It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Starving_Artist]

@Munch

What a truly pathetic display of being chronically unable to allow someone else the last word.

Sometimes a poster makes a good and honest point. Such was the case with the post of right wing criticism of Joe Paterno. That poster was right and I let him or her have the last word. I see no reason at all, whatever, to let people lie about or distort what I’ve said and let it go unchallenged.

[The_Man_In_Black]

@Starving_Artist

So, let the assholes back up their lies, I say.

I agree. Starving Artist, please back up your lies.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

The police called. Your English Composition teacher is out on the ledge, threatening to jump.

Then tell her to go ahead and jump, 'cause I’m reduced for the time being to tapping away one letter at a time on my iPod while trying to hold off tidal waves of bullshit, so something’s gotta give and it might as well be grammar.

[Starving_Artist]

I can’t believe I have this ‘winning’ strategy before, as it works even better in practice than I imagined when I first thought of it. Seriously, I ask the intellectually honest among you if Huerta’s and Guin’s lies aren’t more glaringly obvious when singled out like that, rather than trying to answer them with paragrah after paragraph of refutation that only leads to more bullshit?

[elucidator]

It might. Try it, and we’ll see.

[Starving_Artist]

Where’ve you been for the rest of the thread? I’ve devoted thousands and thousands of words to debunking other posters’ lies, and none of it has been as effective as the simple word ‘Winning’, which not only forces the lie out in the open, exposing it for the ridiculous bit of bullshit that it is, but also reminds the reader that the lying poster has no honest response to the points I’ve made and that I am therefore winning the point.

[elucidator]

So, all these people who are persuaded by your cogent reasoning and clear evidence, they say nothing because…?

[The_Man_In_Black]

@elucidator

So, all these people who are persuaded by your cogent reasoning and clear evidence, they say nothing because…?

They do not exist.

PS.
After reading this thread, I can never look the cardboard tube inside a roll of paper towels the same way again.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

So, all these people who are persuaded by your cogent reasoning and clear evidence, they say nothing because…?

I think a better question would be why, if my points are so uncogent and unclear, do so many people have to resort to lies to counter them?

[quixotic78]

Ooh, ooh, I want to play!

@Starving_Artist

For example, here we have you [that’d be AustinJane] and Guin openly advocating a policy of ‘we don’t know for sure that this guy’s guilty but let’s lock him up just in case’

Winning!

I look forward to your prompt response. It should be prompt and not subject to Ipod Touch excuses because…

@Starving_Artist

Let them back up their words. It should be easy enough if they’re telling the truth.

It should be easy enough. So g’ahead and show me – with quotes, if you please, where Guin and AustinJane “openly advocat[ed] a policy of ‘we don’t know for sure that this guy’s guilty but let’s lock him up just in case.’”

[elucidator]

Losing!

[El_Kabong]

@Starving_Artist

I can’t believe I have this ‘winning’ strategy before, as it works even better in practice than I imagined when I first thought of it. Seriously, I ask the intellectually honest among you if Huerta’s and Guin’s lies aren’t more glaringly obvious when singled out like that, rather than trying to answer them with paragrah after paragraph of refutation that only leads to more bullshit?

Well, let’s see:

[Quote=Huerta88]
And that is giving comfort and aid to the brotherhood of boy fuckers.
[/quote]

[Quote=Originally Posted by Huerta88]
The whole purpose of NAMBLA (for which this scumbag should be writing copy)
[/quote]

Both of the above statements appear to be opinions. Are you saying Huerta88 does not in fact hold those opinions?

Seriously, me bucko, you’ve gone completely round the bend. I’m on record as believing you should have been banned long ago, but that was because I thought you were a garden-variety troll. I’ve since come to realize you really are seriously mentally disturbed. Please please please, show someone you know what you’ve been doing here and listen to what they have to say, for cryin’ out loud.

[Guinastasia]

[Quote:]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14734908&postcount=175)

People like you, Starving Artist, are the reason why so many victims are afraid to come forward.

His answer?

Well, if the price of their willingness to come forward is that we throw due process out the window, then that’ not a trade-off that I’m convinced is in the best interest of either society or justice. How. Would you like to be convicted, torn from your family, sent to prison and be labelled a sex offender for the rest of you life on nothing but the word of a small child? Children often don’t realize the significance of what they’re saying may make things sound different than they mean, plus they’re highly suggestible. It would be easy for the police, a prosecuter, vindictive ex-wife or other enemy of some sort to have people imprisoned and labeled a sex offender on nothing but a child’s word, not to mention on the strength of superficial appearances. Due process is there for very good reasons.

Read it again: “Well, if the price of their willingness to come forward is that we throw due process out the window, then that’ not a trade-off that I’m convinced is in the best interest of either society or justice.”

What do you suggest a child should do, if they are genuinely being molested? What do you suggest? Huh? I DARE you to answer. As I believe you stated before, I double-dog dare you.
People like Starving Artist are the ones who will say to their kids, “so and so wouldn’t do that! Are you sure? Do you really want to hurt them?”

(Oh, he’ll deny it all he wants, the pussy little son of a bitch)

[Cheshire_Human]

@Jack_Batty

What if he was just giving her parallel parking lessons. We don’t know.

He only had an automatic, but her car was a stick, so something had to be used as a “stand-in”…

@elucidator

So, all these people who are persuaded by your cogent reasoning and clear evidence, they say nothing because…?

… he’s ‘winning’!

Note: In SA-speak, the word ‘winning’ translates to the English phrase ‘I’m a pathetic loser’.

[psychobunny]

OK-I’d like to play. I do think LOSING! is most appropriate for all of SA’s quotes that are patently false. I’ll start with a few here:

“Some form” of intercourse means he didn’t know for sure what he saw.

LOSING!

And Huerta, I’ve devoted tons of time debunking your lies in this thread

LOSING!

at one point most people believed the world was flat.

LOSING!

Point 1. McQueary testified that he heard “two or maybe three” slapping sounds. He indeed characterized them as “rythmic”, but that doesn’t mean they were in point of fact. After all, it’s pretty clear he was mistaken about what he saw as well as what he may have heard.

LOSING!

Fact is, anyone looking at the issue calmly and objectively and applying common sense would question how a 6’3" man could be having anal sex with a 10-year-old boy in the position McQueary described

LOSING!

McQueary did not say simply that he saw “some form of intercourse”. He threw “fondling” in as well as a possible alternative, thereby making it clear he really didn’t know what he and was making presumptions

.

LOSING!

even McQueary himself offered an alternative possibility for what he believed he saw

LOSING!

The only reason people are using this flimsy “he didn’t call the cops” excuse to blame him is because they wanted to nail him all along but had nothing until the head of Pennsylvania’s state police, in an obvious instance of CYA in light of ten years of child abuse not discovered or acted upon, decided to publicly blame Paterno for not reporting the second incident

LOSING!

Then in response to my defense of Paterno we have poster after poster insisting that it was rape, and how could Paterno not know it was rape, and what else could it be besides rape, and why don’t I care more about the boy who experienced horrible anal rape at the hands of Sandusky more than I care about Joe Paterno? Are you seeing a pattern here? The supposed anal rape of a child is the core issue of the entire thread.

LOSING!

Now consider the weight, balance and muscle activity involved in a 6’3" man attempting to perform anal sex with his pelvis only slightly more than two feet off the ground with his hands held up and out two feet or so from his body. The weight of a body attempting copulatory movements in such a position is shifted forward at the pelvis and supported largely by the thigh, lower leg and back muscles, which, in addition to holding this large man’s weight largely suspended in mid-air, is simultaneously trying to counter-balance the body weight that gets shifted to the rear with the up-and-forward thrusts, and to perform those up and down, back and forth thrusts at the same time. I submit that it would be virtually impossible for the average person to pull this off for more than a few seconds without his muscles failing and falling backwards or straight down onto the floor.

LOSING!

McQueary didn’t seem to know how to describe what he thought he saw may well have left Paterno thinking that perhaps McQueary had misinterpreted what he had seen…which is very likely in light of what an emotionally detached and analytical review of the facts strongly suggests.

LOSING!

whatever it was that was going on in that shower, it almost certainly was not anal rape, and was more likely something skeevy but not necessarily damaging to the child such as a faux-innocent hug or faux-innocent wrestling or horseplay.

LOSING!

Moral obligations are a matter of opinion. Paterno’s opinion, based on his actions, suggest that in his opinion he was doing the right thing.

LOSING!

Paterno reported what he was told in full and to the proper authorities. Thus he fulfilled his moral obligation as it existed at that time.

LOSING!

The main thing was to get Paterno’s head. If he had questioned the administration and been told either that nothing was found or that more minor offences had been found, the anti-Paterno would be screaming that this was a coverup that Paterno went along with knowingly, or that Paterno should have called the cops to rrport(sic) that child abuse had occurred and he wasn’t going to rest until somebody found it. There is simply no way short of Paterno personally making sure that Sandusky was arrested, tried and jailed, that Paterno would be considered blameless in this incident, and probably not even then

LOSING!

the blame-Paterno crowd has nothing to support its allegations of pedophile-enabling or coverup by Paterno, nor does the fact that he notified the authorities as he should rather than calling the police rise to a career-ending moral failing.

LOSING!

The only reason that Paterno got singled out for blame is because a Pennsylvania state police captain, apparently unaware of the law and in what was undoubtedly a CYA response intended to get the police off the hook, hastily blamed Joe Paterno for not reporting McQueary’s allegation to the local police,

LOSING!

The entire reason we’re discussing Paterno’s knowledge regarding child sex abuse goes to this issue - he simply didn’t know or believe that whatever it was McQueary saw was likely as bad as McQueary thought it was and almost certainly felt some other explanation was likely.

LOSING!

I was with you up to the point where you veered from Paterno’s likely role in mentoring horny college age boys on the proper way to behave with their girlfriends to his presumed role in being on the lookout for sixty-something college football coaches screwing ten-year-old boys in the butt in the school’s shower. The first is commonplace and reasonable, the second strains credulity to the breaking point and Paterno can hardly be blamed for not fulfilling his role as mentor for not being aware of and guarding against it.

LOSING!

Originally Posted by mnemosyne
And, again, Paterno himself used the words “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”.

Those were Paterno’s words. He knew what they meant then, what they mean now. He knew what they implied, what they imply now.

He was reporting what McQueary told him, not what he understood to be happening as a matter of fact.

LOSING!

Paterno isn’t doddering at all. He, like most in his and previous generations, is simply ignorant of salacious details and behaviors when it comes to sex.

LOSING!

But people are going to react differently to behavior they only know of vaguely as child molestation and envision as behavior that is more skeevy than harmful, rather than involving oral and anal or penetrative genital sex. During the time Paterno was growing up most of those activities were regarded as perversions and even illegal, and moral people generally wouldn’t allow themselves to ponder them or listen to descriptions of them. I can assue you that every person I’ve known from my parent’s generation and the generation before would not begin to listen to tales of anal sex between a sixty something man and a ten year old boy, and if they were to think about it they’d probably regard it as virtually impossible because the relative difference in sizes would almost certainly create injuries that would result in horrific screams while happening and trips to tbe hospital or bleeding to death as a result, and therefore so unlikely as to be given short shrift. In other words, it’s one thing to know of investigations into child molestation and another thing entirely to know precisely what that molestation involves. My take on this matter is reflected in Paterno’s own words when he said that he likely wouldn’t have known what McQueary was talking about even if he’d been more specific about what he thought he’d seen. Such behavior simply seems so unlikely morally and impossible physically that someone like Paterno would have a hard time imagining it even while being told things that allude to it.

LOSING!

I doubt that Paterno had - and perhaps still doesn’t - any real knowledge of what the term “child molestation” can involve. He grew up in an era when such things were talked about vaguely if at all. I don’t think he had any idea that oral or anal sex could be involved, and to the degree that heterosexual penetrative sex was involved, he probably felt that rape would have been the charge, and therefore had it separated from molestation in his mind as well. When child molestation was talked about to people of his generation, it was generally described as inappropriate touching, with the impression being that of behavior that, while squicky, was still far less serious, both in terms of actual behavior and impact on the child, than full-blown forms of intercourse would be. I think this likelihood is supported as well by the fact that McQueary was reluctant to be graphic when relating what he’d seen to Paterno. Thus it’s entirely possible that Paterno had no real idea of what accusations of molestation involved, and therefore may be feeling guilt over the fact that more serious and harmful offenses were taking place than he imagined, and he therefore finds himself wishing he had “done more” at the time to try to stop it.

LOSING!

[elucidator]

General Lo Sings Boned Chicken!

But that one point, how it would be impossible for a grown man to bugger a little boy? That means all those priests didn’t do it! Unless, of course, it was a miracle…

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@elucidator

General Lo Sings Boned Chicken!

Don’t forget the side of Cream of Sum Yung Gai.

[Starving_Artist]

If you’re trying to imply I ever made such a nonsensical claim, luci, (and I’m at a loss as to who else you’d be attributing it to), then…

Winning!

[Starving_Artist]

Oops, dinner’s ready! More later.

[elucidator]

No. You definitely made no references whatsoever to bad puns on fake Chinese food. Got me on that one. Not totally failing quite so much.