Oh shit, MrDibble, I know this is going to sound trite, but I just have to say, I am so, so sorry for what happened to you. And I’m also sorry to see Starving Artist just to keep hand waving it away.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!
And dumplings. Don’t forget the dumplings.
You do have me wondering where your knowledge of the subject comes from. Is it from the same source as your intense devotion to helping SA realize what he is?
I’m glad to see someone - even if it’s you 
- has taken note of Huerta88’s intense interest, attitudes and knowledge on the subject of child abuse. Whereas I’m merely advocating due process and an objective look at factual evidence before one becomes absolutely convinced of someone’s wrongdoing (i.e., what Joe Paterno’s thoughts, knowledge and motivations, and the scenario McQueary happened upon in the shower), it is Huerta above all who’s giving every impression of one steeped way too deeply and unhealthily in the subject of child sex abuse.
Unlike some of my opponents here, I won’t speculate as to whether this indicates a battle against his own latent interests and desires and whether that battle is conscious or subconscious, but I will say that he seems way over the top when it comes to the depth of his knowledge of and interest in the subject of how pedophiles test boundries and groom and victimize their prey. But whether he’s repressing perverse desires, giving them partial vent through his investigations and what they him to imagine, or whether he’s merely an over-zealous Nancy Grace-esque vigilante crackpot, one thing is for sure, and that is - as I’ve heard the term used in some of the country’s more rural areas - that “that boy just ain’t right.”
And now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to see if 7-11 still has any of my beloved chocolate-covered cherries left. They were running low last night, and once they’re all gone there won’t be more 'til next Christmas. I’m glad this one store has maintained a supply this long as all the other stores in town have been out since around New Year’s.
You know, I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this thread has demonstrated that SA is a pedophile apologist, a wannabe pedophile, or an unrepentant pedophile. But I think it’s indisputable that SA has shown himself to have the debating skills of a rather dim six-year-old. Full of “Nuh uhs,” “I win [or “Winning!”],” “everyone is wrong except me”… and now we have the vaunted “I know you are but what am I?” defense. It’s only a matter of time before the respective properties of rubber and glue get invoked, I suppose.
Don’t ever change, SA. At least in debate styles.
We need a permanent monument. But rather than a statue, why not taxidermy for memorial display? He can hardly object to being stuffed and mounted…
quixotic78, I entered this thread politely and in a reasonable tone asking that in view of Joe Paterno’s longstanding reputation for integrity we wait until we have substantive evidence before we start accusing him of the things he was being accused of at the time, including being a pedophile or pedophile enabler, that he knew what Sandusky was doing all along because he wanted to protect his football program, that he knew Schultz and Curley would cover the incident up, and that he didn’t care about the kids getting raped.
In return for that polite and unquestionably reasonable request I was met with shrieking and hysteria like I’ve never seen in my time on this board. I was accused instantly of being a pedophile enabler or pedophile myself, of not caring about child rape victims, etc., etc., etc. In other words the same stupid, idiotic, hysterical nonsense that’s going on even now.
In the meantime however, it seems that my participation in the thread largely has resulted in the revelation that Joe Paterno was not actually told of anal rape, that he only knew of one previous incident which happened three years prior and involved only hugging, that he reported what Sandusky told him the very next day, in full and without equivocation to the proper authorities as dictated by law and years of campus precedent. In other words, he has been proven innocent of all the charges being levelled at him at the time I entered the thread.
Then in the course of the discussion it became apparent that the anal rape was very likely not what McQueary happened upon in the shower that night. It turns out that McQueary himself said he never used the term “anal rape” and that apart from their proximity and position relative to each other in the shower (proximity and positions that might well be explained by other, less serious or perhaps even innocent activity) there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the boy was indeed being raped. The infamous “rhythmic slapping sounds” turn out to be only two (or maybe three) sounds, McQueary did not see thrusting, he heard no screams or yelling, he did not see penetration, and though he described what he saw in fairly thorough detail (saw them in the mirror, how many times he looked at them, they turned to look at him, etc.) and was obviously to get across in his report how what he saw was, made no mention of Sandusky having an erection when he looked the second time and Sandusky and the boy had parted, nor did he say anything to suggest other than benign, quizzical expressions on their faces, all of which adds up in my opinion to absolute reasonable doubt to the charge of anal rape.
Virtually all of this has come to light as the result of my argument style in this thread, and, given that I value truth and due process, I’m quite happy with the results.
You don’t value truth. You’re a cowardly liar. You avoid questions that show you’re wrong. You hit and run. Promise lengthy responses in the future that never materialize.
You’re an angry child in an old man’s body. Which, I suppose, means you should steer clear of Sandusky.
Who accused Paterno of being a pedophile?
“Or pedophile enabler”. The trapdoor “or”.
I accused him of being a murderer, rapist, nazi, or dickwad.
This, of course, and like so much of your deranged output, is a complete misstatement of fact. Your first post to this thread is post 33; except for a later thanks to one poster, your next is post 91. The sole content of both posts are early versions of your peculiar theories about what Jerry Sandusky was doing with victim No. 2 in the PSU locker room. You do not even mention Paterno’s name in those first two posts.
As for your claims of ‘hysteria’ and ‘shrieking’ by other posters (how does one shriek in text, anyway?), I invite anyone interested to scan through the first five pages or so of this thread and determine for themselves whether that accurately describes the tone of discussion before you began putting forward your bizarre speculations. Certainly at some point a number of people have adopted an increasingly hostile tone toward you, but I submit that this is primarily because all throughout this thread, you have given the unmistakable impression that you have far less concern for Sandusky’s numerous living victims than for the reputation of a dead man.
I don’t personally give a rat’s ass how much you lie to the members of this board, as your mendacity seems perfectly transparent to nearly everyone who has posted here. You seem to be lying to yourself as well however, and, considering how little contact you seem to have with reality to begin with, you are doing yourself no favors. I beg you again: show this thread to someone you know, and explain to them just why you feel so strongly about this subject that you felt compelled to write tens of thousands of words, and come up increasingly unlikely explanations for the behavior of what any rational person can see is a serial rapist of children, all because you happen to object to the tone of discussion regarding a deceased college football coach.
“So great is his certainty that mere facts cannot shake it.” - True Believer
Nope,El_Kabong, you are right. I misremembered the exact chronology and sequence of events (what the hell, it was three months and hundreds of arguments ago. In point of fact I didn’t think I’d entered thr thread until a hundred or so posts in), and in reading the first five pages it’s clear this is so and for that I apologize.
(See how easy it is to get a retraction and apology out of me once I’ve been shown to be wrong? Easy-peasy, huh? Yessir, no dishonest flies on me. Now if only we could get a legion of people to start scrutinizing my opponents’ previous posts looking for inconsistencies and lies, posting their findings and similarly challenging the miscreants, the thread could go to 5,000 posts without so much as another word from me. :rolleyes:)
You little retard pederast,
It is no one other than you who has focused obsessively on the mechanics of how to rape a little boy.
That subject does not interest me, unlike you.
It comes from reading in detail about the rotten corruption within my own Roman Catholic Church, starting with the gay-ass pervertery of Bruce Ritter and Paul Shanley (q.v. people – please, q.v.), both horribly disgraced priests who operated in exactly the same fashion as Sandusky in grooming their young victims. But thanks for giving the prevert an opening (as it were).
The first sentence is the most succinct description of SA I’ve seen. It doesn’t describe his pathology in full, but it gives the nutshell version. The second sentence I like because of the image of SA going “Put 'em up! Put 'em up!” and then running away with his tail between his legs.
Okay, Huerta88, got it, thanks. I was wondering if that came from a tragic more-personal experience. It’s a relief in a way to know it didn’t. Now, if only **Bricker **would adopt your view of the situation instead of his loyal denial/apologism - and no, I’m not linking to any of those threads.
We still haven’t heard from SA about where his intensity about explaining away child rape comes from. That’s the only opening I want to let him have.
SA - I have not attacked you in this thread. I’m all too aware of how emotions can get away from us when allegations of child abuse are involved. A former co-worker of mine was falsely accused of molesting his daughter. He went through hell before his ex-wife admitted that she had lied about the entire affair. I well remember my own feelings when the McMartin preschool case was a hot topic. I would have gladly voted to pump bullets into the accused.
I’m not a Penn State fan; but, like you, I would like to believe that that Joe Paterno was an honorable man. And, if what McQueary witnessed was the first inkling Joe had off Sandusky’s behavior, I might be willing to give Joe a pass.
But, that’s not the case. Everything I’ve read indicates that Sandusky was forced into retirement over an earlier incident concerning a boy & a shower. Paterno was certainly aware of this. So, when McQueary came along with his story, I do believe Joe should have been more motivated than what his actions indicate. I do not see how an honorable person could tolerate Sandusky’s presence on campus until the matter was resolved. At the very least, Joe should have resigned in protest of the inaction of his superiors; more reasonably, he should have called the cops himself.