguing from a position of weakness and accordingly you find yourselves forced time after time to try to stretch the law or come up with an unavoidably flawed analogy to support you case. I’ve got truth and the facts on my side and you are arguing from emotion. There are times when emotion is a good thing, but arguing points of law isn’t one of them. You cannot win this argument. You haven’t been able to win it after 60 pages of false claims, flawed analogies and unthinking appeals to emotion, and 60 pages more won’t win it for you either.
And yet a grand jury somehow saw fit to indict Sandusky on a charge indicating that they felt something prosecutable occurred in that shower. How could they make such a grotesque error?
He’s indicted on a slew of charges involving no fewer than ten boys. I would bet just about any amount that he would never have been indicted if the McQueary incident were the only one being considered.
You attempt to claim that pure conjecture based on your interpretation of a grand jury summary somehow constitutes fact, and further claim that you have ‘won’ an argument that nearly every single person who has has bothered to post to this thread has rejected as either an offensive level of stupidity or blatant trolling?
Excuse me while I snicker.
Snicker
So, last night at dinner, did you describe to your guests exactly what you’ve been doing here?
Nope, this is more Huerta like bullshit. The comment was clearly speculation, as anyone with a functioning brain would surmise from the context and the way the post was worded.
Nope, I’m sure everyone would have been roundly [del]unconcerned[/del] bored with tales of my adventures on some message board they never heard of. Certainly people’s eyes have glazed over any other time I’ve mentioned what someone here said, usually at the mere mention of the words “message board”. In short, people don’t give a shit what a bunch of people on the internet whom they’ve never heard of have to say about anything. You’ve probably experienced it yourself.
As to your larger implication, no, I try not to get involved in debates regarding politics, religion or the finer points of child rape with my guests. In return they blessedly abstain from voicing the kind of idiocy I run into here…if they even think it to begin with, which I doubt.
I like how SA’s rendition of Paterno is simultaneously a doddering old fool who doesn’t know what “fondling” means or that a man can have sex with a boy (despite his studies of Greek literature at an Ivy League school)… and yet, he has the legal acumen to instantly* discern that a statute concerning exposing of genitals to youths wouldn’t apply to Sandusky.
Amazing, that.
[sub]* Well, maybe it wasn’t instantly – maybe that’s why he waited a day to pass McQueary’s message along, because he was deeply immersed in case law.[/sub]
