So you’ll stoop to imply what you won’t stoop to clarify? Curious standard, that.
The whole “WINNING!” reminds me of kids who do the whole, “I know you are but what am I?”
From the post I quoted when I said that.
I don’t need to clarify much when your argument is obvious bullshit. Obviously compensating for a foot is easy to do.
Fucking retard. Peacing out of this thread now.
You’ll notice the thread has been noticeably lacking in lies today, more or less from Huerta and even from you (though to be honest you haven’t said much yet).
It seems to be a ‘winning’ strategy. 
Can’t say as I blame ya.
We are really confused as to why you think this is difficult, but maybe it’s because when you tried the paper towel tube experiment you weren’t able to get very low.
How low did you get and at what height did you think it felt difficult to properly perform the tube experiment?
In this entire thread you have yet to name and prove a single “lie” by me, so it’s no surprise you can’t find one today.
By contrast I’ve proven multiple ones by you just in the past couple of hours. Your claim of my “pro Nazi posts.”. Your bullshit n-millonth attempt to pretend you have affirmative evidence of “no visible facial or emotional distress.”
You’re pathetic.
Sure I have. They’re the ones you ignore.
Winning!
In one of your earlier posts you alluded to being disliked on the board for being a Nazi, and IIRC you made a post alluding to Rommel in some way, though I admit that I didn’t read it as I haven’t bothered reading many of your posts. Still, if you want to disavow it that’s fine with me.
This is a blatant lie.
Winning!
You just couldn’t let it go by that I pointed out you’ve been behaving today (relatively speaking), could you? 
You seem to have this weird conviction that for a 6’3" man to get his pelvis “two feet off the ground” is some kind of preternaturally athletic feat.
But as pointed out previously, a 6’3" man’s pelvis is only about three feet off the ground when he’s standing fully upright with his feet together.
If he bends his knees slightly, he lowers his pelvis six inches. If he then steps his feet three feet apart, a little number-crunching with the Pythagorean theorem shows that he lowers his pelvis another six inches. Voila, there he is with his pelvis two feet off the ground, perfectly stable and quite capable of “thrusting motions”.
I really don’t see why you’re bizarrely asking us to believe that this not-very-challenging stance would have been so difficult for an active man under 60.
Sure, I can think of more comfortable positions for sexual intercourse. But we have to remember that child molesters are generally pretty opportunistic. They usually don’t have the luxury of setting up the perfect ambience or most comfortable environment for their preferred sexual activities: rather, they abuse their victims when they think they can do so successfully and not get caught at it.
As I said before, I’m certainly not arguing that what Sandusky was doing with that boy in the shower must have been full-on anal rape. I’m just explaining why your incomprehensible insistence that it almost certainly couldn’t have been—that anal rape in that situation was “unlikely bordering on impossible”—is irrational and absurd.
Well, at least until about 4:20 PM.
Whining!
Flattery, attentiveness, pretending convincingly that you are listening. Does it vary according to height? And, if so, now you tell me?
SA, for you to make this claim and use it in your logical reasoning, it would seem that you must have performed the test first.
So, either support you conclusion with your test results, or withdraw the claim please.
Thank you.
Would help if you didn’t keep fleeing in terror every time you spotted one of us waiting in your shower, too.
Yes, obviously, but how do you know the victim was 5’1"? You’re not… you’re not merely speculating that he was of average height for his age, are you? No, of course not, you’ve got facts; you’ve said so a hundred times by now. You must know that the lad is 5’1". After all, if he were only slightly taller – say, 5’4" – that’d be a not insignificant difference.
Phew, thank goodness you know the boy’s height for sure!
Er… how did you find that out?
You are indeed the one who keeps the thread rolling. It must be noted that there is a marked asymmetry at play here. Your opponents deal strictly in facts and logic, whereas your posts are nauseating pastiches of hearsay, equivocation, and childish evasions, all in defence of an evil old fool who knowingly abetted a remorseless kid fucker to protect his poxy fucking football team. Your posts are, in a word, offensive to right thinking people, and are consequently all the more difficult to ignore.
Now, I know you see it differently. I know you think you’re the SDMB Canute, fighting against a tide of liberal unreason, wielding the Socratic method like a fucking diamond cutter in valiant defence of poor old Joe Paterno. The thing is, you’re just completely fucking wrong. There’s no conspiracy at play here. This is an open forum, and anyone who wants to take your side is completely free to do so. That no-one has, after 3000+ posts, should tell you something. Here’s a simple rule of thumb: If 100 people think you’re wrong about something, and no-one’s joined in to help fight your corner, chances are you’re probably in the wrong. In this case, you’re so fucked up, the world’s foremost lexicographers are convening emergency meetings, burning lean tissue late into the night, frantically working to redefine the word ‘wrong’ enough to accommodate you. It’s embarrassing, painful to watch, and, after 65 pages of posts, just completely fucking boring.
I’m a member of another message board and there’s a character there who’s remarkably like you in a lot of ways. Right-wing, recalcitrant, and positively allergic to admitting error. Of course, even he would shudder at the thought of defending Paterno the way you have, but still, other than that you’re pretty similar. He once claimed in all seriousness that FOX News had a 100% perfect track record for accuracy, and challenged me to find a single error or instance of bias in its election coverage. Of course, I found 3 in about ten minutes. Now, you’d think that would have shut him up, wouldn’t you? Did it, bollocks! I chased him for a retraction for six more pages before hitting upon a scheme that finally shut him up. For every subsequent post he made, I pledged a $1.00 donation to Barack Obama’s election campaign. That shut him up. Maybe it would be a good idea to try something like that here? Every time you post a ‘WINNING!’ we’ll all chip in to buy Obama some votes in a swing state?
Bwahahaha! That last comment told me all I needed to know as to the substance of the rest of your post. My opponents in this thread for the most part are hysterical lunatics who don’t have a shred of evidence to back up their claims about Paterno’s knowing malfeasance and who have responded to my early, very civil suggestion that we wait until we have evidence of wrongdoing before we condemn him by screeching that I’m a pedophile/pedophile enabler, and who continue to insist that McQueary’s shocked and hurried assessment of what he saw is conclusive proof of rape while utterly ignoring all the other aspects that make it highly, highly unlikely. Or who, if their faith in the rape scenario can be shaken, assert that all sex abuse is the same so it doesn’t matter. One ding-a-ling even went so far as to proclaim that touching a child on the leg was just as bad as raping them. Such are the people you incredibly insist are dealing with me “strictly in facts and logic.” :rolleyes:
Is that your idea of strict facts and logic? The fact is you don’t have a shred of evidence to back up a word of that.
I would think that right thinking people would see the value in due process and not jumping to conclusions, and that the would have the discipline to stay away from debates they can’t win and find upsetting.
There have been a few other poster who either agreed or partially agreed with me in this thread - jtgain and Fotheringay-Phipps to name a couple, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn’t matter. As I said upthread, truth isn’t subject to vote, and the truth is no one has any evidence whatsoever to back up assertions of Paterno’s malevolence, and far from conclusive evidence that rape was what McQueary saw in the shower that night. Those are the facts, and no right thinking person would deny it.
And yet here you are, adding yet more posts to the thread and adding yours to the 100,000+ page views already made by other bored viewers.
No one on this board has ever heard me contend that Fox News is free of bias or occasional error in reportage. Additionally, a search of my user name and key word “apologize” or “retract” will find a number of times when I’ve done just that.
Contribute all you like. The truth isn’t subject to vote, and bribes won’t allow lies about what I’ve said to stand unchallenged.
Wanking!
Aaaand I’m done. Keep fucking that [del]child[/del] chicken you crazy bastard.
I’ve spoken about facts and I’ve speculated. When I speak of facts I’m talking about no evidence of malfeasance with Joe Paterno. I’m talking about McQueary noting that Sandusky and the boy both turned their heads to look at him, while saying nothing to Patrrno, Curley, Schultz or the Grand Jury about seeing Sandusky squatting, making thrusting movements, or signs of physical or mental distress on the part of the child. When I talk about alternative scenarios or the height of the child I’m speculating. It really shouldn’t be that hard for you to figure these things out.