Reported for trolling.
I have never alleged any of the above and yet you still refuse over and over again to accept this. Let’s try again:
Sandusky, even if innocent of rape, was guilty of what appeared clearly to have the potential of being innapropriate behavior with a minor.
Paterno was told that Sandusky was alone naked in a shower pressed up against a child, which certainly has the potential for molestation.
Paterno DID NOT cover up McQueary’s report and (lets assume) did not know of any instances of actual rape.
Paterno still had the moral imperative to make sure that the allegations were investigated fully in order to make sure that if molestation was happenning it could be prevented in the future.
Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation by reporting the situation appropriately.
Paterno failed in his moral obligation to make sure that there wasn’t abuse going on so that it could be prevented in the future.
Nuh uh.
Sorry, I’ll slither away now.
Although I’m confident that, all mockery aside, Starving Artist is probably not a pedophile, the question remains, why, oh why, is he so intent on playing one on the SDMB. Seriously, his stomach-churning “arguments” in re: the physics of child abuse are just the sort of thing one would expect to hear from past SDMB luminaries like Cesario.
At the very least (and this I’m not kidding about) he is a pedophile defender and facilitator, at least to the extent he can be on a messageboard. That he’s a pig-ignorant dumbfuck who couldn’t find a clue with a geiger counter is a given, but his gordian contortions are so contrived, and so redolent of desperation and psychological dysfunction that one could be forgiven for thinking that his sexual attitudes towards children, if not entirely amorous in nature, are at least a little suspect. I mean, how else can you explain his insistence on arguing that Joe Paterno could have believed any child would be okay with being touched up by a middle-aged man while showering? The only explanation I can think of is that SA would, if he’d been in Paterno’s position, have dismissed McQuery’s complaint in a similar fashion. He knows this, and is trying to justify this fact by defending Paterno, seemingly to the death.
I also think he would be appalled if any of his family found out what he had posted here, and with good a reason.
Hey you,
My name is Starving Artist, and I am never gonna give you up. All of you have let me down, made me cry, and spent all day telling lies and hurting people. Your heart’s been aching but you’re too shy to say it. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten this from any other guy? I mean, I guess it’s fun knowing the game and playing it, but you all take to a whole new level. Inside we both know what’s been going on.
Don’t be a stranger to love. You know the rules and so do I. I’m pretty much perfect. I have been nominated for a Grammy, and had a #1 hit. What games do you play, other than “running around deserting people”? And if you ask me how I’m feeling, I also have a banging hot girlfriend (We’ve known each other for SO long). I just wanted to tell you how I was feeling. I gotta make you understand.
This is precisely why many of us believe that Starving Artist is indeed a pedophile. Joe Paterno (who many argue is/was a “pedophile enabler”) expressed regret that he had not done more to protect those boys and said that he saw his grandchildren in the faces of all of the victims (or something to that effect). THAT imo is how a person who had enabled a pedophile (but wasn’t one himself) would react when called on it. At NO time did Paterno try to defend Sandusky’s showering with young boys as innocent.
Starving Artist on the other hand, is saying exactly that. It’s ok to give naked hugs to young boys, wrestle naked with them, teach them how to properly lather their scrotum, shower with them, etc. Those are things I would expect to hear from Sandusky, who imo IS a full fledged pedophile.
Nope, not a bit of it. “Winning!” serves the same function as a cite demand, with the added message that the offender is having to resort to lies because he or she can’t support their argument or allegations honestly or legitimately, which of course means I’m winning. So consider “Winning!” to be the same as a cite demand, with the additional message that poster is a liar, bereft of character and losing on that particular point.
Nope, not a bit of it. “Winning!” serves the same function as conceding the point, with the added message that the poster is having to resort to this tactic because he can’t support his argument or allegations honestly or legitimately, which of course means he is losing. So consider “Winning!” to be the same as an admission that the poster has no substantive reply, with the additional message that the poster is intellectually dishonest and bereft of character.
Huerta88, in the interests of honesty and justice I have to point out that that remark is rather unfair and insulting to tic-tac-toe-playing Chinatown chickens.
In actual fact, most people couldn’t win a game against one. The so-called “Bird Brain” model which combined rudimentary training of the chicken’s responses with an electro-mechanical game management system was set up to ensure that the chicken almost never lost. I certainly don’t think any self-respecting Chinatown chicken would have considered it sporting to play against Starving Artist.
It’s deliberatly jerkish trollery. And you’re a jerk and a troll. And stupid.
Still, not being Amercan I would likely have lived my entire life without ever hearing of Joe Paterno. Now, thanks to you, I kmow he was a disgusting old man who knowingly protected a dangerous pedophile because he cared more about his poxy fucking football team than the lives of innocent children. So well done. This has been a really worthy use of your time. Attaboy, shithead.
Except that “Winning!” is applied to lies told about me, which means they’re allegations, which means it’s the responsibility of the poster making them to substantiate them.
The truth is not subject to vote. It is what it is, and if all you have to counter it are lies, then the truth wins. End of story.
Winning!
The answer to your PennLive question is all over the thread. It’s not my fault that you’re too stupid to recognize it.
I don’t think **Showering Artist **even know what a lie is.
“**Starkers **fucked a kid.” That’s a lie (I hope).
“**Starkers **would fuck a kid if he could.” That’s not a lie … it’s a judgment - a harsh one, but there it is.
And of course this whole “Winning” thing is fucking hilarious. I honestly thought he was joking around with that one when I posted my Charlie Sheen quip. The fact that he’s sticking to this one as steadfastly as he’s sticking to his, “hey, here’s a legitimate reason a man might be naked in a shower with a naked little boy,” bullshit … is, now that I think about, not surprising at all.
The cites, you fucking moron, were the very passages that you posted your moronic Nuh uh to.
You’ve repudiated none of them.
No one’s going to go back and re-re-re-re-post your lying contorted arguments again nor do they have to.
Anyone who’s read this thread knows, for instance, that you’ve manufactured and relied upon multiple “facts” (the boy had no look of distress, the lights were off, there was nothing to lubricate Sandusky’s rape). You’ve already trolled this into a 60+ page thread, we’re not going to exacerbate your threadshitting further.
Anyone who has read this thread knows you have repeatedly insisted that when Paterno heard (if he did hear it) “fondling,” that “non-sexual fondling” would have been what he thought that meant. You were trounced, humilated, disgraced in my IMHO poll on this topic, and I’m not going to have a jerkoff argument with you about some semantic or hypothetical niggling point or distinction or counterfactual hypothetical you pretend to think preserves you from your humiliation.
Everyone knows that you asserted I made “pro-Nazi” posts herein. You were challenged to provide an example. You provided none, because your claim was a baldfaced lie. That is not winning, that is abject losing by an abject loser.
Simple “yes” or “no” bitch. It cannot be the case that there is an answer obvious to all but the stupid, but that not one other poster than you has been able to discern what you are trying to say.
Yes or no bitch. No more tap dancing, your Shirley Temple act is about as distasteful as the rest of your crap, and that’s saying something.
This bizarre claim is, I think, at the core of your disconnect from reality in this thread. You didn’t take “a closer look at the facts”. You just engaged in some rather bizarre and anatomically senseless speculation about physiology that managed to convince you (but not anybody else) that a tall man can’t successfully copulate in a standing position with his winky about two feet above the ground.
Which, considering that the average six-foot man’s winky is less than three feet above the ground even when he’s standing with his feet together drawn up to his full height, is just absurd.
I certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Sandusky’s acts in the shower necessarily had to be anal rape, but your self-satisfied delusion that you’ve somehow logically or scientifically ruled out that possibility—or even determined it to be unlikely—is simply irrational.
Nope, there’s nothing in human physiology that says a six-foot-high man can’t easily penetrate a two-foot-high hole while he’s standing up. I’ve seen it done (thankfully not in any abusive or illegal context, I hasten to add). Your arbitrary and unsupported insistence that it’s “highly unlikely” that Sandusky could have done it does not qualify as a rational argument.
Kimstu, thanks for popping into this thread – I don’t think anyone dispels nonsense the way you do – but do be aware that someone here actually told SA that he had been raped at age eight by an uncle… and SA waved it away due to suspected “material differences.” So while I appreciate your logic and common-sense, rest (un)assured SA does not.
Thanks, yup, I read the post to which you refer (which was horrifying and saddening but not in the least implausible, unfortunately).
I thought it worth pointing out that SA’s weird physiological “reasoning” was unconvincing not just because of that one deplorable counterexample, but because of widespread common-sense experience to the contrary.
I mean, this isn’t just me with a few fond memories of side chairs and Halloween parties here. I think pretty much everyone realizes that the average guy is capable of bending down about a foot to get it where he wants to put it.
It’s within the rules to repeatedly accuse someone here of raping children, but not of having consensual sex with a fellow adult. Oka-a-a-ay…
I thought anecdotal evidence wasn’t supposed to be worth anything around here. At least that’s what I’ve been told the times I’ve posted something from my own experience. So how come it carries so much weight now?
And while I’m certainly not to interrogate Mr. Dibble as to his experience we already know of at least one material difference, and that is that Sandusky is three inches taller than the attacker in his case is said to be. That it not an insignificant number; it’s the difference between a man of an average height of 5’10" and a tall man of 6’1". Other possible differences occur to me as well but like I said I’m not going to quiz him on it.
That’s mighty white of you.